• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

No one could have predicted…

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

You cannot shame the shameless.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

He really is that stupid.

This really is a full service blog.

Come on, man.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

When do the post office & the dmv weigh in on the wuhan virus?

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Infrastructure week. at last.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

I was promised a recession.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Republican Stupidity / More On Stem Cells

More On Stem Cells

by John Cole|  July 20, 200610:12 am| 250 Comments

This post is in: Republican Stupidity, Science & Technology

FacebookTweetEmail

It appears White House Science Advisor Karl Rove may have been a little fast and loose with the facts regarding stem cell research:

When White House political adviser Karl Rove signaled last week that President Bush planned to veto the stem cell bill being considered by the Senate, the reasons he gave went beyond the president’s moral qualms with research on human embryos.

In fact, Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post’s editorial board that researchers have found “far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells.”

The administration’s assessment of stem cell science has extra meaning in the wake of the Senate’s 63-37 vote Tuesday to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The measure, which passed the House last year, will now head to Bush, who has vowed to veto it.

But Rove’s negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research–echoed by many opponents of funding for such research–is inaccurate, according to most stem cell research scientists, including a dozen contacted for this story.

The field of stem cell medicine is too young and unproven to make such judgments, experts say. Many of those researchers either specialize in adult stem cells or share Bush’s moral reservations about embryonic stem cells.

“[Rove’s] statement is just not true,” said Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University, who in 2003 published the first study showing how adult stem cells replenish themselves.

If opponents of embryonic stem cell research object on moral grounds, “I’m willing to live with that,” Clarke said, though he disagrees. But, he said, “I’m not willing to live with statements that are misleading.”

In other words- more of the same from Rove and the parrots. It doesn’t matter if what you say is true- it matters how plausible it sounds and whether or not you can get people to repeat it enough until people think it is true. Some might call that ‘truthiness.’

So, the next time you hear someone parroting the Rove rhetoric, let’s look at some more of this administration’s greatest truthiness hits:

“Saddam Hussein has WMD stockpiles.”

“Bush is a uniter, not a divider.”

“There is no scientific consensus of global warming.”

“Brownie- you are doing a heckuvva job.”

“There are no patterns of abuse- it is just a few bad apples.”

Truthiness- it may get your way politically, but don’t confuse it with the truth. To borrow a phrase, “it tastes great, but is less filling.”

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Open Thread
Next Post: Mission: Implausible »

Reader Interactions

250Comments

  1. 1.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 10:18 am

    If opponents of embryonic stem cell research object on moral grounds

    Have they come up with a *reasonable* moral objection to the stem cell bill that was just vetoed, yet? Actually let me pre-emptively lower the bar here: have they come up with an understandable objection to what it proposes at all, that doesn’t pass the laugh test?

  2. 2.

    Andrew

    July 20, 2006 at 10:21 am

    Well, I’m shocked.

  3. 3.

    Tim F.

    July 20, 2006 at 10:23 am

    Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post’s editorial board that researchers have found “far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells.”

    If only stupid was painful.

  4. 4.

    Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 10:23 am

    Roy Edroso had a comment on “truthiness” that I found interesting:

    Let us remember that we keep up this site, and commenting on this site, because there is such a thing as truth, or as I prefer to consider it, common sense. We slap down these bastards not because they convince, but because they deceive.

    Worthy opponents of any political point of view deserve our respect, but operatives dedicated to sowing confusion deserve whatever disrespectful words and actions we can muster.

    I don’t oppose Hewitt and his ilk because they represent an opposing point of view, but because they neither know nor care what a point of view is — they’re mere robot warriors for a party machine dedicated to preserving power at any cost.

    Words are their weapons, and I do perceive that in that area, we have them seriously outmatched.

  5. 5.

    Andrew

    July 20, 2006 at 10:29 am

    Pb, just because you’re looking for some reasoned logic and scientific backing, wait, WAIT! LOOK AT THE SNOWFLAKE BABIES!!!

  6. 6.

    Sojourner

    July 20, 2006 at 10:54 am

    If only stupid was painful.

    Rove isn’t stupid. He’s dishonest. There is an important difference.

  7. 7.

    Paul L.

    July 20, 2006 at 10:58 am

    “Saddam Hussein has WMD stockpiles.”

    Like how you added stockpiles to the talking point.

    At least the article points out it is federal embryonic stem cells research that the Bush Administration objects to instead all stem cells research as the left tries to paint it.

  8. 8.

    Redleg

    July 20, 2006 at 11:10 am

    PaulL.
    Bush opposes all fetal stem cell research because he thinks it’s immoral. The bill was simply about federal funding.

  9. 9.

    Ancient Purple

    July 20, 2006 at 11:14 am

    Bush opposes all fetal stem cell research because he thinks it’s immoral.

    And yet, he isn’t pushing for the immediate closing of all IVF clinics.

    Stem cell research is only immoral to Bush when he can use it to wring votes out of the base.

  10. 10.

    nyrev

    July 20, 2006 at 11:16 am

    At least the article points out it is federal embryonic stem cells research that the Bush Administration objects to instead all stem cells research as the left tries to paint it.

    Fair point.

    Remember, kids, you can only claim your eggs as dependents on your federal income tax form.

    Ooh. My boss isn’t going to be too happy though. According to the preznit, when he hired me he also hired my several thousand unborn children. The company owes us hundreds of millions in backpay. Not to mention the problems with the USDL over the child labor law violations….

  11. 11.

    SeesThroughIt

    July 20, 2006 at 11:21 am

    have they come up with an understandable objection to what it proposes at all, that doesn’t pass the laugh test?

    Yes–they don’t want to morder billions of babies to help that left-wing asshole Michael J. Fox. I guess you do, baby killer! You’re probably killing a baby right now, aren’t you?

  12. 12.

    LITBMueller

    July 20, 2006 at 11:24 am

    I think some brave Dem should introduce the Brownback Bill, AKA, the “Vagina Protection Act,” since we all come from vaginas, so we all are vaginas.

    Save the vaginas!!!!!

  13. 13.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 11:30 am

    So, the next time you hear someone parroting the Rove rhetoric, let’s look at some more of this administration’s greatest truthiness hits:

    “Saddam Hussein has WMD stockpiles.”

    So John, in this context of ‘truthiness’ tell us, do you now take the position that Bush “lied” about WMDs?

    “There is no scientific consensus of global warming.”

    There is no scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. Furthermore, the trend of global warming depends entirely on the timeframe as earth was in a cooling trend up through the 1970’s (or was it through the ’80’s?). What “liars”, huh?

    Look, Rove appears to be wrong about embryonic stem cells if what that article says is true. Why take it to such an extreme overreach with the accusations of dishonesty because not many WMDs were found? Even Clinton’s secretary of defense was telling us AFTER the invasion of the certainty that Saddam had WMDs

  14. 14.

    Slide

    July 20, 2006 at 11:35 am

    Cole when are you going to apologize for calling some of us “Bush Haters” when we said a long long time ago that this administration were lying sacks of shit? Are you officially a “Bush Hater” now Cole?

  15. 15.

    KC

    July 20, 2006 at 11:35 am

    20 to 30 years ago, these clowns would have been run out of office, even by a Republican Congress. I honestly think these guys just need to lose for once, real bad too.

  16. 16.

    Slide

    July 20, 2006 at 11:38 am

    Abraham Lincoln once said,

    “you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”

    Apparently Lincoln never met Darrell:

    There is no scientific consensus on the causes of global warming.

    .

  17. 17.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 11:41 am

    KC Says:

    20 to 30 years ago, these clowns would have been run out of office, even by a Republican Congress. I honestly think these guys just need to lose for once, real bad too.

    The Bush admin has real problems, no argument from me on that one. Problem is, John ‘reporting-for-duty’ Kerry type of Dems aren’t the solution.

  18. 18.

    Slide

    July 20, 2006 at 11:47 am

    Consensus:

    The climate system varies both through natural, “internal” processes as well as in response to variations in external “forcing” from both human and non-human causes, including solar activity, volcanic emissions, and greenhouse gases. Climatologists agree that the earth has warmed recently. The detailed causes of this change remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the recent warming. This conclusion can be controversial, especially outside the scientific community.

    .

    More consensus:

    After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation’s preeminent scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree over the last century, a development that “is unprecedented for the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.”

    The report from the National Research Council also concluded that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.”

    Coupled with a report last month from the Bush administration’s Climate Change Science Program that found “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system,” the new study from the council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, signals a growing acceptance in Washington of widely held scientific views on the causes of global warming.

    but since Darrell says there is no consensus lets just disregard teh Natiaon aCademy of Sciences and the Bush Administration’s own Climate Change Science Program. What a fucking moron.

  19. 19.

    John S.

    July 20, 2006 at 11:49 am

    Hooray!

    Mister “Hired Guns Aren’t Mercenaries” Darrell is here to show us exactly what the true meaning of truthiness is.

    Consider it a special treat, boys and girls.

    Problem is, John ‘reporting-for-duty’ Kerry type of Dems aren’t the solution.

    Problem is, John ‘reporting-for-duty’ Kerry type of Dems aren’t in control, fucktard.

  20. 20.

    Slide

    July 20, 2006 at 11:50 am

    Problem is, John ‘reporting-for-duty’ Kerry type of Dems aren’t the solution

    we’ll just see this November if the country is ready for the reality based Democrats or still prefer the anti-science, incompetent, naive Christionists in the Republican party.

  21. 21.

    Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 11:51 am

    There is no scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. Furthermore, the trend of global warming depends entirely on the timeframe as earth was in a cooling trend up through the 1970’s (or was it through the ‘80’s?). What “liars”, huh?

    You really could not be any more brainwashed if you tried.

  22. 22.

    Cyrus

    July 20, 2006 at 11:57 am

    Ooh. My boss isn’t going to be too happy though. According to the preznit, when he hired me he also hired my several thousand unborn children. The company owes us hundreds of millions in backpay. Not to mention the problems with the USDL over the child labor law violations….

    The example of an unfertilized egg wouldn’t work, but that doesn’t rule out something similar.

    My wife gets pregnant in March 2007. In April 2007, I claim the blastocyst as a dependent on my tax return. In May, I get audited and prosecuted for tax fraud. My legal defense rests on the argument that a our unborn child is legally a child…

    Realistically, the case wouldn’t get too far, (and all this is assuming that there’s a law passed somewhere defining human life as beginning so early; I wouldn’t be surprised if such a thing existed, but I don’t know of it myself and Bush’s veto obviously doesn’t count) but I would LOOOVE to see that happen someday.

  23. 23.

    Davebo

    July 20, 2006 at 11:58 am

    There is no scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. Furthermore, the trend of global warming depends entirely on the timeframe as earth was in a cooling trend up through the 1970’s (or was it through the ‘80’s?).

    And those large portions of glaciers that fall off at the water line are caused by all the tourists on the cruise ships yelling “You’re Momma was a Popsicle!” at them.

  24. 24.

    salvage

    July 20, 2006 at 11:58 am

    Like how you added stockpiles to the talking point.

    Me too because that’s what Bush said:

    “Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons…We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

  25. 25.

    Tsulagi

    July 20, 2006 at 11:58 am

    Santorum says fertilized eggs are actually persons with no difference between them and young children. Ummm, okay then, following Santorum logic, how about we issue them social security numbers. We can then all race to fertilize eggs to be able to claim them as dependents on our federal taxes. A few hundred wouldn’t hurt when filling out the 1040. Thank you Ricky.

  26. 26.

    Slide

    July 20, 2006 at 11:59 am

    I always wondered how autocratic regimes get such willing followers to spew the regime’s talking points. Well, Darrell is exhibit number one. Can’t you see him targeting intellectuals during Mao’s “Cultural Revolution”. Or how about him wearing a brown shirt and lovingly gazing at his Fuher during a rousing propaganda speech? Yes, autocratic dictatorships depend on the Darrell’s of the world – offering their blind allegience to what they see as a “strong and powerful” leader, compensating I am sure for their total inadequacies in other areas of their life.

  27. 27.

    John S.

    July 20, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    Furthermore, the trend of global warming depends entirely on the timeframe as earth was in a cooling trend up through the 1970’s (or was it through the ‘80’s?). What “liars”, huh?

    The zombie talking point by Darrell, Lord of the Zombies.

    No matter how many times you kill them…They just. Keep. Coming. Back.

  28. 28.

    jg

    July 20, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    Yes, autocratic dictatorships depend on the Darrell’s of the world – offering their blind allegience to what they see as a “strong and powerful” leader, compensating I am sure for their total inadequacies in other areas of their life.

    Darrells job is to keep pushing ht ememe that liberals are the great enemy of liberty (ironically). Th eliberal agenda must be dealt with before we can truly have a safe strong, white christian america like the founding fathers intended. And before you get started: if they had given a crap about blacks they would have laughed at the notion of a 3/5ths compromise and just made them citizens.

  29. 29.

    Ancient Purple

    July 20, 2006 at 12:10 pm

    In Darrell’s world, all minus one equals no consensus.

    In Darrell’s world.

  30. 30.

    Punchy

    July 20, 2006 at 12:12 pm

    What I’ve learned from Bush:

    Throw your “child” in the dumpster–OK
    Give your “child” away to help others live–Murder

    Bush will next sign a bill outlawing jackalope stem cells from being used in research.

  31. 31.

    Jon H

    July 20, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    Don’t forget: “I will cut the deficit in half in five years.”

  32. 32.

    Tim F.

    July 20, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    There is no scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. Furthermore, the trend of global warming depends entirely on the timeframe as earth was in a cooling trend up through the 1970’s (or was it through the ‘80’s?). What “liars”, huh?

    And thus Darrel’s grasp of science history is only supraceded by his grasp of how science works. Bravo.

  33. 33.

    Tsulagi

    July 20, 2006 at 12:34 pm

    Problem is, John ‘reporting-for-duty’ Kerry type of Dems aren’t the solution.

    I was a Republican Democrat until the FUBAR king came to power. I struck out the “Republican” part once it became apparent lobotomies were required for membership during the reign of George. It’s permanently struck out as long as that party is dominated by Falwell/Dobson asscrack dwellers and neocon Purple Heart-bandaid “military geniuses” like the PNAC choir boys. As the dipshit once stammered and screwed up: “Fool me once…(unintelligible stupid shit)…YOU CAN’T BE FOOLED AGAIN.”

    For those still firmly entrenched in the Party of Tard, how about we strike a deal with you pissy POTs for the remainder of GW’s term. Since he’s been permanently AWOL, swap him out with another Republican.

    Dig up Nixon. Air him out and prop him in the Oval Office big chair. You’d still have a Republican with the same brain wave pattern. Plus a massive upgrade in character, honor, and integrity. As a small added bonus, he wouldn’t be saying embarrassingly stupid shit at future G8 conferences and groping German chancellors.

  34. 34.

    Paul Wartenberg

    July 20, 2006 at 12:38 pm

    Truthiness- it may get your way politically, but don’t confuse it with the truth.

    You know, for a group that claims to be so dedicated to living based on the Bible, these Truthiness Republicans keep forgetting a particular Commandment about ‘No false witness’, in other words, ‘NO LYING’. Considering how many times they’ve lied, distorted facts, ignored the truth, et al.

  35. 35.

    Bob In Pacifica

    July 20, 2006 at 12:49 pm

    Saw an interesting article somewhere. The rhythm method actually kills fertilized eggs!

    Apparently the eggs still can get fertilized at certain points of the cycle that people use the rhythm method, but because the climate up there is not set for baby-making at that point in the cycle, the eggs die. I’ve also heard that half of all pregnancies are naturally aborted before anyone knows anyone is pregnant.

    Sorry for being so vague about this, but I imagine the information can be found if someone wants to find it.

  36. 36.

    DougJ

    July 20, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    Like how you added stockpiles to the talking point.

    Thank God Paul L. is here to cut to the heart of the matter. The real issue isn’t whether or not Saddam had WMD, the real issue is bloggers like John Cole misquoting Karl Rove. How can we fight a war on terror when traitors like John Cole are defaming the deputy Commander-in-Chief Rove?

    Why is that when Karl Rove tells a bald-faced lie (that is repeated by his foot soliders on Fox News and at the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page), it’s some kind of a big deal, but when John Cole makes a small mistake in one of his posts, no one seems to notice? Isn’t that a double standard?

  37. 37.

    jaime

    July 20, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    Look, Rove appears to be wrong about embryonic stem cells if what that article says is true.

    Rove lied, Darrell. He spits in your face and your only response is “next time get in my mouth”? Asshole.

  38. 38.

    DougJ

    July 20, 2006 at 1:03 pm

    Problem is, John ‘reporting-for-duty’ Kerry type of Dems aren’t the solution.

    Because Lord knows actually serving in the military doesn’t make you any kind of patriot. Dick Cheney and Bill O’Reilly are much greater patriots than unAmerican scum like John Kerry and Jack Murtha.

    You think risking your life for your country means something? Guess again, traitors. If you want to help the country, get behind George Bush.

  39. 39.

    Mike in SLO

    July 20, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    John Dean’s new book goes into depth about the replacement of conservatism with authoritarianism and explains follwers like Darrell to a T. After reading it, Darrell no longer angers me–I just feel sorry for him.

    If you grew up in a true Goldwater republican household like I did, you’ll appreciate the sanity of Dean. Check out his book.

