« E Day | Main | Pardon? »

August 28, 2017

Comments

"Ever notice how dedicated libertarians always seem to be people who a) can afford to live in places which don't have these problems, and b) generally do? While insisting that their philosophy be applied to the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world wants it or not."

Many years ago, which is why I distrust "libertarians" even when some of their stuff aligns with some of mine (not that much anymore).

I, generous soul that I am, would be glad to contribute to one-way tickets for libertarians to move to the libertarian paradise of SOMALIA.

I wish you would have quoted my fake Beatle song titles instead, because now McTX is going to surface, remove his snorkel, and tell me I'm full of it or at least mis-characterizing the state of things.

But the Governor recently went after local rule in many ways.

It's true that Governor George W. Bush signed legislation to strengthen home-building codes, but he did so only after he and his family and cronies bought stock in construction material stocks.

But these latest Texas Governors are the real item. They don't even want to get rich off of making the world safer for the rest of us. They've got their eyes set on small government, libertarian heaven.

I remember when Tacitus the Younger counseled in stentorian tones that New Orleans, post-Katrina, should be abandoned and permanently evacuated, well, I can't remember why, except his taxes were too high, meaning north of zero.

I thin he wanted to send all of the former New Orleans denizens to Iraq to live in permanent garrisons where they would be safe from all manner of attack.

I blame those French trapper capitalists and pelt-purveyors who decided to exploit any port in a storm, libertarians all of them.

So whither Houston, I ask him. There are New Orleans ex-patriots still living there after Katrina.

"Babies in particular suffer from exposure to lead, which can lead to learning disorders, hearing loss, aggressive behaviour, anaemia, kidney damage and lowered IQ. As many as 9,000 children may have been affected."

George Carlin:

"Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months ... After that, they don't want to know about you, they don't want to hear about you ... If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked. ..

I'm personally against abortions of convenience though I want to maintain its legality because the rich are equally entitled to the poor and the rest of us to sleep under bridges and will do so even when sleeping under bridges might be made illegal, even as the poor will be rounded up and convicted of sleeping under bridges.

But I'm fully against the aborting of those aged one minute to 200 years, which is the one deadly time period in which anti-abortion conservatives don't seem to want to curtail deadliness.


While insisting that their philosophy be applied to the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world wants it or not.

I think libertarians are more at that libertarianism should be allowed. Not insisting that it be applied. There's that whole nonaggression principle thingy.

I, generous soul that I am, would be glad to contribute to one-way tickets for libertarians to move to the libertarian paradise of SOMALIA.

If only I can contribute to one-way tickets to Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea for progressives.

What is progressive about Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea?

Maybe we could open public libraries, impose building codes, empty the prisons, legalize maryjane and cut the higher marginal tax rates to 42% like the commie bastards we are.

I've heard both Somalia and North Korea are in the market for purchasing used U.S. Civil War statues as a way of honoring American conservatives.

What is progressive about Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea?

About as much as Somalia is libertarian.

the pajamad, murderous ass who will be rump's guide through the carnage:

http://juanitajean.com/oh-hell-no-3/

The Brazos is at record highs above flood, 59 feet.

Man, I just crossed that sucker on horseback three weeks ago.

No FEMA head for the storm, and Mueller will soon be gone for building the levees against massive worldwide right wing corruption and stealing our elections, for which they will be killed, as our Forefathers stipulated.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/28/1693967/-Felix-Sater-s-emails-show-he-was-in-Moscow-for-more-than-real-estate-Our-boy-can-become-president

That Betty Cracker got a mouth on her!

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/08/28/two-more-reasons-to-hate-the-electoral-college/

I don't think they have flood insurance in Somalia.

I remember when Tacitus the Younger counseled in stentorian tones that New Orleans, post-Katrina, should be abandoned and permanently evacuated

Hahaha, I remember that one! It wasn't just Tacitus, it was in the official talking points.

They can have NOLA if they also give up Vegas, Phoenix, LA, and every other city that doesn't have enough or its own water to keep its population alive.

We all pay for that.

Miami's on the way out, too. Just saying.

I don't have any personal issue with libertarians, I just don't see how that point of view makes sense for collections of people numbering more than about a dozen.

Explain it to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

In any case, best of luck to anyone in southern TX. Hope you found your way to dry land.

