Congressman says it is time to dumb down the global warming argument
Representative Emanuel Cleaver has said that the reason that people are becoming skeptical about the global warming hoax is because we are too stupid to understand it, and that the argument needs to be “dumbed down” in order for the unwashed masses to understand it. Okay, that isn’t exactly what he said, but that is what can be taken from these comments that he made in regards to the this issue.
I think the newspapers are supposed to be printed at the sixth grade level and I think with something as important as (global warming), we’ve got to figure out how to simplify the language for the public, because otherwise they’re going to get a headache and bail out because they — not because they’re not concerned, but because they don’t get it
According to this man, the newspapers are supposed to write at a sixth grade level so that the American people can understand what is written in the paper. This man gives us true insight to what many of us have said about liberals for quite a while; that they feel they know what is best for us, and that we are too stupid to know that what they are doing is for our own good. The arrogance, condescension, and contempt that this man feels for his constituents– and for the American people in general– is something that politicians don’t often put into words. But put it into words he did. We need to be spoken to at sixth grade levels according to this man, we just aren’t smart enough to understand the complex issues that the congress has to deal with on a daily basis. Thank God that we have people as smart as Emanuel Cleaver to take care of us, otherwise the human race would already be extinct. Sometimes I wonder if he is correct, how else could you explain that someone like this could be elected by the people in the first place?
America's Watchtower 
Americans are too STUPID to get it. They don’t get foreign policy, they don’t get Net Present Value, they don’t get Off-Shoring of their pathetic lives to China. Americans are STUPID because the multinational corporations have NUMBED THEIR BRAINS with genetically altered food, chemical additives in the public water supplies, and a food chain poisoned with pesticides, chemical additives, and toxins such as arsenic, lead, and mercury. Then the population is regularly dosed with some anti-depressants, cholesterol medications, and then Viagra. Most of the people that actually have the power and money to force changes are technically illiterate and lazy and growing older every year….the Baby Boomers. Thanks for all you started in the 1960’s but WTF have you done lately besides blow your children off, shag your secretary, and blame someone else for all your problems???!!!
LikeLike
I have had it up to here with the ‘we are too dumb to understand’ rhetoric.
The real problem here, is our elected officials are too dumb to understand that “we the people” are done with all of this nonsense. Maybe when we hit them over the head with our November 2×4, the little light bulb in their head will finally go off!
Geesh!
LikeLike
I get so frustrated with the “we are smarter than you” attitude that many of our elected official have that sometimes I just want to scream! If we do pull of the scale of victory in November that I think we will the politicians will just claim once again that we don’t understand what we did.
LikeLike
It’s not condescension, it’s accurate. The people he’s discussing fail to grasp evolution and the crushingly confirming science and math behind it. They fail to recognize that sex ed in schools reduces teenage pregnancy. They fail to notice that despite huge amounts of money spent, we lag well behind much of the developed world in terms of educational standards and performance, healthcare outcomes, and our ability to minimize violent crime.
Nobody likes to be told that they’re ignorant. It’s just too bad that the indignation over the charge doesn’t actually solve the problem. The worst part is that the people who most loudly chant that “We’re Number One” are only doing it because they’re so bad at math and reading comprehension that they haven’t noticed that this claim became fiction 30 years ago. Unless, of course, you’re discussing our military budget. That is the only arena in which we really do stand alone.
LikeLike
Wow! Your response leaves me breathless.
1. Your wrote: “They fail to recognize that sex ed in schools reduces teenage pregnancy.” We don’t fail to recognize any such thing. The fact is sex ed has failed miserably. The problem with pregnancy – at any age – is accountability. When you don’t have to worry about being accountable, what motivates you to do what’s right?
In addition, if women (adults) are casting babies aside because they are inconvenient, thus not being accountable for their choices, what message are we sending to the youth?
If we raised the standard in this country, and held each other accountable for the mistakes we make, most of us would carefully think through our decisions or reckless behavior before engaging in them. Even if we didn’t, we would be held accountable to take responsibility for our actions.
We don’t need to explain to children how to have sex. We need to show them how to be responsible for their own decisions by choosing to be responsible for our own actions as adults.
2. You wrote: “They fail to notice that despite huge amounts of money spent, we lag well behind much of the developed world in terms of educational standards and performance, healthcare outcomes, and our ability to minimize violent crime.”
Again, accountability and responsibility come to mind. No amount of money will fix the ills of our land. It is interesting to me that home schooled children excel with little to no money, whereas, the public school system is a disaster? Why is that do you suppose?
Money cannot, and usually does not, guarantee results. As far as health care goes, we are not behind the rest of the world. As a matter of fact, the world is not the role model for health care. We are.
