Jack Grant runs the numbers:
Look at that last number carefully, the energy of the average hurricane is 1E15 Joules (ten times as much as the total energy released, including the radiation, heat, and light, along with the blast wave that flattened the city, of the Hiroshima bomb). A two degree Fahrenheit increase in water temperature could DOUBLE the energy of a weak hurricane even if only 0.1% of the additional energy available is absorbed by the tempest.
All of a sudden, that two degree increase ain’t looking so inconsequential any more, is it?
What else might you have missed in immediately saying something is inconsequential because on the face of it the change appeared to negligible?
Think about it. In other words, do the math.
Again, I am NOT saying that the recent spate of powerful hurricanes was caused by “global warming” or any other specific, attributable origin.
What I AM saying is that immediately dismissing things because at first glance it appears trivial is NOT wise.
Comments?
Techie
Ocean suface temperatures aren’t held at a year-to-year constant. Differences in the wind direction, current patterns, etc can generate ranges in Surface T over many years. This year, we happen to have a very warm, stable Gulf.
Now, changes do mean things, but not all heat energy is transformed into kinetic energy inside a storm. There is a function, I believe, that involves vorticity and shear differentials that capps the amount of energy that a storm can convert into wind energy. Also, warm water transfers it’s energy to the hurricane by evaporting and then condensing at altitude, releasing the latent heat. All of the water under a hurricane does not evaporate. So, his total is a bit of an overestimation.
But it is nice to see people “doing the math” instead of just spouting off like they are wont to do.
Rocky Smith
Hey! I’m first?
Many of us conservatives do believe in global warming. We just don’t totally agree on the causes and the solution. I’m still glad to live in Montana and not on the coast.
ppGaz
Obsession with liberal and godless science is in its last throes.
Global warming may be happening, but there is NO PROOF that it is being caused generally by human beings, or specifically, by the Bush administration. There was more warming under Clinton.
People of faith know that God works his wonders in mysterious ways. The world must suffer, before the next Coming.
We won. Things are heating up. Get over it.
Jason
I view those who automatically blame these hurricanes on global warming in the same dim light that I view those who view these hurricanes as punishment from God.
But I think we have to look at whether hurricane intensity is affected by global warming. Pretending global warming doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
Buckaroo
I’m another pro global-warming conservative (or, that is to say, pro *existence* of global warming). As Rocky says, there is still much question over the causes and solutions, although much less than the right generally suggests, if you look at climatological research as a whole. I have little question that when the GOP looks back at this period in our history, there will be much shame over it’s role in the weakening of science’s role in public policy. I can only hope that events like this year’s hurricane season (whether directly related or not) serve as something of a wakeup call.
Buckaroo
ppGAZ-
Whether or not humans have caused warming is really besides the point, and that kind of attitude is infuriating. Shouldn’t we be doing whatever we can to keep our cities above water? Will the knowledge that natural causes are the source of climate change keep the citizens of New Orleans (or New York, for that matter) dry?
ppGaz
Oh my God, I never thought that this DougJ thing would be so easy.
I hooked a fish on my VERY FIRST TRY.
Trent
Taken one step further, if we know that warming ocean temperatures increases the destructive power of hurricanes, shouldn’t we looking for ways to decrease the temperatures of the oceans/reverse the heating of the polar caps, regardless of the cause?
Ralf Goergens
Sounds plausible. It also means that hurricanes will get worse over time. While some of that certainly is man-made, there is a long term problem that predates industrialisation: Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun then it used to. During the 21st century Earth will get warmer by an additional 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) from that alone.
One possible solution: Increase the albedo of the Earth so that more energy is reflected back into space.
(By googling I just found out that Mark Kleiman posted about that a week ago).
Unfortunately albedo decreases the warmer the Earth gets, for less ice (a lot of glaciers are melting right now) means less albedo. So artificial means to increase albedo have to be pretty drastic. Putting something in the oceans that makes water more reflective, without damaging naval life seems like the best bet, for painting huge areas white would be too expensive.
Buckaroo
Doh! Well, I’m too small really- throw me back in.
ppGaz
Consider it done. Noone will know it happened.
(It would be fun to delete our follow-posts, and see who else we can reel in).
DougJ
Doesn’t sound like sound science to me. I hope Congress is investigating this purveyor of junk science.
Dave Ruddell
Kind of sad really, to see DougJ being out-DougJ-ed by somebody else. I liked ppgaz better back when he used the lowercase g…
Krista
Well done, you scoundrel! You’re grinning like an idiot right now, aren’t you?
DougJ
Ppgaz, I’ll explain why it is so easy to you later.
The hard part is people get wise to you after about a month or two.
Tim F
Heh. But you knew that.
Techie
Ralf, yes, melting of snow cover decreases global albedo.
However, this is the real kicker.
Increased water temperatures leads to accelerated evaporation. More moisture in the atmosphere means more cloud formation. Clouds have tremendous albedo, therefore the total global albedo rises.
But……….
Water Vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. The most dominate in the atmosphere BTW. So, now it’s a matter of trying to balance how much of the increase in albedo balances with the extra energy trapped by the water vapor.
It’s a tremendous problem, and one that is far from being solved.
Defense Guy
Tim F
I’m not sure why asking to see the raw data is a bad thing, unless of course the summary is not supported by the data, in which case it pretty much defines ‘junk science’ or even rises to outright lie.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
You mean like that 25 mil of fed funds going toward stem cell research? What exactly has the GOP done to weaken the role of science in public policy.
So let’s say Bush is anti-science, which he’s not and whatever that means anyway. So who’s stopping the private sector from picking up the slack?
Tim F
Speaking as a scientist who has read fairly extensively on the climate question, with a relevant Masters degree, and as an experienced environmental activist, it seems extremely unlikely to me that we will ever be able to bring climate change under control.
Our primary enemies are inertia and uncertainty. Inertia comes from the effort that it will take to turn things around once we recognize that there’s a problem. At the most practical level it would be painful and expensive to transform society to the point where both we and our great-grandchildren will enjoy our lives, but we don’t operate on the most practical level. We operate on a level where enormously powerful interests have a lot to lose in the short term if we ever decide to change, and those interests own one of the two American political parties. You could call them friction. Inertia is bad enough, but combine taht with friction worse than a lug nut on a backyard ’72 camaro and you have mission:impossible.
The other problem, uncertainty, comes in two flavors. Scientific uncertainty keeps us from knowing for sure what will happen, which in turn makes inertia stronger and makes it easier to apply friction. We still have plenty of that, but in my opinion it’s become a safe consensus that we’re in for a world of shit. You could call the second flavor social uncertainty. Social uncertainty happens when the scientists have all pretty much shown that something is going to happen, but it hasn’t happened yet. An extreme example would be somebody who refuses to evacuate a hurricane area because the sun’s still out. The same problem contributes to climate change intertia – is is boiling out today? Didn’t we have an early snow in Tulsa? Where’s you climate change now mister? Eh?!?