They'd have to give up Israel too, if we're talking unsubsidized water.

I, generous soul that I am, would be glad to contribute to one-way tickets for libertarians to move to the libertarian paradise of SOMALIA.

A man after my own heart! And I've suggested it more than one. (But somehow they never seem willing to do so....)

I think libertarians are more at that libertarianism should be allowed. Not insisting that it be applied.

If only, if only. Yet when, for example, they are in charge of a state government, they promptly start making laws which bar cities and towns from making laws on certain subjects. So, quite a ways past mere;y "being allowed."

Though I love me some fake news when it works for me, I was wrong more or less regarding recent Texas Governors and building codes:

https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/texas

Transsexuals however must still live in houses of straw for the wolf to huff and puff and blow down.

And it is true that the Brazos flooding at record matters not because texas republicans walk on water.

No FEMA head for the storm

Actually, Count, FEMA head is one of the relatively few positions for which Trump did nominate someone. (Who has been confirmed.) And not only that, he actually nominated someone who is qualified and competent. Go figure.

It's not a good sign that HIS name is Harvey, too.

Isn't it? Play along.

Show us how to be Christian human, Mexico:

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/too-decent.html

While we walk on those who cant walk on water like we do:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/08/deportee-2

It's not a good sign that HIS name is Harvey, too.

Isn't it? Play along

Of course it's a good sign. "Know your enemy" and all that. ;-)

If only, if only.

You got that right...far right. The Koch bros (et al) are dyed in the wool libertarians. They are not content to simply sigh and "wish" for us to "allow" libertarian public policies. They desire to force them down our throats using the power of the state.

Yet when, for example, they are in charge of a state government, ...

I'm unaware of any libertarians being in charge of any state governments. Or much of anything else.

Well, if you want to contend that holding any government position, for example, becoming Speaker of the House or Governor of Kansas, disqualifies one as a "real" libertarian....

They desire to force them down our throats using the power of the state.

That's odd since libertarianism is all about being against state power and never initiating force.

I'm unaware of any libertarians being in charge of any state governments

hahahahaha!

Similarly there are no "true communists" in N. Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.

Tat, meet tit.

That's odd since libertarianism is all about being against state power and never initiating force.

Which is just another way of saying that mostly they are, deep down, libertarians of convenience. That is, they believe that the government is the enemy . . . except when they are the government.

See also this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/28/harvey-shows-the-anti-government-crowds-utter-hypocrisy/?utm_term=.a4e58d3144b8

...Or much of anything else.

Except for some really large and powerful business entities (and I'm pretty sure a lot of smaller ones).

Of course corporations have no power....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

I'm tired of the libertarians due to their "If only things were different!" chant, when I, others that show some intelligence, and probably their own stupid selves, know that things are not going to be different, regardless of what they think, nor will it be different.

But then, that's what makes them so hypocritical in my eyes.

I'm unaware of any libertarians being in charge of any government

FTFY

With any luck, Ted Cruz's children are drowning like the illegitimate rats they are, as we speak:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cruz-defends-voting-against-sandy-aide

He's 85, but racist, murderous c*nt republicans who win take office live longer than cockroaches, so if he wins, there's nothing for it but savage violence:

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/arpaio-for-senate-yeah-go-for-it.html

I'm putting my money on liver cancer.

All of those weapons of war in libertarian and conservative hands and they remain unfired in the face of this fucking authoritarian shit from the government they hate:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57232/what-is-trumps-ideology/

What are you people waiting for?

I think I know.

In other news, third party libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who rump-nonstomachers ran to instead of doing something, anything to stop rump, had a microphone stuck in his face today regarding the hurricane and had this to say.

"Even if I knew what a houston is, I couldn't find it on a map with both hands. What's a map?"

Then he rolled a joint with the latest Benghazi gold and squinted into the libertarian distance.

Cribbed from Krugman, whoever he is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY

And not only that, he actually nominated someone who is qualified and competent.

Hopefully, this means that just because things are done bigger in Texas, FEMA won't throw away more than the $2 billion it wasted in the aftermath of Katrina.

"Then he rolled a joint with the latest Benghazi gold and squinted into the libertarian distance."

We all do what we gotta do to get by.