  40. 40.

    DougJ

    July 20, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    I don’t blame the authoritarian followers like Darrell. They can’t help it.

    My issue is with their bend-over buddies in the Republican party — people like Arlen Specter, those two chicks from Maine, and Lincoln Chafee never should have stood for the fascist take-over of their party.

    Let’s remember that as much shit as we give John here, he’s been complaining about this a lot more than the vast majority of Republicans. He deserves a lot of creidt for that.

  41. 41.

    LITBMueller

    July 20, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    Actually, Darrell is quite right: since scientists bought and paid for the by the oil and other fossil fuel industries, and conservative think tanks say that there is no such thing as global warming, then there must be “no consensus.”

    …In 1998, the New York Times exposed an API [ American Petroleum Institute] memo outlining a strategy to invest millions to “maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours with Congress, the media and other key audiences.” The document stated: “Victory will be achieved when…recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”…
    …According to the memo, Jeffrey Salmon, then executive director of the George C. Marshall Institute, helped develop the plan, as did Steven Milloy, now a FoxNews.com columnist…

    Read the whole article. Especially, you, Darrell!

  42. 42.

    The Other Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 1:16 pm

    There is no scientific consensus on whether Darrell is a moron. I’ve looked hard, and simply cannot find it.

    Some appear to define Moron as having an IQ in the range of 50-69, others seem to believe it is an IQ in the range of 51-70.

    See, no consensus whatsoever, and that doesn’t even get into the question of perhaps he’s really an imbecile, where there is even greater disagreement in the scientific community.

  43. 43.

    Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 1:17 pm

    My issue is with their bend-over buddies in the Republican party—people like Arlen Specter, those two chicks from Maine, and Lincoln Chafee never should have stood for the fascist take-over of their party.

    What do all the people you mentioned have in common?

    A Northeastern realignment is clearly in the cards.

  44. 44.

    The Other Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    My issue is with their bend-over buddies in the Republican party—people like Arlen Specter, those two chicks from Maine, and Lincoln Chafee never should have stood for the fascist take-over of their party.

    Specter was booed at the ’95 GOP convention in Iowa, when he was thinking about running for President. He suggested the party should tone down it’s rhetoric, especially on abortion.

    And then his primary challenger this time around gave him a scare that he might lose. It’s too bad too, because I think the Republican party really needs to get rid of the RINOs in their midst.

  45. 45.

    DougJ

    July 20, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    A Northeastern realignment is clearly in the cards.

    I hope everyone here who lives in the northeast is getting involved with political campaigns. This is the year Chafee and his ilk the boot. The Northeast is full of John Cole-type (i.e. sane) Republicans who are jumping ship.

  46. 46.

    Pug

    July 20, 2006 at 1:30 pm

    What does that pointy-headed intellectual from Stanford University know anyway?

    He’s just thinks he’s better than we are. Rush knows more about science in his little finger than this clown.

  47. 47.

    Mike in SLO

    July 20, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    I guess John’s rant in the “Flintstone” post comments thread yesterday did some good. Today many commenters seem to be giving the old man the credit he deserves!

    John, I guess you need to flex your muscle every now and then… Keep fighting the good fight!

  48. 48.

    Punchy

    July 20, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    those two chicks from Maine

    Just laughed loud enough for the boss to hear. Damn you DougJ.

  49. 49.

    Pug

    July 20, 2006 at 1:39 pm

    A Northeastern realignment is clearly in the cards

    The Republicans have lived by the Southern Strategy since Nixon. It’s time for them to die by the Southern Strategy.

    It has always pissed me off when Republicans sneer at Massachusetts (as Bush did as recently as the last presidential campaign), California and New York as a political strategy to rile up the yahoos. Like these places aren’t really part of America. But the Dems lay off Texas, Mississippi and Alabama out of some pathetic hope that they can attract the crazy bile-thumper vote. They can’t.

    The first words out of the mouth of the next Democratic nominee should be, “Screw you, Texas. We’ve had enough of your crazy-ass bullshit”. Well…he may want to tone it down a little, but you know what I mean.

  50. 50.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    News about Darrell’s ancestors.

  51. 51.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    There is no scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. Furthermore, the trend of global warming depends entirely on the timeframe as earth was in a cooling trend up through the 1970’s (or was it through the ‘80’s?). What “liars”, huh?

    You really could not be any more brainwashed if you tried

    .

    You know Steve, when you posture as such a phony enlightened above-it-all as you so often do, it must sting like hell to learn how full of shit you are

    Global cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the earth; more specifically, it is a theory positing an overall cooling of the Earth and perhaps the commencement of glaciation. This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a temporary downward trend of temperatures in the 1970s

  52. 52.

    tBone

    July 20, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    It doesn’t matter if what you say is true- it matters how plausible it sounds and whether or not you can get people to repeat it enough until people think it is true.

    It’s a good thing no one’s dumb enough to actually fall – oh, wait:

    There is no scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. Furthermore, the trend of global warming depends entirely on the timeframe as earth was in a cooling trend up through the 1970’s (or was it through the ‘80’s?). What “liars”, huh?

    Never mind.

  53. 53.

    Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    Tying together these last two topics, The Next Hurrah notes that the New England congressional delegation voted 22-0 to override Bush’s stem cell veto. There’s just no way this region will continue electing Republicans.

  54. 54.

    tBone

    July 20, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a temporary downward trend of temperatures in the 1970s

    What are the key words in the paragraph above, Darrell?

  55. 55.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 1:49 pm

    There’s just no way this region will continue electing Republicans.

    That may be true. But that trend would likely be counterbalanced by southern and midwestern rejection of Dems

  56. 56.

    DougJ

    July 20, 2006 at 1:51 pm

    New SUSA (the only poll that matters) numbers out on Bush — he’s at 37%. So it looks like a dead cat bounce, not a dead Zarqawi bounce.

  57. 57.

    DougJ

    July 20, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    Good point, Darrell. What’s going to happen when the Democrats start losing all those seats they have in the south?

  58. 58.

    John S.

    July 20, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    Darrell, the laughable ass says:

    You know Steve, when you posture as such a phony enlightened above-it-all as you so often do, it must sting like hell to learn how full of shit you are

    You know Darrell, when you posture as such a phony enlightened above-it-all as you so often do, it must sting like hell to learn how full of shit you are, since the excerpt you cited from Wikipedia and lovingly bolded:

    This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a temporary downward trend of temperatures in the 1970s

    Is immediately followed by this statement:

    The theory never had strong scientific support.

    Which you conveniently omitted. I wonder why that is?

  59. 59.

    jaime

    July 20, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    counterbalanced by southern and midwestern rejection of Dems

    One thing Bush and the Pubbies know how to do is bring home the Bacon for the Red State Welfare Queens.

  60. 60.

    tBone

    July 20, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    Is immediately followed by this statement:

    The theory never had strong scientific support.

    Which you conveniently omitted. I wonder why that is?

    Because he’s a clear-eyed realist battling dishonest Leftist whackjobs! Truthiness Uber Alles!

  61. 61.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    What are the key words in the paragraph above, Darrell?

    Key words here

    and a temporary downward trend of temperatures in the 1970s

    Not a ‘reported’ temporary downward trend in temperature, but an actual one. As I posted upthread

    There is no scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. Furthermore, the trend of global warming depends entirely on the timeframe as earth was in a cooling trend up through the 1970’s (or was it through the ‘80’s?).

    Looks like I was right, huh jackass?

  62. 62.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    DougJ Says:

    Good point, Darrell. What’s going to happen when the Democrats start losing all those seats they have in the south?

    I believe Dems have far more seats in the south, midwest, and Dakotas/Wyoming/Nevada than Repubs have in the the Northeast. Just so you know

  63. 63.

    John S.

    July 20, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    Darrell Says:

    Key words here

    and a temporary downward trend of temperatures in the 1970s

    No Darrell, the key words here are:

    The theory never had strong scientific support.

    But you keep on trucking, dumbass.

  64. 64.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    DougJ,

    Yeah, there wasn’t a bounce at all, more of a temporary downturn. Bush had a bad month in May because the fringe of his base was losing faith in him, requiring him to pander more to the right (which is basically all he can do now). We’re essentially talking about 60% Republican support vs. 80% Republican support here–and both numbers are historically pretty high for a President who has lost the vast majority of the rest of the country. That was it, by June/July, he was back to his March/April levels.

  65. 65.

    tBone

    July 20, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    Looks like I was right, huh jackass?

    Hey Darrell – find one person who believes in global warming that won’t acknowledge that the Earth also experiences natural cycles of heating and cooling. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

  66. 66.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    One thing Bush and the Pubbies know how to do is bring home the Bacon for the Red State Welfare Queens.

    that, and Bush’s big spending agricultural subsidies.

  67. 67.

    Zifnab

    July 20, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    It has always pissed me off when Republicans sneer at Massachusetts (as Bush did as recently as the last presidential campaign), California and New York as a political strategy to rile up the yahoos. Like these places aren’t really part of America. But the Dems lay off Texas, Mississippi and Alabama out of some pathetic hope that they can attract the crazy bile-thumper vote. They can’t.

    The first words out of the mouth of the next Democratic nominee should be, “Screw you, Texas. We’ve had enough of your crazy-ass bullshit”. Well…he may want to tone it down a little, but you know what I mean.

    Clearly not a big fan of the 50-state strategy. If you think Democrats (and we’re talking the true blue peace-loving, environment-protecting, down-with-corruption style Democrats) don’t live in Texas, you could not be further from Austin. Dems would love to resurge across the south, and we’ve been taking it hard and heavy every time a black man is dragged through the street or a Dem Congressional political rally is broken up by rabid DeLay protesters. Kansas and Virgina and Montana and a number of other “red-states” are slowly waking up to people powered politics and are learning how to break the political machines that run their states. Don’t write off the southern states.

    Likewise, if you think the Republicans wrote off California and New York, you couldn’t be further from the truth. You think Schwarzinegger got elected by accident? You think Rudy Juliani is running for President because he hails from Atlanta? Give me a break. Republicans would LOVE to take those states. But its hard, and their national policies typically suck. So Bush will play the terrorism card today and tell NY and CA how grateful they should be for his war in their defense and hope it pays off tomorrow, but in the meantime every local Congressman and Senator will tell their constituancies that a vote for them is a vote against Pelosi and Kennedy, because they’re catering to a group of people who’ve been raised to hate Pelosi and Kennedy.

  68. 68.

    John S.

    July 20, 2006 at 2:01 pm

    And here is Darrell’s little Global Cooling rightwing zombie talking point officially debunked. An excerpt:

    Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970’s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces.

    But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis.

    Which makes sense, because Darrell – while a skeptic – is neither knowledgeable nor respectable, and all of his theories crumble under analysis.

  69. 69.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    Hey Darrell – find one person who believes in global warming that won’t acknowledge that the Earth also experiences natural cycles of heating and cooling. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

    Hey, thanks for the strawman tBone.. should I send a thank you note? Oh, can you show us where I ever said that the earth DOESN’T experience cycles of heating and cooling? Here’s what I wrote:

    the trend of global warming depends entirely on the timeframe

  70. 70.

    Zifnab

    July 20, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    *yawn*

    Please stop arguing with Darrell about Global Warming. You’d have better luck cracking concrete with your forehead, and both will just leave you with a giant headache.

    Darrell doesn’t believe in GW. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The end. Give it a rest already.

  71. 71.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    But the Dems lay off Texas, Mississippi and Alabama out of some pathetic hope that they can attract the crazy bile-thumper vote. They can’t.

    The first words out of the mouth of the next Democratic nominee should be, “Screw you, Texas. We’ve had enough of your crazy-ass bullshit”. Well…he may want to tone it down a little, but you know what I mean.

    And here I thought only Republicans were the “haters”

  72. 72.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    I love how you halfwits smugly pretend like there’s some sort of scientific consensus on the degree of man’s impact on global warming. Weren’t CO2 levels higher than they are now during the ice age?

    But please, don’t let facts like those get in the way of your ‘reality based’ conclusions. You’ve got a narrative to push after all.

  73. 73.

    John S.

    July 20, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    Please stop arguing with Darrell about Global Warming.

    I’m not arguing with him about Global Warming. I am rebutting his factually devoid insistence that:

    1. There was global cooling in the 1970s and scientific warnings of an ice age that never occurred
    2. That this alleged inconsistency somehow proves there is no scientific consensus on GW

    Darrell is free to thrust his head as far up his own ass as humanly possible. I’m just trying to clear up his misinformation for those that aren’t as rectally challenged as he is.

  74. 74.

    LITBMueller

    July 20, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    Rush knows more about science in his little finger than this clown.

    Well, they did write “Natural Science” and “Red Tide.”

    And you can argue that they predicted the devastating effects of global warming with their album cover for 1980’s “Permanent Waves.”

    Oh, sorry…wrong “Rush.”

  75. 75.

    Tim F.

    July 20, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    Wikipedia does not posit that scientists took the ‘global cooling’ theory seriously. It posits that the press took it seriously, which means about as much as a third-grade class’ opinion of Gogol’s later works.

    In the 70’s serious scientists were very concerned about global warming caused by carbon dioxide. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and ask for references. At the same time a very small number of articles pointed out correctly that aerosols contribute to cooling the Earth. Not to a catastrophic phenomenon of global cooling (!1!!1) but just another input to the global cycle. Meanwhile nobody felt knowledgable enough to make anything in the way of specific predictions because the abacuses available at the time would have taken one look at an Earth-atmosphere coupled model and died.

    That brings us to Darrell’s poor knowledge of how science works. Once technology and cumulative knowledge improved dramatically during the 1980’s scientists were finally able to collect all of the putative factors – carbon dioxide, ocean circulation, deforestation, aerosol cooling – and make specific predictions. As it happens nobody took the predictions very seriously because they were too crude to make much more of an educated guess. By the 1990s technology and the level of knowledge had matured to the point that pretty much very expert who did not draw a fossil-fuel paycheck came around to the idea that human carbon emissions are a major problem that demands immediate attention. Thus a weak and contentious idea developed over 30 years into the strapping unchallenged theory that you see today.

    Then ten more years went by while the fossil fuel interests spent millions upon millions keeping people who wanted to stay in doubt, in doubt.

    As the tobacco industry pointed out in a precisely analogous situation some decades back, “our product is doubt.” Indeed it is.

  76. 76.

    John S.

    July 20, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    I love how you halfwits smugly pretend like there’s some sort of scientific consensus on the degree of man’s impact on global warming.

    I love how you, halfwit, smugly pretend like there’s some sort of lack of scientific consensus on the degree of man’s impact on global warming.

    There isn’t.

    Despite the attempts of some commentators to attempt conflate the evidence for the existence of human influences on climate with the validity of a single reconstruction (e.g. that of Mann et al) it is quite clear that the evidence for anthropogenic impacts on climate is quite strong irrespective of whether or not the original “hockey stick” is correct.

  77. 77.

    tBone

    July 20, 2006 at 2:14 pm

    Oh, can you show us where I ever said that the earth DOESN’T experience cycles of heating and cooling?

    Nope. Can you show me where I ever said that you said that?

    By this:

    the trend of global warming depends entirely on the timeframe

    are you not arguing that any warming effect currently being observed is due solely to natural cycles of warming and cooling? Are you not using that as another bullshit talking point to dismiss global warming? If not, my apologies.

  78. 78.

    jaime

    July 20, 2006 at 2:14 pm

    Please stop arguing with Darrell about Global Warming.

    Especially since it makes it easier for Darrell to use the squid defense and chicken out of discussing the actual topic of the thread “Karl Rove’s stem cell lies and the assholes that believe them”

  79. 79.

    Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 2:14 pm

    You know Steve, when you posture as such a phony enlightened above-it-all as you so often do, it must sting like hell to learn how full of shit you are

    Uh, I never denied that there was a short-term cooling trend around the middle part of the last century, cause it’s uh, kinda like a proven fact. The reason I say you’re “brainwashed” is because you go around parroting this fact as if it actually means something. Oh, wait, there was a cooling trend for like 25-30 years? If only the climate scientists of today realized this!

    It’s really no wonder that your only argumentation technique is making up words to put in your opponent’s mouth, but I’m frankly getting a little tired of the monotony of constantly dealing with it. Fortunately, as you have zero credibility with anyone around here, it’s not that big a deal.

  80. 80.

    Tim F.

    July 20, 2006 at 2:15 pm

    Weren’t CO2 levels higher than they are now during the ice age?

    No, they were not. Any moer questions?

  81. 81.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 2:17 pm

    That this alleged inconsistency somehow proves there is no scientific consensus on GW

    Strawman! Strawman! Gey yer red hot strawman right ‘chere! I believe there is consensus that we are currently in a global warming trend at present, keeping in mind we were in a cooling trend in the 1970’s.. hence my point in raising the point ‘depends on the timetable’.

    The issue for which there is no scientific consensus, is whether CO2 and other man made effluents have a significant impact on this current warming trend. Because liberals are screaming “do something about global warming!” without having a scientific grasp on what should be done.

  82. 82.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 2:17 pm

    and a temporary downward trend of temperatures in the 1970s

    Proof — again — that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    And again, John and Tim can sit back and enjoy the spectacle of their blog being turned into a hyena reserve thanks to Darrell.