In my experience there are dozens of positive things we could do as individuals and as a society that have practically no tradeoff cost, but friction and the two types of uncertainty prevent any sense of urgency.
The last problem is the threshold effect. Climate change often happens……very……..gradually…….almost……….imperceptibly … then it crossessomeinvisiblethresholdandeverythinghappensallatonce.
Once you’ve crossed the threshold there’s no going back. Albedo, clathrates, sea circulation and land coverage changes feed back to accelerate the warming, then you end up with a Jurassic hothouse environment or else some other threshold gets crossed and we have glaciers.
The North Atlantic, for example, just crossed a threshold WRT ice cover. The Greenland ice sheets will melt, seawater will rise perceptibly and the freshwater lens around Greenland may shut down the deep-water thermohaline convection cycle. At this point all I can do is thank god I live in Pittsburgh, which is too far from the coasts to get flooded or hurricaned and just shy of the southern limit of glaciers during the last ice age.
Buckaroo
[quote]You mean like that 25 mil of fed funds going toward stem cell research? What exactly has the GOP done to weaken the role of science in public policy.[/quote]
Oh, I get it! You’re another DougJ! Cool
[quote]So let’s say Bush is anti-science, which he’s not and whatever that means anyway. So who’s stopping the private sector from picking up the slack?[/quote]
You got the part where I said *public policy*, right?
Kiganshee
Woah…. this is strange. Something which my chemical engineering background applies to. Although I appreciate the effort to put some back-of-the-envelope calculations in, he misses a key fact. Hurricanes do not get their energy from the warm ocean water. Hurricanes get their energy from the higher amount of water vapor above warm ocean water. The energy released as this extra water vapor condenses is what drives the upward wind. For this, i reference you to the wikipedia article on hurricanes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane.
“The primary energy source of a tropical cyclone is the release of the heat of condensation from water vapor condensing at high altitudes. Because of this, a tropical cyclone can be thought of as a giant vertical heat engine.”
A little bit of chemistry for those who may find this confusing: Say we have a container, half full of water, and half full of air. there will be some water vapor in the air, and as temperature is increased this amount of water vapor will increase. in the higher temperature case, there is more water vapor, and so if, like a hurricane, we get energy from condensing the water, more we will get more energy from the higher-temperature case.
So, for a 2 degree increase, instead of knowing how much more energy there is in the water, this guy needs to know how much more water vapor there is, and then multiply that by the heat of condensation of water.
Also, the hurricane is not able to use all of the energy it gets from the condensation — he also needs to know the efficiency of the hurricane, as well as the temperature of the upper-atmosphere air where the extra heat is dumped. For background on this, google “carnot cycle”. In a hurricane, Qh is the water condensation and Qc is the upper-atmosphere air.
I haven’t done any of the calculations myself… if anyone would like to try, the relevant data for water can be found at:
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Name=water&Units=SI&cTG=on&cTC=on&cTP=on
Sorry for the long and nerdy post, I just like to set the record straight. It’s good that people like jack run numbers like this, i like to do stuff like this myself, but sometimes it is more complex than it looks.
That said, we need to accept that global warming is happening. Its effect on hurricanes is debatable, but energy efficiency needs to happen, and it needs to happen soon. Hell, i’m saying this, and I work for shell oil.
Speaking of shell oil, i’m in the netherlands for training, and here it’s 6:15. Dinnertime, laters.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
What is this powerful industry? Oil? Right. Because if the GOP wasn’t forcing me to use gas, I’d rather walk 20 miles…in the snow…with holes in my shoes.
Got any other alternatives that work?
Are you telling me that only the American use of the Automobile is causing climate change. It has nothing to with the age of the earth, sun, various cosmic changes, normal fluctuations, etc? Mars is heating up too according to a report release this week. Let’s get the Martians to sign Kyoto, right?
Buckaroo
Doh, again! how do you do quotes?
Just checking. Sorry for taking up posts.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Feel free to offer up those specifics anytime now. I appreciate your sarcastic fisking of my post. Specifics…..
Ralf Goergens
Ralf, yes, melting of snow cover decreases global albedo.
However, this is the real kicker.
And of course, more evaporation means more rain and snow, including over the North Pole and Antartica.
That in turn means more ice, and ir can also offset the rising of sea levels from melting ice.
But I think that in the balance reflecting energy back into space is the best bet.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Is the 25 Mil a lie? No, it’s true. Again, specifics over sarcasm.
Shinobi
Giving money to science is not the same as using or understanding it.
Overall politicians just don’t care about science that doesn’t agree with what they have to say. But the whole POINT of science is that it is objective and based on methodology designed to give us truth instead of a basis for our pre formed opinions. True science should start with nothing and find truth. Now “science” starts with the conclusion that there was an intelligent designer and goes around cherry picking facts to support it. If you know the answer to a question before you ask it, then why bother? Both sides of the aisle do this.
On the global warming issue: I know that humans havent neccesarily caused the increases in global temperature. But, we also don’t know that they haven’t. There is convincing evidence on both sides. But by agreeing with one side or the other we take a risk. We can do nothing, because it isn’t our fault and then loose large portions of our population to famines floods and other disasters. Or if we go with “humans are causing it” we risk spending large amounts of money to fix the problem and having economic problems and then we could STILL lose large portions of the population to famine and floods. So it is cheaper to say we had nothing to do with it and hope it goes away.
Jack
To clarify a point that was raised by one of the earlier comments (Techie) where it was stated, “Now, changes do mean things, but not all heat energy is transformed into kinetic energy inside a storm. There is a function, I believe, that involves vorticity and shear differentials that capps the amount of energy that a storm can convert into wind energy. Also, warm water transfers it’s energy to the hurricane by evaporting and then condensing at altitude, releasing the latent heat. All of the water under a hurricane does not evaporate. So, his total is a bit of an overestimation.”
Earlier in my post I called it an “on the napkin” calculation, and I assumed only 0.1% of the additional energy was gained by the hurricane. In other words, it’s just an exercise to find out the magnitude of the numbers involved, and the assumption of only 0.1% of the additional energy being gained by the hurricane is not “all of the water under the hurricane” evaporating. To the contrary, it is a tiny fraction of the additional energy in the water. Assuming all of the top meter of water evaporated would give several orders of magnitude increase in the storm strength. Even if we assume that only 0.05% of the additional energy from the 2 degree temperature increase is gained by a hurricane, it still increases the energy in the hurricane by 50%.