The issues we have here could have been easily resolved without a massive government take over. Again, money is not usually the answer to a problem. It is nothing more than a band-aid.
As to the issue of violent crime, again, let me say accountability and responsibility, yet again. We need to get beyond this mindset that criminals can be rehabbed. Some can, most can’t. However, if you hold them responsible for their actions, most will learn to change. If not, they will continue to reap the consequences of their own actions, as it should be.
As far as your diatribe about how stupid we are, your elitist rhetoric is nauseating. Even if it were true, what benefit does it provide for President Obama to shout it from a mountain top to the rest of the world? How has his insensitive comment motivated us to work harder, to learn more, to achieve more? It hasn’t and it won’t. You know why? Because it is nothing more than a ‘bully’ tactic.
As I stated above, I am fed up with demeaning diatribe of the left. And just for your information, I am not STUPID nor am I IGNORANT. I actually scored just below the genius level. So before you or Obama or anyone else levels accusations against me or my fellow Americans, get your facts right.
Nasty, hurtful, and mean name calling do nothing to solve the problem. They just make you and President “bully” Obama feel better.
LikeLike
Dominique, you hit the nail on the head. There is no more accountablility in this country. There are not reprecussions for people’s actions anymore. Mike seems to have forgottent that the “crushingly confirming science and math ” that he writes about has been proven to have been manipulated for personal gain.
Just for the record, this does not appear to be Mike from Political Realities.
LikeLike
Meh… He just understands the “Secret of Power” — you know how dumb the average person on the street is? Statistically speaking, half of them are dumber than that.
LikeLike
So the average person on the street is dumb, but half of the people are dumber than the average person. That means that half of the people are smarter than the average person. Your point?
LikeLike
Eeehhhh, I’m confuzed. Can you iksplane it more easier for me, pleaze?
LikeLike
You just woodnt understand.u wil just hav two trust thm.
LikeLike
You know, it just dawned on me. Obama and his ilk are constantly talking about not being divisive and yet telling the American populace that we are too dumb to understand something is just that – divisive.
So that begs the question … why do our elected officials keep engaging in divisive rhetoric?
LikeLike
Again, the duplicity from this administration is astounding.
LikeLike
Sincere questions:
Do you think that all Americans are sufficiently intelligent and informed to form a meaningful opinion on all scientific matters?
Do you think that all opinions, no matter how well- or poorly informed, are of equal merit?
Given that an embarassing number of Americans (of all political persuasions) can’t perform basic algebra, don’t you have doubts as to their ability to process scientific findings correctly?
LikeLike
I don’t think that enough Americans are sufficiently informed to form a meaningful opinion of who they vote for, but on the issue of global warning, they are certainly not well informed on scientific natters because they are only getting the “facts” that the people who will profit from the science give them.
LikeLike
Wow, first the lefty congressman tells us that we’re dumb, and then trolls show up to prove it.
AGW isn’t hard to understand. It isn’t happening. Arctic ice is increasing. Mann got caught fudging the numbers big time. Even Jones has admitted to the BBC that there hasn’t been any statistically significant global warming since 1995. The ocean levels are NOT rising as predicted. The UN has had to recant many predictions as they were written by political hacks or students. Al Gore stands to make billions on the “carbon exchanges” if Cap and Trade passes. He continues to buy gigantic mansions, and has the “carbon footprint” of Godzilla.
I think I understand rather clearly.
As for edumacation, I will defer to my favorite public educator for the final word, John Dewey.
“You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”
Mission almost accomplished. There are still some of us that can think independently. That’s probably why the left and the MSM spend so much time attacking us.
LikeLike
Great quote Matt! People like Mike love to ignore all the evidence that shows us that the whole global warming argument has been made up from the beginning because it doesn’t fit their agenda.
LikeLike
I’ve got a request for you. Please show me some peer-review research which backs up any of your claims. I would love to see it, because I do base my understanding of the world on what can be demonstrated and verified. If there is legitimate science being done which contradicts the climate change research of the last several years, please direct me to it so that I can correct my mistake.
I’d also love to see some research that shows that conservative Christian states have lower divorce rates and lower teen pregnancy rates than more liberal, secular states. Certainly the puritanical views on abstinence-only education and strong Christian belief sets have produced superior outcomes in these arenas. If your implied position that railing about responsibility actual produces results, this request should be easy to grant. Sex Ed IS teaching responsibility for our actions. It teaches people how to make responsible decisions. The alternative is based on pretending that teenagers aren’t going to have sex. That is the stupidest thing I can think of.