    Just going over my list of Darrelisms today:

    1. You can’t let your kids go camping with gays, most people agree with that
    2. You can’t prove that Co2 warming is the only factor at work in the atmosphere, so therefore, it isn’t a factor at all
    3. You can’t prove that civilian deaths in Lebanon are innocents, so … they aren’t innocent.
    4. The lefties who laugh at me are ignorant scum
    5. John and Tim like me to post here so nyah nyah nyah

  83. 83.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    No, they were not. Any moer questions?

    Has it been definitively proven that CO2 levels weren’t higher during the ice age? I’ve heard of one study that claims otherwise. Is that the one you’re latching onto? Why do you give it such credence?

  84. 84.

    tBone

    July 20, 2006 at 2:21 pm

    Just going over my list of Darrelisms today:

    You forgot “Leftists are dishonest.”

  85. 85.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    Alfalfa the Straw Vendor Says:

    Strawman! Strawman! Gey yer red hot strawman right ‘chere!

    That’s got to be the most honest thing you’ve said all week. It’s a shame that you were attempting to slam someone else when you inadvertently spoke the truth, though.

  86. 86.

    DougJ

    July 20, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    Glad you threw Wyoming and the Dakotas in there Darrell. That really changes things, given the massive number of seats in the House that the Democrats hold there.

  87. 87.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 2:27 pm

    The issue for which there is no scientific consensus, is whether CO2 and other man made effluents have a significant impact on this current warming trend

    Um, I think there is.

    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change The scientific community agrees that man made global warming is occurring.
    The following is a sampling of recent scientific reports that demonstrate this consensus. National Science Academies Issue Joint Statement on Climate Change – June 7, 2005 Eleven national science academies called on world leaders “to acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.” In the statement Global Response to Climate Change, the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States jointly declared that “there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring” and “the scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently clear to justify nations takingprompt action.” (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)

    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change – December 3, 2004 An analysis published in Science of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change issues found none disagreed with the “consensus of scientific opinion that Earth’s climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason.” The papers were drawn from a random sample of the more than 11,000 scientific papers on climate change written between 1993 and 2003. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)

    Arctic Climate Impact Assessment – November 9, 2004 The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) is an intergovernmental report based on a four-year scientific study of the Arctic conducted by an international team of 300 scientists and sponsored by the eight arctic nations Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States and six indigenous people’s organizations. The assessment determined that “the Arctic is now experiencing some of the most rapid and severe climate change on Earth. Over the next 100 years, climate change is expected to accelerate, contributing to major physical, ecological, social, and economic changes, many of which have already begun.” In response to the assessment, the eight nations of the Arctic Council agreed to pursue mitigation, adaptation, research and monitoring and outreach strategies to improve awareness and implement successful responses to climatic challenges in the Arctic.
    (http://www.acia.uaf.edu/).

    Our Changing Planet, US
    Climate Change Science Program’s Report – July 2004 The US Climate Change Science Program’s 2004 report to Congress, Our Changing Planet, US Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, signed by the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the Bush Administration, found that the global temperature increases observed in the latter half of the 20th century can only be replicated if human influences are included in the models. (http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/default.htm) The Environmental Action Network for the 21stCentury1200 Eighteenth Street, N.W. – Washington, DC 20036http://www.net.org

  88. 88.

    DougJ

    July 20, 2006 at 2:27 pm

    I don’t trust the temperature figures all these moonbats are citing to show the earth is getting warmer. Mercury has a well-known liberal bias. Whether it’s inflating temperatures or popping up at high levels in our water supplies, mercury is one element that hates the president.

    At this point, pretty much the whole periodic table suffers from Bush derangement syndrome. When I look at the levels of greenhouse gases, I wonder “why does carbon hate America”?

  89. 89.

    tBone

    July 20, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    At this point, pretty much the whole periodic table suffers from Bush derangement syndrome.

    I agree. I think we should start calling francium “freecium.”

  90. 90.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 2:30 pm

    Again, the IDIOT moderation scheme over links.

    Fine. I’ll post it AGAIN without the links, and if anyone wants the links that go with it, you can call 1-800-IDIOTMODERATION4YOU

    —//

    The issue for which there is no scientific consensus, is whether CO2 and other man made effluents have a significant impact on this current warming trend

    Um, I think there is.

    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change The scientific community agrees that man made global warming is occurring.
    The following is a sampling of recent scientific reports that demonstrate this consensus. National Science Academies Issue Joint Statement on Climate Change – June 7, 2005 Eleven national science academies called on world leaders “to acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.” In the statement Global Response to Climate Change, the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States jointly declared that “there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring” and “the scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently clear to justify nations takingprompt action.”

    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change – December 3, 2004 An analysis published in Science of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change issues found none disagreed with the “consensus of scientific opinion that Earth’s climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason.” The papers were drawn from a random sample of the more than 11,000 scientific papers on climate change written between 1993 and 2003.

    Arctic Climate Impact Assessment – November 9, 2004 The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) is an intergovernmental report based on a four-year scientific study of the Arctic conducted by an international team of 300 scientists and sponsored by the eight arctic nations Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States and six indigenous people’s organizations. The assessment determined that “the Arctic is now experiencing some of the most rapid and severe climate change on Earth. Over the next 100 years, climate change is expected to accelerate, contributing to major physical, ecological, social, and economic changes, many of which have already begun.” In response to the assessment, the eight nations of the Arctic Council agreed to pursue mitigation, adaptation, research and monitoring and outreach strategies to improve awareness and implement successful responses to climatic challenges in the Arctic.

    Our Changing Planet, US
    Climate Change Science Program’s Report – July 2004 The US Climate Change Science Program’s 2004 report to Congress, Our Changing Planet, US Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, signed by the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy for the Bush Administration, found that the global temperature increases observed in the latter half of the 20th century can only be replicated if human influences are included in the models. The Environmental Action Network for the 21stCentury1200 Eighteenth Street, N.W. – Washington, DC 20036http://www.net.org

  91. 91.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    do you now take the position that Bush “lied” about WMDs?

    Since it’s pretty much the majority view in this country, who the FUCK are you to question it?

    You use “most people” as a cover for your bullshit every day. Are you going against “most people” here?

    I’d post more links, but as you know, links are scary things and they get moderated.

  92. 92.

    tBone

    July 20, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    Also, why does europium sit at #65, while americium is all the way down at #95? That’s just wrong. By all rights americium ought to be #1. Screw hydrogen.

    I blame the whole mess on californium, personally. I believe it’s objectively pro-terrorist.

  93. 93.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    DougJ Says:

    Glad you threw Wyoming and the Dakotas in there Darrell. That really changes things

    In case you didn’t know, 3 out of the 4 Senators in North and South Dakota are Dems, in states that are solid blue. Montana is another example with Dem Max Baucus (sp?). I hope this information helps

  94. 94.

    Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 2:36 pm

    By the way, for those who like to learn more about this issue, John S. at 2:01 already shared the link that I would highly recommend. I’ll note one important point from that link:

    The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970’s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975)…

    Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn’t know enough to make predictions. From the “Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations”, we find that they said we should:

    1. Establish National climatic research program
    2. Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
    3. Develope Climatic index monitoring program
    4. Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
    5. Adoption and development of International climatic research program
    6. Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network

    Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.

    So, the argument that “scientists were wrong in the 70s, so who can say they’re not wrong today” fails for at least two reasons. First, as Tim has often noted and the link confirms, the “global cooling” theory from the 70s was more a function of the popular press than any kind of scientific consensus. Second, the climate scientists at the time were quite clear on the limitations of their model and the state of the science. They didn’t try to claim that the issue was settled. So it’s quite distinct from the situation today.

    Fortunately, this is an issue that can be solved politically without the need to deprogram any of the brainwashed. It’s entirely possible to reach an acceptable level of political consensus simply by reaching out to those who are simply uninformed on the issue. Those like Senator Inhofe who want to maintain that global warming is a “giant hoax” will simply be left behind as their propaganda attracts fewer and fewer adherents.

  95. 95.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    I meant the Dakotas are solid ‘red’, not blue.

  96. 96.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 2:40 pm

    I meant the Dakotas are solid ‘red’, not blue.

    Yes. Isn’t that where the Corn Palace is declared to be a potential terrorist target?

  97. 97.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 2:41 pm

    So, the argument that “scientists were wrong in the 70s, so who can say they’re not wrong today” fails for at least two reasons

    Steve feels comfortable framing the debate is these cartoonish strawman terms. Of course science has improved. But have the models, with so many variables and assumptions.. are they at a stage where they can accurately predict warming and cooling patterns? Only the ‘true believers’ on the left go that far… because of course, they have a narrative to push

  98. 98.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 2:41 pm

    tBone,

    I agree. I think we should start calling francium “freecium.”

    Ok, but only if we can call germanium ‘libertium’…

  99. 99.

    Tom in Texas

    July 20, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    The earth is indisputably getting warmer: people that don’t believe this are people that don’t know how to read thermometers (I like your way better BTW Doug — mercury has a well known liberal bias). Humans are also inarguably contributing to the problem — the only dispute is how much.

    Think of the earth’s temperature cycles as an annual seasonal one. The earth goes through fall, winter, spring, and summer. The point is, when we’re going through our decades long summer you don’t contribute to the problem. When it’s July, you take off the fucking sweater and turn down the heater — because even if your contribution is a small one, you are removing it. It’s common sense.

  100. 100.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 2:44 pm

    Darrell,

    Only the ‘true believers’ on the left go that far… because of course, they have a narrative to push

    YEAH! And those traitors don’t have a PLAN either! Whereas the Real American Heroes on the Right KNOW that we can STOP HURRICANES by burning more fossil fuels!! Now get in that SUV and start driving, you pansies!

  101. 101.

    DougJ

    July 20, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    But have the models, with so many variables and assumptions

    And we all know that once scientists start having to deal with variables and assumptions, they throw their hands up and say “we give up”.

    If only science could deal with variables and assumptions! The things it might accomplish! Well, we can dream, can’t we?

  102. 102.

    tBone

    July 20, 2006 at 2:46 pm

    Good point, Pb. Screw germanium anyway – it got all bent out of shape just because americium gave it a quick friendly squeeze on the way by.

  103. 103.

    Pug

    July 20, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    Clearly not a big fan of the 50-state strategy. If you think Democrats (and we’re talking the true blue peace-loving, environment-protecting, down-with-corruption style Democrats) don’t live in Texas, you could not be further from Austin. Dems would love to resurge across the south, and we’ve been taking it hard and heavy every time a black man is dragged through the street or a Dem Congressional political rally is broken up by rabid DeLay protesters. Kansas and Virgina and Montana and a number of other “red-states” are slowly waking up to people powered politics and are learning how to break the political machines that run their states. Don’t write off the southern states.

    Zifnab, dude, I live in Texas about a mile from the edge of Tom DeLay’s district. All I’m saying is the Republicans have played on the resentments of Southerners against “Yankees” for 40 years to get votes, the famous Southern Strategy.

    Those same resentments, in a milder form, also reside in those north of the Mason-Dixon line. Given the current oil situation you could stir people up against Texas pretty easily right now. I think a lot of folks up North are fed up with Southern conservatives running the country and it is something some Democrat will use to his advantage one day just as Republicans have for so long.

    Darrell, get lost with your “hate” stuff, OK?

  104. 104.

    ed

    July 20, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    Arguing with Darrell is like debating theology with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Stop it. Too many threads are getting drug through the born-again dittohead muck.

  105. 105.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    DougJ,

    And we all know that once scientists start having to deal with variables and assumptions, they throw their hands up and say “we give up”.

    Indeed. :)

  106. 106.

    chopper

    July 20, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    Has it been definitively proven that CO2 levels weren’t higher during the ice age?

    numerous ice cores have shown definitively that CO2 levels now are much higher than they’ve been in many, many hundreds of thousands of years going back many glacial cycles.

    sorry darrell, you’re out of your league here. the talking points and spin just don’t work any more.

  107. 107.

    ed

    July 20, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    Arguing with Darrell is like discussing theology with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Stop it. Too many threads are getting drug through the born-again dittohead muck.

  108. 108.

    Tom in Texas

    July 20, 2006 at 2:49 pm

    Come on people clearly you are unfamiliar with the founders of this great land and their Judeo Christian ethical system. Clearly if it is not mentioned in the bible, it is not an element. The periodic table is simple, and all this Darwinist mucketymucking has only complicated things. The table is a square:

    1) Earth
    2) Air
    3) Fire
    4) Water

    Why confuse our kids (or their parent-teachers) with the other couple hundred?

  109. 109.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    If only science could deal with variables and assumptions!

    If only science could deal with variable and assumptions with a reasonable amount of confidence and reliability

  110. 110.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    CO2 levels now are much higher than they’ve been in many, many hundreds of thousands of years

    Darrell has authorized me to post the following retort:

    Oh really? Were you there?

  111. 111.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 2:52 pm

    sorry darrell, you’re out of your league here. the talking points and spin just don’t work any more.

    I’ve heard of 1 study only, which came out fairly recently which agreed with your assertion. More studies came to the conclusion that CO2 levels were higher in the ice age than now.

    You have anything to back up the “proof” of your claim, or are you talking out of your ass as usual?

  112. 112.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 2:54 pm

    Arguing with Darrell is like discussing theology with Jehovah’s Witnesses

    No, it’s the left which so infected with sheep-like belief system. You believe what you believe, and facts to the contrary be damned.

  113. 113.

    Tim F.

    July 20, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    Has it been definitively proven that CO2 levels weren’t higher during the ice age?

    Your demand to prove a negative continues to demonstrate that you have a poor grasp of how science works.

    Can we know for sure that a giant fire-breathing lizard did not singlehandedly pull us out of the last ice age by reading National Review out loud? No, we cannot. But given time and resources we can piece together what happened within a reasonable range of certainty. As we do more studies and techniques get better the range of certainty gets tighter. The state of paleoclimate knolwedge is actually pretty good at this point, so you should not have a very hard time finding out when was the last time that we had our current levels of CO2. You can start here.

    Oh wait, that chart only goes back 600,000 years, through six ice age cycles. Maybe you can find a chart that goes back far enough to show when the Earth last had our current level of CO2. If you don’t mind me being helpful I think that Al Gore’s movie had one.

  114. 114.

    chopper

    July 20, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    what tim said. also note, there was some conflicting data about high CO2 levels during an ice age millions of years ago, but it turns out that ice age occurred at a different time when in fact CO2 levels were low.

    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm

    so that myth is busted.

    also, as i said, numerous ice cores.

    http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

    again, you’re out of your league here.

  115. 115.

    jaime

    July 20, 2006 at 3:00 pm

    Mercury has a well-known liberal bias. Whether it’s inflating temperatures or popping up at high levels in our water supplies,

    …

    Or making Rock “Operatic”.

  116. 116.

    The Other Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 3:05 pm

    That may be true. But that trend would likely be counterbalanced by southern and midwestern rejection of Dems

    Southern perhaps. Certainly not midwestern, other than the great Klan state of Indiana.

    One thing about Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and other midwest states. We’re practical. We also happen to like our public school systems. You aren’t going to win elections by trashing on the public schools. Or public roads, or public conservation of land.

    And that’s what the GOP found out in ’04 when they lost seats in the state legislatures.

  117. 117.

    FoodForThought

    July 20, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”

    And to this?
    “…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

  118. 118.

    The Other Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    No, it’s the left which so infected with sheep-like belief system. You believe what you believe, and facts to the contrary be damned.

    I’m open to valid argument, as I’m a skeptic.

    But I gotta be honest Darrell, you don’t give valid argument… You just give kneejerk rejectionism of scientific papers and studies.

  119. 119.

    John S.

    July 20, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    again, you’re out of your league here

    The question is when isn’t Darrell out of his league?

    I have yet to find a topic on which Darrell isn’t proud to thump his chest and scream about how fucking ignorant he is.

  120. 120.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    so that myth is busted.

    One uncorraborated study which is contradicted by other studies = “busting” the myth. I’m not going to dismiss that study, but it’s telling how many ‘true believers’ swallow it without questions or hesitation

  121. 121.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    But I gotta be honest Darrell, you don’t give valid argument

    But that’s just it TOS, you’re not honest. You weren’t honest in debating scs over Terri Schiavo a few days back, you weren’t being honest when you attributed statements to me in past discussions which I never wrote or endorsed, and you’re not being honest now.

  122. 122.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    If only science could deal with variables and assumptions! The things it might accomplish!

    Right.

    Maybe we’d have the practice of medicine. Or aviation. Or space travel. Or plastics. Or nuclear power. Or antibiotics. Or interventional cardiology. Or food inspection. Or hurricane predictions.

    But we don’t have any of those things, and that’s how we know that science is just a big joke.

  123. 123.

    FoodForThought

    July 20, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    As to ice core CO2 data, the time resolution of the samples DOES NOT isolate cause and effect. Did the temperature increase preceed the higher CO2 levels or did the higher CO2 levels preceed the temperature increases?

  124. 124.

    Perry Como

    July 20, 2006 at 3:17 pm

    But we don’t have any of those things, and that’s how we know that science is just a big joke.

    I think we should push faith based healing, much like Christian Scientists. Real Chrisitans believe that science is the Devil’s work, so Real Christians should reject all science, including medicine. That should help reduce the 23% problem.