With respect to some of the other comments: As I said, I am NOT attributing the recent increase in storm frequency and intensity to global warming or any other definite, assignable cause. I am trying to point out that things that seem small on the face of it can have large effects.
Energy gain by hurricanes over slightly warmer water seemed a good way to illustrate the point.
Ralf Goergens
Tim F
As I pointed out in my comment above, increased rain/snow fall could offset the melting of the ice, which would include that at Greenland.
But it could indeed happen that the sea levels rise anyway, diluting the salt in the oceans, which in turn could switch the Gulf Stream off (another way of saying ‘shut down deep-water thermohaline convection cycle’.
Europe could get a lot colder rather than warmer.
Ralf Goergens
Another point: The global climate is a system with multiple equilibria, so even if you decrease warming now, there is no reason to think that we can get back to the old equilibrium; we’d have to be extremely lucky for that.
jg
No, its not only americans and those other things are factors. Welcome to adult conversations.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
It’s amazing how much “science” has become such a popular buzzword in recent months. Hmmm, could it be that the secular left’s way of attacking religion has taken a new term? Yeah, let’s just equate religiosity with anti-science. If any of you clowns had any sense of history, which you do not, you would know that science and religion have been intertwined throughout the ages, not enemies. Religious centers have often provided the funding and the tools for scientists to operate. Isn’t Copernicus buried in a Cathedral in Europe?
Even if you argue that Bush has cut scientific funding, my question is so what? Not everything done in the name of Science is worthwhile (anyone up for a study of what beers Mexicans are likely to drink? your tax $$ paid for that Scientific whopper a few years ago!) so therefore tax money shouldn’t be lavished on someone holding up the Science banner.
It’ll be a wonderful day when Lefties actually come to grips with Economic Science, the one that keeps refuting Socialism/Marxism. But I wait…
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Thanks. Maybe one day you can join us.
Again, more sarcasm, no facts.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
so therefore tax money shouldn’t be lavished on someone holding up the Science banner.
ALWAYS should be before LAVISHED.
Trevor
As the author states, his post neither refutes nor supports the notion of larger/more hurricanes due to global warming. He’s only trying to show that even a two degree increase in temperature of that much water is a heck of a lot of energy. We could all quibble with any of the factors or assumptions used, but that’s far from the point. The only real issue with this post is that the author states that we can’t dismiss the notion because we haven’t spent the majority of our adult lives as climatologists. He fails to mention that there are many (and perhaps most, but I haven’t seen any polls yet,) climatologists that have dismissed this notion.
Climatologists Debunk “Global Warming’ Effect on Hurricanes
We didn’t he mention this?
Buckaroo
Oh, Boy- I’m glad you enjoyed my posts.
This is something that we can go back and forth on, and I’m quite sure that you’d never agree with me, even though we’ve probably voted the same way in most national elections. I do despair over your seemingly knee-jerk reaction to what I was trying to make a measured post.
But fine, here’s a single example worth mentioning:
Joe Barton’s blatant intimidation of Global Warming scientists.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/06232005_1570.htm
jg
Because he kept his mouth shut about what he believed. Galileo didn’t and was imprisoned.
Religion loves science when its producing evidence of what religion already says is true. Any conflicting evidence causes floggings.
Science doesn’t hate religion, a lot of scientists believe in God.
jg
Sarcasm? No facts? WTF? I answered your question. You listed facts I agreed with them. Sorry for pointing out your new gift of seeing the whole issue.
ppGaz
Mars is a Red State. Even you ought to know that.
Jon H
“Whether or not humans have caused warming is really besides the point, and that kind of attitude is infuriating”
Agreed.
If a person gets lung cancer, perhaps it wasn’t caused by smoking, but continuing to smoke certainly isn’t going to help.
If global warming *is* naturally occurring, it still doesn’t make sense to continue behaviors that exacerbate the problem.
It’s always possible that the natural warming alone would stop just before some nasty tipping point, but human activity could push the warming over that point.
Given that, it would seem best to try to minimize the human component that we actually have control over.
Shinobi
Oh.boy.Stupidity, you are aptly named
Have you never heard of Galileo? The church made him recant when his findings went against their beliefs. Did they just skip that in your history class? He wasn’t the only one you know.
While the church HAS funded science in the past, they only like it when it agrees with what they think. Which makes it NOT science.
Because the church is faith based and science is based on observation they are natural enemies. Science pushes for truth and church pushes for belief in abstracts, these two things are inherently not compatable. Science finds out new information and embraces it and the church clings to old teachings. There is nothing wrong with religion but it has no place in science.
Defense Guy
A couple of points to try to squeeze in here.
Isn’t the US actually making a better effort than the other parts of the industrialized world?
Is it fair to compare the attitudes of the Catholic Church at the time of Galileo with anyting occuring today?
Buckaroo
Sadly, I don’t think so anymore. If you look at issues like climate change, reproduction, and energy consumption, were not only behind Europe, but we’re beginning to fall behind countries like China and Russia.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Perhaps Oh.I.Am.Stupid could explain the pro-scientific nature of Creationism, a Bush favorite.
Jon H
Trevor writes: “He fails to mention that there are many (and perhaps most, but I haven’t seen any polls yet,) climatologists that have dismissed this notion.”
Um, no.
The issue of the number of hurricanes is different from the issue of *strength* of hurricanes. The increased number of hurricanes may (or may not) be due to a cycle. But global warming will increase the energy available to power the hurricanes that *do* arise. Not all of them, of course, because there’s always the element of chance with weather patterns, and sometimes the hurricane won’t follow a path that would maximally strengthen it.
If you put a pot of water on the stove and turn the burner on, you’ll see the water start moving more and more as it heats up. I’m not sure why anyone would think that adding energy to the earth’s system would behave differently.
Trevor
Read the article Jon H. It deals with both the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. But of course, it’s much easier to pretend to refute something when you haven’t even read it.
jg
Yes. Compare heliocentric ideas from Gakileo’s time with evolution now. Same shit different century.
‘anyting’? are you Jamaican? :)
jg
Who the hell is Gakileo? Maybe I’m Jamaican. Or at least partaking of their best crop. Gakileo?
ppGaz
It’s an Italian car-insurance company.
“I saved a lot of money by switching my car insurance to Gakileo.”
tBone
How about providing a link that actually works, then? I can’t wait to see what the totally objective CNS News has to say about global warming.
Defense Guy
I feel this is a ruse to get me drawn into another debate about the differences between evolution, which the church does not deny, and the source of life on earth. I’ll pass, but thanks for the offer.
No mon, me not be no jeemaaakon mon. Eye and eye jus to be smokin de spliffs to be shore do.
