US Politics Thread |OT| THE DARKEST TIMELINE

[Great Rumbler]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-12/21/denial

THANKS KOCH

[Mandark]

Liberals do get too hung up on the funding sources for these things, in that they forget/deny that lots of people just sincerely hold certain beliefs (about climate change or taxes or whatever).  And as obviously wrongheaded as they may seem to your average lib, it's very rarely the result of being manipulated by the Kochs or whoever.

That doesn't mean that money doesn't help give something a voice, or make a movement seem substantial enough to warrant news coverage, etc.  But when the Tea Party thing started I remember hearing a lot of "this is supposedly grassroots, but really money's funneling in from rich donors!"  Which was sorta true but missed the point that there were millions of people who were actually, truly aghast at the idea of an Obama presidency.  Turn of the cash spigot and that still would have been the case.

[Great Rumbler]

Yeah, the Tea Party was very clearly the result of old white folks gettin' the vapors over a black man in the White House, though the money probably helped a lot in honing all the noise into a nationwide movement.

[benjipwns]

Lots of people do that, where it seems more predominant on the Left is probably related to greater suspicion of money in general. Especially corporations with money.

To illustrate, one of my favorite DU comments responding to the question of "What safe guards are in place in this country to protect against an attempted coup d'etat?":

As long as the ability to buy members of Congress and spread misinformation exists, there aren't any

The Koch brothers - as despicable as they are - under Citizens - could theoretically buy all seats of Congress and declare themselves dictators.

[Mandark]

Yeah. Ive never seen a libertarian conspiracy theorist with respect to money, financial institutions, or corporations.

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah. Ive never seen a libertarian conspiracy theorist with respect to money, financial institutions, or corporations.

[Great Rumbler]

The Koch brothers aren't really interested in being dictators, because there isn't any need for them to be and being dictators would just be a huge hassle anyway. They'd much rather their money go toward knocking down industrial regulations, labor laws, and such like.

[ToxicAdam]

The US government by itself spends 3 billion a year on research alone. That doesnt count all the other billions it spends in other related fields and services. There are dozens of other nations around the world or major foundations like Heinz, Gates, Branson, etc that have funds available. Not to mention the billions of dollars raised every year by conservation groups globally. It's a multibillion dollar industry at this point and growing.

So, that's not to say it incentivizes apocalyptic research, but it does get a lot of junk science funded. If you're someone that exclusively researches specific wildlife, fauna,  etc. and your funding dries up, you're absolutely going to steer your research into that field. It's the great panacea of all natural science funding shortages.

I'm not even saying its a bad thing. The quest for knowledge will always benefit man in some way, even if misguided or under somewhat false pretenses. 'Waste' is just a matter if perception.

But to deny that there is no fiscal or ego-driven incentives to maintain and veciferously defend the narrative laid out by Hansen and his ilk is to deny reality.

[Mandark]

Hansen

Solyndra

Nice, I'm now just Al Gore and "hockey stick" away from Skeptic Bingo.

[Mandark]

The US government by itself spends 3 billion a year on research alone. That doesnt count all the other billions it spends in other related fields and services. There are dozens of other nations around the world or major foundations like Heinz, Gates, Branson, etc that have funds available. Not to mention the billions of dollars raised every year by conservation groups globally. It's a multibillion dollar industry at this point and growing.

So, that's not to say it incentivizes apocalyptic research, but it does get a lot of junk science funded. If you're someone that exclusively researches specific wildlife, fauna,  etc. and your funding dries up, you're absolutely going to steer your research into that field. It's the great panacea of all natural science funding shortages.

I'm not even saying its a bad thing. The quest for knowledge will always benefit man in some way, even if misguided or under somewhat false pretenses. 'Waste' is just a matter if perception.

But to deny that there is no fiscal or ego-driven incentives to maintain and veciferously defend the narrative laid out by Hansen and his ilk is to deny reality.

Follow the money, brehs!

 :geoff

[benjipwns]

Do you want me to make you one with Friedman instead?

I can do Hayek too if you really want

Who wants statist slaver scum emoticons? 

[ToxicAdam]

I was just making a correction of your assessment of my previous position.

