Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I'm sure that it gratifies the (other) right-wing bloggers that Steven Postrel continues to snark about global warming --- it's still his expert judgment that it's a "foolish thing". But conservatives who are actually willing to think should look back at ozone and CFCs as a cautionary tale.

When Rowlands and Molina first developed their theory of the trajectory of CFCs, the industry trashed it as just a load of irritating theoretical speculation. Look what the enviro-weenies have come up with this time. Politicians incorporated this response into standard Republican ideology, for a time. American capitalism is innocent until proven guilty, you know. As late as the George H. Bush Administration, John Sununu decried CFC remediation as part of a slippery slope to global warming remediation. Never mind whether Rowlands and Molina are right about ozone destruction, holding your ground in politics is more important.

But it turned out that ozone destruction was not as bad as Rowland and Molina predicted. Rather, it was a great deal worse. They predicted CFC-catalyzed ozone destruction; for a long time they did not predict the Antarctic ozone hole. Now, 30 years later, the case against CFCs is a slam dunk.

This is the way that it actually goes when scientists get a really good new idea. It is true that "the science is still unsettled"; it wouldn't be science if there were no questions left. But don't count on further evidence to erase unpalatable news. Further evidence often makes radical discoveries even more radical. If you are diagnosed with high blood pressure, don't expect the next test to show that you have low blood pressure; instead it may show that you also have diabetes.

Global warming is a case in point. They have discovered that Greenland isn't melting as fast as predicted, it's melting faster.

Postrel's discussion of the merits of different kinds of economic remediation was actually very good. I can believe him that a carbon-equivalent emissions tax is the best approach. But his snarky comments are very foolish.

Posted by at March 15, 2007 07:01 AM

A does not equal B no matter how vociferiously argued.

There is equal likelyhood that solar influences are the primary causative agent for global warming as CO2.

The sun is at its highest level of output in several thousand years and yet it has no impact? According to many solar physicist the Maunder minimum represented a decrease in solar output as little as 0.25% and yet that is called the trigger of the "Little Ice Age".

There is a much greater issue than global warming, which is that the remaining hydrocarbon resources of high energy value (Oil) are in areas led by unstable governments. The transfer of wealth to these areas does nothing for world peace. We need to transition as rapidly as possible away from oil for this reason. If your thesis is correct and there is CO2 based global warming, the problem will take care of itself.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 15, 2007 07:13 AM

American capitalism is innocent until proven guilty, you know.

I'm having difficulty understanding why this is a bad thing...

Posted by David Summers at March 15, 2007 07:16 AM

I'm having difficulty understanding why this is a bad thing

The point is that American capitalism is not on trial and politicians should not pretend that they are its defense lawyers. A court does not define the truth, it only examines it. The court of public opinion most definitely does not define the truth, except for some of the politicians themselves. Just like the old issues of lead pollution and the ozone hole, global warming would still be true even if no American voter believed in it. Politicians should respond to science as able representatives of the people; they should not argue the science before the voters to try to sway them.

Posted by at March 15, 2007 07:47 AM

There is equal likelyhood that solar influences are the primary causative agent for global warming as CO2.

That is what the Republican ideologues said about the ozone hole too. It isn't CFCs, because capitalism is innocent until proven guilty; instead it must be the solar cycle. But the scientists who model CFCs are not idiots and partisans who would just ignore solar effects; neither are the scientists who model global warming. Actually, as individuals some of them are idiots and partisans, but as a group they are not. Even as a group, they have said that anthropogenic global warming is real. They have good reasons for their conclusions.

Posted by at March 15, 2007 07:52 AM

There is equal likelyhood that solar influences are the primary causative agent for global warming as CO2.

This opinion is not well founded.

We know, with near certainty, from observations, that changes in the solar constant cannot explain the observed warming of the last 30 years (at worst, about 10% of the warming, and possibly none of it.)

We know the basic physics (backed by extensive lab and field measurements of radiation transport) predicts that CO2 increases will, all else being equal, lead to surface warming. So a theory that posits some other unknown influence (voodoo cosmic ray influence, say, never mind that cosmic rays haven't increased in the past 30 years either) must also posit some mysterious and currently unknown effect that also cancels out the warming from CO2 predicted by the basic physics.