  125. 125.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    I think we should push faith based healing, much like Christian Scientists. Real Chrisitans believe that science is the Devil’s work, so Real Christians should reject all science, including medicine. That should help reduce the 23% problem.

    That is the best and most practical idea I’ve seen in a long time. I could handle seeing the faihtful trying to pray their way out of bacterial pneumonia.

  126. 126.

    SeesThroughIt

    July 20, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    Screw germanium anyway – it got all bent out of shape just because americium gave it a quick friendly squeeze on the way by.

    And what about these so-called “noble” gasses? There’s nothing noble about being objectively pro-terrorist, you gas-holes!

  127. 127.

    John D.

    July 20, 2006 at 3:27 pm

    No, it’s the left which so infected with sheep-like belief system. You believe what you believe, and facts to the contrary be damned.

    Irony: It’s not just for breakfast any more.

    Darrell, whenever we’ve had our little discussions, one of us embeds links to primary sources showing where we got the information from, and one of us does not.

    I wonder which of us is which?

  128. 128.

    chopper

    July 20, 2006 at 3:29 pm

    If only science could deal with variable and assumptions with a reasonable amount of confidence and reliability (link)

    this is typical of the republican anti-science crowd. first, use old, unproven myths or conjectures. such as ‘what about the global-cooling thing?’.

    then, when you lose on that one, try the ol’ befuddle. point to some inconsistency somewhere, that’s already been fixed.

    if that fails, then find a politically-motivated petition somewhere. because politically-motivated petition trumps data any time.

    this reminds me of a story: when einstein, during the 30’s, was hard at work helping advance humanity’s knowledge in physics by centuries at a time, nazi germany tried to take him to task over it. they dismissed his science as ‘jewish science’. god knows, that kind of hubris helped the rest of us by putting their own atomic bomb project behind.

    anyways, in order to try to push the point home, the nazis got a number of physicists to sign a pamphlet called “100 Scientists Against Einstein”, proclaiming vitriolically that relativity was a total sham.

    as we all know, those scientists were the ones who were full of shit. einstein was quoted as saying in response to the fact that 100 scientists came out against him, “If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

    so here’s a little hint when it comes to scientific principles; look at the data, and look at how scientists are interpreting that data in peer-reviewed journals.

    otherwise you’ll get stuck thinking that evolution is a farce because somebody from the christian coalition passed a petition around saying so.

  129. 129.

    John S.

    July 20, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    But that’s just it TOS, you’re not honest.

    WAAAAAAA!

    Why is everybody so mean and dishonest? Why can’t we all be honest and forthright like Darrell?

    Bwahahahahaha!

  130. 130.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    My Fellow Bloggers,

    Today is an historic occasion here in the Blogosphere. What I am about to publicly reveal has been a closely guarded secret, years in the making. It was recognized, long ago, that we had a problem in our discussion threads, an intolerable problem that all too often made any real, constructive discussion here–and across a whole host of other blogs–virtually impossible. Although not attributable to any one blog, group, or person, it collectively became known as “The Darrell Problem”, whereby any discussion thread–no matter how focused–could easily be derailed into pointless squabbling and bickering by only a handful of inflammatory, tangential and offtopic comments, without regard to their informational content. Today, we have the solution to that problem.

    Roughly two years ago, the Progressive Blogger Working Task Force (an arm of the DLC, elected by a secret rotating council of delegates overseen by permanent members such as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and Ward Churchill) started a highly classified project–“The Hindenburg Project”–to find an amicable solution to this problem. We have pondered far and wide, vigorously debating and seeking wise council both within and outside the Democratic party. However, we were stymied, and often tied up in long and pointless inter-party ideological debates over a whole host of issues, until we agreed to focus on the true nature and character of the problem, and those involved. This study solidifed around several case studies, ultimately choosing Balloon Juice poster ‘Darrell’ as emblematic of the greater problem with blog discussion. We had to figure out what made this ‘Darrell’ character tick, and how best to deal with him, and those like him.

    However, we couldn’t. For a year, we found ourselves unable to reason, understand, identify, or empathize with him in the slightest. So we consulted with our progressive experts in literally every scientific field, including psychology, criminology and anthropology, biology, chemistry, and physics, astronomy, astrology, the occult, herbalism, crystallography, and even phrenology. And although we were able to speculate about a number of likely personal characteristics, we were still unable to understand the Darrell enigma. So, with a heavy heart, we returned to the field of politics.

    Having squandered our budget on research, travel expenses, and the occasional African junket, exhausted, dispirited, and back in our DC area complex, instead of giving up, we explored our last option: The Dark Side. That’s right, we talked to *Republican* operatives about our problem! They ended up being surprisingly helpful after we talked to our leadership and made a few small concessions (relating to funding decisions for an insignificant primary race in Ohio), eventually we had several high-level meetings with the greatest political minds of our time. That’s right, we went all the way up to the infamous Karl Rove himself, and he gave us his candid advice.

    It was so obvious, I don’t know why we didn’t see it immediately! All we had to do was return to our original progressive roots as Democrats. We were so blinded by our ideological biases and prejudices that we had strayed from our core principles. So now I am happy to announce our two-pronged strategy to stop all the useless fighting, and settle this problem once and for all: surrender, and appeasement. This may sound to some like we’re ‘just giving in’, but nothing could be further from the truth–we’re meeting on common ground, settling our differences, and finally coming to an understanding with our former opposition.

    So, the next time you run into the Darrell, or someone like him, you must resist your prejudicial urge to reflexively and immediately oppose everything he says. Instead, treat him like an old friend, and try to understand him, and agree with him. For we have found that Darrells are highly intelligent and generally have surprising insights about the world that the others surrounding them may never see. And it’s very important to note that these intuitive leaps also seem to allow them to deeply understand the American people as a whole, and–perhaps most importantly–to *win elections*.

    That’s also why we are pleased to announce today the establishment of a new progressive blogosphere project headed by Daily Kos–the Darrell Intuition Coalition–Kossacks Winning Elections Everywhere Democratically! Once we welcome Darrells everywhere into the fold where they are welcome, and recruit more like-minded individuals, we will then take over the House, the Senate, and the Presidency–and soon after that dominate the Supreme Court as well–and reshape America according to our new shared values!

    — The Progressive Blogger Working Task Force

  131. 131.

    FoodForThought

    July 20, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    Consider the Vostok ice core data
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm

    certainly us humanoids have been pumping up the CO2 levels for the past 100 years, but looking back at the historic levels isn’t there a hint that we were due for this to happen anyway?

  132. 132.

    Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    Darrell Says:

    So, the argument that “scientists were wrong in the 70s, so who can say they’re not wrong today” fails for at least two reasons

    Steve feels comfortable framing the debate is these cartoonish strawman terms.

    I’m going to offer up one example from a prior thread, for entertainment purposes.

    Darrell Says:

    Are you willing to wait 25 years to be 100% sure that we are a leading cause of RAPID climate change?

    In the 1970’s, environmentalists warned us: “Are you willing to wait 25 years to be 100% sure that we are the leading cause of the RAPIDLY approaching ICE AGE?”

    But no, Darrell would never make the argument that “scientists were wrong in the 70s, so who can say they’re not wrong today.” That’s a cartoonish strawman description of his argument, that only a leftist kook could come up with!

    Oh, and of course there’s nothing cartoony and strawmanish about his characterization of the scientific viewpoint in the 1970s.

  133. 133.

    Andrew

    July 20, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    Hey, why the fuck does global warming matter when Jesus is coming back any day now?

    Might as well enjoy your F-150 while it lasts.

  134. 134.

    jg

    July 20, 2006 at 3:53 pm

    Only the ‘true believers’ on the left go that far… because of course, they have a narrative to push

    But the right doesn’t have a narrative to push? Am I wrong to say that a lot of the pushback agaisnt global warming is agenda driven by the folks who will be hit hardest if the science turns out to be true?

    Who will have to make industrial adjustments (big cash)? OIl and auto industry.
    Which party recieves their campaign donations from the above industries?
    Republicans
    Which side of the argument is that party on?
    Human CO2 production does not contribute to global warming.

    Its amazing that the people in this country who hate lawyers most vehemently will fall for the shallowest lawyer tricks designed to create reasonable doubt. If the gloves don’t fit…

  135. 135.

    rs

    July 20, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    Darrell,I give you credit for working so hard to defend the company line-you’ve learned your talking points well,even if you weren’t blessed with the brain to argue them.Are there any issues where you deviate from what Rush tells you to think?

  136. 136.

    mrmobi

    July 20, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    Gruppenführer Darrell, you have done it again. Not only have you totally hijacked this thread with an un-related argument, you also seem to have a magnet for finding discredited people and trumpeting their expertise. From your link upstream, this guy is the head of the “opposition” group you say challenges the credibility of the current climate science consensus.

    Frederick Seitz was once credible and famous. He was once President of the National Academy of Sciences, an organization which has repudiated Seitz’s counterfeit NAS anti-Kyoto petition fraud. The reason that RJ Reynolds tobacco company bought Seitz was that his reputation was worth the money they agreed to spend. A “nobody” would not help them conceal the murders which they were premeditatedly engaged in conducting, falsifying the true state of medical knowledge of the DEADLY dangers of their hazardous products.

    Apparently, Seitz is a bottom-feeder like you, but with a brain. He did some great work for the tobacco industry, casting doubt on claims that smoking causes cancer. Nice guy, he’ll say pretty much anything if you’ve got the cash.

    You really are the best National Socialist you can be. Now go away, the grown-ups would like to talk.

  137. 137.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    But no, Darrell would never make the argument that “scientists were wrong in the 70s

    But Steve, certainly with all your nuance you could see that objection/argument was never presented in this discussion was it?

    Furthermore, given the lack of consensus among todays atmospheric scientists the main point is not really what scientists thought 30 years ago, but whether the science today is at a point where they can confidently predict warming and cooling trends. Hey, I don’t blame you for framing the argument in a way that ignores that key element of the debate, because it goes against the narrative you’re pushing.

  138. 138.

    Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    Furthermore, given the lack of consensus among todays atmospheric scientists the main point is not really what scientists thought 30 years ago, but whether the science today is at a point where they can confidently predict warming and cooling trends. Hey, I don’t blame you for framing the argument in a way that ignores that key element of the debate, because it goes against the narrative you’re pushing.

    Could you explain to me why the ability to “predict warming and cooling trends” is a “key element of the debate”?

  139. 139.

    John D.

    July 20, 2006 at 4:13 pm

    Psst, Darrell — the OISM link has an interesting history:

    The mailing attracted immediate attention in the scientific community because the unpublished RRSB paper which it contained had been deliberately printed with a letterhead and page format that bore a striking resemblance to that of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a highly respected peer-reviewed scientific journal which had in fact never published it. The paper contained numerous errors, including references to obsolete climate models and studies, out of date calculations, and inappropriate data comparisons. A large portion of RRSB’s conclusions, for instance, were based on an analysis of tropospheric temperature measurements from NOAA Polar Orbiting Satellites that is now over 7 years old that has been through two major revisions since the one cited by RRSB (the latest versions show warming). Nearly all of the issues that lead to later revisions were known at the time the Petition Project was released and had been published elsewhere. In fact, the original publication of the analysis used by RRSB for their figures even made specific reference to at least one of the known sources of error and stated that it had not been taken into account in their analysis (RRSB’s citation was to a 1997 correspondence in the journal Nature – not to the original publication of the analysis). The paper even contained misquoted numbers and clerical errors that should have been caught by a simple proofreading. Many of its claims were openly contradicted by the references RRSB cited, indicating that they had not even been read closely (or worse, had been deliberately misrepresented). Shortly after the original mailing, the National Academy of Sciences issued a press release disavowing themselves from the petition and the RRSB paper, and strongly criticized it’s conclusions and the plagiarism of their journal’s publishing format. As of this writing, the RRSB paper is still posted at the OISM web site, and is still being widely cited by global warming skeptics. No attempt has been made to correct any of the errors or to update it in any way.

    From the inception of the Global Warming Petition Project, the OISM and the Marshall Institute have boasted that it represents the concensus of a large majority of the scientific community. The Petition has claimed as many as 25,000 signatories at one time or another, though to this day the most commonly cited figure is 17,000. The original mailing was sent to many with backgrounds in meteorology but were not involved in any climate change related fields (it is a common misconception that weather forecasting and climate change are closely related fields). It was then posted on the internet at the OISM web site (www.oism.org) where virtually anyone could sign it and claim whatever “credentials” they wished.

    Keep trying though! One day, you may stumble across actual science.

  140. 140.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    Apparently, Seitz is a bottom-feeder like you, but with a brain

    Shit for brains, we’ve already hashed that one out in previous threads. I love how you “nuanced” liberals find one controversy and then pretend that discredits the entire petition and the substance of the scientific argument behind it.

    In fact, as has been pointed out before, many of those scientists who signed the original petition have been interviewed and say that they STILL stand by it, others are less confident of their original position but don’t necessarily refute it, and others dispute the assertions in the petition which they signed and have changed their mind. Here is part of the text of the original petition which was signed

    To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign

    But as mrmobi illustrates so well, such nuanced distinctions are lost on the ‘reality based’ keyboard warriors

  141. 141.

    DarrellTron 3000

    July 20, 2006 at 4:19 pm

    Given the {delusion} among today’s {lefties} the main point is that {I am right} and {you are wrong}. Hey, I don’t blame you {leftist kooks} for framing the argument in a {dishonest} way that ignores {my superior intellect}, because it goes against {reality} and the obvious fact that {I am right} and {you are wrong}.

    {End Transmission}

  142. 142.

    DarrellTron 3000

    July 20, 2006 at 4:22 pm

    Given the {delusion} among today’s {lefties} regarding “global warming”, the main point is that {I am right} and {you are wrong}. Hey, I don’t blame you {leftist kooks} for framing the argument in a {dishonest} way that ignores {my superior intellect}, because it goes against {reality} and the obvious fact that {I am right} and {you are wrong}.

    {End Transmission}

  143. 143.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    Could you explain to me why the ability to “predict warming and cooling trends” is a “key element of the debate”?

    If the science behind the atmospheric models is so valid and well established, then predicting warming and cooling trends should be a snap. We are talking about global warming, are we not?

    However, if there are a lot of unknowns effecting global temperature patterns whose effects are not well understood, then it doesn’t make sense to take action to “stop global warming!” as so many leftists advocate, as the variables which effect temperature changes aren’t really known or well established scientifically.

  144. 144.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    Darrell,

    Shit for brains, we’ve already hashed that one out in previous threads. I love how you “nuanced” liberals find one controversy and then pretend that discredits the entire petition and the substance of the scientific argument behind it.

    And there’s no point in rehashing those old conflicts now. You’re right, such reasoning *is* spurious, it’s ridiculous to take one little example out of context, and then go on to pretend that it makes the whole house of cards fall down and just walk away, without ever actually conclusively demonstrating or proving the original case in the first place.

    In fact, as has been pointed out before, many of those scientists who signed the original petition have been interviewed and say that they STILL stand by it, others are less confident of their original position but don’t necessarily refute it, and others dispute the assertions in the petition which they signed and have changed their mind.

    Such situations are common when large numbers of people are involved, especially when the actual events took place some time ago–the same thing happened with The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.

    Cheers, and keep up the good work!

  145. 145.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    Such situations are common when large numbers of people are involved, especially when the actual events took place some time ago—the same thing happened with The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.

    But John Kerry told us that even though those events took place long ago, they were “seared” into his memory

  146. 146.

    John S.

    July 20, 2006 at 4:37 pm

    Darrell loves the truthiness! Regarding his fondness for linking to OISM – his only “source” that backs up his claims – from John D-stands-for-DarrellKiller’s link:

    It is common for advocates of pseudoscientific views to believe that a PhD immediately qualifies someone to speak on any subject regardless of whether or not they have any direct experience in the field in question (Consider, for instance, the writings of creationists and the way they showcase the PhD’s of their advocates, few of whom are involved in actual research or published in peer reviewed journals).

    To no one’s surprise, within weeks of it’s release the Petition had accumulated numerous bogus signatures, including “Dr. Red Wine”, characters from the TV show MASH, the author John Grisham, and a “Dr.” Geri Halliwell (Ginger Spice) whom were are told, has a Phd. in microbiology. Arthur Robinson admits that the OISM has been unable to keep pranksters from signing the petition. He claims they are “checking” the credentials of all signatories, but it appears that this is being done only in limited ways. The superficiality of these checks, and the prank signatures in particular, though few, clearly illustrate the lax standards behind this whole project, and the unavoidable shortcomings of trying to use a petition drive to garner scientific consensus.

    See? Dr. Geri Halliwell and Dr. Richard Kimball agree with Darrell 100%!

  147. 147.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 4:38 pm

    Darrell,

    But John Kerry told us that even though those events took place long ago, they were “seared” into his memory

    Perhaps Vietnam vets don’t always remember events exactly as they happened, or perhaps they had incomplete information or misguided assumptions in the first place. Memory is a funny thing, actual sourced documents are much more reliable, and my understanding is that there are plenty of those out there.

  148. 148.

    capelza

    July 20, 2006 at 4:47 pm

    Darrell,

    Vietnam Vets have a lot of memories “SEARED”…sometimes so burnt that it all gets jumbled. Say a MAG 15 door gunner sees his buddy’s CH53 blown out of the sky. He remembers it as a RPG going through the door of the copter. When actually it was a SAM into the engine. Does that make him a liar? Or just someone who remembers most vividly the horror of watching his friend burned alive and got the little details wrong. Of course he’d have to be a liar in your world.