Home schooling: Any environment in which the student-teacher ratio is as low as it is in a private home will enable more learning to occur. You do seem to be bright, but that argument was not an example of critical thinking on any level.
We are the world’s role model for health care? I suppose that’s why the rest of the world is racing to overhaul their systems to match ours, right? I see them copying the things we do well (weapons, technology, and science in general), but I sure don’t see them rushing to dismantle their egalitarian medical sytems. Our health care system is about as smart as our stubborn refusal to adopt the metric system.
Accountability: This brings us back to the crux of the matter. A great deal of effort has been expended by the most knowledgeable people on earth, educated to the peak of their fields, examining vast amounts of data. They general consensus is that our chemical impact on the composition of the atmosphere will produce a net increase in the amount of heat retained by the planet. And then there are other people, generally operating on a hunch, or a gut feeling, with no scientific credentials or experience with the actual data, who stand up and declare by fiat that the scientists are wrong.
Humor me, for just a moment. Let’s pretend that you’re right, and that the scientists have it wrong. They go ahead and provoke changes that reduce our reliance on foreign oil, spur economic development and energy innovation in the US, and in thirty years we have cleaner air, water, energy independence, and are a leader in global energy technologies. That would be a real drag if we made the world a better place for nothing, wouldn’t it?
Now let’s pretend that you are mistaken, and that your personal opinion based on your own hunch is as irrelevant as the scientific method dictates that it is. Let’s pretend that the data, as currently interpreted, is correct, and the viability of American farmland is reduced. Let’s pretend that the weather patterns change and the numerous global cities currently fed by glacial run off and large lakes experience extended problems with water supply. Let’s pretend that ocean levels do rise, and coastal areas are threatened and/or flooded by rising water. Where’s your acountability? Do you look back and wash your hands of responsibility beause you had an ideological objection to the science being wrought from actual data?
This is my condemnation of the intelligence behind the objections. The real internalizations of the scientific method and its applications are what’s missing from the popular conservative talking points. The right, if you’ll pardon the generalization, adheres to ideology and disregards science when the two conflict. If I am wrong, which I most certainly am about some things, I eagerly look forward to the proof which corrects me. But it comes from scientific research and factual analysis, not ideological obstinance and chest-thumping.
LikeLike
Have you read any of the stories on Climategate, or are you just ignoring them because they don’t fit your agenda? You may have to check the British sites because the American media has taken the bait hook, line, and sinker.
LikeLike
Rep. Cleaver, I only have one thing to say—- Nice try, puddin’ pie!!!!!
LikeLike
Yeah, also implicit in his statement: justifying their right to LIE to you… as a parent can to a child whenever see fit…. as of course Mr Cleaver and the rest of the power-drunk Left know what’s best for you.
Brutal attitude adjustment coming in 6 months for the lot of them
LikeLike
I hope you are right, we are closing in on our last chance to stop Obama’s agenda.
LikeLike
BTW, this enlightening bit linked at Reaganite Republican… good stuff!
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2010/05/wednesday-hot-links.html
LikeLike
Thank you!
LikeLike
If I may chime in
I wouldn’t be surprised if the corn cracker and Mike are the same person living in Britain not the US.
They both smell of the socialist looking down their nose full of disgust at the west.
These lefties are soooo desperate lately. They know whats coming, anybody who reads the conservative blogs can see the common sense comments outweigh the leftists 1,000 to 1
Go to a “progressive” blog and it is as though no one goes there. No comments (per say) and they delete those that they do not agree with. I know they delete mine all the time.
On other note
Every time I read of the continuing gasps of Global warming I am reminded of the RICO act.
If the Carbon Credit scheme is not a protection racket I don’t know what is.
Also all of the Government funding for research based on falsehood should have criminal implications. There are laws against misinforming in order to receive Government research grants.
It’s called fraud.
I hope that in November and then into 2012 we vote enough conservatives into congress that will finally have the cojones to call Al Gore and some of his enablers to the table and explain the Climate Gate papers.
Then enforce RICO and charge university Global Warming mongers with defrauding the federal government for research dollars.
LikeLike
You’d be wrong about your guess with me. I live in upstate NY, I’m a veteran of the US Air Force, a life long Boy Scout, a gun owner, a fiscal conservative, and a big proponent of much of what America has been so successful with. Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Bill Gates are shining examples of people who embraced the scientific process, as most on the left do today (minus the crystal power fruitcakes). I don’t look down at the West at all (by the way, Britain is considered part of “the West”, along with all of Western Europe.)