Generally, scientists don't like theories that require multiple 'miracles', since experience has shown that such theories are usually wrong (since they're so easy to make fit the data). The solar influence theory, at this point, would require at least two miracles.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 15, 2007 07:58 AM

Sorry Paul but you are wrong.

In terms of an absorber, CO2 only represents 5% of the total heat absorption of the atmosphere vs 95% for H20.

There are no mysterious reasons why solar output has been increasing. This has been measured for several centuries via proxy and via instrumentation since 1978. Visit www.acrim.com for the papers on the increase in Total Solar Irradiance just since 1978.

If you look at the GW models they don't take this into account and one scientist (Frohlich) attempted to explain the ACRIM results away with a lot of arm waving which was incorrect.

What two miracles does solar influence require.

CO2 in parts per million quantities, when coupled to H20 in a thousand times greater quantity does not explain the warming that we have had.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 15, 2007 08:41 AM

Mars has eighteen times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth has, and receives a bit less than 40% of the solar energy Earth gets. Since carbon dioxide is the only relevant greenhouse gas (according to Paul), it follows that Mars is a very hot place... oops.

Mars has been noticeably warming ever since there have been reliable observations of the ice caps. Since anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the only possible source of warming, it follows that the Martians need to immediately reduce their consumption of fossil fuels... oops.

Jupiter is developing a new Red Spot, and other observations suggest strongly that Jupiter has more energy in its atmosphere than previously, that is, Jupiter is experiencing Global Warming. Since the only possible source of Global Warming is anthropogenic, and since the Solar System can be closely approximated as Jupiter plus minor debris, it follows that we need to immediately bring the imperialist Jupiterian colonists home because they're screwing up the entire solar system with their profligate lifestyles.

Not to mention the rapine of the pristine Plutonian ecosystem by all those CO2-belching American SUVs. Yep, phlogiston is the only possible answer; the consensus is clear.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at March 15, 2007 09:53 AM

Risible nonsense, Mr. Locke. Nowhere did I say CO2 was the only greenhouse gas. Mars has very little water, which is the dominant greenhouse gas on Earth. The calculations done from the same physics on Earth as on Mars show Mars should be much colder.

Water vapor being a greenhouse gas doesn't absolve CO2 increase as the primary causitive agent, however, since water vapor concentrations are dependent on surface temperature, and act as a positive feedback.

Mars has been noticeably warming ever since there have been reliable observations of the ice caps. Since anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the only possible source of warming,

The stunning dishonesty of your mischaracterizations is breathtaking, but it says far more about your character (or, perhaps, your deep need for self-delusion) than it does about the physical reality of climate change.

No, anthropogenic CO2 emission is not the only conceivable cause for a planet to warm. It is, however, the cause that is consistent with the evidence as observed on Earth. On Mars, climate is greatly affected by things like global dust storms.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 15, 2007 10:15 AM

In terms of an absorber, CO2 only represents 5% of the total heat absorption of the atmosphere vs 95% for H20.

Yes, Dennis. Water is an important greenhouse gas. This is taken into account in all the models. This is in no way inconsistent with increasing CO2 (and other more minor greenhouse gases) causing the observed surface temperature increase, because water is a feedback that amplifies the effect of the CO2 (and those other gases).

Why do you denialists keep repeating this mantra about water when it doesn't support the point you're trying to make?

CO2 in parts per million quantities, when coupled to H20 in a thousand times greater quantity does not explain the warming that we have had.

This is simply wrong, Dennis. Please try to get a better grasp on reality. Oh, and nowhere in the atmosphere are water vapor concentrations 'a thousand times greater', but even if it were it's still possible for a greenhouse gas to have major effects at even lower concentrations (witness the effects of CFCs, N2O, methane, etc.)

