“In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their tea at a cheaper price than ever before. However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament’s right to tax them. Tea was a staple of colonial life – it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves the pleasure of a cup of tea.
The colonists were not fooled by Parliament’s ploy.â€
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm
So there you have it. If you can understand that historical account, you can understand the truth behind all the disinformation you’ve been seeing about the Tea Party movement on TV and on the internet. There is a significant number of people, including myself, who simply oppose government-sponsored stupidity and are not fooled by imaginary crises like Global Warming.
Anyway, I have been to three Tea Party events so far this year and plan to attend more. I was not recruited to attend any of them. I was not paid by anyone. I was not contacted by any political party concerning any of the events. In fact, I had to pay for my Got Tea? t-shirt, I had to take long lunch breaks from work to attend the first two Tea Parties, and I had to pay for a bus ticket, a ham sandwich and a bottle of water.
Now, most of you understand that Americans recognize that they have rights endowed them by their Creator. These rights are written down and can be seen in a document called the Constitution. We, the Tea Partiers, are exercising our rights and would like to see *all* people do the same.
Many thanks to Lucia for allowing me the opportunity to post this. She is the hostess with the mostess!
I have forwarded this to flag@whitehouse.gov in order to get the reward as soon as they determine which of Kentucky’s ten or twenty thousand guys named Andrew posted this.
“I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords” – Kent Brockman February 24, 1994
Thanks, George! I was going to contact the White House and turn myself in, but it looks like you’ve already got that ball rolling. 😉
Did you know Kent Brockman’s real name is Kenny Brockelstien?
Andrew
Since initially hearing of the Obama snitch line, I’ve had the thought that if all liberty loving citizens would send in two names of local politicians and then get two friends to do the same, and have them continue the chain, the silly plan would soon collapse.
You drank a bottle of water at a tea party? I’m sure that’s hypocrisy on some level!
Let me get this straight, Obama’s bunch of crooks has opened a telephone number so people can snitch on their friends and neighbours ?.
Snitch about what ?
Obama becomes more like his ancestors every day.
Once again I feel like the only lukewarmer who voted for the guy. My personal belief is that the Waxman-Markey bill will collapse under its own weight in the Senate. Because hot air and bullpoop DOES have weight.
stephen richards,
Check this out:
“If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/facts-are-stubborn-things/
Andrew
This seems a tad political for this site. Its one thing to report on tea parties, but comments like “government-sponsored stupidity” and “imaginary crises like Global Warming” are pretty far into the realm of editorializing.
Also, I’m not sure what stephen richards means by his comment about Obama becoming more like his ancestors. Obama’s ancestors were… Kenyans? I’m not sure there is any way to spin that in a way that is not terribly offensive.
Obama is but applying the practices of his mentors. See:
East German Stasi Had 189,000 Informers, Study Says
Conversely, Christian prayer meetings provided the sustained flames for each of the movements that brought democracy to Eastern Europe.
The East German Church and the End of Communism Book by John P. Burgess; Oxford University Press, 1997
Politics and religion in Central and Eastern Europe
By William H. Swatos
FROM PRAYER TO DEMONSTRATION: The Neglected History of East German Churches in the 1980s
I suppose the Stasi aren’t quite a Godwin, but I hardly think implying that Obama is setting up a network to spy on Americans helps your credibility. Especially after the last 8 years :p
Zeke,
At least you’ve got my honest opinion on the matter. I’d say that’s a starting point. Tell me Zeke, if I wrote some Global Warming scientific-sounding propaganda, full of speculations and assertions, and Lucia let me post it, is it likely you would complain about it?
Andrew
“Especially after the last 8 years :p”
Yes the Ghost of Ws Past is making the President do bad stuff now. 😉
Andrew
ZEKE
The Kenyas have become ever more authoritarian, ever more dictorial and ever more paranoid. It is not a cosy democratic society of benelovent leaders. Much like the British at the time of the tea party
stephen richards,
Someone born in the U.S. to an American mother who never really knew his Kenyan father is hardly likely yo be influenced by corruption in Kenyan politics. The argument is ludicrous.
Andrew_KY,
If you wrote something alarmist to a point unsupported by the science, I certainly would (e.g. http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_thread/thread/750fd02670e981a4/8a43f1aa14c26231?#8a43f1aa14c26231 ).
As far as the ghosts of Ws past, I’m not sure what grievous affront to civil liberties the Obama administration has pursued lately, but rather I was pointing out that spying on Americans was a tad more germane to the past administration, and most critics of the current one were disappointingly silent at the time.
Anyhow, as with most arguments about politics, I doubt either of us will convince the other of his position. Rawls public reason never worked too well when people can so easily rationalize desperate ideologies.
I was born in El Salvador and I’m not influenced by their politics. I don’t think Obama is influenced by Kenyan politics.
I’m interested in the tea parties though. Mostly, I prefer smaller government controlling fewer things. When I went to the tea-party in Lisle, I didn’t really hear anyone discussing global warming. The main concerns are taxes and government sprawl.
Zeke,
Then you need to widen the scope of your news sources. Many people who are criticising the President now, also criticised W (for several things).
Submitting emails to the White House (and their acceptance) about political activites NOW is a seprate issue from what previous presidents did THEN.
The current President is supposed to be different in that respect, you know, with the transparency and the ethics and all of that… right?
Andrew
Lucia,
Cap ‘n Trade legislation is a good example of overreaching gov’t.
Andrew
Zeke,
Please provide evidence to support your assertion that Americans were “spied” on by the Bush Administration.
We do have evidence for that with the current administration.
Andrew_KY, does this mean you’ll be supporting Rand Paul for US Senate?
nanny_govt_sucks,
Prolly not…
I don’t know whom I’ll be supporting yet for Senator, however…
I’d support cardboard cutouts of Chewbacca (with Laser Crossbow, of course) as replacements for the two dolts from my state we have in the Senate right now. 😉
Andrew
Jon,
Not to clutter this thread up too much, but:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/in-final-legal/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/07/nation/na-intel7
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/spy-d18.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/23/AR2009062302060.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html?pagewanted=print
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
http://www.slate.com/id/2133564/
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1C069D94-3048-5C12-0008145013ED2D03
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4536838.stm
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/27/bush_nsa_internal/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/washington/19fisa.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june06/nsa_2-06.html
Let me know if you want a few hundred more :-p
The only thing I can find on Obama’s “spying” is grumbling that he is extending or defending some Bush administration programs.
Zeke Hausfather (Comment#17673)
If you refuse to recognize government beginning to trample on unalienable civil rights and trend towards tyranny, you have no hope of preserving those rights. On “influence” see:
Expert: Watch loyalty, not certificate of birth
Study our Declaration of Independence e.g.
See BreakPoint by Chuck Colson on Angry-Mobs
Thirty three democracies descended into tyranny during the 20th century for lack of preserving constitutional safeguards!
For our constitutional rights and the fight to preserve them see Eternal Vigilance, Matthew Staver 2005
From the NY Times:
“Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security”
“The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=2&hp
Right.
“Smell the (sniff) desperation” -Men At Work
Andrew
Oh… is Zeke is probably busy writing a letter of complaint to the NY TImes right now. 😉
Andrew
Andrew KY,
“In coming decades” is fairly misleading; “50 years from now” would be more appropriate based on the impact time frame in the AR4 WGII.