What I look down at is people who are too lazy to lean how science works before they try to argue with it. I served in the NY Air National Guard, flying missions to support the National Science Foundation to the north and south poles. I’ve been to Greenland several times. The ice sheet is retreating. If you cherry pick data and look at the North pole in from December through February, it’s growing. That is not science, that is ignorant ideology disguised as a fact to manipulate the lazy. The net change over several years is consistent reduction. Try reading any of the major studies. Here’s NASA’s findings in case you’re too lazy to actually look for one:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Perrenial_Sea_Ice.html
I also look down at people who think that thousands of studies, papers, and years of research and cross-referencing is somehow invalidated by emails between a handful of people. That’s about as high quality an analysis of the facts as thinking that it’ll never rain again because it’s sunny outside right now.
Mostly what I look down on are people who think that their political party, or religion, or social group, or any other personal attribute gives them any credibility on the facts. The only thing that gives you that is education, research, and evidence. Show me some before you spout off again, woudl you please? Preferrably something peer-reviewed by people who have credentials of an applicable nature.
LikeLike
I case the other link above (2003) is too old, here are some more
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=242
On this one, there’s a Quicktime video link to help illustrate the matter
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/icesat-20090707.html
Lastly, there’s this one:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/index.html
What’s important about the last one, particularly, is that it clearly and openly explains that global warming is based on observed patterns. It may not continue. It may not be caused by humans. The point is that it appears to be happening more quickly, and the data supports the hypothesis that it is linked to human activity.
It doesn’t appear that many on this thread agree with this. The problem is that what you are disagreeing with are the fact, the most esteemed scientific organizations in the world, and the experts who work there. That should concern you, because while science isn’t perfect, it adapts with new information to be perpetually closer to accurate. You are doing exactly the opposite by siding against people who clearly know much more than you do about the subject. If your proud ignorance and denial didn’t pose a threat to us all, it would be laughable. Sadly, this isn’t the case.
LikeLike
“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
I have not the time to waste on you. I can answer your questions, but the truth doesn’t matter to you. You are here to distract, nothing more. Now, I’m going to stop lest I waste more that 45 seconds responding to you.
LikeLike
I think the most telling comment in your whole ramble is “I LOOK DOWN.” Maybe if you got off your throne, you would realize we all come into this with different levels of abilities and capabilities. It’s not who is better than someone else. It is about taking the pooled intelligence, resources, experience, and knowledge of ALL AMERICANS and coming together to find the BEST solutions for our country!
Dumbing down others does nothing to move us forward. It is nothing more than a STOP SIGN.
LikeLike
Thank you for your service Mike! We may not agree on this issue, but their is no person that I respect more than the people who put on the uniform of the United States!
LikeLike
Sorry Mike Im not impressed.
I said I would not be surprised and I would not be, but I am happy to hear you are a conservative and that I am wrong about you. I would much rather be wrong then right in such a case.
I don’t need however to be a scientist to know Global Warming is becoming an industry.
Especially in light of all the money to be made and is being made by the Global Alarmists.
An industry that is capable of doing far more damage to the standard of living on this planet then any .01% increase in earths temperature. It is poised to put a halt to the further advancement of American industry. Some people think that would be good.
Do you? The good senator seems to think so and that we a to stupid to understand that.
There is so much information both for and against GW that one could hardly come to a confident conclusion about it.
It has become a religion just as Evolution is a form of religious faith (one that I do not necessarily disagree with) Certainly evolution holds more evidence then say creating the world in 7 days although I doubt you could even “prove” it was not created in 7 days.
You say you have facts that prove Global warming? I could fill this response with as many links from “disbelieving” scientists.
There is a level of faith required whenever one reads or comprehends anything including scientific papers.
Global warming is a theory.
To say that a person without sufficient evidence to convince himself Global warming is true is ignorant or stupid is no less then the church did with her heretics who would not confess the earth was flat.
Do you believe in newtonian science? Newtonian science is the very thing standing in the way of Quantum Mechanics.
Maybe you would enjoy reading the Dancing Wu-Li-Masters
It brings Quantum Mechanics down to my level of stupidity.
LikeLike
I agree that smart business people will notice opportunities and capitalize on them. Climate change, and the means of addressing it, will produce opportunity. This does not have any impact on the validity of the research.
Discovery of germ theory meant that there would be a lot of money in vaccines, and it put a real dent in the exorcism business. Does the recognition of the validity of germ theory by bio-medical companies, and their subsequent moves to profit from it, somehow leave you doubting that polio was obliterated by vaccines, or that it was a real threat prior to Jonas Salk’s advance in medical technology?