Why did rump cave on Afghanistan? It wasn't on behalf of his beloved United States:

http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/why-russia-wants-the-us-to-stay-in-afghanistan/

the $2 billion it wasted

AKA: slightly less than 2 days worth of DoD budget.

AKA: slightly less than 2 days worth of DoD budget.

Much of which is also wasted.

indeed, indeed.

we should make it legal for the military to operate within the US. they could then use their budget to do some nation building at home - to prevent civil unrest or to ameliorate disasters that threaten the country.

cleek: we should make it legal for the military to operate within the US.

In a sense this is already in process. But not, I fear, for the purposes you suggest.

The Agentic State is what rump's rumpists are irrevocably lost in. I've talked to some of them. They are bewitched by the shithead. They repeat Make America Great Again like an incantation.

I suspect should the military be able to operate under rump inside our borders, their entranced agentic state, with its ever-expanding budget would lead to horrific abuse of rumps enemies within, not unlike what is happening in Yemen or in Arpaio's murder camps.

I know a kid, whom I've spoken of before here, enamored of weaponry, happily now kept in a gun safe as a result of my objections, who just signed on a year before graduating from high school to the Navy Seal Program, who believes Hillary should be shot and who adores rump and is fashioning himself into a bullet-headed killer. He just underwent a preliminary summer bootcamp in which his superiors applied pressure to his neck causing him to lose consciousness and to train him to know immediately where his weapon is upon awakening.

If rump told him to kill me, he would. He's an otherwise good kid. If rump told him to kill an opposition journalist, he would. If rump told him to kill a wetback crossing a Texas landscape he would. If rump told him to kill Mueller, he would.

He protects my free speech and other rights, I'm told, but you should see the vehemence in his glare toward me when I occasionally take the trouble to use my right of free speech to criticize rump's perverted values in front of him.

Killing me would be him just doing the job he was assigned to do.

I told him to keep his head down when I saw him this past month. He doesn't plan to. I pity his mother. I pity his girlfriend.

He's playing warrior. He has no fucking idea what it is to kill. Which is why they are numbing him up for the job.

I pity the United States.

The agentic state:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS91jqc0D1Q

The police forces of the country's fascist tendencies were just bought by Sessions and rump with a shipment of grenade launchers.

Crime is near a 50-year low across the board.

I've seen this before up close in third-world dictatorships.

Do you hear the fire alarm?

In a sense this is already in process. But not, I fear, for the purposes you suggest.

There is a difference -- local control -- between the police acquiring modest military-grade equipment and allowing the US Army to operate domestically, subject to control only by the White House.

My county sheriff's office borrowed a tracked armored personnel carrier from the Army back in the early 1990s [1]. The vehicle is deployed every year or three in the event of a heavily-armed nutcase in a house. It is trucked to within a couple of blocks, then trundles up the street to the house at low speed, pulls onto the front lawn, and a negotiator does their job of talking the nutcase out. On a couple of occasions where the nutcase had shot someone, the vehicle is positioned to shield the EMTs who retrieve those victims, takes them to shelter first, then returns so the negotiator can do their job.

We have recall in my state. I firmly believe that any sheriff who tried the whole high-speed SWAT deployment practices which were popular on YouTube a few years ago would be recalled quite quickly.

My county sheriff's office has also acquired a lot of military-grade night-vision gear at very low costs in the federal sales. Almost half the county is mountainous terrain, and the ability to put search teams out for an extra hour after sunset, or before sunrise, could easily be the difference between a hiker with a broken leg living or dying.

[1] Literally borrowed. It still belongs to the Army, who could demand its return at any time.

There is a difference -- local control --

I did qualify my point. But I don't find yours totally comforting in the present climate, and with the present administration in charge.

A Massachusetts story.

This shit doesn't just happen "on YouTube a few years ago."

Apparently, I've exhausted my Boston Globe free articles, so sorry I couldn't see the article you posted, JanieM. But when you said this:

But I don't find yours totally comforting in the present climate, and with the present administration in charge.

I agree that nothing is comforting with Trump in charge. In my state (VA), nothing is comforting when we remember how many guns (and who knows what else) are in private hands. I don't like a militarized police force, especially one that isn't accountable to the law, or one that abuses racial minorities, etc. But I also don't like the idea of right-wing militias outgunning police.

My answer is to disarm civilians, and lightly arm police. That's not going to happen in the world I live in. So I have no answer, and am in despair.