Unfortunately, I’ve already used up my LTE quota for the Times this month (you only can publish one per month…).
Andrew_KY, those tea parties started in earnest during the campaign of Rand’s father, Ron Paul for president. If your “KY” stands for Kentucky, then you might want to know that Rand (son of the father of the tea party movement) is campaigning to be a US Senator from your state.
“based on the impact time frame in the AR4 WGII”
…and I care about that string of characters (AR4 WGII) because… ??
Andrew
nanny,
I’m actually from Ohio. I just have KY in my name because Lucia tried to zeroed in on IP. Sorry about that. At the time I adopted the KY, I didn’t think it mattered. It is misleading. I ranted about the OH senators, I really can’t speak informatively about the Kentucky ones.
Andrew
U.S. Web-Tracking Plan Stirs Privacy Fears
By Spencer S. Hsu and Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Obama administration is proposing to scale back a long-standing ban on tracking how people use government Internet sites with “cookies” and other technologies, raising alarms among privacy groups.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002743_pf.html
Andrew
Zeke–
I suspect Andrew is discussing the thing that has been nick-named the “snitch line” about health care which was announced at the White house blog http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/
The blog says
The issue has been discussed at The Volokh Conspiracy (here ) and also on Fox News (who evidently reported the ACLU thinks it’s a bad idea. I)
It seems like a rather boneheaded move on someone’s part, but I’d imagine worrying about black helicopters hovering over your house (or, for that matter, the government intercepting your phone calls) is a tad premature.
Rather, this looks like standard campaign tactics. Find out what your critics are saying and release talking points or a rebuttal site refuting them.
If the Obama administration does start wiretapping critics of his healthcare proposals, well, similar things didn’t end too well for Nixon.
Thanks for the post Andrew, I’ve of course followed the tea parties closely and am glad that they are getting some publicity. There were 30,000 people demonstrating in downtown Dallas according to the Sherrif on July 4 in hundred degree weather and the media didn’t cover it.
Can you imagine that happening in the US?
Climate change fight seen costing $300B a year
Having the UN control climate is the ultimate in “taxation without representation”!
Zeke,
I asked for evidence that Americans WERE spied on by Bush. You gave me a bunch of media reports that said “could” “may” “probably” “might have”…
Thanks for playing
Whether it be the UN/IPCC controlling “climate change”, or Obama’s government establishing “universal health care”, a critical issue is “information” or “education” and who controls it. See “Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare” Chuck Norris
But, But, But, David L. Hagen,
If I put a bendy line on a graph, The Trend appears before me! Hallelujia! Can I get an Amen?
The Trend cares not to hear about someone named Stalin. 😉
Andrew
I have not attended any tea parties. I’m more of a John Locke kind of guy . . .
.
I quote from the New Hampshire state constitution (where I do not reside):
.
.
Or, even better, Kentucky:
.
.
One thing people tend to forget about the 2nd Amendment is that the purpose wasn’t to have militia to protect ourselves from foreign invaders; the purpose was to have militia to be able to overthrow the government should such a need arise.
.
Now, before anyone panics, no, I don’t think we ought to overthrow the government. But I do think that our government is increasingly deviating from what I would consider a healthy course, and it is sad to see the lessons of our nation’s birth be deliberately misinterpreted or forgotten.
Zeke:
“It seems like a rather boneheaded move on someone’s part, ”
Yes. More about the bonehead here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/11/when-a-president-lies-why-lind
I hate to say it, but I think the last presidential election is a better gauge of the nations mood than raucous town-hall meetings. Bigger sample size and whatnot. After all, Obama’s approval ratings are still solidly above 50 percent: http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php
Still, we will see what happens in 2010.
“I think the last presidential election is a better gauge of the nations mood”
Cherry-Pick. 😉
Andrew
Zeke Hausfather (Comment#17722)
August 11th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Interesting trend, and did you notice the top (most recent) entry?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Zeke–
I agree that the “snitch line” for health care looks like boneheaded politics. There are other ways to find out what the opponents are saying. But, no, it’s not black helicopters. Still, I think that move is was guaranteed to make some people uneasy. (That’s, of course, why the move was bone headed.)
Yes, giving people reasons to get mad at you, when they wen’t mad at you before, is the OPPOSITE of what a skilled politician is supposed to do. Duh.
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
I suspect the snitch line mostly only made those already mad at Obama mad at him. Most people aren’t paying that much attention to it because it’s not such a big thing.
All in all, it’s not going to work anyway. It won’t take long before some group realize they can work collectively to send in anything and everything and swamp whoever is trying to discover what sort of information (mis or otherwise) is circulating.
Basically: the white house blog will be spammed by citizens who will be “willing to help”.
Lucia,
Have you seen the President’s Approval Index Chart that John M posted? The Pretty Green Line and The Pretty Red Line?
The Trends on that one mean anything to you?
Or do only the trends that support your beliefs really mean anything?
Andrew
Zeke: ” After all, Obama’s approval ratings are still solidly above 50 percent: ” LOL, you are dreaming, fella. This arrogant “transparent,” “bipartisan,” “no pork,” hypocrite will set a record as being a lame duck after only 6 months in office. We don’t even have a clue who the hell he is, since he won’t share ANY of his records with us: birth certificate, passport, school records, Illinois Senate record, publications, etc. etc. Just how the hell can anyone support a person who he doesn’t even KNOW???? Where oh where is the logic in Obamaland?
Andrew_KY,
While I actually like Rasmussen, you need to remember that that is only one polling company, and that its methodology differs somewhat from others (it uses ‘likely voters’ as its population, for example). I prefer using the realclearpolitics average. The trend is certainly down, but Obama still has more people supporting him than otherwise.
That said, I think that health care is a very difficult and dangerous issue for Obama. I do not know why the majority of Americans prefer the system that they currently have over more government intervention, but it has been obvious for decades that when it comes to the crunch, they do.
Andrew_KY (Comment#17713)
Perhaps you could expound on the foundations of government:
Articles of Confederation (1777)
Interesting. Rasmussen is actually showing the smaller decline in Obama’s approval of most polling companies over the last couple of months. (I assume that one reason is because they did not have him quite as high as other polling companies.) But the average decline has been about 12 points in roughly two months, which is pretty steep. And my bet is that the vast majority of that is due to the healthcare issue.
Forgot the link:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
But David, don’t you know? Rassmussen is a “Republican Poll” according to no less an authority than Chris Matthews (who happened to be scolding a “denier”)
Ryan O-Locke rules! Glad to see someone else who knows the roots of classical liberal philosophy!
I notice that my friend and possibly alter ego (nah! Just kiddin’) has offended some people. Let me say that I’m not offended! But you probably already knew that.
Rasmussen is my favourite polling company when I am following US politics. Their system of weighting by party affiliation is the best that I have ever seen. And if people examined closely the reason why they tend to differ from other polling companies in their results, they would actually understand *why*.
I can sort of see the analogy between the tea-party and your resistance to preventing global warming through taxes. Colonialism may have had its time in 1773, but it is not so hot anymore. But, what is up with the NRAILA t-shirt? What is the relevance of that to global warming?