[benjipwns]

Actually, if I had to pick one person for something it'd be Bastiat. I just wanted to use Kropotkin for reals after you made him for Broseidon.

Bakunin or Proudhon might be better to make though as Broseidon might (?) like to use either or both of them.

[Mandark]

Since I guess it's not getting across...

Climate science isn't a uniquely pristine and honest field.  All science is a social process carried out by humans, with all that entails.  But if you're going to dismiss a group as untrustworthy for those reasons, you're obligated to subject their critics to the same treatment, no?

Can anyone honestly scan the network of blogs and sites which make up the skeptic community and say "Yeah, these guys are totally free of confirmation bias, groupthink, or any sort of emotional/tribal/ideological/personal attachments to certain theories and ideas!"

[benjipwns]

I know you're talking to TA, but I guess the motivations don't really factor into it for me and just amplifies things, my core reasoning is probably more worth deriding.

Even assuming the two premises:
1. The models are accurate and there will be warming of 1-2 degrees over the next century.
2. That carbon control will slow or reverse climate chaos and make it manageable.

I don't see why the costs (rations, stagnation and war) will be lower than whatever the benefit of climate stability will be.

[Mandark]

War won't happen if there aren't carbon taxes?

[benjipwns]

Let me be clear, how will the West enforce carbon controls on the rest of the world?

[Mandark]

Oh well, if you're gonna be all "I accept juuuuuust enough of your premise that terrible things will have to happen!" then yeah, terrible things will happen.  I unreservedly concede that point.

[benjipwns]

So the missing part of the premise is that the rest of the world will willingly sacrifice economic growth because the wealthy West tells it to?

If Kenya is not following the carbon controls aren't they literally aggressing against us?

[benjipwns]

No, no, it's just that I can't quantify it because it's in the future, there's too many variables and they're mostly unknown. Assume for the sake of argument that we're actually entering an ice age and that human carbon production is holding that off. In that case reducing carbon emissions would actually be more harmful than allowing them to continue wouldn't it?

[Mandark]

Dude.

"The US has the political will to pass and implement meaningful GHG emission reforms" is already a fiction, and only a marginally more fantastical one than "Kenya goes along for the ride."

It's like if someone was saying why Ron Paul, Jill Stein, whoever would be a good president, and I shot back with "well, they could never get anything through Congress!"  If I'm going to entertain the idea of a marginal third party candidate sitting in the Oval Office, I might as well spot them a favorable political climate to boot.

Now, when a massive climate bill is going through reconciliation, and the State Department under President Hillary is producing white papers on how best to cajole and coerce other countries into adopting the same standards, then we can talk about how international geopolitics is going to make any US legislation a moot point.  When we're discussing the vaguest of hypotheticals and "Intervene in GHG emissions?  Y/N"?  anurkist pls

[Mandark]

Assume for the sake of argument that we're actually entering an ice age and that human carbon production is holding that off. In that case reducing carbon emissions would actually be more harmful than allowing them to continue wouldn't it?

...and what if there's a vortex?

[benjipwns]

So then what's the point of caring about climate chaos denial?

[Mandark]

Because it's obviously the roadblock to any political action in the US and has been for a couple decades at least?

To clarify, I'm not conceding that international geopolitics would make it all a moot point, just saying that it's very much a "cross that rickety, burning bridge when we get there" situation.

[Mandark]

And by the way... Kenya!?  Not the BRIC nations, but... KENYA?

I'm gonna assume that was an attempt to play on my librul white guilt rather than pick a plausible candidate for non-compliance, cause Kenya ain't the problem.

[benjipwns]

I think this is just building way too many favorable assumptions into things. You can't discuss theoreticals or hypotheticals because that's not realistic or in the now but a projection for a century from now is the reason we need to act in some unspecified manner and we'll fix the problems later?

Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious here, I'm not being snarky or intentionally obtuse.

And by the way... Kenya!?  Not the BRIC nations, but... KENYA?

I'm gonna assume that was an attempt to play on my librul white guilt rather than pick a plausible candidate for non-compliance, cause Kenya ain't the problem.

I didn't want to pick China or India because that's too obvious and when thinking of African nations I immediately thought of our President's birthplace. Plus it's an "easy" country to enforce things against right?