Krista
ppGaz – have you seen the new Geico commercial with Speed Racer? Delightful…
KC
I hate to say this, but it’s hard for me to believe that a) people still believe the earth is not heating up, b) that man isn’t a significant contributing factor to it, and c) that they think it’s no big deal. I have friends in science professionally, in physics and in geology, and if they discuss the climate (which they do for work related stuff here and there), they take for granted that global warming is happening. If you get into causes, the first thing they’ll say is man. I’m not joking either.
It almost comes down to the fact that people just don’t want to believe what most scientists believe, that global warming is probably going to effect our lives significantly and that it could effect them in the negative. Now not all scientists are 100% convinced that hurricanes will get stronger as a result of global warming, but there is a significant portion of them that are. Either way, there are plenty of reasons to think global warming is not going to be a positive influence on our lives.
Trevor
Climatologists Debunk ‘Global Warming’ Effect on Hurricanes
Or, try this one:
Storms Vary with Cycles
The NYT article spends more time on the frequency of hurricanes, but does touch on the issue of increased intensity. But if you want to pay to read the NYT summarize the same sources, be my guest.
Trevor
Sorry, I don’t know why it’s removing the ‘s from the link when I post it, but they show up in the preview:
Try cutting and pasting to the article directly
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200409\NAT20040915c.html
Trevor
Sheesh:
Page=\Nation\archive\200409\NAT20040915c.html
Trevor
Screw it, just google:
debunk global warming hurricane
It’s the #1 hit.
ppGaz
Definitely, it’s a hit. Around here, the Geico commercials are often more popular than the tv shows.
I am also very fond of the exercise-machine infomercial cum Geico commercial.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Yeah, I see all the money and laws that Bush and Congress have passed to further Creationism while quashing the mere mentio of science.
As for Galileo, Def. Guy said it best: you have to go back 500 years to find an example? And why is it always Christian Churches being blamed?
((Anyone care to tell how the Islamic religion is helping science today?))
Not one example of how Bush is against science. Just because you believe in Creationism, which I’m not even sure that he does, does not mean you are against science. And why do you assume that ONLY the religious bend “the facts” to fit their agenda while every Scientist is a cool, detached observer only interested in the truth?
Where does this come from? Honestly? Why this ridiculous bias against the religious, which I am not by the way. If you believe in God or a Higher Power, that automatically makes you a knuckle-dragging idiot who shrinks at the mere sight of a Bunsen Burner?
Again, I can’t tell how funny it is to hear the Left talk so proudly and vehemently in favor of science. This is the same group that whenever Socialism fails, and it always does, the response is, well, it just hasn’t been tried.
So if a Scientist comes out and says that fetus is defintely a human being, what then? I mean, he’s a Scientist after all, right?
jg
So you ask a question then accuse me of trying to goad you into an argument by ANSWERING the question. Rush has taught you well.
In both cases the church is against the teaching of the subject, the subject is blasphemy.
JG – 1
DG – 0
:)
jg
Tiny House is the best Geico commercial.
ppGaz
That’s at least the second time in the thread you’ve tried to gin up a connection between Socialism and science (actually, the subject is in the realm of the natural sciences).
Do you find that there is a some connection between an attitude toward Socialism, which is some grotesque strawman thing you are doing, and an attitude toward the natural sciences?
When it comes to things like hurricanes, are you a probabilist, or a possibilist?
Why?
Which approach is preferable, in this context?
Defense Guy
No. No it’s not. In fact, as I stated, the Catholic Church does not deny evolution. My point was simply that evolution is a different thing than the source of life on earth, a distinction I have made over and over on these pages to no avail. BTW – I side with Galileo on that one, as he has the benefit of being correct and all.
I don’t listen to Rush, although I have on one or 2 occasions. Relax on the accusation, um, accusation, as I clearly stated I feeeeeel. Which is, you know, a big step for me.
ppGaz
Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!
Nonsense! Look at all the new friends you’ve made, and the attention you’ve gotten!
Focus, man. Focus.
DougJ
All true and perfectly reasonable.
Are you concerned, DG, that Ratzinger is going to turn back the clock on the evolution debate? I read a pretty scary piece in the NYT by one of Ratz’s toadies that was anti-evolution.
Are you Catholic? How you feel about Ratzinger? I’m a lapsed Catholic, and I hate him, but, surprisingly, my devout friends hate him too.
Defense Guy
Yes ppGaz, but you still don’t love me, so really what’s it all worth?
Sigh.
jg
Nice distinction, I agree, but thats not what you asked nor was it what I was talking about.
Tim F
I could go on a time-consuming lit search to show that you are wrong, but I don’t see the point in arguing against the rhetorical equivalent of thumb-sucking. Is there any scientific basis for this claim?
Charlie (Colorado)
But it is nice to see people “doing the math” instead of just spouting off like they are wont to do.
Yes.
Other than that though, the argument has lots of problems; the biggest one is that hurricane number and intensity seem to be periodic, with a period of about 30 years. Currently, there’s no data to suggest we’re outside of normal variation.
Defense Guy
DougJ
I’m Lutheran, so you can infer my overall feeling on the big C church from that. I missed the anti-evolution piece, but will see if I can dig it up. As for Ratzinger, I am really not quite sure what to make of him yet. I tend to be pro men of faith, so long as they don’t feel their primary tool of expression is the hammer. I liked the last pope.
The Vatican can do what the Vatican is going to do, but most American Catholics do what they are going to do anyway. We ignore their position on, well pretty much everything, and I don’t see that changing. If we change our position on the legality of abortion it will be due to science, not faith. However, the opposite may be true on capital punishment, which I could live with.
I like Religion in the public sphere, but dislike anyone who thinks that mans imposition of morals should override the gift of free will. I think it is worth more to choose to be moral than to be forced to be that way. I think our society is fantastic in that it allows man to have faith in G-d and be in the public sector, but does not allow the faith to rule the public sector or the public sector to ruin the faith, as it always does when they are joined.
Tim F
I’m not so interested in the specific question of which hurricane was and wasn’t caused by global warming; the science just isn’t refined enough to work at that level. The only thing I’d recommend is look at Gulf of Mexico sea-surface temperature trends. If it trends warmer then the hurricanes will hit harder, since hurricanes draw their ‘power’ from warm surface water.
That has nothing to do with the frequency of hurricanes. Whatever controls the rate of tropical storm formation seems to be cyclical and practically impossible to understand with any certainty.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Sure, for Socialism to work, the State not a God or Jaysus or Allah needs to be the Highest Power. And like I said before, I think a lot of the “pro-science” political faction is not so much pro-science as they are simply anti-religious.