May Peace with us ... NEVER:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/jared-kushners-mideast-peace-push-is-going-nowhere-thats-why-israelis-love-it?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

I'm familiar with the geographical and political landscape Michael Caine speaks of.

We've avoided, except for some school board elections and Tom Tancredo, the crazies.

Other parts of the state are beautiful .. but ...

Your perfectly reasonable, balanced primer on climate change and its relation to events in Houston, otherwise known as the Hoax by those stupid people in charge and with the money to force multiply their stupidity and malignity:

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/climate-change-is-complicated-who-knew.html

For forty years most of America was told that you just can't equate weather to climate change. Cold winter? Just natural weather patterns. So who knew people would believe them.

I hate stupid climate scientists, and I am a climate change believer.

You gleaned that from THAT article, which takes pains to separate the two vis a vis Houston?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/duncan-hunter-trump-young-republicans-meeting

Asshole claims ownership of bigger asshole. Assholes cheer.

OK. The lines are drawn. We know who owns who and what.

Most of America didn't read that article.

I'm just saying.

Most of America didn't read that article.

then "most of america" should STFU and leave policy to people who actually have some expertise and information.

i don't mean to be rude, but c'mon man.

do we have to be ruled by ignorance?

libertarians

I want to raise pigs in my yard. My yard, my rules.

My neighbor doesn't want to live next to a pig-sty.

Thus, libertarianism comes to a screeching halt.

Most of America hasn't read anything besides the inside label on their underpants.

"Jesus promises us peace that passes understanding. That’s peace when it doesn’t make sense."

Joel Osteen, the prosperity gospel .... HIS.

He's in Houston but he has less prosperous people lifting him to higher ground.

But I don't find yours totally comforting in the present climate, and with the present administration in charge.

Having them make somewhat heavier weapons available at lower cost to my local law enforcement is far down on my list of things to worry about with this administration.

I linked to this article up the page a bit, but if you ignore everything else I've offered, that's fine.

But read this one. It's lengthy.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/28/carl-icahns-failed-raid-on-washington

Excerpt:

"One recurring feature of the rump Presidency has been the acute collective sensation, shared by a substantial portion of the electorate, of helpless witness. Dismayed Americans wait, like spectators at a game that has turned suddenly dangerous, for a referee to step in cry foul. But one reason rumpism is so transfixing to watch is that is about the upending of norms, the defiance of taboos, the destabilization of institutions. School's out forever. What this means in practice is a serious deficit of accountability. Whom can you call when the authorities are the one breaking the rules?"

A few months ago, I thought you could call 500 highly-trained assassins. We're going to need reinforcements.

Icahn has failed in his cheating fucking Evil for now. He'll be back, because he is still breathing.

It is republican breathing that needs to be stopped.

Libertarian pigs fly.

You can't fence them in.

And yet they are against pork.

Three days left in August and I've reached my comment limit for nonsubscribers, so I'll shut up for a few days and let others breath.

"then "most of america" should STFU and leave policy to people who actually have some expertise and information.

i don't mean to be rude, but c'mon man.

do we have to be ruled by ignorance?"

No, but you can't answer every objection, some quite reasonable questions, with "we're the smart people, shut up and do what we say" which has become the stock answer. STFU and do what we say just doesn't work.

Nor do rolling doomsday threats. The article we're talking about here belies almost every prediction of cataclysmic outcomes by 2050.

That "every scientist supports". Settled science. Except the people referenced in that article didn't agree. On degree, pace or likelihood of various outcomes.

I simply can't imagine why 60 year old people who've been listening to it for 40 years aren't willing to just be told what to do.


"we're the smart people, shut up and do what we say"

as compared to "I didn't read the article, no pointy headed brainiac is gonna tell me what to do".

if i have to pick i'm going with the folks who know what they're talking about.

Im going to go with the best common sense answer I can decipher from a bunch of people telling me the world was coming to an end last year, or maybe 5 years, but certainly by the end of the century, maybe.

Of course, I don't have that policy choice. I can have fnck it lets burn it down or fnck it lets destroy the whole world economy, when it collapses I can get food with a crossbow. Or the Paris Accords that hand wave the second while ensuring the first.

Common sense died with comity.

From the Count's 9:43 quote: "School's out forever".