Frankly, if I were in what I understand is your position, trying to raise money for techically challenging schemes, I would not be posting such nonsense as you do. It does not reflect well on your ability to understand complicated technical issues.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 15, 2007 10:26 AM

Paul

Why is it when facts are presented that vary from what you choose to believe, the discussion veers suddenly off into personal invective and pejorative adjectives? You might want to examine this weakness in your arguments.

I take mine from responsible solar physicsts who study the subject. Of course CO2 has an effect, but it is muted when compared to the increase in TSI from the Sun.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 15, 2007 10:37 AM

Ric, Your post was so absurd that it was funny in an adolescent sense of the word. Were you just trying to irk Paul, be funny, or were you actually serious?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 15, 2007 10:40 AM

Paul, This is a RFI. If you were to recommend some reading for a decent education for somone unafraid of equations, on GW issues, what would you suggest? It seems so complicated, multi-variable and so much of a current issue, that many of us (or at least myself I guess) would like to sink our fangs into it more thoroughly.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 15, 2007 10:49 AM

Paul, This is a RFI. If you were to recommend some reading for a decent education for somone unafraid of equations, on GW issues, what would you suggest?

I suggest going to www.realclimate.org and following the references there, as posted by actual climate scientists.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 15, 2007 11:12 AM

Why is it when facts are presented that vary from what you choose to believe, the discussion veers suddenly off into personal invective and pejorative adjectives?

It usually doesn't. In this case, however, the contrary opinions were of such an outrageous nature (blatant non sequiturs, repetion of foolish talking points that have been debunked ad nauseam) that nothing else would do.

If you do not like receiving such invective, I suggest you refrain from the behavior that merits it. It is, as I said, in your best self-interest to do so as well.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 15, 2007 11:18 AM

Realclimate.org is a global warming advocacy site.

If you want to see the whole story, try google scholar, it will link to ALL of the papers on the subject.

Paul

Your continued belligerent attitude just reaffirms your weak position. I have done the research and have come to the conclusions that I have. What are you threatening me because I hold a view, based upon scientific evidence, that you don't?

This is the hallmark of what global warming has become. Let me read you Albert Gore's definition of a what a denier is, which is where your invective has its genesis.

*******
The environmental crisis is a case in point: many refuse to take it seriously simply because they have supreme confidence in our ability to cope with any challenge by defining it, gatherings reams of information about it, breaking it down into manageable parts, and finally solving it. But how can we possibly hope to accomplish such a task? The amount of information and exformation—about the crisis is now so overwhelming that conventional approaches to problem-solving simply won’t work.

***********

The psychological mechanism of denial is complex, but again addiction serves as a model. Denial is the strategy used by those who wish to believe that they can continue their addicted lives with no ill effects for themselves and others. Alcoholics, for example, aggressively dismiss suggestions that their relationship to alcohol is wreaking havoc in their lives; repeated automobile crashes involving the same drunk driver are explained away in an alcoholic’s mind as isolated accidents, each with a separate, unrelated cause. (that's us folks)

*********

See Paul, at its core, the Global Warming movement of which you are a part, says that there is nothing that we can do and therefore we need a radical shift in how our entire global civilization works. Freedom will go out the window and we will be "required" for the good of the planet to give up the civilization that we have worked centuries to build.

My response is that this is poppycock and that there are two things to do to mitigate the problem (if it exists) of CO2, which is linked to hydrocarbon burning.

1. Fusion

Increase funding by a factor of ten to move fusion power forward. We can have commercial fusion by 2020-2025 if we do this.

2. Economic development of the solar system.

The resources of the solar system are so vast as to make the arguments about resource exhaustion laughable. This will help the pollution problem at the same time by moving metals refining, production, and manufacturing off planet.

This is the high level response and one that will work.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 15, 2007 11:51 AM

"Freedom will go out the window and we will be "required" for the good of the planet to give up the civilization that we have worked centuries to build." ??

Dennis, I don't think this is true at all. Give up civilization so we can save the planet? I'm afraid you are not making sense. The planet will save itself, albeit in a fashion that may not be recognizable. I'm more worried about what happens to civilization and what we are capable of handling.

Regarding going to Google for the information, I have enough confidence in science to recognize that if an overwhelming majority of scientists agree on something, that's good enough for me.