And when it comes to Hurricanes, I’m a Duck-and-Coverist!
jg
But some people want faith to rule the sector. They keep voting the fuckers into power too. Then they accuse you of trying to kill religion when you speak out but all we want is what you said above, what we’ve always had.
Tim F
Ralf,
I’m feeling generous. Imagine that snow falls on sea ice or land. What happens? Snow accumulates and reflects infrared back into space. Now imagine that snow falls on open water. What happens? It melts. The albedo doesn’t change.
The north pole consists of an unimaginably vast amount of ice over water. Except that now it’s mostly just water. Increasing the snowfall will just make it an unimaginably vast area of slightly fresher water.
Since Antarctica is already covered by ice increasing the snowfall won’t do much there either. Whether ice in Antarctica stays year-round has nothing to do with the snowfall and everything to do with the annual average temperature, which means that as the region warms up the area permanently covered by ice will get smaller and smaller. West Antarctica and East Antarctica have distinct ice sheets with different characteristics but we don’t need to get into that right now. Suffice to say that when people argue that, ‘the Antarctic galciers are growing,’ they’re talking about only one of the two and they’re doing an extremely selective reading of the literature.
Increasing rain will have no effect except to increase the number of days I have to wear my favorite rain hat.
Tim F
Look! A jackalope!
Defense Guy
jg
Some people want a lot of crap, like more free government cheese. It doesn’t mean they are going to get it. I also think you are overstating the case, but it is your opinion so you are surely entitled to it.
I happen to like Bush’s faith, but do not see him as trying to impose it on anyone. I also tend to like the faiths of many of our black politicians, who frequently speak at the pulpit, and who also don’t try to impose it on anyone. Those that do, from either side, don’t generally last long in this country.
I see us; generally as a very odd mix of strong libertarians and uber-faithful, often existing in the same person. Over the years both the terms Republican and Democrat have taken on nasty connotations that are not entirely deserved, IMO.
jg
Thats ridiculous. Nice way to be dismissive and justify it.
ppGaz
You “think” it. Does that mean you are asserting it? If so, facts please?
Ralf Goergens
Tim F,
what I was getting at is that the snow/rain falling on Greenland and the Poles might compensate for the ice that had melted off. Probably not completely, but it will slow the process, so that the ice will at least last somewhta longer, and the albedo will stay up for at least that short time.
tBone
Trevor – found the link. One quibble – there are only five climatologists listed in that article. That’s not “many” or “most” climatologists, unless there’s a lot fewer of them than I think.
Another team of researchers published a study in Nature that suggests that hurricane strength and duration has been on the rise, and that global warming may be the cause. (Link)
Rather than play Dueling Experts, though, maybe we can just agree that scientists haven’t come to a general consensus on this issue yet?
ppGaz
And faith is belief in the absence of evidence, and/or belief despite evidence to the contrary.
Now who wouldn’t want to be ruled by something like that?
tBone
Speak for yourself. When I was in school, we all wished our lunch program contained a lot less free government cheese.
Tim F
Ralf,
I answered you. There is no land at the North Pole. It’s ocean from northern Canada across to Russia. If snow falls on water it melts. If snow falls on a glacier and the glacier is melting, the albedo won’t change and the glacier will keep melting.
Ralf Goergens
Oh, alright, Tim.
SeesThroughIt
I find it a little sad that the above question was actually asked with (presumably) a straight face. And yet I shouldn’t be all that surprised, really.
Oh, and lest you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and chant, “I want facts, not sarcasm!” over and over again, here is a good place to start for how the GOP has weakened and corrupted the use of science in policy formation. I’ll even block quote the key sentence for you:
Get it? When science is at odds with GOP policy directives, the science is suppressed or altered to fit GOP goals. They don’t want sound science; they want unwavering support, even for things that can’t be supported.
ppGaz
Science triumphs over …. a guy being a sandwichboard for a blog that carries this:
Your roving correspondent here …. if the alien blog actually posts a description of what a “war on terror” is, what it looks like, how ones in the past have been conducted and “won,” or anything like that, I will report it instantly. Until then, I must treat the suggestion as a continued, out-of-control experiment with no middle and no end. Current public opinion trends will suffice to show what happens when the bulshitters run out of bullshit.
Anyway, in case you were wondering what RG was doing here, now you know.
Defense Guy
tBone
If I were to speak for myself, I would demand more free Government P0rn, which while technically not a foodstuff, does have the benefit of nourishing other areas of my being.
No, not really.
ppGaz
For a lot of people, that’s the default behavior …..
Tim F
Def Guy,
If you know somebody or gave enough money to somebody then you get all the government pr0n you want. It’s the Republican way.
If you’re not in the Family, back off. I have a taser.
jg
So neo-conservatism is liberalism by way of a gun instead of a hug?
Tim F
Actually, liberalism is perfectly happy to use a gun or a hug, so long as the government intervenes for the sake fo larger social goals. Bob Dole would be happy to explain it to you.
Neo-conservatism is liberalism with different social goals. It seems so different because we haven’t seen liberals that liberal since Trotsky died.
ppGaz
Har! Yes, actually, that is quite close. We had a long (long!) thing here the other day about the history of the neocon movement (trying in vain to educate Darrell) and your description is really pretty close.
Neocons are actually an offshoot of Trotskyite Socialists who became disenchanted with socialism in general.
If I were writing the history book, I would say it this way:
When the new-socialists realized that socialism was largely dead in the West as a basis for power, they “morphed” into conservatives because they saw that that was where the votes were going to be. Neocons, above all else, are Ends Justify Means advocates. They want certain things to happen, and they don’t really care what they have to do to achieve those ends.
Neocons are, in a word, bullies.
Narvy
Oh,Boy.Stupidity! – (That’s an unfortunate choice for a screen name, but hey, if you like it…)
You might want to factor these into your defense of Bush’s non-hostility to science:
From here:
And here:
And here:
Defense Guy
Tim F
Yeah, well for about $30 a month I can have all the pr0n I want as well. With no fear of getting tasered. Unless, you know, I’m into that sort of thing. Which I’m not.
Thank G-d for Al Gore’s internets.
Narvy
Defense Guy –
Almost unassailable, but could you elaborate on
Having lived through the ancient era when various flavors of Christianity permeated the public sphere, most notably the public schools, because it was taken for granted that everybody was [Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian], I have really serious reservations about this. How do you accommodate religion in the public sphere without excluding people or asserting (at least implicitly) that their beliefs are wrong?
ppGaz
“Public sphere” is the gotcha.
There is public, and there is “publicly owned,” which means government.
There can be no advancement of or officializing of religion in the government sphere. That includes some public contexts, but not all of them.