Isn't it an odd world in which I can easily imagine that Alice Cooper would be a much better president than the current . . . denizen . . . of the White House?

No, but you can't answer every objection, some quite reasonable questions, with "we're the smart people, shut up and do what we say" which has become the stock answer. STFU and do what we say just doesn't work.*

Mmmm...I love the smell of straw men burning in the morning. Why not try something different? How bout one or two of these "reasonable questions".

Lets see how they stand up.

Thus, libertarianism comes to a screeching halt.

The libertarian answer to this is tort (not the dessert). If the market can't work it out, everybody sues everybody. Thus the libertarian nirvana is heaven for litigators, and pretty much guarantees full employment. Absent compromise, one side might win, and we have the tragic sight of the terminally small 'night watchman' state using its sovereign monopoly of force to make one side give ground.

But if everybody is suing everybody, just how small can this state be, hmmm?

It's. Still. Freaking. Raining.

I'd really like it to stop.

Bobby, I must be missing something, too. As I understand it, libertarians think government, and the laws government makes, are the problem. So how can their nirvana be everybody suing everybody else? You can't have lawsuits (not to mention lawyers), after all, without laws.

Perhaps a bunch of those self-styled libertarians aren't such purists in their ideology as they would have their pawns believe. In short, libertarians of convenience. But I repeat myself.

Common sense died with comity.

there are many points at which effective policy making depends on expertise. specialist knowledge. often in topics which are, frankly, beyond the scope of common sense.

what does common sense suggest we do, in those cases?

the topic of climate change, specifically, has been thoroughly FUBAR'd by the degree to which it bumps up against the topic of money. as you allude to.

that, and the fundamental and overhelming inertia of human nature.

too bad brett's gone, we could dust off the topic of how to keep his chickens warm without incandescent bulbs.

will no-one speak for the chickens?

The libertarian answer to this is tort

now there is a small government solution!

You can't have lawsuits (not to mention lawyers), after all, without laws.

Minarchism

Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate? What factors do the scientists change in the models when that happens? Which ones have they changed the most? What are the most likely outcomes (probability) and how sure are you (confidence level) of each? Does that include the timeline or is that still a guess?

And then, can you separate out the causes well enough to know if, barring a return to life before the bronze age, if man can really impact the nature of climate change at All?

If we killed all the cows and buffalo on the planet would that have a significant impact? Why would any government not plant a billion trees if all this were settled science? Or does the ravaging of the rain forest not matter anymore? We don't hear much about that.

Why do India and China get a pass in the Paris Accords? Other than hype what did they accomplish?

Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate?

citation required.

Chickens are decent people.

what cleek said.

plus:

i don't know if killing all the cows would help. i think lots of folks, including govenments, are already planting lots of trees. i still do hear about the rainforest, but i travel in treehugger circles.

can't tell you why the paris accords were drafted the way thay were. maybe they are a total dog and pony show. sometimes that's how things work.

someone could probably explain the ins and outs of whether and why what the models predict has or has not happened. i'm sure i could get the gist of it, but really i'd be lucky to understand a third of it.

my understanding is that there is an unusually broad consensus among real live climate scientists that (a) it's warming up and (b) we are most likely contributing to it. it's my understanding that folks who have a large stake in it - CIA, DOD, the insurance industry en masse - are on board.

I find that compelling.

things of this level of complexity and scale are rarely simple, binary true or false questions. at the policy level, it's a risk analysis question, not a science quiz.

how likely to occur times scale and cost of harm. i'm sure you've done a million of these.

just do the math.

i don't need to know the ins and outs of plasma physics, or tree ring patterns from the early holocene, or any of the other happy BS that all of the armchair scientists in blogworld like to argue about.

as if they know bupkes.

folks who are responsible for doing a clear-eyed risk analysis, and who would no doubt prefer that be a matter of no concern, are taking it very very seriously.

that's my clue. that right there is the common sense analysis.

average joes should read the freaking articles. or at least, defer to folks who can read them and actually make sense of them.

I've never gotten so much as an angry email from a chicken, let alone have one hack into my bank account. They must be okay.

Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate?
In so far as that's true, if you want accurate temperature predictions you need to talk to a weather forecaster not a climate scientist.

Furthermore, as the planet gets warmer, temperature distributions change. Predicting just how that will happen is next to impossible.

