On Republicans 2009 - and hidden reservoirs of sanity

Remove all ads!

The Republicans would still have ditch the nuttier elements of their emotive ultra conservative wings before I will ever be able to take them seriously.

 

Well I'll just have God as my backup -- reloading my gun of contempt to smite down you vile disbelievers! Hatred is MINE sayeth the lord -- I mean vengence, yeah VENGENCE!

Don't mess with the right arm of God lest you be destroyed by my Remington 12 guage (with the auto reload pump)!!!

 

NOG,
I spoke about giving the benefit of a doubt in generous doses. R's are fare more willing to give the industry the benefit of a doubt than D's, call it a pro business bias. You will be surprised, but there is not that much effective oversight in the US.

Interesting article: European Chemical Clampdown Reaches Across Atlantic.

The EPA only test about 33% of the chemicals used in US commercial products for safety before these things are being brought to the market, and even if they find dangers they can do little about it. It isn't just about individual chemicals, but also about the cumulative effect of chemicals. There aren't many mandatory tests required for potentially toxic substances in products in the US, probably because such regulation puts cost burdens on the industry (and that in a recession!), and that is always a bad thing because it ... 'obstructs entrepreneurship' ... and 'freedom' ... is 'big government' ... 'bureaucracy' ... 'regulation' ... 'meddling' and for good measure, probably 'socialism' as well - just to conjure up some of the usual republican scare crows. I want to suggest here that R's in that field are by tendency ideological, in some cases to an extent that would make an old Kremlin Apparatchik envious.

Before long US companies can't sell these potentially dangerous products in Europe. In America they can. European companies will have to test their products ("no data, no market") and have to disclose what they put in their products. In the US they can withhold that information as 'trade secrets' and they are not required to test. The evisceration of the EPA, FDA and other regulatory agencies has effectively placed US firms in a position of unaccountability. Probably lobbying for tort reform and emphasising the personal responsibility (of the customer) are far cheaper than testing - certainly a stance with beneficial effects for the bottom line and 'shareholder value'. The current state is probably the result of a bipartisan failure, but I hear calls for effective environmental oversight rarely from the GOP quarters, much less at the federal level, but largely from the D's.

Such regulation of dangerous chemicals was utterly absent from Republican policy considerations during the Bush era. Ideological rigidity was very prevalent in the leadership ranks. Example for such rigidity are people like Dick Armey, a man so sold out to industry interests that Mike Huckabee called him, without speaking out the word, a person who gives love for money. The nowadays very flamboyant Tom DeLay opposed environmental regulation because it unbearably interfered with his job as an exterminator.

Yes, these demented, crustacean hugging morons at the EPA just don't get it - that it kills prawns too, only proves how good the stuff is!

All hail the beatifying powers of the Holy Market. Maybe, in due time, they will cure cancer, too.

But lest we get too cynical, there are encouraging signs of official Republican sanity from America's avant garde state, California, and 'The Governator'

The California laws were inspired by REACH. Should Schwarzenegger still be a European at heart? No! The dastardly D's had their hand in this! Arnie is a, ghasp, centrist! In that sense, I have to modify my previous quip: The D's are not to save the R's from themselves, but from the likes of Dick Armey and Tom DeLay.

 

Ragusa, you still appear to be missing the point that this is a cross-party problem. It isn't just a Republican problem, but a Democratic one, too. Both parties have a history of overlooking environmental concerns in their areas. Take a look here and see for yourself. Look at the major republican states like Texas or Florida and the major democratic states like NY or California. See any similarities?

You're mock-demonization of the centrist position isn't actually a very good arguement. It's not representative of the general public.

 

One name: Al Gore (former Democrat). Yes, the "tree-hugger" SOME Republicans love to attack for his care for the environment.

 

Oh, yes, Al Gore. Such a wonderful model of conservation.

 

We attack him because his care is misguided and based on faulty science, but we have enough threads on that.

 

I don't belive any of that. I suspect you attack him for different reasons. Regardless, it sounds more to me like you are the one who is "misguided:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_the_environment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

 

Yeah, I read an article in Harper's about that a while back. Seriously, **** industry:

It's always the same story; we can't put nutritional facts on our food, it'll bankrupt us. We can't meet the requirements of the clean air act, it'll bankrupt us. Our cars can't get 30 mpg, it'll bankrupt us. We can't stop using CFCs, it'll bankrupt us. We can't stop dumping toxic materials into the water, that'll bankrupt us.

And every. Single. Time. It turns out they're lying.

 

Chandos, you realize you've just proven that Gore is heavily financially invested in Global Warming, and has made a huge profit off of it? Funny how you respond differently when we cite sources like that.

As for the Nobel Prize, I think it's a great shame on many counts. First of all, it equates Gore, a media star and politician with real scientists. Second of all, it validates the IPCC 'consensus' documents, which were anything but a consensus. Lastly, it awards a Peace Prize to something that has not done anything to sow peace.

I guess the only good thing about it is that they didn't give them a science award.

 

I guess I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. As I posted, Al Gore has been at the issue of the environment since 1976. That's over 30 years.

Also, Al Gore has made a "huge fortune" off of "global warming?" "or his work for trying to prevent global warming? Big difference.