Again, as before, I invite you to source for me some credible, peer-reviewed studies or publications which shed serious doubt on the overall hypothesis that the chemical impact of humans on the atmosphere of Earth is contributing to a warming trend. I have not claimed that this hypothesis is an absolute fact. I have correctly claimed that the data supports the hypothesis. If you can show me a serious study which has been produced through proper scientific processes, I assure you I will read it. I am not loyal to a particular set of ideas which I want to be true for internal reasons. I try to have as accurate an understanding of reality as possible. The reason I disagree with you is because the facts do not contradict the general consensus. It doesn’t matter how disparagingly Sean Hannity speaks on the subject. What matters is the actual facts, properly processed. So I’ll go with NASA over you, Rick. I fervently hope you can udnerstand why. I’m not sure that you do.
I have no use for links to scientist’s opinions, either for or against. I’m talking about data. Volumes of evidence, analyzed and correlated. Whatever that indicates is what is most likely to be correct. Period.
The senator has suggested simplifying the material because so many people appear to be struggling with it. The same is true of evolution, only the case for evolution is so incredibly, exponentially overwhelming that climate change doesn’t come close. It doesn’t take much to get a handle on evolution, but there are still millions of people who don’t seem to udnerstand that it is not a guess, or a lark, or one of many explanations. It has been consistently proven across the fossil record, genetics, biochemistry, botany, and germ theory.
I understand that people don’t believe it. This is the point. An entire world is full of the evidence, more produced every day. Museums and textbooks and endless documentaries and demonstrations are available. People who don’t get it can’t claim a lack of evidence, only a lack of curiosity or willingness to actually look at the mountains of evidence which are offerred. No further confirmation will ever be reviewed or considered by people who have decided that it is their basic platform to object and ignore the evidence. That’s not really being dumb, that borders on being mentally ill.
Climate Change, however, is a hypothesis, not a theory. And so far it is a strong one. And if it is right, it is an important one, for those who are willing to look down the road. To species extinctions (not likely related, but read up on the impact on agriculture of the declining bee populations of North America and EurAsia), changing weather patterns (think Dust Bowl), and altered water supplies.
The objection? I don’t think I understand the objection. What is the downside of developing cleaner, renewable energy sources? How does that downside compare to the unknown problems which are projected as possible outcomes of 100 years of continued warning? I mean, seriously, is it just a personal hostility toward Al Gore? Is that the big problem? I sincerely can’t understand what reasonable people can object to about striving for a healthier environment. Should we revert to open coal-burning smokestacks? But then, reasonable people do look to world-renowned experts for guidance on such issues, and that’s not who I’m dealing with here. I think perhaps you have somehow concluded that a high school dropout who rabbles on the radio has a better handle on the subject than NASA and NOAA.
LikeLike
I have no problem with a person making money on anything, it is part of our capitolist, frr market enterprise, but it seems to me that this whole issue is based solely on an issue that is contrived just for that purpose.
As for the senator, he implied not only that the science needed to be dumbed down, but also that papers should write at a sixth grade level on all issues so that the American people could understand all the issues. I just find that attitude to be condescening at an astouding level. It shows us exactly ho I feel most of our elected officials feel about the people that put them in office.
LikeLike
I don’t particularly like Al Gore but that has nothing to do with why I think Global warning is a scam.
I don’t blame business people for positioning themselves so as to profit from trends, fads or other economic environments including the business environment created by Global Warming.
I do have a problem with progressives and social engineers who use Global Warming science as a tool to further subjugate American industry and more precisely the American consumer.
Those who subscribe to the credibility of Global Warming are enabling those Global Warming Alarmists and social engineers who are using it as a tool to suit their political agenda.
Lets not forget that it was these same Newtonian scientists who told us in 1975 that Global cooling was going to drastically reduce the worlds food supply as the “little ice age” of the 1600s returned.
Knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change among the Scientific community is as fragmentary as the data sets.
You want me to provide you with credible peer-reviewed studies that shed serious doubt on the hypothesis of Global Warming?
Hypothesis is derived from the Greek meaning, “to suppose” referring to a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. In other words a hypothesis is a theory that has received provisional acceptance. Thus we have the controversy of “consensus” among scientists by the media.
Global Warming is a Theory that we are told has scientific “consensus”.
Skeptics are ridiculed or undermined for not having their studies reviewed while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is given a “Peer reviewed” stamp of approval by the media outlets.
Michael Mann refuses to share Climate Change data with Climatologists simply because he thinks their purpose in reviewing it is to “Find something wrong with it” This is what peer review means does it not, to see if experiments are reproducible.?
The scientific community is losing credibility because the field is unbalanced, and thoroughly dominated by biased advocacy.
You are a “believer” and I am a “denier”
Global Warming has gone the way of Group Think.