[ToxicAdam]

Can anyone honestly scan the network of blogs and sites which make up the skeptic community and say "Yeah, these guys are totally free of confirmation bias, groupthink, or any sort of emotional/tribal/ideological/personal attachments to certain theories and ideas!"

Nope. But I find many of them to have differing degrees of man's culpability to changing his atmosphere/climate.
It seems less a black/white issue among them, compared to the non-skeptic sites. Although, I guess that may be the nature of the debate.

To swing this conversation back around to the beginning, the guy that people are lambasting Silver for hiring is in no way the same as Inohofe or Roy Spencer even though, if you casually read the attacks, you might think he is.

[Mandark]

"Your hypothetical isn't valid until you can prove that enough people will support your political program."


...you're an ANARCHIST.  C'mon!

[benjipwns]

We're all going to look like a bunch of jackasses anyway when we die from a massive solar proton event. Except Ubisoft.

That's why Putin's going to annex Quebec to gain access to Ubisoft Montreal and enlist them as an army.

[benjipwns]

"Your hypothetical isn't valid until you can prove that enough people will support your political program."


...you're an ANARCHIST.  C'mon!

[Mandark]

ie what's the point of supporting any voluntaryist movement?  The answer is always going to be a version of "we might not have the popular support for it currently, but it would have all these benefits if it ever happens."

Well, I'm not letting you take my "if it ever happens" away from me.  I think this is a pretty simple idea and you're a smart enough dude to grasp it.

[benjipwns]

Oh, okay, this is my fault. My "support" of anarchism is merely a philosophical or moral question not some "central plan" for utopia. Anarchy is the current state of reality, it is the only possible state because the rest are convenient fictions. To be anarchist is to deny the legitimacy of monopolized violence. And additionally personally is opposition to coercive violence since it's possible to recognize the illegitimacy of the state and still believe it appropriate to use coercive violence against others. For example, I figure that to be the end-state of anarcho-communism if followed through.

Is it inevitable that someone will gain outsized power and assume the position which we call a state? Sure, I'm fine with saying that, but that doesn't mean I have to accept its legitimacy even while trying to avoid it using violence against me. Nor that I can't advocate for that state to use less of its violence.

In terms of the voluntaryist movement in particular, it's because I think their rejection of the formal political process for education is smart, pursuing politics is just a waste of time and money that you could be using to buy and not play Steam games. Or mine dogecoins. Or get daps.

[Mandark]

not some "central plan" for utopia

Well, neither is my stance of "let's not belch the maximal amount of GHG's into the atmosphere and see how the chips fall."

[benjipwns]

That's not your only stance.

[Mandark]

So I do have a stance which is a utopian central plan?

[benjipwns]

It may not be utopian but don't you want something done using political means to stop people from "belching the maximal amount of GHG's into the atmosphere"?

[Mandark]

Yup, but I don't have a pre-formed policy that I want the One Global Dictator to implement (believe me, if I did I'd have put it forward at the last ZOG meeting).

I want GHG emissions to be reduced, I realize that government intervention is the only way to achieve this, and I understand that laws are at their core backed by the threat of organized violence, even the ones we don't think of that way (when was the last shootout over the ADA?).

What I'll support or oppose or be wishy-washy about depends on what options seem to be politically feasible at a given time, the extent of the controls necessary, how the status quo has changed, blah blah blah.  So right now that means hoping the US passes something in the next decade or so to limit domestic GHG levels (ain't shit happening the next three years), and that the EU/Japan/Anglosphere takes it seriously enough to make it a priority and from there finding a way to bring Russia/China/India on board.

Which may very well be impossible.  At which point I'd strongly oppose anyone suggesting we invade those countries or bomb both of Kenya's gas stations or whatever.  If there's no way to ratchet down CO2 without massive shooting wars, then just toss me onto the mitigation/adaptation bandwagon.

But I don't think that likely failure on the international level means giving up on what would be a precondition to any small chance of success (just like I don't have high hopes for a huge diplomatic breakthrough with Iran, but I don't think Schumer and whoever should get their sanctions through cause it's a lost cause anyways), and similarly I'm more sanguine than you about the unintended consequences if a global understanding on CO2 somehow became reality.  If we're in a stealth ice age, I'm pretty confident people wouldn't have forgotten how to drill for that stuff and burn it.