“preventing global warming through taxes.”
What “prevention”? If the models are right, no policy on the table is going to have any meaningful effect on climate. Doubly so if they are wrong.
Also, note the author of the post-Andrew KY, not lucia.
David L. Hagen,
On the foundations of gov’t-
I always like this quote from the Oscar-Winning Film Chariots of Fire- (would that move win an Oscar in todays “climate”?)
“God made countries, God makes kings, and the rules by which they govern. And those rules say that the Sabbath is His. And I for one intend to keep it that way” 😉
Andrew
Aslak,
This isn’t about the colonialism of the past. This about the rights of people. The Tea Partiers is 1773 exercised their rights as free people. We are simply doing the same. The fact that they were a British colony is significant, but the story could have been about Scots back in Scotland exercising their rights and the moral would still be the same. As soon as a gov’t becomes tyrranical, it loses it’s authority. That’s the point.
Andrew
Zeke said:
“…I was pointing out that spying on Americans was a tad more germane to the past administration, and most critics of the current one were disappointingly silent at the time…”
Here is one consistent critic, FWIW:
http://www.reason.com/staff/show/143.html?pg=2#listing
I think the idea of sending in the names of politicians who support the Obama health and energy scams would be the perfect way to comment on this latest disgusting idea of our fearless leader.
For an added bonus, consider sending in the names of any journalist-hack (redundant term), talking head or opinion leader who is promoting either.
If anyone seriously thinks that having a WH that is overtly setting out to create a political enemy list over political differences, is anything close to spying on people communicating with terrorists during time of war, please do explain yourself.
I don’t hunter; I think authorizing spying on American citizens is much worse. But I have a feeling we won’t agree on this particular point.
Lucia
You’ve opened up the nut-case, and all the nuts are pouring out. A most unfortunate development for this blog. The last thing a rational luke-warmer needs is to associate with – and be tarred by – the Obama-is-a-socialist-Muslim-terrorist tin foil hat crowd. I’m very disappointed.
MarkB,
I’m disappointed you didn’t have more name-calling and labeling in your post. I’m sure you’ll do better next time.
Andrew
He did leave out the “birther” crowd, which has some representation.
MarkB:
“The last thing a rational luke-warmer needs is to associate with – and be tarred by – the Obama-is-a-socialist-Muslim-terrorist tin foil hat crowd. I’m very disappointed.”
Maybe you could explain to everyone just WHO BHO is. We actually know extremely little about the man, since he has sealed all his records. Very odd, donchathink?
Lucia,
This thread was a BAD idea.
I’m disappointed in you.
Zeke,
So it is worse in a time of war to legally spy on Americans who may be assisting our enemies, than it is to make a list of political enemies as a function of the WH?
MarkB,
These are very emotionally charged times. I do not think this is a fault of our most excellent host.
Jack (Comment#17776)
August 12th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Lucia,
This thread was a BAD idea.
I’m disappointed in you.
Jack,
If you have a problem with this thread, why don’t you direct your comments at the author(me), where they belong?
Andrew
Andrew,
Weren’t you execrating our hostess in a previous thread about her AGW conclusions and how she arrived at those conclusions ? Using statements like:
and generally claiming pretty high bar for actually knowing things ? What happened here ? Are you really arguing now that things like political polls and puff pieces have relevance ? Is there anything here that would even slightly stand up to your rigorous tests ? This seems to be a particularly strange point of view for someone claiming the highest intellectual standards.
Artifex,
Well, AGW is supposed to be based on science. Therefore, it should be scrutinized scientifically. Raked over the coals, so to speak, to see if it holds up.
And yes, the political arguement is about ideas. It’s about who has the better ideas.
Who has the better ideas? 😉
Andrew
MarkB–
I was interested in reading what happened at the Ohio tea party as I attended one in Lisle, so when Andrew_KY said he’s like to describe his, I said fine. I don’t regret it because I do want to read what people are saying about the parties.
That said, I doubt the Ohio tea party has much to do with global warming. The topic simply was not on the radar at the Lisle event.
As for guest posts in general:
I’m going to let people post from time to time. Sometimes they’ll line up with me; sometimes less. I’m not even going to edit to reflect me. If I’d edited to reflect me… I’d edit two things. One in particular is this:
Well.. most who understand this does not include me.
I’m an atheist. I don’t think there is a creator. Obviously, I don’t think our rights come from a Creator.
In fact, after I wrote about the Lisle Tea party, I was invited to join a group who wanted to join his group which involved this “Creator” idea.
I said…. No. I told him the whole Creator issue was a deal breaker for me. He replied back and tried to persuade me that I only have to believe in the Creator a little bit.
Ehrm… Deal breaker.
I’d also edit this:
I don’t like to call other people’s ideas stupid (except when I’m at home, where I do rant at the tv.) I also don’t think Global warming is imaginary.
BTW: My inbox fills with email from posts I write, but not those by guest authors. So… oddly, I don’t see all the discussion here. It is definitely true that this comments thread has a much more social conservative flavor than I hold.
I’m a gay-marriage favoring, atheist, abortion should be legal, civil rights supportin’ fiscal conservative. I suspect Andrew_KY is not most of those things.
Lucia,
Exposing the government-sponsored hoax that is Global Warming, is among the reasons to have Tea Parties. It’s EXACTLY the kind of thing all of us should be protesting. LOTS of people hold this view. You need to get more, too. 😉
Andrew
Sorry, get “out” more. eek! 😉
Andrew
It may well be I need to get out more. But I don’t think global warming is a hoax– government sponsored or not.
I’m perfectly well able to believe in lower taxes and also prefer smaller government intrusion in our lives without imagining global warming is a hoax.
One of the things that does fascinate me is why certain notions get connected in people’s minds. That’s why I like to go to things like tea parties. However, I inevitably find people who assume I must believe in God or something… and then I have to explain that, in my opinion, if their goal is lower taxes and smaller government, to create a coalition, they may need to drop the whole “we need to do ‘X’ because that’s what God would want” part. They lose all the atheist fiscal conservatives when the put the God requirement first. (Maybe they don’t care. But there yah’ go.)
Anyway, I don’t know what happened at your tea party. I live in Lisle; climate change was not a topic of conversation. I even tried to bring it up with individuals. But…maybe my position was too nuanced.
Lucia,
Some people do feel religious zeal for their politics. They all ain’t on the Tea Party side, either.
Andrew
“If you have a problem with this thread, why don’t you direct your comments at the author(me), where they belong?
Andrew”
Because this is Lucia’s blog and she made the decision to include your post in HER blog. While it’s ultimately her and only her choice on what sorts of posts to include, I wanted to let HER know my opinion on including these sorts of threads that lead to irrational political rants, which IMO have little to do with the point of her blog. I actually don’t care a whit about telling YOU what I think.
“I actually don’t care a whit about telling YOU what I think.”
Actually, you just did that, sir. 🙂
Andrew
Andrew_Ky–
You might want to be a bit more cordial to people who express their views in comments.
Obviously, Jack is correct that, ultimately, this blog is mine. So, some comments are going to be addressed to me, not you.