Probably the best thing is to read the book “the Deniers” in which Lawrence Solomon addresses such things as the Hockey stick controversy, the Stern review, the lack of sings of Global Warming in Antarctica and solar variations.
In fact there is a growing number of scientists today who are finding the earth is actually cooling not warming.
LikeLike
It’s okay that we disagree, I do it often and with a variety of my close friends and colleagues. I am certain that there are not only scientists who disagree with the climate change , but scientists within the field of atmospheric science who disagree. What I’m looking for, though, is a published paper with an abstract which has been reviewed to validate the quality of the process, which contradicts the hypothesis. But I’m not getting one. Either this is because you aren’t trying to find one or because they aren’t out there. In either case, you give me nothing to refute. On my side, I have cited two of the most credible scientific organizations in the US, and I’ve done so to qualify the position I’ve taken. If you don’t offer any supporting evidence, we can’t have much of a discussion. Two fools debating subjects on which they are personally ignorant is a bit of a silly situation.
First some definitions:
Hypothesis: A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation.
Theory: A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.
So no, a hypothesis is not a validated theory, it is the other way around. Climate change is a hypothesis. Over the next couple of decades we will either refute it or it will progress, through continual testing, into a theory.
When you talk about stifling American industry, can I ask which ones you mean? Is it the raging US oil industry? Perhaps our massive textile factories? Or our electronics manufacturers? None of these are likely, because we don’t do these things anymore.
We do make cars, even some damned good electric ones. Cleaner energy actually bolsters this industry. And we do make solar panels, and we make the world’s leading wind turbines. And we’re working on kinetic energy collection systems from oceanic movement. And regardless of how short-sighted America chooses to be, most of the developed world still listens to the experts, so even if you don’t want to buy wind power, lots of them do. So I don’t know what your objection really is. On the one hand, you object because people are likely to profit from it. On the other hand, you object because it makes it hard for people to profit.
Or do you just really love giving money to Saudi Arabia? Maybe you think that it brings us security to not only export billions of dollars of money every year, but to do so to the country which spawned most of the 9/11 guys. And, in the process, leave us completely dependent on the collective will of people who have little interest in seeing us prosper. I have a lot of friends still in uniform. Some of them may get killed over there, and you know why? Because we can’t afford any sustained interruptions in the oil supply. And you know why? Because lots of people such as yourself are too stubborn to connect the dots. I’ll help.
Dot One: You love horsepower, so
Dot Two: Ford makes a powerful, inefficient vehicle, which
Dot three: Requires a lot of oil, which
Dot four: we have to import from hostile countries who
Dot five: don’t appreciate our foreign policy, so they
Dot six: tell us to go fuck ourselves, and then
Dot seven: we launch wars because
Dot eight: people such as yourself senselessly argue against energy independence so
Dot nine: brave young american men get sent to get their legs blown off and die
The smart thing to do is to eliminate the need for oil. Then our enemies get poorer, we get richer, and our kids stop getting brain damage from IEDs. But for some reason, there is an army of people such as yourself who passionately oppose making smart choices with our money, our military, and our kids.
And that’s cool, because this is America and we can have different opinions. All I ask is that you make sure all of your kids enlist in the infantry.
LikeLike
Oh to live in another area
When men were required to understand his surroundings.
When it was expected that he know the language, the arts and the beauty of music by means of a performance on the instrument of his choice.
When love meant a life long commitment and a child so conceived.
But today one can be called into question because of a sacrifice of skin on the alter of a God war.
Must you bring my service to this country and my children’s service into the argument you make for Global Warming?
Let me ask you a question…
Are you divorced?
LikeLike
Rick,
It appears that you consider irrelevant poetry to be a sufficient substitute for argument and reference. If that’s the case, I understand why you ignore credible science; you can’t distinguish reason from editorializing.
No, I’m not divorced. I am happily married with three kids, a good career, and am a productive member of society. I wish I knew what that has to do with the validity of the scientific research we’re discussing.
I’m not bringing anything into the argument. I’m just asking that you put your money where your mouth is. My experience is that the guys in this day and age who talk the toughest aren’t raising their kids to carry a gun. They’re usually chickenhawk armchair warriors who think that oil-wars are necessary…for some ELSE’S kids to fight in. And I bet you a million bucks that you’re one of them.
LikeLike
Seriously, there are some really dumb people on this nation. Luckily, most of this crowd in not included in that demographic.
If you ever want to know just how dumb the man or woman on the street truly is, watch Jay Leno as he does *Jay Walking*…
Granted, they are in California, but some of those fools are so STOOPID, if breathing weren’t a reflex action, they would die…
LikeLike
Thanks to Larry for pointing me toward this discussion and to Steve for noting that the Mike who has posted so far is NOT the Mike from Political Realities — that’s me.