[benjipwns]

I guess I don't see the value in limiting debate or discussion to only what's "politically feasible."

If Sarah Palin is President 2017-2025 with 67 Tea Party Republican seats in the Senate the entire time are you not going to still want greenhouse gas emissions reduced? Gay marriage? Abortion? etc.

[Mandark]

Yeah, but I think "what would a better world look like?" and "what should I be harassing my Congresswoman about?" are two different, though overlapping questions.

I remember a LOT of op-eds and blog posts circa 2003-5 by people who had argued pretty vociferously for the Iraq War, with the gist of "Well, I didn't support this war, I supported a Platonic ideal of the war that Rumsfeld should have waged..."  Sort of hammered home the point that whatever your ideal outcome looks like, if you're going to start actually pulling on the levers of government, try to at least be honest with yourself and others about what you're really supporting and the likely consequences.

[benjipwns]

Well, that ties back to my original question. You don't want to let carbon emissions continue and see how the chips fall. But you do want to do something to reduce them and see how the chips fall, no?

So what exactly are the limiting principles here? I mean if we're to assume that carbon production causes climate chaos that causes immense damage in some manner then why under a system of carbon control should we not consider it an act of war by those who don't follow it? Why should other nations be allowed to enrich themselves at our expense while we ration?

I just think those are much more important questions to pursue answers on than whether six inspections a year or seven will get enough votes to "do something" now. Maybe it does get back to motivations, in that maybe I'm of the impression that there is no limiting principle to be found.

 

[Mandark]

So what exactly are the limiting principles here? I mean if we're to assume that carbon production causes climate chaos that causes immense damage in some manner then why under a system of carbon control should we not consider it an act of war by those who don't follow it? Why should other nations be allowed to enrich themselves at our expense while we ration?

Because my utility curve goes: World with stable temperature anomaly > world with increased climate chaos > thermonuclear war.

[benjipwns]

What if the only way to get the former is the latter? Anything short of that?

[Mandark]

I was going to write it as "> world with stable temperature anomaly and a nuclear holocaust" but I left it out because 1) Strunk & White, 2) I very much doubt a Dr. Strangelove scenario leaves the climate in a pristine state, and 3) I'm sure benji understands how preference rankings work and won't play dumb!

[Mandark]

The "limiting principle" is a cost/benefit calculation based on my personal preferences and my current perception of a constantly shifting status quo that involves limited information and vast amounts of uncertainty.  Pretty terrifying, right?

[benjipwns]

Nuclear winter would certainly reduce the temperature, I have no idea what a "pristine state" means for the climate.

Anyway, like I said, I'm just reluctant to use violence so if we're going to I'd like to know the bounds of when and where we're going to and why. And also why we're going to commit violence against our own citizens but not others when they're the ones harming us. The answer seems to be "trust us, the chips will fall where they're supposed to." "Oh, and somewhere short of war. Maybe. We'll have to see."

[Mandark]

That's an easy one.  The sate exercises a fairly effective monopoly on force within its borders.  The US, with the biggest military, has some options for coercing or exploding citizens of other countries as well as its own, but even in that case those options are a lot less reliable and much, much more costly.

Like I said, I realize that the threat of violence by the state underpins all laws.  But the reality is that certain laws bring with them a whole lot more actual violence (by both the state and its citizens) than others, and as a rudderless pragmatist I take that into account.  If food safety regulations precipitated the same amount of violence and incarceration as the war on drugs, I'd want the FDA abolished and cross my fingers that market forces and the incentive for businesses to maintain a good reputation kept the nation's supply of hamburger relatively safe.

[Boogie]

That's why Putin's going to annex Quebec to gain access to Ubisoft Montreal and enlist them as an army.

Please, Putin would never willingly subject himself to that headache.

[Brehvolution]

If Sarah Palin is President 2017-2025 with 67 Tea Party Republican seats in the Senate the entire time are you not going to still want greenhouse gas emissions reduced? Gay marriage? Abortion? etc.