You can stand on the streetcorner and read the koran to passersby, but the government cannot post an employee on that streetcorner and read the koran to passersby.
Substitute “bible” for “koran” and it still applies.
Narvy
ppGaz –
Re my post on religion in the public square, I have two words for you:
Kenilworth School.
DougJ
I’m not sure it will stay that way. But I’m a pessimistic person.
On an unrelated note:
Very good summary of neoconservatism.
BARRASSO
Oh,Boy.Stupidity! said the following-
“Not one example of how Bush is against science.”
Since no one took the chance, I’ll toss some examples of Bush’s troubles with science. Here’s a few examples gathered from different sources online-
The health risks of mercury were discounted by a White House staffer who simply crossed out the word “confirmed” from a phrase describing mercury as a “confirmed public health risk.” A National Cancer Institute fact sheet is doctored to suggest that abortion increases breast cancer risk, even though the American Cancer Society concluded that the best study discounts that. Reports on the status of minority health and the importance of breast feeding are similarly watered down to appease right-wing ideologies.
The global warming section of the 2003 EPA Report on the environment was extensively rewritten, then dropped entirely. Fighting HIV? Bush’s initiative to help fund HIV efforts in Africa was trumpeted by the press, while the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control quietly removed information on the benefits of condoms and safe sex education from domestic HIV Web sites.
Over the summer, Bush revealed plans to appoint another Dubya – Dr David W Hager – to the reproductive health drugs advisory committee of the US federal food and drug administration (FDA). This distinguished panel – whose advice is traditionally adhered to – makes crucial decisions on matters relating to contraception, infertility treatment, drugs used in obstetrics and gynaecology (including hormone therapy), and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilisation and abortion.
The fact that the committee’s recent 24-3 vote in favour of selling the morning-after pill without prescription was mysteriously – and against almost all precedent – rejected by the FDA is bad enough. But Hager’s appointment is a real shocker.
For those of you unfamiliar with his work, Hager is the author of a book called As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now. It exploits the latest in scientific advances to promote ever more sophisticated female healthcare. Hang on – I’m sorry, it blends biblical accounts of Jesus healing women with case studies from Hager’s practice.
And what a practice it sounds. Come to David with chronic premenstrual pain and, along with your inferior Earth medicine, he will prescribe you specific Bible readings and prayers to treat the problem. He’s not one of your crazy futurists – he won’t dole out contraceptive medicine to anyone unmarried, say, and despite being an ob-gyn, he’s a
staunch pro-lifer.
48 Nobel laureates dropped all pretense of nonpartisanship as they signed a letter endorsing Senator John Kerry. “Unlike previous administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, the Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy making that is so important to our collective welfare,” they wrote. The critics include members of past Republican administrations.
And battles continue to erupt in government agencies over how to communicate research findings that might clash with administration policies.
This month, three NASA scientists and several officials at NASA headquarters and at two agency research centers described how news releases on new global warming studies had been revised by administrators to play down definitiveness or risks. The scientists and officials said other releases had been delayed. “You have to be evenhanded in reporting science results, and it’s apparent that there is a tendency for that not to be occurring now,” said Dr. James E. Hansen, a climate expert who is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan.
SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF MERCURY POISONING: Administration officials “suppressed and sought to manipulate government information on mercury contained in an EPA report on children’s health and the environment.” The report, which found that 8 percent of women between the ages of 16-49 have mercury levels in their blood that could impair their children, was buried by the White House for nine months and was only released after it was leaked to the media by EPA.
In addition, in issuing regulations on mercury emissions, the administration told EPA staffers “not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order” to prevent production of evidence that would undermine its weakening of mercury emissions regulation. (Union of Concerned Scientists – Scientific Integrity in Policy Making February 2004, Krugman – New York Times 04.06.04).
SUPPRESSING, ALTERING OR MANIPULATING EMPERICAL DATA UNDERMINING THEIR IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS: More than 4,000 scientists – including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences – have accused the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing science to suit its political goals. (Shogren – Los Angeles Times 07.09.04)
A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that this administration has: a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific finding by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety and community well being. Incidents involve air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence
The report also found that: there is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.
READ THE REPORT! http://www.ucsusa.org/documents/RSI_final_fullreport.pdf
A report by the House Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff reaches the same conclusion, revealing examples such as the administration:
Changing education performance measures to make “abstinence-only” programs appear effect; deleting information on the efficacy and use of condoms from the Center for Disease Control web site; withholding findings on global warming and other negative impacts on wetlands and preventing any analyses on alterative environmental proposals;
1. using misleading data to suggest that a functioning missile defense system could be deployed quickly;
2. including information on the National Cancer Institute’s web site suggesting conflicting evidence on whether abortion leads to breast cancer when the scientific community has determined no such link exists; and
3. preventing research on agricultural practices having a “negative health [or] environmental consequences.
Another area where the issue of scientific distortion keeps surfacing is in the composition of advisory panels. In a host of instances documented in news reports and by groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, candidates have been asked about their politics. In March 2003, the American Association for the Advancement of Science criticized thosequeries, saying in a statement that the practice “compromises the integrity of the process of receiving advice and is inappropriate.” Despite three years of charges that it is remaking scientific and medical advisory panels to favor the goals of industry or social conservatives, the White House has continued to ask some panel nominees not only about their political views, but explicitly whether they support Mr. Bush.
the Bush Administration has found it easier at times simply to arrange to get the results it wants. A case in point is the decision in July by the EPA’s regional office overseeing the western Everglades to accept a study financed predominantly by developers, which concludes that wetlands discharge more pollutants than they absorb. There was no peer review or public comment. With its approval, the EPA is giving developers credit for improving water quality by replacing natural wetlands with golf courses and other developments.
The study was financed by the Water Enhancement and Restoration Committee, which was formed primarily by local developers and chaired by Rick Barber, the consultant for a golf course development for which the EPA had denied a permit because it would pollute surrounding waters and destroy wetlands. The study contradicts everything known about wetlands functioning, including a determination by more than twenty-five scientists and managers at the Tampa Bay Estuary Program that, on balance, wetlands do not generate nitrogen pollution. Bruce Boler, a biologist and water-quality specialist working for the EPA office, resigned in protest.
sorry for the long post but I had to jump on that.
ppGaz
God bless America.
I was down there today, BTW. Driving by on 5th avenue.
tBone
Free government p0rn is fatass white guys being greased up and thrown naked into huge piles of taxpayer money, where they wrestle to see who can get more to stick to them.
I’ll stay with the private-sector version, thanks.
ppGaz
BTW2, narv. Kenilworth had a nasty anti-Catholic streak going. And I mean, nasty. Jews and Catholics, described as below dirt, by many of our peers there.
Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, approved.
Catholic, Jew, not approved.
silly dorks
isn’t it largely irrelevant pointing fingers and such. i’m so tired of the world sinking down to the lowest common denominator. how about we set standards of ourselves and government and actually try to live up to them?
and it’s hilarious reading comments from the bible bashers saying “there is no proof of global warming!!” i’d like to see some proof of god existing too..
Defense Guy
There is nothing wrong with one person implying that the beliefs of another (in terms of faith) are wrong, as long as it is agreed upon that no one can state in absolute terms who is right. Simply put, no one is G-d but G-d, so no one can claim to speak the absolute truth on the subject, but the almighty himself. He appears inclined to let us work it out on our own, a situation I appreciate.
Now, with that in mind, it is fair for a man to utilize his faith as part of his platform for public office, but it is illegal and also immoral for him to subjugate others to his understanding of faith, because of the reasons laid out in the first part. A man may be faithful, he may use that faith in his public persona (even in government), but he may not do so at the expense of other faiths or against the will of those who do not agree.
If it seems wishy washy, then I can only tell you that I find it remarkably dangerous for man to assume he alone has the correct interpretation of the word of G-d and if he takes it to the next step and imposes his vision of the divine on others, well then that is just tyranny and removes both our birthright of freewill as well as our individual relationship (or lack of one) with our creator.
I do not think a simple acknowledgment of a generically stated existence of a creator rises to the level of tyranny. I think that it is reasonable for a schoolchild to substitute whatever word he wishes, whether it be G-d, Gods, or just blind random chance into the pledge, if it suits his desire to do so. It is more the concept that I would seek to hang onto then the word, the idea that we, as a country are subject to a higher power or a set of absolute rights that cannot be given to us by man, but which are granted as a gift inseparable from life itself.
All of this is clearly my opinion, and I would welcome dissenting thought that is reasonably stated. Or really creative personal attacks.
Narvy
BARRASSO –
Minor correction: see this a few posts upthread. But your summary is AWESOME.
Narvy
Defense Guy –
Your post above is reasonably stated, but I think some of the conditions and assumptions that make religion in the public sphere viable/acceptable are unrealistic. For example,
If it’s OK for a public official or lawmaker to assert implicitly or explicitly that my beliefs are wrong, what is to prevent him, in his oficial capacity, from desecrating objects I hold holy? What is to prevent citizens hostile to my religion from mistreating my co-religionists because we don’t conform to the true faith?
In this country, there are some who don’t agree. What then?
Anyway, I think you get my drift. I think it’s fine for a public person to have a private faith, but like a Supreme Court Justice, he should not — must not — bring it into his public office. I think your sentiments are good, but I don’t think your vision is practical.
On a slight tangent, I can remember in 1960 John Kennedy going before a panel of Protestant clergyman to publicly assure them that if elected, he would conduct his office free of any Catholic influence. 45 years later we see John Roberts being praised for his devotion to Catholicism.
“The past is another country; they do things differently there.” — L. P. Hartley
ppGaz
Shouldn’t you be addressing this to Bill Frist?
Sure, Frist is hard to reach, but at least he doesn’t get his ideas off the back panels of cereal boxes.
Trevor
tbone, sorry it took so long to reply, but I agree, playing dueling experts doesn’t get us anywhere. I’m also sorry to make you work to find the link, but thanks for doing it. The National Geographic link you gave was an interesting read, thanks. There was really only one issue I had with it: the statistic that the duration and intensity of hurricanes has increased by 50% over the past 30 years. That’s a pretty big difference that I hadn’t seen before, and makes my skeptical meter jump. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong of course, but I’d like to see more detail.
Defense Guy
Narvy
In your examples, I think you move away from simple implication that your belief is wrong to on where the actions are a direct attack on your faith. That is tyranny, and must be addressed wherever it rears it’s ugly head. The act of destroying your holy symbols is an attempt to elevate one religion over others and is illegal under the establishment clause. it is also immoral, IMO, in that the person is raising himself to the position of the true spokesperson of a faith, which he/she has no right to do.
It is a fine line one must walk to ensure that his own faith would not be subject to the type of tyranny he might impose upon others. Call it a political golden rule. If I am to expect you to grant me my right to believe as I do, then you must be willing to do the same. Nothing else has ever worked in the history of man. It does work here, and it must be cherished and protected at all costs.
I agree that others do not see it this way, and they must be marginalized, or made to accept your rights to faith are equal to theirs. It is never easy, but then most things worth having are not.
My chief complaint regarding Bush and religion is his public stance on the FMA. I am of the opinion that being gay does not remove one from the realm of G-d’s love, and man has no right to imply it does. In fact, it bothers me that government was ever allowed into the realm of marriage or relationships, be they gay or straight.
Narvy
I thought we were talking about religion in the public sphere, not pious hypocrisy.
And what’s wrong with ceral boxes? I’ve gotten some of my most profound ideas from them.
ppGaz
You’ll explain the difference soon, I trust.
Wholesome goodness for the whole family!
jg
Great! Now I have old Edie Brickel songs going through my head. Thanks A lot guys.
Tim F
About hurricanes, I’ve been party to some discussion about how one catastrophic hurricane could follow another so closely in the Gulf. Hurricanes draw their power from the warm surface water, and seeing as how each one delivers the energy of a Ford Expedition full of MIRVs they must draw a lot of power. Usually one big’un turns over the warm water and leaves a pool of cooler water that serves as a brake for a while on future hurricanes.
Why didn’t that happen here? Some have reported that the the water in the Gulf isn’t only warmer than usual, but the warm water runs deeper.
It isn’t that hard to warm surface water, but to warm it deep you have to put in a lot more energy. That concerns me.
Narvy
That’s the problem. I don’t trust any mortal to walk that line.
That’s not just your opinion, Dude, it’s an Absolute Truth.
I admire your sentiments, but I doubt that we’ll ever live in a world where they can be realized.
At the risk of changing the thread topic, which never happens here, the public discussion of gay marriage drives me crazy. Marriage in this country in this era is a contractual arrangement between two persons. Marriage is also religiously sanctioned by a large number of religions. These are not the same thing. Civil marriage is CIVIL and a civil right for all. Religious marriage is a sanctioning of two people making a commitment to one another according to a religious — NOT CIVIL — law, and any religious authority can set its own rules as arbitrarily as it wishes.
In some cultures civil and religious marriage are closely related and even merged, but that is not the way it is in this country, which sanctions both civil and religious marriage, or more precisely, grants civil status to religious marriage. Unfortunately, nobody in the public debate seems to know this or care, and it annoys the hell out of me.