First, I want to strongly support Steve’s original post. The view of Rep Cleaver is beneath contempt and shows a lack of respect for the American people. While it’s true that the details of many issues cannot be grasped by anybody who has not immersed themselves in the topic the same can said for our Congressmen, for professionals in unrelated areas, and even for Mike himself. We can only grasp what we’re able to and people who work one or two jobs and support a family hardly have the time to delve deeply into the minutiae of climate change science, 2000 pages of health care refrom legislation, global education standards, prison reform, etc etc. Does that make our opinions less relevant? I cannot think of any argument that sounds more elitist! If US citizens don’t “get it” then it’s up to those who supposedly do to convince us otherwise and not say “just trust us”. That trust is in short supply and for good reason these days.
All that said, when I read Mike’s other comments dispassionately I think he makes some relevant points. I do believe that America too often reads and hears its news with one eye or ear closed. Conservatives cannot just listen to FoxNews and Rush and read Michelle Malkin. Liberals cannot only listen to Olberman and Maddow and read Newsweek. None of those sources are completely unreliable but they are most definitely shaded in how they cover the news and the views they express. We cannot listen to Pelosi, Obama, Boehner, and McConnell and assume that what they say is a lie, a distortion, or just something to be opposed. There is definitely a lot of that going on and it does our country absolutely no good. Mike is arguing for fact-based decision making as opposed to pure politics as usual. Many of you have supported that argument before. Mike prefaced his argument with a misguided, elitist argument that easily colored the rest of what he said. I dont’ agree with everything else he wrote by a long shot — but I don’t dismiss it all either.
LikeLike
Thanks for stopping by Mike. When I read Mike’s first comment, the tone of it didn’t sound like something you would write so I looked at his email address and saw that it didn’t match yours from your past comments.
You touched on what I was trying to say, and that is the fact that Rep. Cleaver’s comments were degrading and elitist. The “other” Mike has made some great points and asked some great questions in his follow up comments, I have not yet had the time to respond to them.
LikeLike
I realize that my initial tone was not in keeping with what many here would like. With that said, I appreciate everyone’s responses. I would like to clarify what I mean by “look down”, and will then likely consider my piece to have been said.
When I use the term, I’m not saying that I am somehow a superior person. I have plenty of flaws, and have opinions which I will undoubtedly modify with time. I am not a role model to be put on a pedestal, and I don’t view myself that way. I consider it to be a civic obligation for all of us to adopt one of two stances on any given issue: either we should commit to really learning about the reasoning and evidence behind expert opinion, or we should recognize the extent of our own ignorance and (while we will still all have our opinions) admit that our ill-informed opinions are not worth as much as those of the experts.
If I have chest pain, I go to a doctor. I don’t ask the network engineer next to me for his opinion. Now, the guy next to me has an MS in computer science and probably an IQ of 150 or so. But he doesn’t know anything about medicine, so his opinion on the matter doesn’t have any value. If he studies thoracic medicine for a year, I might consider asking him.
The same thing applies to climate science. The opinion of my wife, who has a MA in psychology, has no bearing on climate science. And if she were to tell me that her opinion is just as relevant as a PhD in atmospheric science, she’s be wrong. It wouldn’t be a difference in perspective or anything of that anture, she would be dead wrong.
That’s what I mean by “look down” on. It wouldn’t make my wife a lesser person to have an opinion on climate science, or for my cowarker to have an opinion on my chest pain. But it definitely would be a real flaw in either of their reasoning if they contended that their opinions bear equal weight with trained, experienced professionals. And that is a type of flaw worthy of disdain, because it is born of sheeer arogance and poor critical thinking.
I don’t mean that I look down on people. I mean that I look down on practices that people employ. I look down on heroin addiction, I look down on littering, I look down on child abuse, and I look down on the practice of demanding equal respect for opinionswhich are not equally supported by evidence or fact.
Thanks for having me. And Steve, serving was my pleasure. There’s a few bums in the military, but I met a hell of a lot of real good people who we’re all real lucky to have on our side and can’t speak highly enough of the 109th Airlift Wing of the NY Air National Guard.
LikeLike
Thanks for clarifying that new guy Mike, I understand what you were saying. Just out of curiosity, did you serve in either of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan? I know that I count my blessings everday that we have people like you and many others who serve this country and fight for us and our freedoms.
