Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (268665)	3/28/2015 8:57:52 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 360971

We don’t have a Ted Cruz problem on climate change. We have a GOP problem on climate change. By Stephen Stromberg March 27 Ted Cruz has earned infamy for the self-regarding analogy he drew between his attacks on climate science and the work of Galileo — both, apparently, opposed the authoritarian non-science of their respective days. But what does the Texas senator really believe on climate change? And I don’t mean in the “is his ridiculous persona just a cynical act or some kind of performance art” sense, though that’s reasonable to wonder. What is his public stance on carbon dioxide’s effects on the planet and the necessity of acting to prevent major climatic changes? It’s pretty much the same as that of lots of other Republicans. Cruz clearly bristles at the characterization that he is a climate “denier.” That might be because he doesn’t deny that the world has warmed. In fact, Cruz spokesman Phil Novack reminded The Post’s Fact Checker, Cruz voted with 97 other senators in January for an amendment asserting that “climate change is real and not a hoax.” What Cruz denies is that climate scientists’ modeling of what will happen from here is sound. For evidence, he points to the “pause” in warming that scientists have observed in satellite readings over the past decade and a half, disregarding all the reasons these readings shouldn’t be much comfort. Because scientists’ models didn’t forecast the pause, Cruz’s thinking goes, how can we trust that they will be any more reliable about other predictions? There are many reasons this line of argument doesn’t justify complacency, as Philip Bump, The Fact Checker and others have noted. But Cruz’s view nevertheless leaves room for a wide variety of alternative hypotheses about what’s driving climate change. Perhaps some wholly natural trend we don’t understand is behind warming? Maybe carbon dioxide has some effect on global temperature, but it’s a much smaller one than scientists anticipate? If you’re Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Senate’s chief climate gadfly, it’s all God’s work anyway, so why pretend as though humans can change anything? Any and all of these explanations lead to a convenient policy conclusion: Speedily transitioning to cleaner fuels isn’t worth the money or effort. As Mitt Romney put it in 2011, “We don’t know what’s causing climate change, and the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try and reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.” Because positing a high level of uncertainty allows Republicans to validate a variety of views — even some that admit that human carbon dioxide emissions have some effect — it also allows them to make public comments that seem to support climate know-nothing-ism in the GOP base, then explain their positions in slightly less bizarre terms when reporters press them. It’s not that Cruz thinks climate change isn’t happening, his spokesman gets to tell The Fact Checker, it’s that he thinks scientists put too much trust in their inherently uncertain models of the future. The more nuanced take isn’t what most people hear. Many other Republicans rely on some form of Cruz’s rationale. In fact, the Senate literally held a vote on it in January. Though nearly every senator voted for a measure stating that climate change is happening, only 50 — nearly all Democrats — supported the contention that humans contribute significantly to warming. No one should expect climate models to be perfect. But they are experts’ best reckoning of the risks that unabated carbon dioxide emissions pose to human civilization — risks worth hedging against. Republicans, pompous in their dismissal of the risks, implicitly or explicitly resist this logic. The difference between Cruz and many other Republican politicians is that he revels in the full, unvarnished arrogance and irresponsibility of their positioning. washingtonpost.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (268665)	3/28/2015 10:10:11 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 360971

re..mega church.. 'The white man...goes to church ..and talks About Jesus.. The Indian ..goes into his tee pee and talks With Jesus..' Quanah Parker

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (268665)	3/28/2015 10:57:22 AM
From: Cautious_Optimist	2 Recommendations Recommended By ggersh SiouxPal Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 360971

There is one key dimension of the new-old "conservatism." That would be the fascistic social memes that go way beyond what the "Libertarian" Ayn Rand warriors intended. Examples ranging from Indiana's brand new "Religious Freedom" law to Bush's Iraq tragedy as well as all the corruption and war crimes surrounding military "privatization." For political reasons, the self-destructed conservatives need to embrace anti-liberty, that they spin like a top. I used to like to debate them. Now I want to stop them from destroying this country and the planet before it is too late for THE SURVIVORS. Its too late for a millions of of victims of their deregulated, oligopolistic, science-denying, health-denying, bullshit selling, racist, murdering, might-makes-right, inherited, tax privileged, homophobic, promoters of a PROFIT AND POWER STRATEGY for the exceptional, entitled 1% who don't give-a-shit what happens outside their bubbles.