[Phoenix Dark]

The feud between probability wizard Nate Silver and Democratic campaigns deepened Tuesday when Silver penned a blog post saying that Democrats were "hypocritical" for criticizing his Senate forecast and then fundraising off it.

"Here’s the least surprising news: Political campaigns are hypocritical," Silver wrote. "At the same time the DSCC is criticizing our forecasts publicly, it’s sending out email pitches that cite Nate Silver’s 'shocking, scary' forecasts to compel Democrats into donating."

As TPM reported, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent out a memo Monday noting that Silver has been wrong in the past about Senate races -- a day after Silver's FiveThirtyEight website released a new 2014 forecast that gave Republicans about a 60 percent chance of winning the Senate.

The Atlantic also reported that the DSCC led with Silver's "shocking, scary new Senate forecasts" in a fundraising email.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/silver-senate-democrats-hypocritical

I was about to bemoan Silver's initiation into the Serious People "Both sides are the same" club until I read that the DSCC is indeed using his comments to fund-raise. His senate projections came out a couple days ago but the DSCC has been sending emails out for months apparently. 

[CajoleJuice]

I know this was mostly talked about pages ago, but 538 is kinda garbage. Mandark covered it, but just going by a lot of the sports articles, they are mostly fluff. They take some stats and slap together a chart or graph and boom article. I think its audience is looking for more. At least I am. I know someone who interviewed for the sports editing job and the shit he writes is 10x more interesting, but he's not an experienced coder so that probably hurt him.

[ToxicAdam]

I thought the same kind of thing when Ben Smith left Politico to make Buzzfeed ...

 :'(

[Eric P]

I thought the same kind of thing when Ben Smith left Politico to make Buzzfeed ...

 :'(

i'll be honest i loved finding out which Scooby-Doo Villain I should vote for.

[Phoenix Dark]

I know this was mostly talked about pages ago, but 538 is kinda garbage. Mandark covered it, but just going by a lot of the sports articles, they are mostly fluff. They take some stats and slap together a chart or graph and boom article. I think its audience is looking for more. At least I am. I know someone who interviewed for the sports editing job and the shit he writes is 10x more interesting, but he's not an experienced coder so that probably hurt him.

iirc you've shown me some of his stuff before.

Silver's initial plans sounded like some real stat stuff, but the actual product seems to be aiming for "pop stats" in the same way that Buzzfeed is "pop politics/news." Superficial ways to use stats to center clickbait pieces. I get why ESPN would like that, but did Silver dream of the day when he'd have a website with this as a front page headline:

"The Beatles Aren’t Bigger Than Jesus, But They Are About as Popular as Moses"

 

[Steve Contra]

I know this was mostly talked about pages ago, but 538 is kinda garbage. Mandark covered it, but just going by a lot of the sports articles, they are mostly fluff. They take some stats and slap together a chart or graph and boom article. I think its audience is looking for more. At least I am. I know someone who interviewed for the sports editing job and the shit he writes is 10x more interesting, but he's not an experienced coder so that probably hurt him.

iirc you've shown me some of his stuff before.

Silver's initial plans sounded like some real stat stuff, but the actual product seems to be aiming for "pop stats" in the same way that Buzzfeed is "pop politics/news." Superficial ways to use stats to center clickbait pieces. I get why ESPN would like that, but did Silver dream of the day when he'd have a website with this as a front page headline:

"The Beatles Aren’t Bigger Than Jesus, But They Are About as Popular as Moses"

 

I thought you were kidding with that headline

[Joe Molotov]

He's still got a ways to if he wants to catch up to the big dogs.

[Phoenix Dark]

I guess your friend just didn't have the right fields of expertise, Caole

[CajoleJuice]

(Image removed from quote.)

I guess your friend just didn't have the right fields of expertise, Caole

when the site first launched, her three were "toilets, teeth, the vatican"

[Dickie Dee]

Assume for the sake of argument that we're actually entering an ice age and that human carbon production is holding that off. In that case reducing carbon emissions would actually be more harmful than allowing them to continue wouldn't it?

...and what if there's a polar vortex?

.

[Brehvolution]

https://vine.co/v/MMVTYBhqVOd

[Great Rumbler]

https://vine.co/v/MMVTYBhqVOd