LikeLike
Mike, you get a great deal of respect for what you wrote. I credit you as much for criticizing me as for recognizing that I made a decent point or two. You’re correct that my initial post was elitist, and I understand the connotation which that carries. It’s fair; I started out less than cordially and could have expressed myself more with greater clarity and with a less inflammatory style.
I’m troubled by the cultural shift away from reason within our country. It is a frustrating change to witness, having studied American history at some length. The Age of Enlightenment which spawned the founders of this country was about shedding dogmatic belief to religious doctrine and kneeling before authority. The defining papers of the US are specifically devoid of religious content. The men who wrote it were at the forefront of the shift away from religious nivolvement in government and toward a culture based on reason, debate, and evidence. They structured every piece of the constitution in a way so that courts required proof and people could not be punished without proof of guilt. The ensured that government could not employ religious arguments against people. It was monumental in the advancement of the human species into the age of scientific development.
And now, a couple hundred years later, huge sections of our population think that Jesus Christ is written into our defining documents. People campaign on their religious beliefs and appeals to emotion rather than well constructed arguments appealing to reason. The huge discoveries made by the scientific world have been disregarded because they are at oods with religious texts from the bronze age, before people could accurately calculate the circumference of a circle. The Texas Education department wants to teach creationism, which says that the world was created after the Chinese had been been already recording history and dogs had been domesticated.
As I said above, climate change may not be continual, it may not be man made. But the people arguing against it the loudest are largely people who refuse to grasp science. The number of people rejecting evolution is terrifying. The only grounds on which one can reasonably reject the theory are the complete ignorance of it, or a mental decision to part ways with the empirical world. Many people who are in this group also claim that the Founding Fathers were deeply religious. Even a five minute internet search will disprove this notion. Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson were all publicly critical of religion and openly doubted the claims it consists of.
The problem is that this general shift toward religious thinking and away from empirical, reasoned analysis is completely contrary to what this country was built on, and made great by. Our success has been primarily military and economic, and both of these are due to application of science. The outright refusal to learn how science works, consider teh results, and the insistence that a laymans opinion bears equal value as a professional scientist’s is maddening.
Maybe it is elitist. It is appropriate if so, because the most credible people on such subjects are the elitely trained and qualified people who know the most about it. Few things cast a darker shadow on the future of America, and the world as a whole, as the disdain for empirical knowledge and those who hold it.
LikeLike
Mike (new guy Mike): re: “I’m troubled by the cultural shift away from reason within our country.”
This sentence pretty much sums up your statement.
Allow me to respond to it.
I, too, am troubled by the cultural shift away from reason. However, you don’t seem to even SEE the lack of reason behind the global warming alarmists.
Every single hot day that occurs in the summers is clocked as “proof” of global warming. Just take a look at a gazillion weather casts in localities all over the country. But the freezing cold winter we just had? That was just “weather”. Suddenly, weather isn’t the same thing as climate. That’s what they keep saying, anyway. But the fact is that climate IS weather in the long term. The warmistas use the terms “weather” and “climate” interchangably… as long as it supports their agenda. When we have an unusually cold winter like the last one, there’s a huge difference in the terms. If it was just that, I’d shrug it off, but that is only ONE sample of them constantly changing their own rules to cover their butts.
Now, I’ve already given my opinion of the “science” in general involved in global warming. My area of expertise is computers, and I’ve completely disbelieved in global warming from the first moment I heard that the predictions were based upon computer models.
This is what I said back then… nearly three years ago. Nothing has changed for me. The more I hear from the warmistas, the more I’m convinced that I’m right… they’re perpetrating a fraud.
LikeLike
I understand what you’re saying. Anyone arguing that climate change is real based on individual weather instances is not someone to listen to. But you’re conflating the guy at the corner store who is yapping at you with expert opinion, and that’s a mistake. Can you tell me why it is so hard to get anyone on this page to offer an actual professional study to support their objection? Seriosuly, on any given subject I can find a thousand papers in a few seconds. Are you honestly telling me that with the oil, coal, and natural gas industries offering massive grants for people to produce contradictory studies that you can’t find even one?
Empirical studies back up the position I have adopted, and I’ve cited a few here. Can you not find one single credible source to back up yours? Not one?
LikeLike
Absolutely absurd. The media outlets are all owned by right wingers. Watched any TV news lately? It’s all written and presented at a sixth grade level. And this is the lefts fault because? Here’s an idea, how about instead of them telling us what they want us to know, they tell us the facts, like journalists used to do. Remember when they used to do that? Me neither.
LikeLike
The media is right wing? I honestly don’t know how you can come to that conclusion unless you are only watching Fox News. As for your comment on the media giving us the facts instead of political spin and the lack of journalism, I agree with you whole heartedly.
LikeLike