I agree that the media, to a great extent, and even perhaps Al Gore may be a bit addled on the issue but I am thoroughly convinced that there is no vast conspiracy afoot amongst the scientific community to dupe me on this issue.

Regarding Fusion or other alternatives to oil etc., I'm fully with you. For the 2 trillion dollars the war in Iraq has cost so far (Robert Samuelson's revised estimate), imagine how far we could have gone if just half this money was spent on energy independence!

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 15, 2007 12:30 PM

Regarding going to Google for the information, I have enough confidence in science to recognize that if an overwhelming majority of scientists agree on something, that's good enough for me.

It shouldn't be. Despite loads of evidence gathered by a doctor in Australia, the medical community didn't believe that gastric ulcers were caused by infections of H. pylori. He had to infect himself, develop ulcers, and cure himself with antibiotics before it began to gain traction. There are still doctors that don't treat ulcers with antibiotics.

By the same token, a lot of the skeptics on AGW are being funded by those with a lot to lose if carbon controls are imposed. And a lot of the believers have a financial stake in AGW being true. (Including Al Gore, btw.)

And there are no easy short term fixes. Even a crash program of building nuclear reactors can't do much in the next 20 years to cut carbon emissions.

Posted by ech at March 15, 2007 01:06 PM

> I have enough confidence in science to recognize that if an overwhelming majority of scientists agree on something, that's good enough for me.

I remember the 5000 scientists who agreed that "jewish science" was wrong. As Einstein pointed out, truth isn't decided by a vote.

Posted by at March 15, 2007 01:24 PM

And then there's this: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
which has to be explained away. Because if it can't be explained away it kind of chops the legs off the "CO2 is increasing because of fossil fuel burning theory".

Mike

Posted by Mike Borgelt at March 15, 2007 01:43 PM

I have enough confidence in science to recognize that if an overwhelming majority of scientists agree on something, that's good enough for me.

Ugh, ugh, ugh. As one of them myself (a scientist) let me warn you in the strongest possible terms NOT to think this way.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, somewhat whimsically interpreted, guarantees you that what most people say about any subject on which there is some uncertainty is wrong. That's simply because there are far more ways to be wrong than to be right.

Trust me on this. I can't tell you how many times I've seen scientific consensus on an issue that turned out to be dead wrong. It happens frighteningly easily, simply because most scientists, being human, think the same way you do. Dr. Foo says well, if Professor Joe Blow, who's an expert, says it's so, that's good enough for me and then Dr. Bar says gee, if Professor Blow and Dr. Foo say it's so, it must be without much doubt and on you go. It's real work to read the original papers, work out the physics for yourself, and decide whether someone is right or not. Most people -- scientists included -- would prefer not to do that much work.

Does this mean you should disbelieve the consensus (that anthropogenic CO2 emission is and will warm the climate)? Heck no. Just because the majority is often wrong doesn't mean it always is. What you -- what every sensible policymaker -- needs to do is ask yourself what can and should be done that is useful whether or not the consensus is right. There's plenty that fits that description -- improving fuel efficiency, vigorous work on alternative energy supplies, removing nationalistic barriers (e.g. the US ethanol tariff) to more efficient use of global energy sources.

There's also plenty we can rule out, even if the consensus is true. There's no way we are going to cut CO2 emissions back to pre-industrial levels, even if the ocean is going to rise 3 meters in the next two centuries. We're just going to have to learn to live in a hotter world (and we can do that better if we're industrialized, not back to the Bronze Age).