You know I disagree with your notion that AGW is motivated by religious zeal, and I think you have never made even the remotest case it is. But even if I were wrong, and all of who believe in AGW were motivated by some sort of ill-defined “religious” zeal, you don’t stand on very firm ground when you criticized that. You have just advanced your position for individual liberties on the notion they were granted by a “Creator”!
My politics are motivated by my faith in God. It’s true. Why would I hide it?
Lucia, you seem to be confused as to what religious zeal is. Religious zeal means dedication and passion for whatever Higher Calling you think you have.
I KNOW people who believe in their leftist politics as fervently as any inspired preacher believes in his calling.
A person’s zeal might be for The Trend or Socialism or The Democratic Party or whatever. It’s still religious zeal.
Andrew
And you know, this Tea Party thread might stop someday, if you people who say you don’t care about it would stop commenting in it, maybe? 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
I’m not suggesting you hide the fact that your politics are motivated by your faith in God. I didn’t suggest it should not be.
I don’t happen to believe people’s believe in AGW is motivated by religious zeal, and have told you so when you have suggested it. What I am now suggesting is that you don’t really believe there is anything wrong with anyone’s politics being motivated by any sort of religious zeal.
So.. what gives here? After all,
a) you can’t really show any evidence whatsoever those who believe in AGW believe it for religious reasons (which you accuse them of) and
b) even if that was their reason for believing in AGW, you don’t actually believe there is anything wrong with politics being motivated by religion.
As far as I can see, you are accusing those who believe in AGW of doing something at a) you don’t think is wrong, b) you can’t show evidence they are doing, c) they deny, d) they don’t seem to be doing and to some extent e) you do yourself.
You do see how that “AGW is a religion” argument isn’t going anywhere, don’t you? (Ok.. that’s rhetorical. I suspect you don’t. But the rest of us do!)
Lucia,
I am honest about my political position as religiously motivated.
People who believe in AGW or Socialism or Atheism or whatever they believe strongly in, are religiously motivated (their god just has a different name), but do they say they are? Or do they say they aren’t religiously motivated? I just would like people to be honest about it. What are you motivated by, Lucia?
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
And I am honest about my political position not being religiously motivated.
OK David,
I like when familiar names pop in to discuss things, BTW.
What is your political position motivated by?
Andrew
It depends on the precise issue. Sometimes, I might adopt a position on an issue because I am aware of its direct financial or other effect upon me and my family. Other times, I might adopt a position on issue out of a reaction against some of the tactics being used to support it or oppose it. (I actually have a lot of trouble on politics blogs generally, because while I consider myself to be on the left, I am often at odds with them on various issues – as an example, I supported the invasion of Iraq, I do not think that Bush and co carried out 911, I have been accused of being a zionist because of my sometimes outspoken support of Israel et cetera et cetera).
So, you would have to name the issue. I assume in this context, we are talking about global warming. My political position in this context is motivated by the evidence that, from my understanding (but obviously not yours! :)), shows that the earth is warming, that humans are causing it and that the results of projected future warming will not be good for lots of people and animals.
So, I guess I am motivated by the fact that I care about people and animals.
Jack (Comment#17776)
“Lucia,
This thread was a BAD idea.
I’m disappointed in you.”
I’m curious. Why would you say this? Are you afraid of political discussions? If so, why?
lucia (Comment#17802)
August 12th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Andrew_KY–
“I’m not suggesting you hide the fact that your politics are motivated by your faith in God. I didn’t suggest it should not be. ”
Good. I side with Andrew on this issue, FWLIW (for what little it is worth).
Personally, I love political discussion. And am afraid of it at the same time, given the terrible level that it often stoops to on the internet. I have found that religious discussions tend to be a lot more civil.
Andrew_KY (Comment#17803) August 12th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Sorry, I can’t agree with this statement. I can say “I believe in Freedom” but I don’t think there’s any question that I’m conflating Freedom with God or I can even say I believe in Santa Claus but nobody would expect me to actively worship Santa Claus.
Some people may believe in Science, Atheism, or even Socialism with “religious” patterns of thought but the blanket statement that all believers in all things are just being dishonest about their “religiousness” is just a particularly egregious example of, well, religiosity.
Or maybe we are talking about health care? Despite its many problems, I prefer the system Australia has at present to my understanding of what the US system entails, given that it costs close to twice as much per capita and, on health statistics, appears to deliver worse outcomes (although I understand that those health statistics are affected by a complex web of factors that transcend any simple cause and effect relationship with the healthcare system).
I guess I am motivated by my desire to have cheaper and better health care for as many people as possible, that ‘many people’ including me and my family, of course. 🙂
I agree with Oliver.
As far as I can tell, Andrew_KY wants to make the claim that people — using no modifier like “some” or “a few” who believe in things strongly –are religiously motivated, but he provides no evidence whatsoever for this claim.
Also, it’s impossible to believe he believes the literal meaning of his claim.
I believe quite strongly that when I drop heavy things like lead bricks they will fall toward the earth. Is this religiously motivated? If Andrew_KY thinks that’s a religious belief– as opposed to one I hold due to empirical evidence– then what the heck does having a religious belief even mean?
I also don’t see how favoring Socialism or Capitalism necessarily has anything to do with religion (though I understand some early christian sects favored communism, and the Amana colony had a communistic social structure. )
On the other hand, I’m perfectly willing to admit that Atheism is, in some sense a religion. Why wouln’t I? It’s usually non-atheists who deny the religious nature of atheism, and also deny atheism warrants similar 1st amendment protections as protestanisms, catholocisms, voodoo-ism, shintoism, anamisms, islam, judaism etc.
I would tend to disagree with the notion that atheism is a religion. Theism is not a religion, after all. But I understand and sympathise with the 1st amendment issues.
I am actually more sympathetic to the notion that communism (for example) can be characterised as a religion.
I guess I would say that you can have atheistic religions (perhaps secular humanism could be characterised in this way in certain contexts, and – imo- objectivism certainly can). But atheism, along with theism, is not in the ‘religon’ category.
David,
How about we call acceptance of things that cannot be proved or, in a Popperian sense, disproved religions? Straight out god-bothers like Andrew_KY are then as much of the religous as yourself and other atheists. And then there are the agnostics — who accept the unprovableness and undisproveableness or at least the yet to be provedness. In the Climate debate there look to be the same sets — two groups of deniers (AGW deniers and Natural Variaiton deniers) — both sides have powerful arguements and piles of data but just like in the religion debate neither seems to be able to convince the other and both sides harangue the agnostic. Both sides seem to jumble all the agnostics into an ‘agnostic because stupid’ group which seems rather sad.
Andrew Kennett,
But what if we disagree on whether something can be proved or disproved? And how we would we categorise agnostic atheists and agnostic theists, for example?
I think that a religion is more than just a belief in a particular proposition. A religion is a world view that covers ethics, knowledge/knowing, metaphysics and aesthetics, in my opinion. This is why I would not classify theism or atheism as ‘religions’. Neither are world views; they are statements of position in relation to a single proposition. Christianity and Communism are world views, however, and thus could be considered religions.
However, maybe it goes even further than that, because there are religious world views and non-religious world views.
So, maybe it would be simpler to leave ‘religion’ as referring to, well, religions?
I would also question how climate change would belong in the category ‘cannot be proven or disproven’, given that there are indeed specific observations that would disprove AGW.