  149. 149.

    Punchy

    July 20, 2006 at 4:47 pm

    Mercury has a well-known liberal bias.

    Leave the poor guy alone. He sung his ass off and then died of HIV. Can’t a good lead vocalist rest in peace without people picking apart his politics?

  150. 150.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 4:48 pm

    DarrellTron 3000 Says:

    that’s actually pretty damn funny. Where is the Nutcutter2000?

  151. 151.

    Steve

    July 20, 2006 at 4:48 pm

    If the science behind the atmospheric models is so valid and well established, then predicting warming and cooling trends should be a snap. We are talking about global warming, are we not?

    What we’re talking about is dramatic warming resulting from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. Random 20-30 year periods of warming or cooling are insignificant white noise compared to the big picture. In the grand scheme of things, it’s like you’re arguing we can’t know anything about the next 1000 years unless we can predict whether it will rain tomorrow.

    I think the entire argument can be boiled down to very simple terms:

    1) Is there a strong correlation between global temperatures and the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

    Absolutely. See Tim F.’s graph here. The top 3 squiggles are methane, CO2 and nitrous oxide; the bottom is temperature. It’s fairly easy to see the jumps in the greenhouse gas graphs that correspond with each major jump in the temperature graph.

    2) Has there been a recent, dramatic upswing in greenhouse gas levels?

    No doubt about it. Look at the left side of the graph (which represents the present period). From the colored lines that run straight up the left side of the graph, you can see that all three greenhouse gases have spiked in recent years to levels far beyond anything seen in the last 650,000 years.

    3) Is the upswing in greenhouse gas levels caused by human activity?

    This is almost a truism, since it’s hard to believe this dramatic jump “just happens” to coincide with the industrial age, and at the same time irrelevant, because if there’s the prospect of serious temperature change I’d like to do something about it whether it’s “natural” or not. But anyway, here is a good discussion of how scientists know the recent spike in CO2 concentration is entirely due to human activity. Key language:

    In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon.

  152. 152.

    chopper

    July 20, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    Consider the Vostok ice core data
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm

    certainly us humanoids have been pumping up the CO2 levels for the past 100 years, but looking back at the historic levels isn’t there a hint that we were due for this to happen anyway?

    from your link:

    Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.

    it’s unprecedented. currently, we are supposed to be at the top of an interglacial, where CO2 concentrations naturally taper off and then, thousands of years later, start to fall. however, the plateau isn’t there; CO2 concentrations kepts going up to levels never seen before in any core samples. right at the time we started burning fossil fuels and pumping gobs of CO2 into the air.

    so either we’re the cause of the increase in CO2 concetrations over the norm for an interglacial, or there is some natural mechanism that hasn’t shown it’s face in millions of years that is the cause, which has been missed by god-knows how many scientists, even the ones trying desperately to disprove GW for political reasons.

  153. 153.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    Does that make him a liar? Or just someone who remembers most vividly the horror of watching his friend burned alive and got the little details wrong

    Each of those incidents you describe entail horrifying traumatic experiences which might understandably create confusion. But what John Kerry referred to as being “seared” in his memory, was a memory of a relatively uneventful Christmas spent in Cambodia, wasn’t it?

    A pleasant ‘memory’ that Kerry further explained was where he got his ‘lucky hat’ from a CIA agent there in Cambodia.

  154. 154.

    jg

    July 20, 2006 at 5:00 pm

    But what John Kerry referred to as being “seared” in his memory, was a memory of a relatively uneventful Christmas spent in Cambodia, wasn’t it?

    Uneventful? Wasn’t it a memory of President Nixon speaking while Kerry was in Cambodia at christmas? I ask because AFAIK the reich wing attack was based on the fact that Nixon wasn’t president yet.

  155. 155.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 5:02 pm

    Darrell,

    what John Kerry referred to as being “seared” in his memory, was a memory of a relatively uneventful Christmas spent in Cambodia, wasn’t it?

    I don’t know, I’ve never been in Cambodia under those circumstances. But I doubt it was anything like when I have a relatively uneventful Christmas.

    A pleasant ‘memory’ that Kerry further explained was where he got his ‘lucky hat’ from a CIA agent there in Cambodia.

    That sounds like a relatively inconsequential anecdote. I have to say, though, to my knowledge, I’ve never run into a CIA agent, on Christmas or otherwise. I guess for me, that’d be relatively eventful.

  156. 156.

    FoodForThought

    July 20, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    it’s unprecedented. currently, we are supposed to be at the top of an interglacial, where CO2 concentrations naturally taper off and then, thousands of years later, start to fall. however, the plateau isn’t there; CO2 concentrations kepts going up to levels never seen before in any core samples. right at the time we started burning fossil fuels and pumping gobs of CO2 into the air.

    Yes, I have no doubt we humans have added significantly to the total and based on this graph we have had a hand in the highest maximum being obtained in the previous five peaks. The question is not so much are we climbing, but how much more will it go up before it follows history and falls off. The graph would tend to indicate we are riding a much more significant natural trend. The current trend began long before our production became significant, not as you state in the last part I quoted.

  157. 157.

    tBone

    July 20, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    So, the global warming jackalope is exhausted, and right on cue Darrell releases a new one. And this one is special, kids: it windsurfs.

  158. 158.

    DarrellTron 3000

    July 20, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    John Kerry that {liberal kook} is definitely {lying} about his memory of events. This is evident by the fact that he is a {leftist}. It is further proved by the fact that he served as a {coward} in a war where he partied with {communists} and gave himself a {self-inflicted} wound. With all that {partying} and {self-inflicted} shrapnel flying around, it is no wonder his memories are {lies}.

    I, on the other hand, being an {infallible} being of {conservative} persuasion and having {courageously} never served in the Armed Forces during a {glorious} conflict, have a much {clearer} memory of events – free of {partying} and {self-inflicted} shrapnel. And as always, I am {right} and you are {wrong).

    {End Transmission}

  159. 159.

    FoodForThought

    July 20, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    No doubt about it. Look at the left side of the graph (which represents the present period). From the colored lines that run straight up the left side of the graph, you can see that all three greenhouse gases have spiked in recent years to levels far beyond anything seen in the last 650,000 years.

    So you can tell that the temperature increase is due to increases in greenhouse gasses and not the otherway around? Either way both sides of the debate are making “layman” assesments of essentially raw data to support their views, in other words, “junk science”.

    Much of the current studies contain vastly more instrumented facts as to cause and effect from modern data sets. Older data can only show trends and with uncalibrated correlations between temperature, CO2, and time any interpetations are essentially opinions.

  160. 160.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 5:22 pm

    FoodForThought,

    So you can tell that the temperature increase is due to increases in greenhouse gasses and not the otherway around?

    What’s your alternative hypothesis? Given a temperature increase, what would cause greenhouse gas concentrations to increase? On the other hand, given that we know that greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, why, and how much of them that we put into the atmosphere, couldn’t we measure what effect temperature is having on them, if any? No, there may be a problem there, but I don’t think you managed to identify it yet.

  161. 161.

    RSA

    July 20, 2006 at 5:27 pm

    This is a bit old, but:

    The Bush admin has real problems, no argument from me on that one. Problem is, John ‘reporting-for-duty’ Kerry type of Dems aren’t the solution.

    It strikes me as funny that a conservative can try to present a nuanced view of the leadership of this country, but when it comes to characterizing those who were against the invasion of Iraq, those folks are “objectively pro-Saddam”. (I’m mixing and matching conservatives here, of course.) Tell you what: if you make your bed in black and white, you get to lie in it.

  162. 162.

    jg

    July 20, 2006 at 5:36 pm

    The Bush admin has real problems, no argument from me on that one. Problem is, John ‘reporting-for-duty’ Kerry type of Dems aren’t the solution.

    No the problem is that your side wins elections by making the other guy out to be the most dangerous person that could possibly be elected. Because of this strategy you don’t have to be competent to be elected as a republican candidate. What we end up with is a government full of elected officials who weren’t elected because they demonstrated that they are the most fit for the job. Thats why we have Bush in office. Not because he’s qualified (I think he’s taken of that impression) but because Kerry and Gore were ridiculed and enough noise was made to keep their messages from reaching your ears unfiltered.

  163. 163.

    SeesThroughIt

    July 20, 2006 at 5:50 pm

    enough noise was made to keep their messages from reaching your ears unfiltered.

    That’s why you have to catapult the propaganda.

  164. 164.

    chopper

    July 20, 2006 at 5:51 pm

    The graph would tend to indicate we are riding a much more significant natural trend.

    i don’t think so, unless this trend is so unprecedented that it has never happened in the past several million years of history, without any noticed phenomena accompanying it.

    the only thing that has happened in the past hundred or so years that corresponds to an increase in the concentration of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. there is no known natural trend that corresponds to CO2 levels this high.

  165. 165.

    Zifnab

    July 20, 2006 at 6:10 pm

    I was intrigued by this article and articles like it which seem to link air travel to the heavy onset of global warming that the US in particular has been experiencing.

    NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.
    …
    Both air traffic and cirrus coverage increased during the period of warming despite no changes in the NCEP humidity at jet cruise altitudes over the United States. By contrast, humidity at flight altitudes decreased over other land areas, such as Asia, and was accompanied by less cirrus coverage, except over Western Europe, where air traffic is very heavy.

    Restrictions on night flights could ease the aviation industry’s fast-growing contribution to global warming, say UK scientists.
    …
    Stuber and team also found that flights during the winter months could contribute more to global warming.

    “We also found that flights between December and February contribute half of the annual mean climate warming, even though they account for less than a quarter of annual air traffic,” says Stuber.

    Although there are fewer flights during the winter months, the conditions needed to form contrails – the right temperature, amount of moisture in the air and aircraft altitude – are found more often then.

    So don’t run off and buy that hybrid car just yet (or crucify your neighbor for buying a Hummer).

  166. 166.

    Zifnab

    July 20, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    Well… I mean you can. And it’ll probably save you some money in the long run… but, … yeah.

  167. 167.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    link air travel to the heavy onset of global

    There was long ago a link established between contrails and the growth of forests in some places in North America where established airways put the increased cloud cover in the same place time after time. The link, of course, is …. more contrails = less tree growth, due to the reduction in sunlight reaching the ground.

    In an aviation newsgroup, we used be constantly bomarded by conspiracy hounds who were convinced that contrails were actually chemicals being sprayed on the unsuspecting population.

    We’d point out to them that the contrails were …. water.

    Water? they’d scream. How does water get into a jet engine?

    Descriptions of the products of combustion were not convincing to them. They’d just be more certain that we were trying to bamboozle them.

    Even when we pointed out that water virtually pours out of the exhaust pipe of their car … for the same reason … they still wouldn’t believe it.

    IIRC burning a gallon of fuel puts about a gallon of water out the exhaust. Too lazy to look it up now but that’s the ratio I remember.

  168. 168.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 6:23 pm

    i don’t think so, unless this trend is so unprecedented that it has never happened in the past several million years of history, without any noticed phenomena accompanying it.

    the only thing that has happened in the past hundred or so years that corresponds to an increase in the concentration of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. there is no known natural trend that corresponds to CO2 levels this high.

    I thought volcanos and fires put out a significant amount of CO2. And what about the ice ages and warmer trends before man ever walked the earth?

  169. 169.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    So you can tell that the temperature increase is due to increases in greenhouse gasses and not the otherway around? Either way both sides of the debate are making “layman” assesments of essentially raw data to support their views, in other words, “junk science”.

    Much of the current studies contain vastly more instrumented facts as to cause and effect from modern data sets. Older data can only show trends and with uncalibrated correlations between temperature, CO2, and time any interpetations are essentially opinions.

    Good post.

  170. 170.

    jaime

    July 20, 2006 at 6:28 pm

    A pleasant ‘memory’ that Kerry further explained was where he got his ‘lucky hat’ from a CIA agent there in Cambodia.

    Bush and his 30 year “Long Weekend” isn’t even capable of a pleasant memory during that same time.

    But back to the original topic ChickenDarrell. Do you not consider what Rove said to be a lie?

  171. 171.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    can tell that the temperature increase is due to increases in greenhouse gasses

    The answer may lie in what the term “greenhouse gases” means. It refers to “greenhouse effect.”

    This may help.

  172. 172.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    Bush and his 30 year “Long Weekend” isn’t even capable of a pleasant memory during that same time.

    A doctor who treats alcoholism has written that it’s 100% certain that anyone who drinks that much for that long is going to have brain damage and cognitive impairment.

    Not to the extent we see in Darrell, but impairment nonetheless.

  173. 173.

    Darrell

    July 20, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    A doctor who treats alcoholism has written that it’s 100% certain that anyone who drinks that much for that long

    What ‘doctor’ is making claims as to how much Bush has drank and over what time period? No surprise you halfwits swallow these kinds of ‘scientific’ reports hook, line, and sinker

  174. 174.

    Mike in SLO

    July 20, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    From the AP wire according to MSNBC.com Updated: 15 minutes ago

    ST. LOUIS – The governor sent in the National Guard to evacuate people from their sweltering homes and utility crews raced to restore electricity Thursday after storms knocked out power to nearly 500,000 St. Louis-area homes and businesses in the middle of a searing heat wave that has killed at least 18 people across the country — including one in St. Louis.

    With another day of 100-degree heat, Gov. Matt Blunt declared a state of emergency and granted the mayor’s request to send in 250 troops to transport people from hot homes to cooling centers, and to clear debris.

    Police used public-address speakers from their squad cars to announce locations of cooling centers. Volunteers went door to door checking on people without power to run air conditioners.

    Ella Willis, 93, was found dead Thursday. The south St. Louis woman had air conditioning, but her power was out. Her body temperature was 106 degrees.

    While everyone argues with Darrell about the scientific consensus of Global Warming, those of us residing in the real world simply stick our hands out the window and notice how hot it’s getting.

  175. 175.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 6:51 pm

    What ‘doctor’ is making claims as to how much Bush has drank and over what time period?

    Probably one who has read the stories of Bush’s life as told by people who knew him. Alcoholism isn’t exactly rare or mysterious, Darrell. And it doesn’t hide that well, either. Drunks like Bush are a dime a dozen.

  176. 176.

    demimondian

    July 20, 2006 at 6:55 pm

    A doctor who treats alcoholism has written that it’s 100% certain that anyone who drinks that much for that long is going to have brain damage and cognitive impairment.

    Ppg, I’m going to call bullshit on this.

    I’m not an MD, but I spent many years studying the causes and effects of brain damage. Certainly, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Bush had cortical or hippocampal damage due to long term alcohol use, but I don’t think that any responsible MD would make the diagnosis you present, except perhaps Bill Frist.

  177. 177.

    chopper

    July 20, 2006 at 7:01 pm

    I thought volcanos and fires put out a significant amount of CO2.

    volcanoes don’t put out a significant amount of CO2. and forest fires only put CO2 back into the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in a relatively short time frame.

    So you can tell that the temperature increase is due to increases in greenhouse gasses and not the otherway around?

    well, rising temperatures have happened numerous times in the fossil history, as the ice cores show. however, the CO2 concentration has never gone over a certain point, and we started rocketing past that point right about when we started dumping tons of CO2 into the air. it’s just common sense, for one.

  178. 178.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 7:02 pm

    He wasn’t making a diagnosis. He was saying that anyone who is a morbid drunk for 30 years is going to suffer from brain damage. And I don’t think that calling Bush a morbid drunk for 30 years is a stretch. Is there proof, as Darrell says, of what he drank during that time? No.

    The claim emerged a couple years ago when the famous video comparison between Bush as candidate for governor and Bush the candidate for reelection to the presidency became all the rage on the Internet. The difference between the two Bushes is rather shocking. The younger Bush is sharp, articulate, ready with facts and figures. The more recent Bush is …. none of those things. He can’t make a sentence, he doesn’t have recall of the facts, he isn’t sharp. Not once in a while, but all the time.

    The doctor I referred to basically said, if this guy drank the way the stories indicate, and we are seeing this kind of deterioration, then you are looking at brain damage. I find it not just plausible, but — and please pardon the expression — a no brainer.

  179. 179.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 7:08 pm

    Here’s an article typical of the period, demi:

    Addiction, Brain Damage and the President
    “Dry Drunk” Syndrome and
    George W. Bush
    by KATHERINE van WORMER

    Ordinarily I would not use this term. But when I came across the article “Dry Drunk” – – Is Bush Making a Cry for Help? in American Politics Journal by Alan Bisbort, I was ready to concede, in the case of George W. Bush, the phrase may be quite apt.

    Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober. Such an individual tends to go to extremes.

    It was when I started noticing the extreme language that colored President Bush’s speeches that I began to wonder. First there were the terms– “crusade” and “infinite justice” that were later withdrawn. Next came “evil doers,” “axis of evil,” and “regime change”, terms that have almost become clichés in the mass media. Something about the polarized thinking and the obsessive repetition reminded me of many of the recovering alcoholics/addicts I had treated. (A point worth noting is that because of the connection between addiction and “stinking thinking,” relapse prevention usually consists of work in the cognitive area). Having worked with recovering alcoholics for years, I flinched at the single-mindedness and ego- and ethnocentricity in the President’s speeches. (My husband likened his phraseology to the gardener character played by Peter Sellers in the movie, Being There). Since words are the tools, the representations, of thought, I wondered what Bush’s choice of words said about where he was coming from. Or where we would be going.