The major discussion point over the last 15 years has been the so-called global-warming pause. Denialists noted with enthusiasm that temperatures had not for several years exceeded the 1998 peak (or not by much, depending on which dataset you look at). Climate scientists pointed to the exceptionally strong El Niño in 1997-8, put a lot of effort into measuring and understanding ocean temperatures, and concluded that global warming was continuing and would eventually show up in land temperatures.

Come the 2015-6 El Niño, we saw scarily high temperatures.

Climate science right, denialists wrong.

So two data points, one refutes most of the models one supports some of them. 50%, settled science.

Predicting just how that will happen is next to impossible.

Pretty much what most of the skeptics have observed.

So two data points, one refutes most of the models one supports some of them. 50%, settled science.

What two data points? Can you clarify this?

Pretty much what most of the skeptics have observed.

Not from what I've seen. One can be fully on board with the consensus while recognizing that making predictions below a certain level of detail, be it over shorter intervals of time or smaller geographical areas, is nearly impossible. That really has little to do with the sort of skepticism (i.e. not scientific) you're referring to.

So two data points, one refutes most of the models one supports some of them. 50%, settled science.

you said they were all wrong.

it's up to you to support that assertion.

so?

Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate?

Really? How about this for a starter. Also check the links out.

Why do India and China get a pass in the Paris Accords?

The heart of this problem is that the West has polluted its way to prosperity and has much higher per capita carbon emissions than the developing world. So who takes the hit? Tough choice. See this article.

Thank you.

A simple guide to climate science:

Humans burn a lot of fossil fuels. (Undeniably true)

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. (Undeniably true)

The earth gets heat from the sun's radiation, peaking in the visible light spectrum which passes easily through the earth's atmosphere (the shortest visible wavelength, blue light gets scattered somewhat, so the sky is blue and the sun is orange). The earth loses heat by longer wavelength infra-red radiation (longer because the earth is cooler than the sun). Some of this is absorbed by relatively complex gas molecules in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide. So increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere tends to make the planet warmer. (Undeniably true)

There are various feedback effects, particularly involving clouds and water vapour. These are very difficult to model. So it is very hard to be sure about the extent to which increasing carbon dioxide makes the planet warmer. The IPCC continues to publish wide estimates of "climate sensitivity". Some interesting discussion here.

Predicting how the warming will distribute around the planet is very very hard.

Just for fun, contra charlesWT

Or does the ravaging of the rain forest not matter anymore? We don't hear much about that.

you can hear as much about it as you like, there are still plenty of articles from credible sources on the topic.

but, about a decade ago, it was thought that the relevant governments had taken control of the situation. but the things have recently reverted.

A decade after the “Save the Rainforest” movement forced changes that dramatically slowed deforestation across the Amazon basin, activity is roaring back in some of the biggest expanses of forests in the world. That resurgence, driven by the world’s growing appetite for soy and other agricultural crops, is raising the specter of a backward slide in efforts to preserve biodiversity and fight climate change.

In the Brazilian Amazon, the world’s largest rain forest, deforestation rose in 2015 for the first time in nearly a decade, to nearly two million acres from August 2015 to July 2016. That is a jump from about 1.5 million acres a year earlier and just over 1.2 million acres the year before that, according to estimates by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research.

Here across the border in Bolivia, where there are fewer restrictions on land clearance, deforestation appears to be accelerating as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/business/energy-environment/deforestation-brazil-bolivia-south-america.html?mcubz=1&_r=0

Marty channeling Will Ferrell's Harry Caray, substituting destruction of the rain forests for mad cow disease.

Harry Caray: Hey! How about this mad cow disease?

Ken Waller: What about it?

Harry Caray: Well, it was here for a while and then it went away. Your thoughts.

Ken Waller: Yes, yes it was in the news for a while and then it disappeared from the news.

Harry Caray: Good point. Gee I hope I never get it. Hey! What about this: if you had to choose between being the top scientist in your field or getting mad cow disease, what would it be?

Ken Waller: Well of course I would choose to be the top scientist in my field.

Harry Caray: Oh good. I was worried you'd choose mad cow.

Ken Waller: Why would you think that?

Harry Caray: I guess I'm just a worrier, that's why my friends call me whiskers.

Ken Waller: I thought you said your friends call you whiskers cause you were curious as a cat.