I mean, if you go to the doc and your cholesterol is high, that doesn't necessarily mean you're headed for a heart attack. It's by no means a perfect predictor (indeed, most people with high cholesterol won't have an early heart attack). But it's still sensible to cut down on the saturated fat and get some more exercise. That's smart whether or not the cholesterol means you've got atherosclerosis. And, on the other hand, there's no sense in checking into the cardiac ICU and wiring yourself up to the monitors to live there permanently, so you're ready when the heart attack comes.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 15, 2007 01:56 PM

As Glenn Reynolds is fond of pointing out, there are good reasons to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, regardless of one's belief about anthropogenic global warming.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 15, 2007 02:04 PM

Rand

Absolute agreement. Global Warming (if it is CO2 caused), will be solved with a transition away from hydrocarbons.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 15, 2007 02:11 PM

Actually, I didn't say hydrocarbons (though we may get away from them, too). I said fossil fuels.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 15, 2007 02:14 PM

Mike

Wow, great paper.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 15, 2007 02:40 PM

While I appreciate the comments from all on my earlier statement, let me clarify the context: I simply don't have the time to go through everything a Google search comes up with on the topic (the original suggestion from Dennis). Total garbage may be at the top of the list! On the other hand I'm going to give the real climate site a shot, and if there is a point by point rebuttal to every GW argument at some site, sure I could probably read that. It would however take time away from reading this blog ;-)

Also, it must be said that while the scientific consensus is clearly fallible, improbable theories remain improbable. It makes sense to accept the more probable theory if not doing so might be catastrophic. With regards to the Einstein analogy, I think there is probably an order of magnitude difference between explaining the consequences of a measured constant speed of light and something more tangible such as the climate.

I think Rand makes a good point. The total picture in moving away from fossil fuels is a nice package. You can buy into the package and even if a couple of motivations to do so were proved wrong, you would still have a net plus.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 15, 2007 03:54 PM

Toasty

If you notice, you will see that I did not recommend Google search but google scholar, specifically www.scholar.google.com.

It only has the scientific papers.

If you are too lazy to read them that is another thing.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 15, 2007 05:41 PM

Hee, hee.

Stipulated: the planet is growing somewhat warmer.

That is the only thing that is clear from the "consensus" of science. The RECEIVED TRVTH that the only possible outcome is disaster, the only possible cause is human activity, and the only possible remedy is drastic alteration of our lifestyles is not only not clearly true, it is clearly driven by a pathologically egotistical ideology. Impassioned shouts for immediate application of canvas and quicklime to blasphemers (errm, deniers, par'n me) just confirm that impression, as do mathematical analyses that disappear a phenomenon -- the "Medieval Climatic Optimum" -- that has been known to historians and sociologists for centuries.

Increased CO2 promotes plant growth; increased temperatures will lengthen growing seasons in higher latitudes, where most of the good farm land is. Is it not at least possible that the profit from more-efficient food production might be used, at least in part, to alleviate the distress of coastal populations, if in fact the sea level rise causes problems? I would very strongly support an environmental program that recognized that there will be both winners and losers, and the winners have some obligation to assist the losers. Hysteria that only loss is conceivable assures me that it is, in fact, hysteria.

And giving Al Gore an Oscar for what amounts to an infomercial for his "carbon offset" entrepreneurial venture simply confirms that the real goal of most "greens" is to reverse the horrid injustices of 1989 and 2000, bringing back the Ideal Socioeconomic System (i.e., the Soviet Union ca. 1980) and extending it to the entire world, with Bonny Prince Al raised to his proper Estate as Sovereign of America and God-King of the West. Paul no doubt expects to be rewarded for his faith by a post as Priest, explaining to the Masses that living in ant-nest arcologies of open-bay barracks is a symbol of Faith that assures their Salvation. I don't care for that future. Sue me.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at March 15, 2007 07:52 PM

Ric

You bring up an interesting point. Scientists agree that during the Holocene maximum temperatures were at least a few degrees warmer than today. At this time the Sahara desert was a Savannah.

If it is proven that solar influences are the driver for climate, will they then demand that we drive the CO2 level down below that of the Holocene nominal numbers in order to cool the world?

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 15, 2007 09:17 PM

"For the 2 trillion dollars the war in Iraq has cost so far (Robert Samuelson's revised estimate), imagine how far we could have gone if just half this money was spent on energy independence!"

Yup. For that sort of money there could have been major space industry by now, and maybe some power coming down to replace fossil fuels. And electrostatic-confinement fusion. And ocean thermal. And wave power. And and and...