    First, in this essay, we will look at the characteristics of the so-called “dry drunk;” then we will see if they apply to this individual, our president; and then we will review his drinking history for the record. What is the dry drunk syndrome? “Dry drunk” traits consist of:

    Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
    Grandiose behavior
    A rigid, judgmental outlook
    Impatience
    Childish behavior
    Irresponsible behavior
    Irrational rationalization
    Projection
    Overreaction
    Clearly, George W. Bush has all these traits except exaggerated self importance. He may be pompous, especially with regard to international dealings, but his actual importance hardly can be exaggerated. His power, in fact, is such that if he collapses into paranoia, a large part of the world will collapse with him. Unfortunately, there are some indications of paranoia in statements such as the following: “We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.” The trait of projection is evidenced here as well, projection of the fact that we are ready to attack onto another nation which may not be so inclined.

    Bush’s rigid, judgmental outlook comes across in virtually all his speeches. To fight evil, Bush is ready to take on the world, in almost a Biblical sense. Consider his statement with reference to Israel: “Look my job isn’t to try to nuance. I think moral clarity is important… this is evil versus good.”

    Bush’s tendency to dichotomize reality is not on the Internet list above, but it should be, as this tendency to polarize is symptomatic of the classic addictive thinking pattern. I describe this thinking distortion in Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective as either/or reasoning– “either you are with us or against us.” Oddly, Bush used those very words in his dealings with other nations. All-or-nothing thinking is a related mode of thinking commonly found in newly recovering alcoholics/addicts. Such a worldview traps people in a pattern of destructive behavior.

    Obsessive thought patterns are also pronounced in persons prone to addiction. There are organic reasons for this due to brain chemistry irregularities; messages in one part of the brain become stuck there. This leads to maddening repetition of thoughts. President Bush seems unduly focused on getting revenge on Saddam Hussein (“he tried to kill my Dad”) leading the country and the world into war, accordingly.

    Grandiosity enters the picture as well. What Bush is proposing to Congress is not the right to attack on one country but a total shift in military policy: America would now have the right to take military action before the adversary even has the capacity to attack. This is in violation, of course, of international law as well as national precedent. How to explain this grandiose request? Jane Bryant Quinn provides the most commonly offered explanation in a recent Newsweek editorial, “Iraq: It’s the Oil, Stupid.” Many other opponents of the Bush doctrine similarly seek a rational motive behind the obsession over first, the war on terror and now, Iraq. I believe the explanation goes deeper than oil, that Bush’s logic is being given too much credit; I believe his obsession is far more visceral.

    On this very day, a peace protestor in Portland held up the sign, “Drunk on Power.” This, I believe, is closer to the truth. The drive for power can be an unquenchable thirst, addictive in itself. Senator William Fulbright, in his popular bestseller of the 1960s, The Arrogance of Power, masterfully described the essence of power-hungry politics as the pursuit of power; this he conceived as an end in itself. “The causes and consequences of war may have more to do with pathology than with politics,” he wrote, “more to do with irrational pressures of pride and pain than with rational calculation of advantage and profit.”

    Another “dry drunk” trait is impatience. Bush is far from a patient man: “If we wait for threats to fully materialize,” he said in a speech he gave at West Point, “we will have waited too long.” Significantly, Bush only waited for the United Nations and for Congress to take up the matter of Iraq’s disarmament with extreme reluctance.

    Alan Bisbort argues that Bush possesses the characteristics of the “dry drunk” in terms of: his incoherence while speaking away from the script; his irritability with anyone (for example, Germany’s Schröder) who dares disagree with him; and his dangerous obsessing about only one thing (Iraq) to the exclusion of all other things.

    In short, George W. Bush seems to possess the traits characteristic of addictive persons who still have the thought patterns that accompany substance abuse. If we consult the latest scientific findings, we will discover that scientists can now observe changes that occur in the brain as a result of heavy alcohol and other drug abuse. Some of these changes may be permanent. Except in extreme cases, however, these cognitive impairments would not be obvious to most observers.

    To reach any conclusions we need of course to know Bush’s personal history relevant to drinking/drug use. To this end I consulted several biographies. Yes, there was much drunkenness, years of binge drinking starting in college, at least one conviction for DUI in 1976 in Maine, and one arrest before that for a drunken episode involving theft of a Christmas wreath. According to J.D. Hatfield’s book, Fortunate Son, Bush later explained:

    “[A]lcohol began to compete with my energies….I’d lose focus.” Although he once said he couldn’t remember a day he hadn’t had a drink, he added that he didn’t believe he was “clinically alcoholic.” Even his father, who had known for years that his son had a serious drinking problem, publicly proclaimed: “He was never an alcoholic. It’s just he knows he can’t hold his liquor.”

    Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he made the decision to abstain at age 40. About this time he became a “born again Christian,” going as usual from one extreme to the other. During an Oprah interview, Bush acknowledged that his wife had told him he needed to think about what he was doing. When asked in another interview about his reported drug use, he answered honestly, “I’m not going to talk about what I did 20 to 30 years ago.”

    That there might be a tendency toward addiction in Bush’s family is indicated in the recent arrests or criticism of his daughters for underage drinking and his niece for cocaine possession. Bush, of course, deserves credit for his realization that he can’t drink moderately, and his decision today to abstain. The fact that he doesn’t drink moderately, may be suggestive of an inability to handle alcohol. In any case, Bush has clearly gotten his life in order and is in good physical condition, careful to exercise and rest when he needs to do so. The fact that some residual effects from his earlier substance abuse, however slight, might cloud the U.S. President’s thinking and judgment is frightening, however, in the context of the current global crisis.

    One final consideration that might come into play in the foreign policy realm relates to Bush’s history relevant to his father. The Bush biography reveals the story of a boy named for his father, sent to the exclusive private school in the East where his father’s reputation as star athlete and later war hero were still remembered. The younger George’s achievements were dwarfed in the school’s memory of his father. Athletically he could not achieve his father’s laurels, being smaller and perhaps less strong. His drinking bouts and lack of intellectual gifts held him back as well. He was popular and well liked, however. His military record was mediocre as compared to his father’s as well. Bush entered the Texas National Guard. What he did there remains largely a mystery. There are reports of a lot of barhopping during this period. It would be only natural that Bush would want to prove himself today, that he would feel somewhat uncomfortable following, as before, in his father’s footsteps. I mention these things because when you follow his speeches, Bush seems bent on a personal crusade. One motive is to avenge his father. Another seems to be to prove himself to his father. In fact, Bush seems to be trying somehow to achieve what his father failed to do – – to finish the job of the Gulf War, to get the “evildoer” Saddam.

    To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call “the dry drunk.” His behavior is consistent with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. All the classic patterns of addictive thinking that are spelled out in my book are here:

    the tendency to go to extremes (leading America into a massive 100 billion dollar strike-first war);

    a “kill or be killed mentality;” the tunnel vision;
    “I” as opposed to “we” thinking;
    the black and white polarized thought processes (good versus evil, all or nothing thinking).
    His drive to finish his father’s battles is of no small significance, psychologically.
    If the public (and politicians) could only see what Fulbright noted as the pathology in the politics. One day, sadly, they will.

    Katherine van Wormer is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Northern Iowa Co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective (2002). She can be reached at: [email protected]

  180. 180.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 7:11 pm

    I noticed that I am turning the blackout period she refers to as 20 years, into 30 years.

    That might just be my recollection. Or it could be me being influenced by having lived with a morbid alcoholic and being slightly prejudiced about the condition.

    It’s been my experience that people who have lived with alcoholics have no trouble spotting the signs of that kind of personality in Bush. I’ll confess that it’s one of the reasons why I detest him.

  181. 181.

    Tim F.

    July 20, 2006 at 7:17 pm

    Damnit ppGaz, just link it next time. We don’t need a stupid copyright lawsuit on top of the new mouse wheels.

  182. 182.

    Tim F.

    July 20, 2006 at 7:19 pm

    volcanoes don’t put out a significant amount of CO2.

    Only true over the short term. On a human scale volcanoes are irrelevant, but over the scale of millions of years the only important terms in the carbon balance equation are volcanoes, silicate weathering and ocean floor subduction. So if Darrell lived to the ripe old age of six million he might notice it getting a bit warmer/colder depending on the mood of the Pacific rim.

  183. 183.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 7:20 pm

    just link it next time

    Okay.

    But I don’t know what the “mouse wheels” thing means.

  184. 184.

    Tim F.

    July 20, 2006 at 7:25 pm

    It means that I want back the five minutes I will spend scrolling up and down past that annoying post. Unfortunately I cannot interfere with John’s posts or I would have gone all netiquette nazi on it already.

  185. 185.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    scrolling up and down past that annoying post.

    Ah. Got it.

  186. 186.

    Zifnab

    July 20, 2006 at 7:32 pm

    I second that.

  187. 187.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 7:37 pm

    You guys are weird. I just grab the slider button on the side there and zip …. top to bottom, even if there are 500 comments.

    You actually use the mouse wheel to do that?

  188. 188.

    demimondian

    July 20, 2006 at 7:47 pm

    Um, yes, ppG. The thumb is small and off to one side. The mouse wheel is right under my fingers, large, and possessed of a solid detent.

  189. 189.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 7:52 pm

    Okay, if you say so. I can scroll from first to last post in a 500 comment thread in about 0.5 seconds.

    And I’m old.

  190. 190.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 7:57 pm

    Okay, by slider button I refer to the one on the browser.

    Grab, slideroo, zippity zip.

    Top to bottom, less than a second.

    Using mouse wheel: Scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll …. ad infinitum. Why, oh why?

    Oh, the humanity.

  191. 191.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 8:00 pm

    Agreed–the slider is great for getting places quickly. The mouse wheel is ok for scrolling down half a page. The page up/page down keys are pretty good for everything in between.

  192. 192.

    Nutcutter

    July 20, 2006 at 8:04 pm

    The only thing that really irritates me (besides Darrell) is having a post all doctored up with the blockquotes and the strikes and the bolds, and along comes a cat and it walks on the keyboard and screws the whole thing, and I have to start over.

    This happens to me more often than you’d think. None of these cats seems to think that whatever I’m doing is anywhere near as important as its desire to get my attention or to piss me off.

  193. 193.

    demimondian

    July 20, 2006 at 8:05 pm

    Well, if you’re using IE, Ctrl-Home and Ctrl-End are your friends. If you’re using Firefox…well, there are worse mistakes.

  194. 194.

    FoodForThought

    July 20, 2006 at 8:25 pm

    What’s your alternative hypothesis? Given a temperature increase, what would cause greenhouse gas concentrations to increase? On the other hand, given that we know that greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, why, and how much of them that we put into the atmosphere, couldn’t we measure what effect temperature is having on them, if any? No, there may be a problem there, but I don’t think you managed to identify it yet.

    One of the scenarios I find interesting is the perodic “venting” of the subsurface methane stores (think of the Carolina coast). There are a number of factors that can lead to this. As to measuring cause and effect, this is currently being studied with earnest. The problem is the short term variability in climate that puts a huge amount of experimental noise into the studies. The only sure way to resolve this given current methodology would be “time”

  195. 195.

    jg

    July 20, 2006 at 8:51 pm

    demimondian Says:

    ….If you’re using Firefox…well, there are worse mistakes.

    You would say that. lol

  196. 196.

    demimondian

    July 20, 2006 at 8:58 pm

    demimondian Says:

    ….If you’re using Firefox…well, there are worse mistakes.

    You would say that. lol

    Of course I would. My Microsoft rep told me so, and I believe everything he says.

  197. 197.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 10:22 pm

    Oh snap, that was some *Daily Show* right there:

    the WAR on TERRORble diseases… we’ll fight them in vitro, so we don’t have to fight them here…

  198. 198.

    DougJ

    July 20, 2006 at 10:42 pm

    I thought volcanos and fires put out a significant amount of CO2.

    Is it time for GWOV?

    Good Lord, that is dumb even by Darrell standards.

    Darrell, you are a fucking moron. You really ought to get in touch with the people running the Neanderthal genome project. I’m never reading one of your comments again.

    I don’t think Darrell should be banned, but I think that John and Tim should charge $10 a year for a “Darrell-free” subscription to Balloon Juice.

  199. 199.

    Ryan S.

    July 20, 2006 at 10:43 pm

    Well, if you’re using IE, Ctrl-Home and Ctrl-End are your friends. If you’re using Firefox…well, there are worse mistakes.

    I dont get it I use both and they both to the same thing for Ctrl-home/end.

  200. 200.

    demimondian

    July 20, 2006 at 11:10 pm

    Ryan — I use them both, too. 1.4.0.x has proven somewhat touchy with regard to navigation in B-Juice, but I haven’t been able to pin it down. Once I do, I’ll file a bug.

  201. 201.

    Pb

    July 20, 2006 at 11:52 pm

    I use Konqueror a lot, and Ctrl-Home does something completely different (it browses to your home directory). Just using Home / End without Ctrl works fine, though.

  202. 202.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 7:07 am

    Only true over the short term. On a human scale volcanoes are irrelevant, but over the scale of millions of years the only important terms in the carbon balance equation are volcanoes, silicate weathering and ocean floor subduction. So if Darrell lived to the ripe old age of six million he might notice it getting a bit warmer/colder depending on the mood of the Pacific rim.

    that’s true…i was speaking in terms of human involvement, since volcanoes put out a paltry amount of CO2 compared to what we do. a drop in the bucket, as it were.

  203. 203.

    DougJ

    July 21, 2006 at 7:15 am

    While you wankers were arguing about broswers in a thread that was supposed to be about stem cell research, a local blogger staged a one man protest and got three stations to pick it up. Check this out.

  204. 204.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 7:19 am

    One of the scenarios I find interesting is the perodic “venting” of the subsurface methane stores (think of the Carolina coast). There are a number of factors that can lead to this. As to measuring cause and effect, this is currently being studied with earnest. The problem is the short term variability in climate that puts a huge amount of experimental noise into the studies. The only sure way to resolve this given current methodology would be “time”

    the main factor for this is when a certain temperature is reached at the sea floor. the problem is, that means that some other mechanism has to be responsible for raising the temperature, in the same way that a light switch can’t turn itself on.

    the same is true of methane releases from peat bogs and permafrost. very large amounts of methane are locked up in those and start to get released when the permafrost melts. however, what causes the permafrost to start to melt?

    besides, we know from measuring ice core samples that there is a tight correlation between CO2 concentrations and world temperatures. we know, by basic physics and chemistry, that higher CO2 concentrations will trap more heat in the earth’s atmosphere, therefore higher CO2 leads to higher temperatures.

    we know of no mechanism which brings CO2 concentrations above the previous paleohistorical limits, and thus we are reasonably certain that it’s our fault since we know that we’ve been dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (far more than any other natural source like volcanoes). we also know that we’re supposed to be at the plateau of an interglacial, and so our temperature and CO2 concentrations are supposed to be level, not shooting up.

    methane sources scare me, since the permafrost is starting to melt from global warming. this only accelerates warming as methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (tho it is less stable).

  205. 205.

    FoodForThought

    July 21, 2006 at 8:37 am

    well, rising temperatures have happened numerous times in the fossil history, as the ice cores show. however, the CO2 concentration has never gone over a certain point, and we started rocketing past that point right about when we started dumping tons of CO2 into the air. it’s just common sense, for one.

    Never is the wrong word if you consider the period 60 million years ago (and back). Todays concentration pales compared to the 1000ppm levels back then and is basically zero compared to the 7000 ppm levels 550 million years ago. Yes we seem to be rocketing up past what appears to be a local inflection point (when levels begin to drop), but historically we have a really long way to go.

  206. 206.

    Steve

    July 21, 2006 at 9:10 am

    Never is the wrong word if you consider the period 60 million years ago (and back). Todays concentration pales compared to the 1000ppm levels back then and is basically zero compared to the 7000 ppm levels 550 million years ago. Yes we seem to be rocketing up past what appears to be a local inflection point (when levels begin to drop), but historically we have a really long way to go.

    Well, that’s comforting.

    550 million years ago North America was drifting away from South America.

    The main groups of animals had appeared: worms, molluscs and arthropods.

    I suppose “never” is technically the wrong word, yes, if you think there’s some relevance to the eras which predate human existence by millions of years. But pointing out that the earth did just fine back when the highest life forms were worms and mollusks doesn’t seem to have much actual relevance. It’s a strictly pedantic point, unless you’re a mollusk.

    I’m pretty sure the planet will be ok no matter what happens, but my selfish concern is more for our actual species.

  207. 207.

    FoodForThought

    July 21, 2006 at 9:12 am

    we know of no mechanism which brings CO2 concentrations above the previous paleohistorical limits, and thus we are reasonably certain that it’s our fault since we know that we’ve been dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (far more than any other natural source like volcanoes). we also know that we’re supposed to be at the plateau of an interglacial, and so our temperature and CO2 concentrations are supposed to be level, not shooting up.