Maybe such labelling is overrated. Maybe we should instead simply ask a person what they believe and why. 🙂
David — I think that stating ‘there is no Creator’ is as much a world view as stating ‘there is a Creator’. Both are a first principle.
David — well maybe we can agree that at the current level of knowledge the AGW v NV debate can not be proven. OK maybe you are still in the ‘debate is over’ camp and if so — well good luck and goodnight.
Of course some of us once thought that the AGW models projected certain events and that the presence of absence of these events could be used to test AGW but when these events failed to happen (temps didn’t rise, no hotspot etc) AGW morphed into Climate Change and denial that these events were ever ‘signatures’ (see much of this blog for details). To me this looks a lot like other ‘the end is nigh’ movements — maybe this is why a Andrew_KY sees a similiarity in attitude between AGW and religion. He could also be winding you up (yes even right-wing yanks have a sense of humour).
I agree that they are as much a world view as one another. Neither is in face a world view. Knowing whether or not person X believes or does not believe in a creator tells you nothing about their position on ethics, metaphysics, knowledge and knowing, aesthetics. In fact, it only answers one very simple question. And they are not first principles. Some world views *do not care* whether or not there is or is not a god.
Indeed, while my position on deity has changed over time, my positions on many other things have not. So the answer to that simple question *cannot* be a first principle.
David,
‘Some world views *do not care* whether or not there is or is not a god.’ Of course and they are agnostic by defintion.
‘Indeed, while my position on deity has changed over time, my positions on many other things have not. So the answer to that simple question *cannot* be a first principle.’
There are many paths up the mountain — but it is still the same mountain.
Lucia,
Zeke #17671 drew your attention to comment #17665, which is hard to interpret as other than a crude racist attack on the president. You don’t seem to have done anything about it.
Are you proud to be hosting this sort of stuff?
Andrew Kennett,
Obviously, the debate is not over, as people are still debating. 🙂 However, I of course believe that there is sufficient evidence to provisionally accept AGW theory, as if I did not believe there was sufficient evidence I would not have accepted it. 😉
That does not, however, mean that it might not be rejected in the future. I have already posted that if six of the next 12 years (2009 to 2020) are colder than 2008 then I will conclude that the world is not warming.
Now, does that make a global warming believer or a global warming agnostic?
I do not think that people can be so easily categorised. As an example, I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I do not claim that there is no deity; I simply state that I do not know for certain whether or not there is a deity (I do not think that certainty is something we can have outside of systems with formally defined axioms) and that I do not believe that there is one.
Andrew_Kennett,
On paths, I agree. Which means that the deity question cannot be a first principle. It is simply one question, the answer to which may or may not be significant in a person’s worldview.
David — do you really have that position? Ask yourself the ETS question — vote for one or not in 2009? Do we wait for your test? If we wait for it to be proved then we vote down ETS but if we can’t wait and must have an ETS then really we aren’t waiting for AGW to be tested we are just accepting (some would say believing) — looks like religion from to me.
Andrew_Kennett,
As I provisionally accept it, I provisionally accept all that it entails, which involves doing things to reduce our emissions.
As another example, if sufficient evidence was presented to me that a comet was going to smash into the earth in 2030, I would provisionally accept that and all that it entails, which involves doing things to try to prevent such a catastrophe.
But that provisional acceptance – which I also have for things like evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics and so on and so forth – can always be turned around by contrary evidence.
As to proving AGW, you cannot prove AGW to be true, so waiting for such proof is futile. As an example, let us say that we wait until 2020 and fewer than six years over that time period are colder than 2008. That does not *prove* AGW is true. All it does is fail to prove it false. What if 10 of the 10 years between 2021 and 2030 were colder than 2008? That would *also* disprove AGW.
Provisional acceptance means, ‘I accept this as the best current explanation of the evidence, but I will alter my position should sufficient contrary evidence emerge in the future.’
And I have no problem with using the word ‘believe’ instead of ‘accept’. Same thing.
Andrew_Kennett,
What is the definition of ‘religion’ that you are using in applying it to belief in AGW?
For example, are you equating ‘religion’ to ‘belief with insufficient evidence’?
If so, we have a problem, because from my perspective there *is* sufficient evidence. And, I would bet, many theists would claim that there is sufficient evidence, from their perspective, for belief in deity.
Far better to come from the position that reasonable people can come to different conclusions about all sorts of things, including sufficiency of evidence for various propositions as well as on the propositions themselves.
Andrew_Kennett,
I also must take issue with this comment:
“He could also be winding you up (yes even right-wing yanks have a sense of humour).”
The evidence from my perspective is that right-wing yanks do not have any such thing as ‘a sense of humour’. I would refer you to the computer modelling done by Colbert and Stewart. The multi-model mean falls well outside ‘sense of humour’ 95 per cent confidence intervals for observations since November 4 2008.
David,
How slippery is this “provisional acceptance”, what if it makes you do something that has clear, right now bad effects ‘ just in case’ some future ‘very bad thing’ happens, do you act or wait? It seems to me from other of your statements that your “provisional acceptance” is of the same kind and of only a little different degree than Gavin and Jim etc and you might as just as well say “acceptance”. I contrast this with Lucia who accepts AGW as a basic premise but tests — the old accept but verify
David,
“from my perspective there *is* sufficient evidence. And, I would bet, many theists would claim that there is sufficient evidence, from their perspective, for belief in deity.”
Exactly — no provisional acceptance in that statement
Andrew Kennett,
I am positive that my provisional acceptance is of the same kind and of the same degree as that of Gavin or Jim. And I am accepting and checking (you cannot ‘verify’, if by that you mean ‘prove’.). I have established a benchmark for what would make me no longer ‘provisionally accept’.
My use of the word ‘provisional’ is simply a way to remind *me* that there is no certainty.
As to bad now versus maybe bad later, that would always have to be examined on a case-by-case basis. It would depend on how bad now and how bad later, for example, as well as confidence levels.
As an example, I do not accept Lovelock’s interpretation of how the future will play out. Thus, I assume that Lovelock would be prepared to pay much more now than I am.
David,
“On paths, I agree. Which means that the deity question cannot be a first principle. It is simply one question, the answer to which may or may not be significant in a person’s worldview.”
I’m not sure you followed my meaning — two people can reach the same moral postion starting from conflicting religious views (conflicting first principles) so using your arguement that you have chnaged religious position without changing moral position makes no clear statement.
By the way, if it fits your perspective to call my position a religious one, go ahead. 🙂 Words are tricky things and always shift in meaning. I do not think that it will obstruct understanding. (Although I would like to know what definition of the word ‘religious’ you are using in this context.)
Andrew Kennett,
If they can reach the same position from two different points, then those points cannot be in any sense first principles. Indeed, the unchanging position is more likely to be a first principle.
David,
So are you suggesting that a person chooses a religion that fits already held morals? Makes AGW sound even more like a religion — first comes the post-modern guilt then choosing AGW as a worldview/flagellation
Andrew Kennett,
I do not think that I mentioned AGW in that context. I was talking about how the answer to the question of whether or not there is a deity is not a first principle. (and belief in deity is not a religion, and neither is non-belief).
And it seems that your desire to use the word ‘religion’ to discuss AGW stems from a wish to denigrate the reasons why people believe it to be true. I do not think that that is a useful way to try to reach understanding of others, personally.
