tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post6593771014643796882..comments2024-03-29T10:24:51.142-04:00Comments on the daily howler: The basic shortcoming of Creeping Kleinism!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-29087276889967741352013-06-14T16:22:21.191-04:002013-06-14T16:22:21.191-04:00I don't even know how I ended up here, but I t...I don't even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was good. I do not know who you are but definitely you are going to a famous blogger if you aren't already ;) Cheers!<br /><br /><br />Visit my site: <a href="http://www.tedxyse.com/nike-air-jordan.html" rel="nofollow">Air Jordan</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-12487249960181562382013-03-04T10:38:43.678-05:002013-03-04T10:38:43.678-05:00Somerby needs some self-reflection. He should app...Somerby needs some self-reflection. He should apply some of his ideas regarding effective communication to his own work. As valuable as this site sometimes is, the overall effect is just tiresome. Half the time he just comes off as an angry old man railing at the clouds.<br /><br />Lakoff does a much better job indicating how the Liberal Media is ineffective and how they could go about pulling some percentage of the Other Tribe over into alignment with progressives. Moreover, Lakoff does it with a tone of dispassionate analysis of facts and theories. With Somerby, there's always this feeling that it's personal in some way. It's as if the important thing is not that the Liberal Media is ineffective, but that they've gotten under his skin in some way.<br /><br />And he plays favorites. Well, he has one positve favorite, Krugman, and a whole bunch of negative favorites, mostly hosts and guests on the One True Liberal Channel. It's apparently OK for Krugman to repeatedly state facts and positions that will be ignored or opposed by the Other Tribe, but not for Ezra Klein.<br /><br />The clearest example of a favorite target is Rachel Maddow. While many of Somerby's criticisms of Maddow are valid, is it tenable to hold that the overall effect of her show is negative? Regardless, is his continual harping on it worthwhile? It just comes off as the airing of a personal peeve.<br /><br />Also, why is he so stingy with his praise? Chris Hayes's show on weekend mornings has what are arguably the best political discussions on TV. The panel Hayes assembles typically includes one, and sometimes two, participants from the business or conservative communities. How about some well-deserved props? mejimeneznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-78726045817159587192013-03-03T20:52:09.642-05:002013-03-03T20:52:09.642-05:00Again, Mr. Somerby, note the obstinance and the in...Again, Mr. Somerby, note the obstinance and the incredibly transparent games those people you call "the other tribe" cling to in order to defy FACTS.<br /><br />Do you truly think people like David in Cal can be reasoned with, and until they are convinced, that we avoid discussing climate change lest we offend their tender sensibilities?<br /><br />These people are treated with condescension because that is more than they deserve. Every second spent trying to convince the willfully ignorant can never be recovered.<br /><br />But I do recall the words of the late, great George Carlin: Don't worry about the planet as we continue to pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide when people like David pretend it has no consequence. The planet will be here, and we have done enough to it, it will shake us off like a dog shakes off a bad case of fleas.<br /><br />Instead, worry about us when that happens.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-19836205728279148632013-03-03T19:32:03.811-05:002013-03-03T19:32:03.811-05:00That's pathetic, til. Photons are essential to...That's pathetic, til. Photons are essential to climate change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-64884098586280017102013-03-03T11:23:49.350-05:002013-03-03T11:23:49.350-05:00Oh, lighten up. Klein promised smart answers, not ...Oh, lighten up. Klein promised smart answers, not politically doable answers. Some of us are still interested in what grownups think, regardless of whether it's politically realistic.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-13293379013725034882013-03-03T10:26:01.179-05:002013-03-03T10:26:01.179-05:00Deadrat, I see no survey at that link which suppor...Deadrat, I see no survey at that link which supports gravymeister's precise claim, although some are similar. The poll by Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider comes close to supporting the claim, but it's not a survey of climate scientists, but rather of "climate researchers most actively publishing in the field." The more recent poll by Farnsworth and Lichter shows "84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring."<br /><br />Note also the ambiguity in gravymeister's assertion. He says GW is "man caused." Does that mean it's <i>entirely</i> man-caused? Does that mean that man's impact is causing <i>catastrophic</i> GW? Does that mean that expensive remedies such as carbon tax should be implemented? You would get different answers depending on which exact question was asked.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-25532699168832100392013-03-03T05:41:30.779-05:002013-03-03T05:41:30.779-05:00Mark my words, carbon tax may be one boring way to...Mark my words, carbon tax may be one boring way to save the environment but there must be 100 smart wonks like Ezra who can get creative with their imaginations and figure out 100 ways to present something like a carbon tax with a catchy new frame that might end up igniting some controversy and a few new fans. Stay positive, Bob!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-7229796284886191722013-03-03T04:29:57.205-05:002013-03-03T04:29:57.205-05:00David in CA: Part of the ongoing contempt that co...David in CA: Part of the ongoing contempt that comes your way in these comments isn't so much that you hold ludicrous positions, but that you never attempt to challenge them for yourself. Ten seconds on the intertubes using the google finds this:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change<br /><br />Sure, it's wikipedia, but the neat thing is that this article, like many, cites primary sources that you can check. Well, not you, but someone interested in basing his opinions on facts.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-47311772250635995112013-03-03T04:04:10.372-05:002013-03-03T04:04:10.372-05:00They would fight tooth and nail over the candidacy...They would fight tooth and nail over the candidacy of Al Gore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-87362631487317680472013-03-03T02:28:16.461-05:002013-03-03T02:28:16.461-05:00I think Bob and David should go into conclave toge...I think Bob and David should go into conclave together to pick a pope. mchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-74544246734923121592013-03-03T01:18:14.403-05:002013-03-03T01:18:14.403-05:0097% of climate scientists believe global warming i...<i> 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is man-caused, 2% aren't saying, and 1% disagree.</i><br /><br />Really, gravymeister? Do you have a cite to prove this? I'm looking for a real proof of this assertion -- actual data, not just somebody else claiming that this is the case.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-11541591956930599842013-03-03T00:03:04.149-05:002013-03-03T00:03:04.149-05:00Bob, since you seem to have such insight into the ...Bob, since you seem to have such insight into the process, let us know when the Republicans give Ezra Klein permission to discuss the opinions of experts on how to address our problems. Thanks much. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-250979511487649532013-03-02T19:55:35.684-05:002013-03-02T19:55:35.684-05:00Yes, a refreshing reminder of why I've always ...Yes, a refreshing reminder of why I've always checked this site first. <br /><br />It's simple - until we can "sell" the progressive case convincingly, the other side will win. They have more money and more microphones, and they know all about distraction and misdirection. <br /><br />All we can do is try. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-27925973465095288432013-03-02T19:44:50.340-05:002013-03-02T19:44:50.340-05:00Why waste another moment on Klein's silly, ide...Why waste another moment on Klein's silly, idealistic fantasies?<br /><br />You can read McArdle's savvy, non-mandarin essay on why USA health care costs cannot be reduced by going here:<br /><br />http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/01/can-the-government-control-health-care-costs-by-fiat.html<br /><br />While Klein is tossing around his swell ideas, McArdle is hard at work defending the highest health care costs in the world. Can anyone imagine why she might try to marginalize other bloggers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81013637316668301332013-03-02T18:45:22.320-05:002013-03-02T18:45:22.320-05:00David, the correct statement should be 97% of clim...David, the correct statement should be 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is man-caused, 2% aren't saying, and 1% disagree.<br /><br />The entire issue is that the energy industry wants to continue selling their products at a huge markup, and ANYTHING that might interfere with that is bad, bad, bad.<br /><br />That is why the energy industry only measures in dollars per kilowatt, or total cost over the life of an automobile, and NEVER in total cost to society in pollution, illness, sick days, and premature deaths, because society and the taxpayers pick up these costs.<br /><br />The green energy sources DO factor in the "intangibles", and when they do, they are far cheaper sources of energy.<br /><br />And, in case you didn't know, hydrogen bombs incur human cost on the survivors as well as the victims. The living will envy the dead.gravymeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16075831177588700301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45973358406899815402013-03-02T16:23:52.667-05:002013-03-02T16:23:52.667-05:00How interesting that you characterize the overwhel...How interesting that you characterize the overwhelming consensus of world's leading scientists as "doomsayers."<br /><br />And I'm sorry, but someone else will have to explain to me how it is even possible not to be condescending to an idiot who conjures up the notion of nuking India and China to save the world from global warming.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-67791814091148096502013-03-02T16:16:27.939-05:002013-03-02T16:16:27.939-05:00I agree. The threat of GW is being used to promot...I agree. The threat of GW is being used to promote activity that's beneficial in and of itself. There are many good reasons not to burn so much fossil fuel. E.g., fossil fuel is very useful stuff to create plastics, etc. <br /><br />The trouble is, what happens if our government takes the doomsayers seriously? In order to actually reduce the level of atmospheric CO2, we'd have to take radical, crazy action. E.g., immediately build thousands of (possibly unsafe) nuclear plants all over the world. Solar and wind are fine, but nuclear is the only current source of large amounts of electrical energy. <br /><br />We might even have to use our nuclear weapons to destroy countries like China and India, which are producing rapidly increasing amounts of CO2.<br /><br />However, it's OK if we merely pay lip service to a belief in catastrophic GW and use that belief only to motivate good actions.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-22267789986743641772013-03-02T15:43:25.469-05:002013-03-02T15:43:25.469-05:00Oh, I don't know, David. Perhaps because, even...Oh, I don't know, David. Perhaps because, even if you continue to deny global warming and want to pretend that there are "large numbers of scientists" who agree with you, it might still be a good idea to begin turning to renewable sources of energy that also happen to be cleaner instead of burning up large quantities of finite fossil fuels at an alarming rate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-65368652167625883812013-03-02T15:37:06.578-05:002013-03-02T15:37:06.578-05:00OK, I get it. It's not "smart" or &q...OK, I get it. It's not "smart" or "obvious" to bring up global warming until people like David in Cal (see below) are convinced through polite discussion, careful logic and reason.<br /><br />Yeah, that's going to happen.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-10961419636502486832013-03-02T15:29:54.844-05:002013-03-02T15:29:54.844-05:00Bob incorrectly writes, "large percentages of...Bob incorrectly writes, <i>"large percentages of the public believe that human-caused global warming is some sort of hoax."</i><br /><br />What he should have written is, <i>"large percentages of the public (and large numbers of scientists) believe that human-caused CATASTROPHIC global warming is UNPROVED."</i><br /><br />Furthermore, the real debate isn't over global warming, but over the supposed remedies. If the catastrophic GW models are correct, then things like Kyoto or Cap and Trade are too minor to save us. Why spend trillions of dollars on remedies that won't work to solve a problem that may not exist?David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-48003961563863445062013-03-02T15:22:01.810-05:002013-03-02T15:22:01.810-05:00You've won the game: the quickest person to ma...You've won the game: the quickest person to make an ass of themselves trying to look smart.tilhttp://til.tknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-6636786759516811192013-03-02T14:12:09.064-05:002013-03-02T14:12:09.064-05:00I'm sorry, but that's not what he said. W...I'm sorry, but that's not what he said. What he said was that characterizing these ideas as "smart" and "obvious" was unwise, given the fact that many people will have a knee-jerk reaction that is quite the opposite. And, when much of the knee-jerk reaction is based on the knee-jerkers' feeling that they are being treated condescendingly, "smart" and "obvious" become strong negatives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-24916037989491995772013-03-02T13:28:09.040-05:002013-03-02T13:28:09.040-05:00Gluons are bosons. But then, so are photons, W0, Z...Gluons are bosons. But then, so are photons, W0, Z+ and Z-. I wonder why Bob specifically mentioned gluons, but not these other elementary bosons? I'm kind of partial to photons, myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20113541078897896932013-03-02T12:51:37.315-05:002013-03-02T12:51:37.315-05:00So no blogger should even think about discussing a...So no blogger should even think about discussing any issue until such a time when there aren't large swaths of the population opposed to it.<br /><br />Brilliant, Bob.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-18523793119085733082013-03-02T11:45:55.333-05:002013-03-02T11:45:55.333-05:00Fine, incisive post.
LTRFine, incisive post.<br /><br />LTRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com