    Again I agree with your first statement. The industrial era CO2 levels track directly with fossile fuel consumption. We have personally added significantly to the atmospheric levels in the past 100+ years. The question is what causes the large historic swings in the first place? The Vostok data shows that the last large inflection began about 30K years ago. Previous inflections occur with a curious frequency, some of which correlate with physical events such as solar activity and earth orbital orientations. These however are currently considered only moderatly influential as to the larger CO2 swings.
    We know that as humans we are greatly increasing concentrations during the past few hundred years. Even greater changes have occured over the past 400k years. The biggest of all have occured over the past eon. What is the trigger event for these larger swings? Some have posed that the ocean currents are bistable. When the switch occurs things change very fast. We should be “around” an interglacial plateau, but we have no way to know (and these plateaus extend for thousands of years). There are two basic possibilities if indeed we are ator near some historic plateau. If we (earth) has already peaked, us humans are mearly delaying a slow but steady drop in CO2 levels. If earth is still climbing, we are stoking the fire. I tend to believe the latter based on that we have not seen any real hint of a natural plateau, but how tight can humans wind up the spring?

  208. 208.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 9:12 am

    Never is the wrong word if you consider the period 60 million years ago (and back). Todays concentration pales compared to the 1000ppm levels back then and is basically zero compared to the 7000 ppm levels 550 million years ago. Yes we seem to be rocketing up past what appears to be a local inflection point (when levels begin to drop), but historically we have a really long way to go.

    so what you’re saying is, despite the fact that CO2 concentrations are much higher than they’ve ever been while man has existed, it isn’t nearly as bad as it was 60 million years ago, or 550 million years ago.

    well 550 million years ago the earth was a completely different place. i mean, a few billion years ago the earth was really, really hot cause it was molten. how do we know we’re not just naturally heading back towards that state? hey, back then the earth was thousands of degrees, so what do we have to complain about? i mean, come on.

    when you start going that far back you start dropping out very important factors that normally regulate CO2 concentrations. factors that we have here, now.

    the long-term warming and cooling trends from 60 million years back were mostly influenced by plate tectonics, which is a very, very slow process (see Wilson cycles). you’re talking about cooling or warming over the course of millions of years, not centuries as we’re talking about today. paleoclimate journals have proposed that the eocene spike in temperatures was tectonic in origin and started CO2 outgassing in response. however, this occured very slowly (tectonics always do). these days, CO2 concentrations have gone up something like 20% in the past few centuries, which means it can’t be explained by the same mechanism that rose temperatures in the eocene. unless you’ve seen any mountain ranges pop up in the last century due to two plates colliding.

    we talk about the last X glacial periods because based on the fossil evidence we have, we can reasonably assume that the earth was otherwise similar. long-term trends like tectonics can be reasonably ignored.

  209. 209.

    FoodForThought

    July 21, 2006 at 9:21 am

    I suppose “never” is technically the wrong word, yes, if you think there’s some relevance to the eras which predate human existence by millions of years. But pointing out that the earth did just fine back when the highest life forms were worms and mollusks doesn’t seem to have much actual relevance. It’s a strictly pedantic point, unless you’re a mollusk.

    I’m pretty sure the planet will be ok no matter what happens, but my selfish concern is more for our actual species

    .\

    Well you can’t forget them dinosaurs! (of course we think we know what did them in…)

    300 million years ago during the Carboniferous era was apparently quite pleasant, though I’d hate to deal with the insects. The earth could care less about us, I’m sure it would however welcome a nice solar “hiccup” that could remove that pesky itch that has been bugging it for the past 10K years.

  210. 210.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 9:24 am

    btw, the spike in temps i’m talking about isn’t the PETM, which is believed to have been caused by excessive volcanism or rapid release of an assload of methane from the oceans, neither of which has been observed in current times.

  211. 211.

    FoodForThought

    July 21, 2006 at 9:31 am

    …these days, CO2 concentrations have gone up something like 20% in the past few centuries, which means it can’t be explained by the same mechanism that rose temperatures in the eocene. unless you’ve seen any mountain ranges pop up in the last century due to two plates colliding.

    But what explains the spikes that happened 130k, 250k, and 330k years ago? Same rapid rate of increase, basically the same magnitude of change….
    Keep in mind this is all based on the Vostok data and it is inevitible that someone will find contradictory evidence from another source (seabed drilling perhaps?). The key is that all this evidence needs to be considered, but any conclusions as to how historical conditions really were much beyond 1000 years or so is “iffy” at best (but it’s all we have to work with).

  212. 212.

    Tim F.

    July 21, 2006 at 9:40 am

    300 million years ago during the Carboniferous era was apparently quite pleasant, though I’d hate to deal with the insects. The earth could care less about us, I’m sure it would however welcome a nice solar “hiccup” that could remove that pesky itch that has been bugging it for the past 10K years.

    Would you attend a civics lecture taught be Abbie Hoffman? This guy isn’t serious.

  213. 213.

    Tim F.

    July 21, 2006 at 9:41 am

    …taught by…

  214. 214.

    FoodForThought

    July 21, 2006 at 9:41 am

    btw, the spike in temps i’m talking about isn’t the PETM, which is believed to have been caused by excessive volcanism or rapid release of an assload of methane from the oceans, neither of which has been observed in current times

    I think the current trend is to place the PETM on methane and given that its currently rather bubbly off our shores your last statement might need revision in a few(?) years…

  215. 215.

    DougJ

    July 21, 2006 at 10:01 am

    300 million years ago

    The earth is 6000 years old, asshole.

  216. 216.

    demimondian

    July 21, 2006 at 10:47 am

    FoodForThought…300 million years ago, the Himalyas didn’t exist. Their formation led to a significant shift in the air circulation patterns, and to the modern terrestrial climate, with its significantly lower average temperatures.

    Pretending that climatic conditions back then have any bearing on whether or not the current pattern of climate change is antropogenic is a grand…oh, hey, look! A JACKALOPE!

  217. 217.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 10:47 am

    I think the current trend is to place the PETM on methane and given that its currently rather bubbly off our shores your last statement might need revision in a few(?) years…

    uh, methane is not ‘rather bubbly off our shores’ right now. i don’t know where the hell you’re getting that from.

    the amount of methane that came out during the PETM would have been very quick and in an astronomical amount. plus, it would have been triggered by an already warming trend, which is currently blamed on excessive volcanism or some major outgassing, again neither of which we’ve seen in the past hundred years. we’ve seen evidence of neither in the recent past.

    i know you want to make it out like this sort of CO2 concentration is somehow par for the course in the earth’s history, but it is not a common occurance and there are no natural sources of CO2 to blame this on that we’ve observed. if you have to go back 60 million years to make the point, you’ve lost it.

  218. 218.

    FoodForThought

    July 21, 2006 at 11:29 am

    uh, methane is not ‘rather bubbly off our shores’ right now. i don’t know where the hell you’re getting that from.

    It has been well known that the Blake Ridge methane hydrate reservoir of the Carolina coast has been seeping (bubbling) for many years now. Denial before even doing a cursory search shows a closed mind.

    i know you want to make it out like this sort of CO2 concentration is somehow par for the course in the earth’s history, but it is not a common occurance and there are no natural sources of CO2 to blame this on that we’ve observed. if you have to go back 60 million years to make the point, you’ve lost it.

    All I’m saying is that CO2 concentrations have varied greatly throughout earths history, and in amounts much like today in just the past 400k years. Yes it is common when looked at in the context of this 400k year window, yes it must be assumed that the increase from the previous inflection to 200 years ago is “natural”. Certainly the bulk of change over the past 200 years is to be blamed on us. You can’t honestly be saying that all the vast changes previous to our mass burning of fossile fuels either never happened or were not part of “natural” cycles?

  219. 219.

    demimondian

    July 21, 2006 at 11:51 am

    FFT — the 60 million year figure is not arbitrary. That’s the start of the modern climatic period; anything before the rise of the Himalyas is not relevant.

  220. 220.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 12:01 pm

    It has been well known that the Blake Ridge methane hydrate reservoir of the Carolina coast has been seeping (bubbling) for many years now. Denial before even doing a cursory search shows a closed mind.

    i saw that when i googled. i also saw that the amount of methane is paltry compared to the rise in CO2 we’re seeing, and as i said before the PETM warming was caused by an assload of methane. inflating the influence of small things shows a closed mind as well.

    All I’m saying is that CO2 concentrations have varied greatly throughout earths history,

    which really means nothing.

    and in amounts much like today in just the past 400k years.

    actually, it’s much higher today than its ever been in the past 400k years.

    You can’t honestly be saying that all the vast changes previous to our mass burning of fossile fuels either never happened or were not part of “natural” cycles?

    if that’s how you’re interpreting my posts, you’ve obviously missed quite a bit.

    what i’m saying is that there is no evidence that the CO2 concentration we’re seeing today, over what is expected in a typical interglacial period, is caused by any natural phenomenon or natural cycle. just because CO2 concentrations were higher 60 million years ago means nothing in this context.

  221. 221.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 12:23 pm

    BTW, the highest the CO2 concetration ever got in the past 400k years is around 300ppm.

    right now, its at about 370ppm. this is almost 100ppm higher than the pre-industrial level of 280ppm. it’s also about 25% higher than it’s ever been in the past 400k years, so the amounts back then are not “much like today”.

  222. 222.

    FoodForThought

    July 21, 2006 at 1:03 pm

    i saw that when i googled. i also saw that the amount of methane is paltry compared to the rise in CO2 we’re seeing, and as i said before the PETM warming was caused by an assload of methane. inflating the influence of small things shows a closed mind as well.

    So you fail to see any connection with the onset of methane release from the Blake Ridge to possible wholesale release in the near future?

    which really means nothing.

    Ah yes, ignore that which contradicts or is otherwise inconvienient.

    what i’m saying is that there is no evidence that the CO2 concentration we’re seeing today, over what is expected in a typical interglacial period, is caused by any natural phenomenon or natural cycle. just because CO2 concentrations were higher 60 million years ago means nothing in this context.

    Yet you still ignore the previous 400k year data, why?
    Ignoring any natural contributions over the pre-industrial level of 280ppm leaves 90ppm as “human caused” what explains the change from approximately 180ppm circa 12K BP to the 280 ppm level? You seem to avoid this. Some seemingly natural event triggered the inflection from CO2 decrease to CO2 increase. We humans obviously have added to the total but have we greatly affected the rate of change over what was already happening pre-industry? (this is an actual question, I feel the historic data is a bit to coarse to accurately deduce rate information).
    Also consider that given error ranges in historic CO2 level sampling methods, 25% variability is well within the somewhat ambiguous term “much like today”.

  223. 223.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 1:26 pm

    So you fail to see any connection with the onset of methane release from the Blake Ridge to possible wholesale release in the near future?

    oh, it’ll release in the future. due to rising temperatures from higher concentrations of CO2. due to human interaction.

    Ah yes, ignore that which contradicts or is otherwise inconvienient.

    sorry, but ‘butbutbut it was hot 60 million years ago’ is not contradictory at all when we’re talking about climate change in recent geological history. unless you can show me a natural source of CO2 which can account for the 25%increase in CO2 concentrations in the past couple of hundred years (which so far you haven’t), you’re argument boils down to anedotal evidence that’s 60 million years old.

    Yet you still ignore the previous 400k year data, why?

    actually, i provided the 400k year data. and i’m not the one misinformed about said data, stating that the amounts of CO2 during that time were around the same as they are now. they’re not. they’re 25% higher now than they’ve ever been in the last 400k years.

    Ignoring any natural contributions over the pre-industrial level of 280ppm leaves 90ppm as “human caused” what explains the change from approximately 180ppm circa 12K BP to the 280 ppm level?

    natural sources, of course. natural sources which cause the concentration of CO2 to rise over the course of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years.

    in recent history, concentrations have risen 90ppm in a few hundred years.

    Some seemingly natural event triggered the inflection from CO2 decrease to CO2 increase.

    again, very, very slowly. i’ll ask again, what natural phenomenon can you point to that is currently occuring can account for a 90ppm rise in CO2 concentrations in a few hundred years?

    but have we greatly affected the rate of change over what was already happening pre-industry? (this is an actual question, I feel the historic data is a bit to coarse to accurately deduce rate information).

    of course. the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere has ramed up considerably since pre-history.

    Also consider that given error ranges in historic CO2 level sampling methods, 25% variability is well within the somewhat ambiguous term “much like today”.

    i don’t think that ice core sampling techniques are that inaccurate. ‘much like today’ was definitely mistaken.

  224. 224.

    Pb

    July 21, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    given error ranges in historic CO2 level sampling methods, 25% variability is well within the somewhat ambiguous term “much like today”.

    Are you talking about tens of millions of years ago here, or just hundreds of thousands of years? The measurements for the latter, at least, seem to be fairly precise.

  225. 225.

    FoodForThought

    July 21, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    unless you can show me a natural source of CO2 which can account for the 25%increase in CO2 concentrations in the past couple of hundred years (which so far you haven’t), you’re argument boils down to anedotal evidence that’s 60 million years old.

    Reread my posts. I’ve attributed the previous 200 year CO2 increases to humans _many_ times.

    actually, i provided the 400k year data. and i’m not the one misinformed about said data, stating that the amounts of CO2 during that time were around the same as they are now. they’re not. they’re 25% higher now than they’ve ever been in the last 400k years.

    Ahem…Reread my posts and my link to the Vostok data….

    natural sources, of course. natural sources which cause the concentration of CO2 to rise over the course of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years.

    An exercize: over how many “hundreds of thousands of years” has it taken the CO2 levels to change 90ppm in pre-1800 interglacial episodes (hint: you can use units of hundreds of years)

    i don’t think that ice core sampling techniques are that inaccurate. ‘much like today’ was definitely mistaken

    “i don’t think” means actual analysis to you? DAGS, read some papers, learn statistics.

    http://www.radiocarbon.org/Subscribers/Fulltext/v37n2_Wilson_637.html
    http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~meteo/MUDELSEE/publ/pdf/lag.pdf

  226. 226.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    Ahem…Reread my posts and my link to the Vostok data….

    ahem, i already posted the vostok data myself.

    An exercize: over how many “hundreds of thousands of years” has it taken the CO2 levels to change 90ppm in pre-1800 interglacial episodes (hint: you can use units of hundreds of years)

    mea culpa, “tens of thousands of years”. in this current warming trend, looking at the vostok data, it took almost 20,000 years for concentrations of CO2 to rise about 100ppm.

    20,000 years vs. 200 or so. that’s about 100 times faster.

    “i don’t think” means actual analysis to you? DAGS, read some papers, learn statistics.

    from your first link:

    The calibration of the measuring gauges was checked by running a 349 ppmv air standard supplied by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This value was in the range of the CO2 / air ratios recovered from the Holocene section of the GISP-2 ice core. The accuracy of a measurement of the CO2 / air ratio on the sublimation apparatus was ± 3 ppmv

    plus/minus 3ppmv sounds pretty accurate to me. that is unless they redefined “3” to be equal to 25% of 300.

    before talking down to others about statistics, maybe you should learn basic arithmetic.

    see also this epa doc:

    http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ROEIndicators/pdfs/GHGCONCENTRATIONS_FINAL.pdf

    quoting:

    Ice- core measurements are not taken in real time, which introduces some error into the date of the sample. Where snow accumulation is high, as in the air enclosed in the three ice cores fromLaw Dome, Antarctica, diffusion of the air is very limited, and allows the samples unparalleled age resolution. Etheridge et al. (1996) reported the uncertainty of the Law Dome ice core CH4concentrations to be about 10 ppb, while the precision of analysis of the Law Dome ice core air samples for CO2 was 0.2 ppm (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html). For the Vostok ice cores, Barnola et al. (1991) reported that the age difference between air and ice maybe 6000 years during the coldest periods instead of 4000 years, as previously assumed – small relative to the ages ranging into the hundreds of thousands of years. Dating accuracy for the ice cores ranged up to + 20 years (often less), depending on the method used and the time period of the sample. For CH4 from the Greenland ice sheets, the difference in air content and the ice age ranges from about 8 years for ice at small depths up to 200 years for deep ice. Comparisons across ice cores generally show good agreement, suggesting that the measurement errors are insignificant. (See, for example, http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm) More information on the accuracy of measurements of ice samples and other measurement methods can be found at: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html#atmospheric

    BTW, measurement of current CO2 is accurate to plus/minus 0.1 ppm.

    again, “much like today” was definitely mistaken, or you’re deliberately trying to mislead. ice core CO2 measurements are quite accurate.

  227. 227.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    actually, i take back that apology: “thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years” was entirely accurate. natural sources of warming can be spread out over hundreds of thousands of years, such as the aforementioned tectonic activity.

  228. 228.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 2:22 pm

    But what explains the spikes that happened 130k, 250k, and 330k years ago? Same rapid rate of increase, basically the same magnitude of change….

    the spikes in the vostok data are not anywhere near that kind of rate. same magnitude of change, in centuries vs 5-10 thousand years.

    note also that the historical trend shows a consistent plateau at around 280ppm. the natural effect slows down and stops; this has happened every time in the last 420k years. the natural rate of change at the concentration level typical of an interglacial is effectively zero, yet we’re experiencing a rise that’s orders of magnitude higher in rate than exists at all in the vostok data.

    basically, all the data points to the current rise in CO2 concentrations as an anomoly. there is no observed physical phenomenon which explains it, and there is nothing which shows such a rapid climb in any of the ice core data i’ve ever seen.