A more useful methodology, in my opinion, is to start from the position that the person opposite you has arrived at their position by examining the evidence and thinking things through. The fact that they hold a different position from yours is not evidence of blind belief, as reasonable people can come to completely different conclusions. Just something to think about. 🙂
Oh, and changing the topic slightly, I found this elsewhere regarding Tea Parties:
“Make no mistake about this! The ‘Tea Baggers’ are armed to the teeth and they intend to kill you on behalf of a tiny elite of just one percent of the United States population.â€
Holding – how shall I describe the above? Paranoid? Off-the-planet? Let us be kind and simply say ‘extreme’ – extreme views about our opponents is rarely useful, I feel.
And I should add here that I often fall into attacking the motives and assuming things about the psychology of my opponents. It is very easy to do, unfortunately – especially when discussing things among people who agree with me. 🙁
Nick–
Actually, I didn’t notice that comment #17665. It does appear racist. Fortunately, no one else seems to have gone off in that direction.
It’s very easy to do, but if you are with people who disagree with you, they call you on it. They are often right (which I think is part of your point.)
Who said this? Being armed and killing people was not the tone at the Lisle Tea party. (I can’t speak of other events.)
Lucia,
I don’t think that dropping bricks and watching them fall is religious. It’s repeatable, and everyone can experience it. It’s a boring fact that bricks fall.
AGW cannot be observed, and is not repeatable. You can’t experience it. You can pretend to experience it, like you do, because you insist that a line on a piece of paper that bends the way you want it to is ‘Global Warming.’
We’ve had this discussion before, yet you keep insisting that I’m making arguments that I’m not.
How long are you going to keep doing that?
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment#17845) August 13th, 2009 at 6:53 am
I haven’t “experienced” special relativity in any meaningful way, but I can look at the predictions and the subsequent observations and “believe” in SR (or not).
Why should AGW be any different?
Only to people who don’t get hit by falling bricks!
oliver,
What I’m trying to get at is the difference between belief in something and experiencing something.
And as far Special Relativity compared to AGW… can you explore that a bit more and tell me what the similarities and differences are?
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
You can complain all you want about being mis-represented. I do not believe I have misrepresented you. However, I’m not diving into a scatter-shot blog comment method of teasing out the precise thought process underlying your notions about evidence or what can or cannot be proven. We already did this, and as far as I can tell, your notions about evidence are scattered and inconsistent and much of your debating technique consists of changing subjects, avoiding answering questions, crafting irrelevant questions and complaining other people do not answer your questions when they have explain your question is irrelevant to the point we are supposedly trying to discuss.
Moreover, your standard of proof depend on whether or not you wish to believe something is or can be proven.
I’m not going to waste my time discussing whether you believe it’s possible to prove the existence of “The Money Supply”, “AGW”, “Special Relativity” etc. As far as I can tell, your standards for evidence depend on whether or not you prefer to believe in something. I suspect others agree with me. I know we have not convinced you that we are correctly diagnosing your position. But if you want to convince anyone else that you are not merely holding a double standard, you will need to take some time to write Andrew_KY’s very treatise on what is, and is not evidence, providing specific applications. This may require a book.
If you want to clarify your position, you are going to have to be proactive about explaining it. That means you voluntarily explain it fully and do so first.
On this thread, what I would like to know is… where there any interesting people at the tea party? Were new political figures introduced? What other topics were discussed? Etc.
Lucia,
Thanks for the verbose segue/dodge.
Stay tuned. ‘Working’ you know. My productivity graph needs a hockey stick analysis applied to it today! 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
Segue? Dodge?
I told you before that I’m not diving into your method of arguing, which includes examples like your Comment#17849; I am not telling you again.
If you want to explain how you approach weighing evidence for Special Relativity, fine. But if all you are going to try to “explain” your point by asking questions, then no. For what it’s worth, this is a question: “And as far Special Relativity compared to AGW… can you explore that a bit more and tell me what the similarities and differences are? ” It tells us nothing of what you think how you approach evidence etc.
In real life, people are permitted to decide to budget time. I’m budgeting my time by telling you that either a) you explain what your position and b) not letting you pretend that you get to be Socrates while everyone else is required to sit at your feet and learn by listening to and answering your questions.
This is not a “dodge”. I’m saying this quite directly and have said so before.
As for the accusation of a segue: I do invite you to discuss anything that occurred at the tea-party. I think it is entirely fair for me to re-invite you back to the topic of what was discussed at the tea-party. You requested a chance to post about the tea party, tell us what happened there, and I granted that request. If you wish to discuss that, I would be eager to learn more.
If you don’t want to share that… then I guess you don’t have to do so. But presumably, this is the thread on which to discuss the tea party, and your motive in posting was to tell us what happened there.
This thread decidedly took a turn for the better when it segued into a discussion of religion and philosophy. Those topics tend to be less prone to the type of “two ships passing in the night” debates that often follow when people from differing ideologies discuss politics.
David Gould,
“I prefer the system Australia has at present to my understanding of what the US system entails, given that it costs close to twice as much per capita and, on health statistics, appears to deliver worse outcomes”
Ummmm. Gullible much?!
The US health system is the best in the world. And it’s so far ahead of second place that you can’t see 2d place from here. Yes, given our wealth we choose to spend much, much more on people in the last stages of their lives. And yes, given that millions of unhealthy poor pour across our open borders , we spend a lot of our money taking care of people who skew our statistics to look bad.
I hope you realize that US consumers foot the bill for the billions of dollars in “savings” when national health services buy at low prices drugs and medical technology that were developed in the US because of the incentives of the US market. Companies support the high costs of research and development off the profits realized in the US. They are willing to sell to the rest of the world’s governments at low prices because the marginal cost of the extra production is low. If Obamacare passes in the US, the rest of the world will see the development of new drugs and technology dry up and the costs of existing drugs and technology soar. Obamacare would be the worst possible development for the healthcare of the rest of the world.
Zeke– I for one am happy to discuss atheism, and in particular how that fits into the tea party issue.
At the Lisle Tea Party it appeared some groups supported the movement based primarily on the tax issues with arguments advanced based on their notions of how the economy worked, what gave people incentives to start businesses, how taxes affect small businessees etc. There arguments may have been correct or incorrect but they did not promote the notion that low taxes or small government are mandates of any sort of divine being or creator.
Other groups seemed to wrap all their notions around this divine creator issue. Why should we have low taxes? God says so. Why is the declaration of independence valid? It mentions god. Etc. The leaflets from those groups also promoted all sorts of social policies and, to some extent, government support of social mores I don’t like, while cloaking these impositions with the name of liberty. (To some extent, this appeared to be social conservatives liberty to prevent other people from making choices or living in ways social conservatives don’t like, 😉 )
I’m hoping the more secular group comes to the fore in this whole “tea party” campaign. If it does not, I’m probably not going to back any candidates coming out of the parties and will continue to seek out another movement.