I'll tell you what's even funnier: Capitalists who complain about other people making money. I thought that the "rich" represnted the "accomplished" and the most "productive" in our society? And that those who complained about other people making money were "liberal socialists?" I suppose that if he made money off destroying the environment, rather than making money off trying to fix it, that would somehow be different? Can you explain this a little more clearly?

 

Let's forget about Al Gore, shall we?

Snook,
the term 'faulty science' or 'junk science' was iirc coined by industry lobbyists as a means to sow doubt about scientific research that would interfere with business interests and the meme has popped up ever since, in particular in Republican arguments. It's use it is far less discrediting as it is telling. The original article from Republicans for Environmental Protection spoke of contrarian scientists on lobby payroll, and what they do.

They are perfectly right.

That article here sums up what they do quite well: Doubt Is Their Product

Sadly, the article isn't available for free. EDIT: Here's a free version [PDF] /EDIT

That article here is also quite worth it: Scientific evidence in the regulatory system: Manufacturing uncertainty and the demise of the formal regulatory system [PDF]

There are obvious economic advantages of generated doubt over alleged 'faulty' or 'junk science' for industry interests. In trial it can mean the difference between winning and losing a potentially costly litigation case. As far as legislation is concerned: Delay of regulatory legislation* maintains the status quo and ensures current profit levels. Any legislation that mandates testing or increases standards forces companies to invest in meeting these standards and thus reduces profits. It is actually that simple for a CEO whose bonuses and job depend on his profit maximisation.

The terms 'faulty science' or 'junk science' should thus be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. In effect the use of these terms is the result of a transfer of successful trial tactics used to fight litigation into the realm of lobbing and politics. It has nothing to do with governing and everything with aggressively enforcing specific interests. It is fairly straightforward to go from that to the conclusion that a party from which allegations of 'faulty science' or 'junk science' come most often is probably in sync with such business interests, or has internalised them. I doubt that for individual Republican consumers lower down the economic food chain that is a wise thing to do. The respective interests are not really in alignment. For example, unlike legal entities like parties or corporations, individuals can get cancer.

* which once allowed for the nice little pun: Delay is DeLay's delight.

 

Ragusa, when scientists tell us that we're experiencing an 'unprecedented warming trend' which may lead to 'mass-extinctions', and then other scientists tell us the world (or at least a major portion of it) was actually warmer 1000 years ago, and that this 'unprecidented warming trend' has yet to reach the same highs (Greenland ice-free and England producing fine vineyards), one of them has to be blowing smoke up their tailpipes, and the Medival Warming Period is a pretty well established historical fact. Combine that with the already dubious Hockey Stick Graph and other controversies, and I'm not really sure the 'junk science' label is undeserved.

 

We've had this discussion many times on these forums. My ultimate conclusion is that, no, there is no global conspiracy, but there are a lot of junk scientists that have found a way to make a quick buck. To clarify, these junk scientists fill both sides of the issue, and there are real scientists doing real work on both sides as well, but the term 'junk science' and 'junk scientist' is often a well-deserved one.

 

*yawn*

How good a point that article made.

The best available science strongly hints towards Global Warming as a phenomenon, and America is about the only country where doubt still prevails. That might not be because everybody else is wrong, but simply because US PR is stellar and knows their market really well.

And it's most certainly not because 'junk scientists' fill both sides of the issue, as you preposterously claim. That attempt at relativism aims on what? Exculpate the hackery of paid for doubt generators, because, after all the others are hacks too ... or whatever... Which is so confusing that we don't know what to think and need to look to Venus (for comic relief.) ... but whatever comes of that, it's far too hard to make a call and do anything about it!

Face it, for every 'junk scientist' who believes in global warming but has his calculations wrong, there are ten others who do get their facts right and come to the same conclusion. The ratio on the sceptics side is far far closer to 1:1, which considering their far smaller numbers, and apparent revulsion against peer reviewed research, amounts to a devastating verdict. It still amounts in the end to a vast preponderance of evidence in favour of Global Warming, meaning: The best science available supports Global Warming.

 

Ragusa, review the previous entire thread dedicated to this topic. While the phenomenon of global warming (i.e. it's getting hotter) is generally accepted by everyone (including me) the anthropogenic root of it is still far from a consensus, and that's on an international basis, not just the US. The politicians in other countries may have decided to go along with it, but the scientists are still hotly debating the topic. Unfortunately, the 'best science available' is a bunch of computer models with no verification studies, a lot of iffy correlation, and multiple possible explanations.

Essentially, passing massive regulatory reforms on the basis of AGW today would be like passing massive laws regulating TV violence before 90% of the studies on it today had come out.

 

NOG,
I have read said thread, and found none of what you, or other proponents of your view, wrote, there or here, either compelling or persuasive.

I can sum up the immense amount of words you put into that thread with that you hold that the 'so called scientific community' has a pro-Climate Change bias and, anyway, can't explain everything, and thus can't be trusted to be right. After all, there is reason for doubt because of ... Venus ... whatever ... yadda yadda yadda

 

No, Ragusa, you missed the entire point of the thread. The point of the thread was that prominent scientists around the world doubt the AGW science, because they've found flaws in it.

And, btw, Venus had nothing to do with anything. The theory of AGW on Earth is entirely based on an interaction between CO2 and water vapor. Since there is no water on Venus, it's greenhouse effect and the theory of AGW are entirely unrelated. Thanks for paying attention.