Instead, Bush (with the worst Prime Minister Britain has had in a century, and arguably the worst ever, as a cheerleader) has spent the cash (not to mention several thousand of his soldiers' lives) on blowing holes in Iraq, the primary purpose being keeping his party in power and the secondary purpose being the making of gobs of money for his oil and construction industry buddies.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 16, 2007 11:50 AM

Really?

Do you ever read the things you write before hitting the "Send" button?

If that was his "primary goal," it didn't seem to have worked very well for him. Do you have some actual evidence for this lunatic proposition?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 16, 2007 11:59 AM

I wonder whether it is possible to motivate Congress to make spending on the War in Iraq contingent on the allocation of an equivalent amount on funding for alternative energy? X for Iraq, X for Energy. Hey, why not? What if every funding request from whoever is President for the war on terror is matched by funding for the "Out of Oil" Project?

Am I being an idiot to suggest this? Has anyone in Congress mumbled anything of the sort?

The better approach would be the gas tax idea of Krauthammer et.al. but given that the word "tax" doesn't "project" very well, and spending apparently isn't a problem for this administration or a Democratic adminsitration either, maybe this is something to consider.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 16, 2007 01:25 PM

Rand:

I said that it was the primary purpose. I didn't say that it had worked.

Partly because the post-victory period was handled in the most incompetent way possible.

Bush had to be seen to be doing something, or get kicked out forthwith.

What should have been done, if indeed anything at all? Simple - and I am not the first to say it and won't be the last.

Assuming that one was convinced of Iraq's guilt - move in, bomb the entire country back into the Stone Age, leave. Do nothing else. Iraq is no more a problem.

But of course that wouldn't have been spreading the idea of American-style "democracy" (if America is a democracy rather than a plutocracy, please point me to a President in the last century that hasn't been a multimillionaire) to a country that was civilised while the ancestors of the American colonists were running around naked and painted with woad.

As for evidence; who has been getting all the reconstruction contracts?

Iraq is merely the latest example of American arrogance and stupidity. There have been many other examples, possibly starting with Roosevelt carrying forward a grudge dating from the Revolutionary War, and kicking a supposed ally in the teeth while it was down, by taking most of Britain's overseas bases as payment for a collection of its obsolete junk. Admittedly, that wasn't stupid.

Some of us haven't forgotten that it took over two years for America to hear the call to arms. And that most of the West had to be ground virtually into the dust before you got off your collective backside. A few hundred pilots (a small but hounourable minority being Americans) fought off the Luftwaffe while America made more money.

And now America has made the world enormously more dangerous, to save the Republican Party's political skin.

Well, looks like it hasn't worked. Good.

I've said this before; was the choice between Bush and Kerry really the best you could do?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 16, 2007 08:23 PM

I agree with Fletcher on his last sentence. What choices we've had! Even if Obama loses, I hope he is the Democratic candidate in 2008. He does appear to offer something more substantive than the rest. Bill Richardson may be another good choice. As to the Republicans, the two men I see with character are Brownback and McCain, neither of whom will probably make it.

Posted by Offside at March 17, 2007 05:53 AM

And now America has made the world enormously more dangerous, to save the Republican Party's political skin.

You still haven't explained how a purpose of removing Saddam was to keep the Republican Party in power, let alone the prime one. I still await some kind of basis for this bizarre fantasy. I can only conclude that there is none.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 17, 2007 07:28 AM

9/11 happened, because Moslems had been emboldened (is that a word?) by America's lack of response to earlier atrocities; also because of bureaucratic stupidity in the "intelligence" agencies leading to the attack coming as a surprise.

When the attack happened, Bush's first action was to run fast and far, and then proceed to fly all over the country in random directions, ending in an underground bunker. A truly wonderful bit of PR - not.

Something had to be done. The American public, having had their country attacked from outside for the first time in sixty years, demanded it. Bush needed a convenient target for a few thousand tons of bombs to make his administration look better. The job that his father should have finished was the eventual choice, justified by some doctored documents about WMD.

The actual culprit was Saudi Arabia, a much weaker and more profitable and more justifiable choice. But there was too much profit from oil sales at stake there.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 17, 2007 07:43 AM

Do you have some actual evidence for this lunatic proposition?