BTW: When the Republican party phones for donations, I ask the caller about their position on social issues and fiscal issues. The conversations that ensue can be pretty funny. (I once said: Sorry, but we aren’t giving because we lean libertarian. The woman calling said– enthusiastically– “Oh, I know what you mean. We all love our guns!” I said… uhmmm, no. I don’t care about guns. I meant I’m pro-gay marriage and abortion. That lead to some hmming and hawing…)
Socially liberal and economically conservative was always a bit of a missing niche in the American political landscape. It seems to be a lot more common in European political parties.
Lunch Break Tea Party Nibblet #1:
On the bus up to the Liber-Tea Party I sat next to a gentleman named Bill. I helped him with his banner, which is why the first pic is like it is. I was holding up the one side. The interesting thing about talking to him (he was older than me) was that he was surprised when I told him while most of my friends agree with Tea Party principles, they act like they don’t have the time to actually go to one and get involved. I think his exact response was, “I wonder why they’re still your friends?” I took that to mean I should jettison my friends because they don’t care about going to Tea Parties like I do. He may of spoken in haste, as we were strangers just talking for the first time. Anyway, it’s fun to join with like-minded people and listen to speeches and whoop it up for a couple hours, but ultimately you need to share the good Tea Party ideas with people outside your comfort zone. If they are good ideas, people will eventually understand them if you persist.
Andrew
Andrew_KY
I’m all for sharing my political ideas whether from tea parties or not. I’m even willing to share which tea party ideas I liked and which I loathed.
Zeke–
I fee so European now…. 🙂
Lucia,
But are your political ideas any good? Please tell me they are better than your Global Warming Ideas. 😉
Andrew
stan (Comment#17862) Gullible much?
David is not gullible. He has experienced the system he is talking about, as I have. Scenes like this just couldn’t happen here.
David — you wanted my def of belief/religious — do you know the stats koan of the drunk man and the lightpost?
If you use data to support rather than illuminate then your position it is belief. If this belief dominates your worldview then it is a religion. Many many AGWers do this — and, with respect and consideration of your written opinions on this blog, this is what you appear to do. As an example you should have a fresh look at your comments on the FOI thread — while there was clearly many, even those who are of a warming view that could see that there is a lack of transperency and that this is a problem but your reaction was to claim no problem — was this because having this problem clashed with your belief?
Also I am disappointed that you think I have a blind belief that those who disagree with me do so out of blind belief — please reread your comments — I think you will find the same could (and should) be said of you.
Sorry Lucia I’m trying not to respond to name calling with name calling but it is very hard 🙁
Andrew Kennett,
I am unclear where I have called you names. However, I apologise.
However, it was you who made this comment:
“first comes the post-modern guilt then choosing AGW as a worldview/flagellation”
It seems that you believe that *you* hold the beliefs you do because you have considered the evidence, weighed the facts and come to a well-reasoned conclusion. But, apparantly, you do not think that those who believe AGW is real have done the same thing. Now, I could have misinterpreted the above comment. But given that you then made this statement:
“If this belief dominates your worldview then it is a religion. Many many AGWers do this”
it seems likely that I *didn’t* misinterpret.
Can you please clarify?
Oh, and I am perfectly willing to accept that I made a mistake in the thread you referred to – I believe that I acknowledged it in that thread and withdrew the comment, although I might not be thinking of the same comment.
Lucia,
The quote about Tea Baggers wanting to kill people came from what I would classify as an extreme left-wing conspiracy theorist blog. I posted it as an example of the distorted picture people can build of their political opponents. I am left-wing, but I do not suspect Tea Baggers of wanting to kill me. (Although they might want to slap some sense into me, I guess. ;))
David have you ever seen the movie PeeWee Herman’s Big Adventure? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089791/quotes
Andrew Kennett,
No. 🙂
Oh dear [self snip] this got ugly! I think I’m going to be sick seeing the cat fight that my friend has induced…
You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, making me nauseous with your discussions…
Well, okay, I’m exaggerating my feelings a bit. But whenever people get into discussing religion, philosophy, or other stuff that is not germane to the subject at hand, a kitten dies. Two if the person in question happens to disagree with me (and almost everyone-no, maybe EVERYONE) has said something I disagree with. And I don’t want to talk about it because it might make me lose my respect for said people, who are otherwise worth engaging.
Maybe I’m blind, but I haven’t seen much ugliness here. I honestly do not know what I have said that is so offensive to Andrew Kennett.
David — what makes you think I’ve been offended? Don’t worry I haven’t been. I do think you should look back over your comments and try to see them from the outside but not because they are offensive but rather because they are circular and repetative. You did claim I have a wish to denigrate people which is untrue but at least you seem to have vaguely appoligised (sp?) although you haven’t recanted (maybe a touch of the John Howards? — and yes I am being offensive). Prehaps you could hold yourself to the same standards you expect of others — if you want respect for your rather unique evidential requirements then really you have to respect others
I said ‘denigrate the reasons’. The problem with recanting is that you have said that you believe that many AGW believers, probably including me, do not believe in AGW because we have carefully considered the evidence, but rather because we are trying to either appease some post-modern guilt in ourselves or for some other reasons. This seems to me to be a denigration of the reasons for our/my belief.
If you disagree with my characterisation of this, can you explain your position further?
I do respect others. But I obviously have failed at conveying that here. 🙁 I will point out, however, that I did say that I do fail at things like this.
And I thought that you were offended because of this comment:
“Sorry Lucia I’m trying not to respond to name calling with name calling but it is very hard.”
David– I’m not sure, which name upset Andrew Kennett. I scrolled up and saw “tea baggers”. That’s sort of a new name, so I’m not sure it’s an epithet. But maybe he meant something else.
Andrew_FL–
Disagreements are always going to happen. But it is true this post does not focus on the normal topic of the blog. In contrast, the comments thread on my first tea party post stayed pretty tame so I didn’t much expect it. I think the comment thread is reaching it’s natural end though.
Lucia,
I hope nobody has to explain to you what “tea bagging” is! :/
Andrew
Hmmm. I had to google that. Never knew that expression.
‘Tea Baggers’ was a quote that I took from someone else’s blog to demonstrate that the left can be crazy. If it is offensive, I wouldn’t be surprised, considering that the person using it was accusing the people attending Tea Parties of plotting murder.
Just to clarify: I was most certainly not accusing people attending Tea Parties of plotting murder!
David–
Based on your response, I think it’s pretty clear that you (an Australian) also did not know the American slang meaning of “to tea bag”. Now that I know, I suspect I understand why Andrew Kennett thought there was name calling going on, while you and I were utterly clueless.
You will have to google. . .
Now I’m sacred of what I’m going to find when I google …
Lucia, I’m curious as to why you would choose to move to Illinois when you could have had a cheerful and semi-rewarding career corraling nuclear waste here in the high desert of eastern Washington State, a wonderland of warm weather and wide open spaces in comparison with the densely populated and semi-frozen upper midwest.
By the way, regarding another topic you and I have discussed previously, the Congress has now eliminated funding for continuance of the Yucca Mountain NRC license application, so we will never know what the NRC’s final decision would have been concerning the suitability of the Nevada site for storing spent nuclear fuel. Nor will we get the benefits of the NRC’s technical expertise plus their dedication to a disciplined, fair, and highly transparent public review process.