Narvy
Don’t forget the channeling of tax money to religious enterprises.
ppGaz
The “public debate” is a product. If the feature you describe makes the product more saleable, it will be put in. Otherwise, not. Wake up and smell the decaf, man.
And yet, the hell is still in you. Paradoxical!
For real funsies, see if you can find the basis … anwywhere … for the notion that the US government can write and prescribe an official “pledge of allegiance.”
Narvy
Well, there’s this:
tBone
Tim (and anyone else who’s interested), for a good fictional take on this I recommend Kim Stanley Robinson’s novel Forty Signs of Rain. Great book that looks at global warming from both the scientific and political perspectives – kind of like a much more serious version of “Day After Tomorrow.” The sequel comes out in a few weeks, I think.
Defense Guy
Narvy
I share your concern. However, there are instances in which a devout man has used his faith to advance the cause of rightousness in the public sphere. It is that sort of man, who is not yet a relic, that I would base my hope on. In our shared history, MLK comes immediately to mind.
So, IMO, it is important for the rest of us to make ourselves in that mold and to stand together against the tyranny that will constantly confront us. High minded idealism to be sure, but I hope not as of yet entirely misplaced. When we are confronted by those who would attack our ability to define G-d outside the realm of that which would use him for his selfish or bigoted purpose, it is important for us to stand together to ensure it does not gain a foothold. I think it is equally important that we be allowed to have him be a part of public life and guard against anyone using it for individual or party advantage.
ppGaz
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know all that. But what is the basis for believing that the government can prescribe a pledge?
Is there a Constitutional basis for it? Or for any government prescription of any speech?
Where does this insane idea come from?
Narvy
Looks to me like declaring a text to be “official” is in the law-making purview of the Congress. The don’t mandate it for anything, they declare a name for it and slot it into the Flag Code, for which I guess they get to make the rules. There’s no specific basis for having a national anthem either, but Congress declared the Star-Spangled Banner to be it in 1931.
These are only declarations, nobody is forced by law to do anything with them.
ppGaz
Exactly, which makes the pledge itself …. rather bizarre. How does one even describe this artifact?
And then you have school districts pimping it to their victims … er, students. What is that about? Where does a school district get off causing kids to believe that there is one official way to praise the flag of their country?
There is no way I can make sense of the thing. It’s a strange, manipulative anomaly without constitutional basis, and yet people just go along with it.
The whole idea of it is un-American.
Narvy
ppGaz –
Calm down, Dude. Every civic body makes declarations of all sorts of things all the time, like declaring Ice Cubes for Global Warming Day. The pimping is all local school district stuff, and had you troubled to read the history lesson I posted, you would have learned that
One of the web pages I looked at for this had a bit about people tailoring the pledge to their taste when they recite it, like dropping “under God” and adding “equality” to “liberty, etc.”
Chill, man. If you want to get worked up over something, there’s Congressional looting of the treasury for pork, Operation Iraqi Freedom-To-Wage-Civil-War-With-Ancient-Enemies, … Big stuff like that.
RSA
In California and Virginia, at least, state law requires public schools to lead pledges of allegiance in the mornings. (Of course, we all know this from the challenges to the laws in the recent news.) Odd that the same act could in principle be unconstitutional at the federal level but constitutional at the state level. But I’m not too knowledgeable about law.
Narvy
Your definition of the public sphere is broader than mine. I limit it to people with the ability to make policy, make laws, apply governmental coercion, stuff like that. Martin Luther King, the Dalai Lama, the Pope, all have the right to present their religiously based moral teachings, but they have no state power to compel citizens to behave in certain ways, and that’s what I worry about.
Narvy
RSA –
You’re right, my statement ws incorrect. That’s what comes of typing faster than the speed of thought.
So have at it pp, decry loudly this abuse of state power.
ppGaz
Off with their potatoheads.
goonie bird
Its cuased by the HOT AIR from the mouths of the idiots from GREENPEACE and AL GORE where some good duct tape when you need it?
Defense Guy
Narvy
Suppose he had been a representitive. Would he then have been required to keep the religous aspects of his message out? Or what of the public prayer that begins each session of Congress?
No, I don’t prescribe MLK to be a member of the public sphere in so far as he was not a duly elected representitive of the people. However, he was without doubt, a leader in the public sphere who was not elected. An important distinction perhaps.
Narvy
Quoting myself (my favorite pastime):
To live by religious principles is a fine thing (assuming human sacrifice is not one of the rituals), but any actions of an elected official should be guided only by legal and policy requirements. Justice Scalia, whom I detest, to his credit recused himself from the Newdow case (“under God” in the pledge of allegiance in California) because of his religious opinions.
That pseudo-prayer is so formulaic and pro forma it isn’t really a religious practice, and they do rotate the invocation among multiple religions (something I will take seriously when they start including Wiccans). But I dislike it anyway, because it’s really just pandering to the self-righteous voters who equate not making a religious display with being unworthy to hold office.
DougJ
Sure, let’s just say, hypothetically, that MLK had been a representative. And that instead of being a Christian minister, he had been head of a small Satanic death cult. What then? Would you still have supported him? Can’t you see what a hypocrite you are?
Jon H
“You can stand on the streetcorner and read the koran to passersby, but the government cannot post an employee on that streetcorner and read the koran to passersby.”
In my town, in Connecticut, a new Christian church has sprung up. In the town Park & Rec building. And they just held a faith healing revival tent meeting in the town park across the street.
I’m not sure how I feel about it. If they’re paying for use of the property, at rates the same as anyone else would pay, then I guess it’s okay. As far as I’ve seen, they’re the only religious organization doing this.
But it seems like this church was set up with a ‘business plan’ of using public facilities until it raises enough money to buy property of its own. And I kinda doubt they’re paying market rate for the space.
I’m not sure I like the idea of public property being used as a church incubator.
Defense Guy
Not your best work. Worship satan all you want sinner.
ppGaz
Interesting case. Government as impresario.
And letting private interests put up a tent in a public park? Seems they are opening themselves up to problems.
Suppose that an unpopular interest with a tent comes along and the city turns them away? Can they sue the city, claiming that they are being treated unfairly?
DougJ
DG, I was doing a parody of silly left-winger there. Couldn’t you tell by the hysterical tone? Must I always explain myself?
Narvy
No. Yes.
The point, although inartfully (and sarcastically) phrased, is valid. If bringing religion into government is OK, do we accept it for all religions? Buddhism? Wicca? Scientology? Mesoamerican blood sacrifice? OK, that last one is a stretch, but the question is valid. I think that Defense Guy was thinking only of Judeo-Christian religions, but Pandora’s box has a lot more than that.