Pro Bono's statement is where most reasonable people stand. As was my cite.

But since we're dealing with nutcase God-whispering, crypto-Christian, gummint-hating know-nothings, lets put things in terms they might understand:

Global warming is the Pascal's Wager of the time.

If one side, the believers/predictors in the ravages of human-induced global climate change, is mostly wrong, generally speaking, no one burns in Hell. The door prizes are a cleaner environment, a whole lot of stronger levees and coastal infrastructure, etc. We don't have to move the Naval Base in Norfolk, whether the oceans rise or not. Republicans may continue to govern Florida without being rounded up and slaughtered by God.

If the non-believing, denying side is wrong, and they don't even have to be totally wrong, the doubters, those who yell "Hoax!" and we know who the fuck you are, those who prevent and destroy all efforts for further research, monitoring, and amelioration, will send all of us, the world, the gibbering Babel of the world, to Hell. But there will be higher ground in that Hell and the doubters will be killed in that Hell ... killed ... before they reach that higher ground, as they surely will try using their fucking guns. The gibbering, soaked rabble of the world will find you and fucking kill you. (this presupposes that hasn't already happened after we find out the full russian election-stealing treason that is going to be revealed).

The only place in God's realm that will be left incased in ice is upside-down Lucifer ... ME ... and the deniers, if they are wrong, not not just wrong, but purposefully, deliberately malignly wrong, out of some shallow pride in their political incorrectness, like rump, like Inhofe, will be brought before His Vengeance, and I will burn them for eternity, and their children, and I will nibble off the burnt bits and eat them over eternity like so many overcooked Cheetos.

Am I getting through to ya, Mr Beale?

Now, leave me alone.

Minarchism

Thanks, Charles. Learn something new every day.

Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate?

Kind of depends on what you mean by "accurate". If you mean hitting the temperature numbers, then what Pro Bono said (9:15).

But the models do say: average temperatures worldwide getting higher. And, wonder of wonders, that's what we are seeing. They also say that the effect in particular places will vary, with some getting warmer and some actually getting cooler as wind patterns etc. change. And once again, that's what we are seeing.

Common sense? There is a recent, unusually sharp rise in global average temperature that just happens to coincide with the Industrial Revolution. Make of that what you will.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/massive-texas-vaults-ready-to-truck-cash-to-harvey-hit-areas/ar-AAqWbXd

My money, going to people who want to secede from the Union, without my approval.

Ted Cruz, that vermin, is rowing his dinghy to the nearest ATM in Houston and taking out the max for a rainy campaign day.

The vaults of Hell are going to open too.

Meanwhile Flint.

Meanwhile Katrina.

Meanwhile shit everywhere.

Katrina is old news. Now Irma....
https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/potential-tropical-depression-ten-tropical-storm-irma-southeast-coast-florida

Minarchism

Key sentence: "However, some advocates of minarchism also support State-provided fire departments, prisons, legislatures and an executive.[citation needed]"

When the Minarchists, then, get done with their internal Civil War, and decide precisely what it is they stand for, drop me a line via the Post Office, if you haven't abolished it.

today, in the Republican Party's ongoing assault on knowledge:

A Republican lawmaker has put forth an amendment that would stop funding for the special counsel’s Russia investigation 180 days after it becomes law.

The amendment from Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) would also prevent special counsel Robert Mueller from probing “matters occurring before June 2015,” which is the month Trump announced his presidential bid.

deplorable

(ht bj)

Pretty much what most of the skeptics have observed.

Consider the statement this was a response to, and see if your response is remotely on point.

let alone have one hack into my bank account

AS FAR AS YOU KNOW......

they don't call it hunt and peck for nothing.

To be less cryptic:

Imagine that leaks in residential gas lines were increasingly a problem. Utility experts say that increases the likelihood that somebody's house will blow up.

They just don't know which one.

Skeptics say: there is no problem here.

I'm going with the yahoo link on this one to avoid the annoying auto-play crap on the Newsweek site.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/houston-drowning-freedom-regulations-193813435.html

The article concludes as follows:

Houston was built without regard for the carrying capacity of its roads, just as it was built without regulating the amount of impervious cover that would be shedding water into streets, storm sewers, rivers and Buffalo Bayou.

Texans do value their freedom.

I don't wish this crap on people, but it seems some of them do bring it on themselves, not to mention onto others.