I had got bored with this thread but I fell I should clear things up — my name calling comment was not related to Tea Bagging although I do know what that means but rather a gentle, but poor and obviously unsuccessful attempt, to show David how he continually uses denier in the perogative, especially when he couples those who disagree with him to those who wouldn’t act when there is a comet going to hit the earth or to people who don’t believe in gravity and falling bricks. It always amazes me how some people, in fact many people, think they can convince others by insulting them.
Scott–
Yes. Congress continues its mistake. Do you like Richland? I prefer more densely populated areas. Plus, my relatives live here, not there.
Andrew– Ok. I scrolled up and didn’t find the “denier” word, but at least we now know what the word is. Sometimes people don’t know which label is considered name calling, and sometimes they disagree which labels are derogatory. So, mentioning the word cleared that up.
I don’t think David was intending to insult. But, on a general note, it is true, that insulting people never convinces them of anything. Most people know this when they are on the receiving end of an insult but forget it when they are hurling them.
Andrew Kennett,
I’ve been told (by a certain person) that I don’t believe in falling bricks, despite my protestations to the contrary.
But… I’ve also been told that I should believe that squiggly lines represent the earth and to look at them I should believe I’ve experienced Global Warming.
These statements are violently offensive to anybody’s brain, if they decided to think about it. 😉
Andrew
There is a quote on our office quote board:
“I regret googling tea bagging”
It seems rather germane. :-p
Andrew_KY (Comment#17917)-In some sense this is true, after all, nobody lives at the “global mean” but in actual places. And regional records vary wildly.
After 1977 there has been very little if any warming in Alaska-around 1976 the temperature just jumped! Talk about abrupt climate change-and clearly at variance with a gradual trend in the global mean. Greenland was warmer for decades after a rapid warming in the 1920’s than it is today. The trend in the Southeastern US since the 1890’s has been negative. While none of these things invalidates “Global Warming” itself-because it all happened while the Globe on average “warmed”-clearly nobody who actually lives in those places mentioned has experience the “large scale warming”. So yeah, many people certainly haven’t experienced the warming.
ON THE OTHER HAND! Many people HAVE experience regional warmings and coolings which may or may not be related to large scale warming, and still more have experienced “warming” that has nothing to do with large scale warming. People living in cities surely experienced a great deal of warming (whether one believes this is removed from the global mean or not) in general. But people also move to warmer climates of their own free will (with some exceptions like our hostess as an example, I believe) will experience “warming”-indeed, if we weight temperature averages by population that experiences those temperatures, something very interesting happens:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/pop_temp.JPG
It turns out that the average temperatures people EXPERIENCE in the US has risen dramatically! Why? Because people are moving to the South, of their own free will, to warmer climates! That surely is NOT something related to global warming, right? Surely not, because AGW only causes bad things…
Andrew Kennett,
As far as I am aware, I do not ‘continually’ use the word ‘denier’. I used it once in a post that I regret on the FOI thread. I may have used it elsewhere on this blog, but certainly not in this thread. As Lucia has said, it is however good to know that that is the word that you object to. I will avoid it.
Re the meteor thing, I think that you have completely misunderstood the point I was making there. I was saying that I – that’s me, David Gould – believe in AGW and thus, despite knowing that that belief may in fact be wrong (I accept that I am not infallible 😉 ) will be taking and supporting action consistent with that belief.
I am unsure how that can be interpreted as insulting.
David Gould (Comment#17963)-I like having fun at other people’s expense, so I have to say, this is the most amusing juxtaposition of statement and error I’ve ever seen:
“I am not infallible”
Indeed. The Pope knows that a double negative should not be used when an affirmative will do-the correct construction is “I am fallible”. 😉 Besides, I imagine that you believe in conservation-conserve words please!
Unless you meant that as a single negative that is!
Double negatives have their place. 🙂 Indeed, conversationally they are used all the time, and sometimes they can actually mean the reverse of their literal meaning – eg, ‘I’m not going eat no quiche!’ (but not this time ;))
So David G it appears you characterise yourself as moral and rational and as an example of this rationality and morality you use your supposed reaction to the extreme example of the Earth’s imminent destruction by being hit with a comet or to the obvious and undeniable observation of a falling brick. So how do you characterise those that disagree with you? It appears to me that you believe those that disagree with you are those so evil that even if they knew the Earth was to be destroyed they would refuse to act, and so irrational that they deny that a brick will fall (maybe you sometimes think of or refer to them as Flat Earthers and compare them to the tobacco industry). Aren’t you then demeaning and insulting the very people whose minds you wish to change? And is this not a similar behaviour to a religious zealot? Yet you wonder why I classify your arguments as religious.
Now perhaps you think I am being over sensitive and it is true that I use exaggeration to make my point but look inward … what is your attitude to those who disagree with you on AGW? Now I don’t know your thoughts only your actions so perhaps I misunderstand … but then perhaps I don’t.
Andrew Kennett,
1.) I note that you have not stepped back from your claim that I repeatedly use the word denier as a pejorative.
2.) I futher note that you have now linked me to another claim that I *did not* make regarding falling bricks.
3.) I do not refer to those who do not believe what I believe as ‘Flat Earthers’ or compare them to the tobacco industry.
My suspicion is that you have confused me with someone else.
It also appears that you have ignored my explanation for my use of the comet example, but instead attached your own interpretation. Perhaps this interpretation is coloured by your perception of who I am – this person who continually uses the word ‘denier’ in the pejorative, this person who calls others ‘Flat Earthers’ and so forth.
I state for the record that this person is not me, although I admit to sometimes making statements which I regret – as indeed you have observed on this blog.
Now, let me go through my perspective on the comet example.
1.) If I believed that a comet was going to hit the earth, while accepting that I could be in error, I would take action.
2.) As I believe that AGW is happening and is having and will have very bad effects on many people and animals, I am taking action.
The key word in each of those statements is the word ‘believe’. As you do not believe, why would I expect you to act? That would be a foolish expectation on my part.
I do not believe that those who disagree with me are ‘evil’; I do not believe that they are irrational. (Although of course any individual can be either ‘evil’ or irrational or both and disagree with me as well).
(I note that I do not think ‘evil’ exists as such.)
What I do believe is that they are in error/wrong/mistaken.
Hopefully, that clears that up. However, if it does not, I am willing to answer any questions that you may have. 🙂
I should note that I do actually believe in the existence of ‘evil people’, but that is a seperate philosophical issue.
David — I project from your statements on this blog — you know like the IPCC project temperature changes and sea level rises — my projections are as good and as worthy as theirs. When I see you make 10 statements that contradict my projection I may change my projection.
Andrew Kennett,
So you stand by your statement that I repeatedly use the word denier in the pejorative?
You stand by your statement that I used the example of a brick falling to earth?
Why?
In any case, I hope to one day have acheived the target of making 10 statements that meet your criteria. (Although it might be tricky, given that you seem to see me make statements that I cannot detect myself making ;))
David G — I’m sure Lucia doesn’t want the blog taken up with increasingly personal debate (in no why am I implying anything evil here only that most of this discusion can’t be of much interest to others) so not only do I accept that I sterotyped you with other warmers and hence in error attributed to you the brick comment, I’ll also completely accept that you have never been perjorative ever, anywhere, in your current exsistence or previous exsistences, in thought, word or deed, in use of the term Denier.
(and yes that last dig was immature, I’m sorry)