  229. 229.

    Tim F.

    July 21, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    FoodForThought…300 million years ago, the Himalyas didn’t exist. Their formation led to a significant shift in the air circulation patterns, and to the modern terrestrial climate, with its significantly lower average temperatures.

    Only half correct. The Himalayan orogen (mountain-building event) dropped global temperature because it drastically increased the global rate of silicate rock weathering. When silica weathers from rocks and enters the sea as ions, it begins a series of reactions whose net result is the drawdown of carbon from the global CO2 pool.

  230. 230.

    Tim F.

    July 21, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    Chopper and FFT, please embed your damn links.

  231. 231.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 2:28 pm

    sorry, i tried but they wouldn’t show up in the preview and i got spooked.

  232. 232.

    FoodForThought

    July 21, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    plus/minus 3ppmv sounds pretty accurate to me. that is unless they redefined “3” to be equal to 25% of 300.

    before talking down to others about statistics, maybe you should learn basic arithmetic.

    That is the calibration of the CO2 instrumentation, what is your point? This is like saying that the thermometer we used was calibrated to NIST standards of 3ppm

    BTW, measurement of current CO2 is accurate to plus/minus 0.1 ppm.

    precision and accuracy are not the same, learn some scientific methodology please.
    Did you miss this point:

    One of the surprising results of my research on the late Holocene part of the GISP core was that significantly more (ca. 25% more) CO2 was recovered than could be accounted for by the air that was recovered. Where did this “extra” CO2 come from?

    Note, I did not read this before making my statement that errors in measurement can throw the absolute peak CO2 value variance down into the statistical noise.

    mea culpa, “tens of thousands of years”. in this current warming trend, looking at the vostok data, it took almost 20,000 years for concentrations of CO2 to rise about 100ppm

    Or if you look at the data from about 17k years ago you see a change I describe occuring in 6500 years.

    You seem to be unable to accept that over the past 400k years there have been large CO2 swings much like the current trend started circa 20k years ago. You seem to have no grasp of scientific data collection methodology and statistical analysis and resort to squirming around the questions. What was it someone here said? “look! a Jacklalope!”

  233. 233.

    FoodForThought

    July 21, 2006 at 3:07 pm

    You know, as much fun as this has all been, my purpose in dropping in on this forum was to take to task the constant “one-upmanship” that these type of arguments always degrade into. It begins with a statement “X is true because ” This is followed by someone refuting X by another reference. Both sides typically fail to investigate the issue fully and as the case with science there never is 100% QED proof of anything. In my field we’ve been mildly miffed by the concept that fundamental physical constants actually may not be so constant. Long held beliefs and plenty of research that pushes the edge of plausibility is pushed over the edge by slight changes in these “constants”.
    These arguments always end with who ever shouts the loudest and longest claiming “victory” based not on facts, but on endurance. Of course that is part of the entertainment many seek here right?

  234. 234.

    Pb

    July 21, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    FoodForThought,

    After doing a little number crunching, I think chopper’s previous point still holds–as far as we know, CO2 concentrations are increasing roughly 100x faster in the recent present than they have in the past. However, I’m not entirely sure as to whether or not you dispute that point–for at least some of this debate, the two of you might just be talking past each other.

  235. 235.

    FoodForThought

    July 21, 2006 at 3:48 pm

    Pb (may I call you lead?)

    No, I am not disputing the CO2 increases over the past 200 years or that they are greatly, if not all the cause of human activity. It’s just that alarmist terms or reports that fail to consider the CO2 changes before ca. 1800 that I find scientifically irritating. True analytical scientific methods are so boring and (esp. in the case of paleoclimatology) frought with misinterpetation that the casual reader will wonder why the author babbles on without saying anything definitive and rush on to their own fallacy.

  236. 236.

    Pb

    July 21, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    FoodForThought,

    Pb (may I call you lead?)

    No–FFT, may I call you Fast Fourier Transform?

    No, I am not disputing the CO2 increases over the past 200 years or that they are greatly, if not all the cause of human activity.

    Well I’m glad we’ve gotten that out of the way, at least. :)

  237. 237.

    Andrew

    July 21, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    I’m certain that we’re confusing correlation with causation.

    Here’s my theory. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere creates polluting industry and automobiles.

  238. 238.

    Tim F.

    July 21, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    It’s just that alarmist terms or reports that fail to consider the CO2 changes before ca. 1800 that I find scientifically irritating.

    That more than the shouting game seems to be your point here. As I understand it the problem is that we cannot know anything for sure, so why get worked up until we do? Every imaginable way of reconstructing the past is obviously fraught with limitations. As a scientist I understand perfectly well your general point, which appears to drive most or all of what you have put forward here.

    So why would anybody disagree? It almost seems to suggest bad faith on the part of the alarmists to go on insisting that things are known when they are not. Correct me, of course, if that has never occurred to you.

    I will answer by way of an analogy. If I am 95 percent certain that you are about to drift over the lane divider on an empty four-lane road I probably won’t do anything. If you disagree I probably won’t even pursue the point. We’ll know soon enough. Now say that I am 95 percent certain that you are about to drive into a tree. Should I intervene? Probably. It’s likely that I would have less patience if you argued the point, particularly if I’m sitting in the passenger seat.

    One of the basic tools of ethics is to make two potentially analogous situations, one clearly acceptable and one clearly not, and to work out which analogizes better to the situation in question. Look again at the recent ExxonMobil-sponsored astroturf ads – they’re trying to push the analogy towards the former example where CO2 spiking or even warming has little more import than crossing the lane divider. Partisanized commenters like TCSDaily and fossil fuel-funded scientists take a different tack by puching the certainty level down. If I am only thirty percent certain that you’re about to drive into a tree, let’s say, and I have to break your wrist to turn the car then I might think harder about intervening.

    As for me, I stand with the vast majority of scientists with relevant expertise who think that the analogy is much closer to driving into a tree, and the certainty is much closer to ninety five percent than thirty.

  239. 239.

    demimondian

    July 21, 2006 at 8:52 pm

    Tim — I was under the impression that the final cause of the increase in silicate weathering was a shift in the atmospheric circulation near the juncture point of the proto-Indian subcontinent and protero-Asia. I didn’t think that the orogen itself actually exposed all that much more weatherable rock.

    I’m perfectly willing to be wrong, though. Can you point me at a citation?

  240. 240.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 8:53 pm

    Did you miss this point:

    One of the surprising results of my research on the late Holocene part of the GISP core was that significantly more (ca. 25% more) CO2 was recovered than could be accounted for by the air that was recovered. Where did this “extra” CO2 come from?

    first off, that isn’t any evidence of uncertainty in measurements in the vostok data. unless you think one holocene study’s discrepency somehow throws all vostok CO2 ice core measurements off, which is just plain stupid. further, the author states that the difficulties he saw in CO2 meausurements were particular to his studies of holocene CO2 measurements.

    ultimately, his conclusion:

    The use of AMS to determine the 14C-specific activity of the very small amounts of CO2 that can be recovered by subliming polar ice cores, together with δ13C, have shown that the entrapment of CO2 and other gases in polar ice cores is more complex than has been assumed. In particular, the ice matrix that entraps the bubbles of atmospheric air can contain important quantities of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases”. This is an important phenomenon, and must be taken into consideration when using polar ice cores to ascertain the concentration of past atmospheric “greenhouse” gases.

    is open ended and offers no support whatsoever to your assertion that the vostok CO2 ice core samples suffer from up to 25% uncertainty in measurement. note also the link i offered mentioning accuracy of measurement of ice core CO2 samples as low as 0.2 ppm.

    see also, here, as well as this article, which states regarding the vostok data “the overall accuracy for CH4 and CO2 measurements are +-20ppbv and 2-3 ppmv respectively”. plus or minus 2-3 ppmv. not 75ppmv. 2-3.

    in short, you’re full of it.

    Or if you look at the data from about 17k years ago you s0ee a change I describe occuring in 6500 years.

    which fits very nicely into my statement of “5-10 thousand years”. yet that is still orders of magnitude slower than the current warming trend.

    note also from your own link:

    Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr

    “unprecedented”. i understand that the scientists behind this study would not use that term if they believed that it wasn’t “unprecedented”, i.e. if they thought that the measurements were within scientific uncertainty. you’re linking to studies and then arguing against them. and showing an abrupt lack of understanding of the basics of scientific analysis.

    You seem to be unable to accept that over the past 400k years there have been large CO2 swings much like the current trend started circa 20k years ago.

    yet again you are misreading, or deliberately misreading my posts. i understand completely that there have been large CO2 swings over the last 400k years. what i’ve said several times, and you’ve dodged completely, is that the current trend is of a much, much higher rate than has been observed in said history. 100ppm in say, 6500 years pales in comparison to 70-90 ppm in a few centuries. yet you consistantly ignore this fact.

    You seem to have no grasp of scientific data collection methodology and statistical analysis and resort to squirming around the questions. What was it someone here said? “look! a Jacklalope!”

    let me note that my point is not only supported by the data you and i have both posted, but you’ve made every attempt to confuse and avoid the point. you’ve asserted that the level of CO2 today is almost the same as it was in the past 400k years, and when it was pointed out that it wasn’t, hid behind scientific uncertainty despite the study you linked to calling the ifference “unprecedented” as well as the more important point that your assumption of the uncertainty of the vostok analysis is just plain wrong. hell, i take that back. it’s not even wrong i won’t give it the benefit of calling it ‘wrong’.

    yet you lecture the rest of us about science. it would be funny if you weren’t being serious.

  241. 241.

    chopper

    July 21, 2006 at 9:00 pm

    as far as analogies go, here’s the one i think of.

    let’s say i have 3 boys, and two of them are grown. they’re both 5’8, and men in my family are all of average height, have been for many generations.

    my 3rd son, i just found out, has been secretly taking growth hormones. i found this out because he’s grown 3 feet in the past 6 months naturally.

    now, i looked through the history books, and there’s no mention of anyone ever growing 3 feet in 6 fuckin’ months naturally. i figure, it’s gotta be the hormones, right? i mean, like i said, the dudes in my family are always average height. and there’s nothing else he’s done or taken which would cause that sort of crazy-ass growth.

    but then FFT comes in and says “you know, some dude 70 years ago grew to be 9 feet tall. named Robert Pershing Wadlow. he’s in the record books.” as if that has any bearing on the fact that my son, who should be average height, grew 3 fuckin’ feet in 6 months.

    well, people have been tall in the past. so the hell what?

  242. 242.

    Tim F.

    July 21, 2006 at 10:31 pm

    demimondian,

    No problem. Start with Raymo and Ruddiman (Nature 359: 117-122 [1992]) for the original proposal involving the Himalaya and silicates. Their model has come into question, though – for the controversy see Broecker and Sanyal (Global Biogeochom. Cycles 12: 403-408 [1998]) and Kerrick and Caldeira (Earth Planet Sci. Ltrs. 173: 195-203 [1999]). Another strong contender is the idea that vascular land plants accelerated silicate weathering (Moulton and Berner, Geology 26: 895-898 [1998]).

    There shouldn’t be any doubt that mountain building increases silicate weathering to some degree since the basic process of thrusting a geographic massif tens of thousands of feet into the air will automatically expose massive amounts of fresh stone to the atmosphere while pre-crumbling it to enhance the surface area. Fresh mountains are particularly crumbly and so should provide an extra jolt for the silica system. The question is the degree to which is contributes. The original theory predicted that the Himalayan orogeny would suck the entire global carbon budget out of the atmosphere, which obviously didn’t happen, so it at least needs tweaking somewhat.

  243. 243.

    tbrosz

    July 23, 2006 at 1:59 am

    If I can drag this thread back to the original subject, Michael Fumento points out that there is, in fact, a bit of hype on embryonic stem cell research. Most workable treatments now use stem cells from other sources. That’s not to say embryonic cells might not have possibilities, but Rove is right in saying that research in the other areas has shown more actual results.

    And let’s not forget the Korean fiasco when the subject of hype in stem cells comes up.

  244. 244.

    Tim F.

    July 23, 2006 at 10:52 am

    Most workable treatments now use stem cells from other sources. That’s not to say embryonic cells might not have possibilities, but Rove is right in saying that research in the other areas has shown more actual results.

    Maybe you have heard of the circular reasoning fallacy? Discoveries have come from other stem cell sources because it is prohibitively difficult to work on the pluripotent type.

    And let’s not forget the Korean fiasco when the subject of hype in stem cells comes up.

    Let’s recall that some rightwingers wanted to nuke Fallujah. We should conclude from that rightwingers are emotional children who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the policy apparatus, right? The same reasoning applies.

  245. 245.

    Jim S

    July 23, 2006 at 6:35 pm

    Ah, yes. The always reliable Michael Fumento. I’ve seen stuff from him before. One thing I noticed is that nowhere can any evidence that he’s ever actually studied science be found. There’s a lot of credentials to prove that he’s reliably pro-business and socially conservative. Not a bit of evidence that he knows what he’s speaking of when it comes to science. He’s a purely self declared expert on the subject who gets published because of his conservative political stands.

    As far as the issue of adult stem cells versus embryonic cells I suggest a bit of research would do wonders. Check out this from the NIH. Please note in the section about adult stem cells that the history of research on them goes back 40 years. That’s just a bit (Please note use of irony.) longer than embryonic stem cell research has gone on. Could that have something to do with the difference in where results from the two fields stand? Also note that adult stem cells are not pluripotent. They cannot differentiate into tissue types radically different than that of the part of the body they came from. In addition there have not been adult stem cells found in every tissue type. Discovering things we do not yet fully understand and new ways to do things is the point of research. To say that we shouldn’t do research because we don’t already have the answer is a lie in a class of its own.

  246. 246.

    tbrosz

    July 23, 2006 at 9:30 pm

    It’s an entirely artificial issue, designed for political impact, on both sides.

    There is no Federal prohibition on embryonic stem cell research (although I’d bet a lot of people believe there is) and there is Federal funding (about $38 million in the most recent fiscal year) of such research on approved lines of stem cell sources.

    There are millions of dollars either funded or under way in state and university programs, in the U.S. alone, dedicated to embryonic stem cell research ($3 billion over 10 years just in California). There are millions of dollars more being spent overseas.

    The thesis that somehow only opening this one small door of Federal funding will result in all these great new cures, and failure to do so will stifle all the research, doesn’t really stand up. More here. (apologies for Mini Steve Forbes on the link.)

    We’ll leave aside the debate technique of scientists promising more results and cures from this one aspect of stem cell research than any huckster selling Dr. Wonder’s All Purpose Elixer and Horse Medicine.

  247. 247.

    Jim S

    July 23, 2006 at 10:17 pm

    Sigh. There is not a ban currently enacted. There is a bill in both the House and Senate that would do just that, sponsored by Republicans. The problem with basic research done by the private sector is that it isn’t open, which is how ideas can inspire other ideas and thus help more research get done. The NIH and other government agencies are generally the largest sources of funding for the types of research that aren’t going to yield results near enough in the future to interest corporations. There are other sources of funding but the limitations that are imposed by the federal funding ban are more onerous than the Administration’s defenders want you to believe. In fact they are forced to segregate the government funded efforts from the privately funded ones so thoroughly that duplicate laboratories are having to be constructed and supplied. In fact a lot of the basic tracking and day to day work is directed by the scientist in charge but carried out by grad students. These grad students cannot even work on a government funded research effort with the old lines and help out with a private one using other stem cell lines at the same time. Tons of money and time wasted to meet Bush’s vacuous excuse for ethics.

    If some scientists are promising too much, what about the politicians who misrepresent the research of some scientists and then continue to do so after the researchers publicly call them on it? An ad by the opponents of a Missouri constitutional amendment to head off proposed stem cell research bans from the Republicans by saying that any research allowed by federal law will be allowed by Missouri law had several outright lies in it. Would you call them on it, tbrosz?

  248. 248.

    Nash

    July 24, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    since we all come from vaginas, so we all are vaginas.

    I really must protest. Some of us came directly from the uterus. More properly, we are all “uteri” (variants: in Ohio, “uterusses” or “wombusses”; in Indiana, “stomachs”).

    yours, etc.,
    The Caesarian Society

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. The Moderate Voice says:
    July 22, 2006 at 6:18 am

    Karl Rove And Facts

    They aren’t always quite on the same wavelength.

  2. Balloon Juice says:
    September 27, 2006 at 4:41 pm

    […] Let’s look at the fake ethical debate about stem cells. When you manufacture an ethical dilemma that simply does not exist and play fast and loose with the facts, solely to curry political favor from a certain political quarter, you are engaging in deception and dishonesty. Or, to borrow a term- LYING. […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Gin & Tonic on Why won’t What’s-Her-Name mention You-Know-Who? (Mar 31, 2023 @ 12:49pm)
  • Gin & Tonic on Why won’t What’s-Her-Name mention You-Know-Who? (Mar 31, 2023 @ 12:47pm)
  • smintheus on Why won’t What’s-Her-Name mention You-Know-Who? (Mar 31, 2023 @ 12:45pm)
  • PBK on Why won’t What’s-Her-Name mention You-Know-Who? (Mar 31, 2023 @ 12:43pm)
  • WaterGirl on Why won’t What’s-Her-Name mention You-Know-Who? (Mar 31, 2023 @ 12:40pm)

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Seattle Meetup coming up on April 4!

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!