Skeptics: What the hell does impervious cover mean, you egghead?

To be less cryptic:

Leak happens in residential area on A street.

Experts say that means that there could be a leak on any or every street in neighborhood. They just don't know when each will happen.

So lets replace every pipe.

Skeptics say: Lets fix A street.

Chickens are decent people.

Posted by: Countme-a-Demon | August 29, 2017 at 09:08 AM

Thanks you.

The thing about analogies is that they have to be at least somewhat analogous. Otherwise, they're just irrelevant.

The thing about analogies is that they have to be at least somewhat analogous.

Good point.

To simplify:

People who "haven't read the article" are not, IMVHO, authoritative sources for information about whether climate change is a thing or not.

I'd prefer that policy be made by people who actually know what the hell they're talking about.

As an aside, MA actually does have an issue with residential gas pipe leakage. Because our residential gas distribution system is old. Over 150 years old in some places. The town I live in apparently is among the more leaky.

In 2014 MA passed a law requiring utilities to repair the most dangerous leaks. In 2016 they passed a law requiring utilities to repair the leaks that emit the most gas.

Something short of replacing the entire infrastructure, because money and logistics. Although they could apparently recoup the cost in about a year just be not pissing away the gas.

But something more than just "fix street A".

Just another reason I like living in the People's Republic.

If you want to live in the Skeptical Republic of Band-Aids, fine with me. Don't make me come along with you.

RE: Libertarians and property rights …

Full disclosure: I’m a libertarian sympathizer in that I start each public policy question with the rebuttable presumption that less government is better than more. I’m most sympathetic of libertarianism in terms of fighting the police state, fighting kleptocracy and promoting a non-interventionist foreign policy.

In terms of lawsuits, libertarians will tell you that if we start taking care of our own property rights, we’d become accustomed to dealing with our neighbors and most disputes would be handled with contracts. At its core, libertarians that I speak to in the real world are very much in favor of removing government so we can actually get to know one another. It’s almost quaint and nothing like the douchebaggery you find online, i.e., reason.com. If you are interested, I recommend this episode of Planet Money:

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/06/28/534735727/episode-286-libertarian-summer-camp

This one-at-a-time contract life mostly seems to work at the summer camp profiled in the podcast, but I don’t think it can scale efficiently. I just don’t have time (or more like I don’t want to make the time) to get to know every farmer and butcher that supplies the food I eat, so I’m perfectly happy relying on government inspectors and labels. I have no desire to haggle about the price of gold for every purchase I make, so I’ll suffer the existence of the Fed.

To be fair, many libertarians that I know acknowledge the inefficiency but believe the tradeoff is worth it. I’m pretty sure that we’ll never reach a critical mass on that tradeoff in my lifetime, so I’ve largely relegated libertarianism to the same trash heap with the other utopian governmental models. The difference is that I still regularly read libertarian thinkers to challenge myself on issues re: the size of government and I don’t do that with trash heap denizens, e.g., Marxists.

Good point.

Yours appeared to be reasonably analogous, russell, at least in IMO.

Oh, no. The dreaded double "in."

Yours appeared to be reasonably analogous, russell, at least in IMO.

Thanks, no worries.

The other thing about analogies is that they frequently derail discussion into arguments about the analogy rather than the original point.

So, probably better to just make the original point.

I appreciate the comment.

So two data points, one refutes most of the models one supports some of them. 50%, settled science.

One data point is the long-term trend. Which absolutely supports the contention that global temperatures continue to rise. And yes, the theory that burning fossil fuels makes global temperatures go up is settled science.

The other data point is short-term variation. Which we now know for sure is irrelevant to the long-term trend.

Pretty much what most of the skeptics have observed.
That's like blaming epidemiologists for not being able to predict which smokers will get lung cancer.

Skeptics say: Lets fix A street
I have no idea what that analogy is supposed to suggest. But, supposing for a moment that climate sensitivity turns out to be right at the low end of the IPCC range, what have we lost if we slow down our rate of burning fossil fuels? We've made the cheap fuel, which took 100 million years or more to lay down, last for another 200 years instead of 100 years. Perhaps at the cost of slightly lower short-term growth, but gaining future growth during the second hundred years. What's wrong with that?

(I can never tell what "refute" means in American English)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad