- Ray Pierrehumbert
I saw the SOTU, and my immediate thought was, "And this idiocy should surprise anyone, why???" (Meaning the response to President Obama's statement, not the statement itself.)Unless we can get the public to change the minds of their elected representatives (or change the reps), then we are screwed like no one has ever been screwed in the history of history.
As I understood the laugh, it was in the context of ~"if you don't believe the overwhelming mountain of evidence, then at least..."He was laughing at the flat earthers and his ability to strongly intimate that this is in fact what they are without actually coming out and saying it, not at global warming or the evidence.I wasn't happy with his reference to clean coal, his support for nuclear power, or how little he had to say about a variety of topics that aren't popular with the far right -- I mean -- more moderate Republicans. But this particular piece didn't especially bother me.
Obama's (and Biden's) reactions were awkward, but it was the hoots of derision from the floor that have me in despair.
You better learn to love nuclear power TimChase. It's the only way through to a climate bill.Plus, technically, it is a good idea anyway.
The hoots are as sad as they were predictable: Don't forget, those individuals belong to the same crowd that blamed the Haiti earthquake on a French conspiracy with Satan. The same people who invented death panels. Who invaded Iraq on the basis of a known lie... who torture ... who have turned the U.S. into an idiocracy...The common thread is one of disregard for rationality and humanity which will express itself wherever those people's attention turns to--because that is who & what they *ARE.* This we must recognize before we can fight it.I think we also need to acknowledge that although scientists are one of their victims, we are by no means the only one--and that's a great calamity but also a potential source of strength.
I didn't see the whole thing, but was the laughter from the GOP? Biden and Pelosi seemed in on the joke, so maybe it was people laughing at those silly enough to doubt the science.And I'm with Tim. If nuclear power and (ugh) "clean coal" are what it's going to take to get Lindsay Graham etc on board, then it's worth swallowing some bitter beans.
It is not laziness but shortage of time which forces me to simply cut and paste a less than reverent comment I left over at 'Deltoid' but which, in general terms can be aplied here:"I have to tell you, folks, and I admit that it gives me enormous, almost dribbling, pleasure to do so, that recent posts and threads here, adn elsewhere, represent, not so much the act of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but squabbling over whether they should face east or west!It's going, people! The good ship 'Global Change' run by that less than salubrious shipping line, AGW Inc., is sinking fast. I regret to inform you that your ship's officers have steered you onto (delicious irony) an iceberg which according to them should have melted years ago, and your honourary Commodore, Adm. Gore, is likely to be the first into the lifeboat. I advise you to do the same and paddle away as fast as you can lest the undertow drags you down.And fear not, even as I write, a rescue ship is fast approaching over the horizon, the SS. 'Exploding Meteor'. This has plenty of space on board for anyone who wants to fill their empty lives by worrying about the end of the world. Hurry, hurry, don't miss the boat ...David Duff
Nah. In my view, the Neandertal party doesn't entirely disbelieve the science. The Moronos of the world give them just enough to continue to delay for their patrons. That's all that was. If someone came up with a six-legged camel was the reason to continue to favor fossil fool, then you can believe these people would be yelling "you LIE about the six-legged camel!!!!" during the SOTU.Best,D
Pelosi and Biden get to witness first hand the behavior of the Republicans and more specifically of Inhoff and those who likewise claim that AGW is a hoax. I imagine that they are somewhat jaded by witnessing this sort of behavior. The Presidents reaction was a scornfull smile. I imagine that he and they (Pelosi and Biden) saw this scornfull hooting coming a mile away.Would it be more effective if these people (Obama, Biden, & Pelosi) would allow themselves to become angry while speaking on this issue? For many people their only glimpse of congress is when watching the State Of The Union address. If the President were to call to task those Congressmen who have said that concerns about Global Warming are a willfull deception, he could gain support with the voters. Though I understand his efforts to reach out to those on the other side, pointing out some of the more blatently ridiculous assertions made by the very congressmen who were hooting and wooping it up would be worth while. Doing so would be ill mannered, somewhat cruel, and it would possibly win votes both in congress and amongst the electorate.In the political debate on global warming as much as on the health care debate the Democrats seem determined to miss the most effective points. In healthcare tremendous ground could be gained by pointing out facts, such as the reality that the United States of America has a worse infant mortality rate than Cuba which has a per capita income one tenth of the United States. This is according to the CIA World Factbook. According to the CIA Cuba has an infant mortality rate of 5.82 deaths per thousand births whereas the United states has 6.22 deaths per thousand births. Perhaps more to the point would be to observe that Germany, Finland, France, and Japan all of which are prosperous nations are by all measures getting more effective care to ALL of their people at a lower cost, and here in America we spend more on a per capita basis while millions pay all costs out of pocket, with the predicatable result that more of our people die sooner while suffering longer. In a similar manner we are failing to take action on Global Warming on the basis that doing so would harm the economy, or would be ineffective, or that the problem does not exist. These are moral issues. Argued on that basis there would be hope.If the Democrats can't manage to effectively argue the Healthcare issue, then they can't argue anything.I share Michael's reaction.
I was happy with Obama's support for nuclear power for reasons pretty close to these. To Adams' take I would only add that even if government is not required to guarantee nuclear construction loans, it still has "skin in the game": uranium costs around $0.11 per gram, while natural gas costs $2.80 per U-gram-equivalent.Government's share of that latter price is a lot more than 11 cents. In 40 years a nuclear power station will skin government of fossil fuel revenue roughly equal to the station's construction cost.Loan guarantees make that loss more palatable to government by making it alternative to a similarly large loss, if government derails the project during construction, in paying back the investors.(How fire can be domesticated)
solar panels, death panels, they're both PANELS, right?
Post a Comment