There is a great deal of evidence that Bush invaded Iraq in order to get reelected. At the very least that it was a major goal. In 2002, the Republicans explicitly campaigned on the coming invasion of Iraq. Many people said that they gained seats when they should have lost them, given the state of the economy. In 2004, Bush still campaigned on the invasion of Iraq. His position was that he was resolute, while Kerry was a waffler. Both times he said openly that his victory, or his party's victory, proved that his policies were correct. It was the argument of democratic vindication.

If you argue that elections prove you right, then that is basically the same thing as acting to get elected or reelected. It's only now, in the third election cycle, that Bush discovered that popular opinion is not the same as reality. Or, if popular opinion is reality or catches up with reality, then it's not good enough to sell an invasion before you actually do it, or even just for the first year and a half after.

For all the talk of the American people being too impatient, it's actually Bush himself who rushed in where angels fear to tread. It's really pretty cheeky to first spend $100 billion per year --- to fight an insurgency that is only supposed to have 20,000 fighters --- and then ask for patience. I have never met the sort of lawyer who charges $500 an hour, but I would not expect him to tell his clients, "Relax, buddy boy, these things take time!"

Posted by at March 17, 2007 08:23 AM

In 2002, the Republicans explicitly campaigned on the coming invasion of Iraq.

So, any time someone runs on a given position, the only explanation for it is that it's because it's politically popular, and that the sole, or major reason to hold that position is to gain or hold power? It's not possible that someone can hold a position for other reasons, and try to sell it to the public and win an election so that the position (that they believe important for other reasons) can be implemented?

By your logic, the only or major reason that the Democrats pledged to raise the minimum wage, or provide a single-payer health care system, or (for that matter) to pull out of Iraq, was to gain political power. They had no other reasons to support those positions.

Right?

I'd check that logic, if I were you.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 17, 2007 08:47 AM

I didn't say "the sole" reason or "the major" reason. I said a major goal or reason. And the answer is yes, if you run on a position, you're revealing votes as a major reason, even if there may be other major reasons. It's just like the people who changes jobs for a huge raise and then claims that it's not about the money. Sure, maybe it is about other things too, but of course it's about the money, unless he donates his raise to charity.

But even more so, if a politician not only campaigns on a position, but also claims that the vote proves him right, then he is really arguing saying that he acts for votes. It makes it a lot more difficult for him to take unpopular positions. If he ever did take an unpopular path, everyone else could use the same argument against him; they could say that the votes prove him wrong.

Posted by at March 17, 2007 10:33 AM

I said a major goal or reason.

Do you really think this changes the point?

Your logic continues to be nonsense. The notion that a major reason to remove Saddam was to get Republicans reelected remains loony.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 17, 2007 11:44 AM

Rand

Didn't you know that those airplanes on 9/11 were really holographic projections from the new advanced "Rumsfeld" cruise missile?

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 17, 2007 01:03 PM

The notion that a major reason to remove Saddam was to get Republicans reelected remains loony.

Of course they did. It was The Will of The People.

Posted by at March 17, 2007 01:59 PM

Hi ! I have enough confidence in science to recognize that if an overwhelming majority of scientists agree on something, that's good enough for me.

I remember the 5000 scientists who agreed that "jewish science" was wrong. As Einstein pointed out, truth isn't decided by a vote.

Posted by Autoversicherung at March 18, 2007 08:50 AM

Ric:

I just saw your fallacious point made quite a few comments ago.

Mars definitely does not have eighteen times as much CO2 as does Earth. It may have eighteen times as much as a proportion of its atmosphere; but considering that the surface pressure of the atmosphere of Mars is about 10 millibars, a hundredth of that of Earth, the greatest possible amount of CO2 is about the same as that of Earth. There is also the point that non-greenhouse gases amplify the effect; also that the methane and water concentrations are virtually zero.

Not to mention the fact that the insolation at Mars surface is about a third that of Earth. This last point is almost certainly the main reason why Mars is so cold.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 19, 2007 11:51 AM

Post a comment