Are you talking about the Bush tax cuts?

The new Congress hasn't been sworn in yet. We're still lame duck. And his Senate majority wasn't enough to overcome incessant filibusters.

And try living in a parliamentary democracy if you think the minority is "steamrolled". It's as if people reject the idea that a substantial majority has the right to implement their agenda. Are you against democracy?

Absolutely not! I believe in limited government. I don't believe the government has a right to tell me that I have to carry health insurance. That's just one example, but if I don't want to spend my money on insurance, I believe no government should make me.

I normally wouldn't get involved in an argument that, for intents and purposes, is pointless. All I know is that you have to follow the money. Can and has "science" been minipluated to reach a predetermined conclusion - sure. Just look at the case built against DDT. I have two undeniable facts of climate change: 1) the Earth's climate has changed well before man climbed out of the primordial ooze (assuming you believe in evolution but that's a whole different debate), what, there where three ice ages, perhaps man is actually helping fight off the next one. 2) we are trusting the future of our countries decision making to a bunch of guys that can't predict the weather two days from now. I heard once that the radcial socialists and communists of the sixties become environmentalists because it was easier to take down capitalism - who would be against clean air and the destruction of our planet, would you rather destroy the habitat of the one miniture mutant frog instead of irigating the fertile farmland of central California.

"to rob the scientific process of real experimentation and observation., because of both cost and, to some extent, pure indolence." -like experimentation and observation, computational modelling is a usefull tool.

Somethings you can't do with observation, but you can model and show that the model agrees with prediciton. It's like an advanced theoretical technique... You can't expect scientists to ignore one tool when it is able to provide answers where other techniques are too expensive or difficult - you can't afford to build a second earth and experiment with it's climate, and you can't possibly be trying to claim that not enough climate studies involve 'real' observations. Half of what has been discussed here has been the 'data' which climatologists have apparently mis-used.

There are many hundreds of weather stations all over the world... and satellites! do you know how much a satellite costs to put into space as compared to putting a computer in the office of a scientist?

@Darwyn: back to my original point. If you think the earth is 5000 years old, then you're either completely ignorant, or you've made a deliberate decision to reject the most basic principles of earth science. Either way, there's no point in talking science with you...you've already decided to blow it off.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=113341292551&comments

""The cause of nature's disapperance is caused by humans' ego who thinks he is supreme." - J.W. (a native Elder's comment.)

...

@Man-O-War:

1. Yes, the climate has changed in the past. So what? that doesn't say anything about what (if any) effect human action will have on the climate.

2a. No, you're not trusting your future to those guys, because the action so far taken has been insubstantial. 2b. The weather is a complex and chaotic system. I use these two very specific mathematical terms, as the are currently understood. This means a small change in todays conditions (like a butterfly flagging it's wings) will make a large difference in the future weather (a hurricane, say, in hawaiie) That means to precisely model the weather you need to have very precise information about the current state (if you don't then in about 3 days your prediction will start to go hugely different... it is ~3 days for weather patterns with the current level of precision, other systems also have some time factor to them... i can't fidn a good picture example of a nonlinear system, but this doesn't mean a 2 degree variation in today's weather might result in a hurricane tomorrow, it means 2 degrees today may push tomorrows temperature up or down by more than 2 degrees, yet still within reasonable limits of the system.

The point about 'climate change' is that more energy increases those limits - so we can have more extreme weather phenomina

i might recommend this book: http://books.google.ie/books?id=fwybfh-nIyEC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=nonlinear+dynamics+unpredictability&source=bl&ots=aXWufT4UVF&sig=BRE-QQ28E7IoTRljFQW1fxVjFE4&hl=en&ei=XPYTTcz9Js22hAfhyoW4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=nonlinear%20dynamics%20unpredictability&f=false

more extreme weather, etc.
things will change.
BUT - "DON'T PANIC!"

" 1) the Earth's climate has changed well before man climbed out of the primordial ooze (assuming you believe in evolution but that's a whole different debate), what, there where three ice ages, perhaps man is actually helping fight off the next one."

How many times must this "point" be addressed before you people stop reciting it? Is this really the best you can come up with?

"All I know is that you have to follow the money. Can and has "science" been minipluated to reach a predetermined conclusion - sure. Just look at the case built against DDT"

The big money that is trying to concoct "research" with a predetermined conclusion isn't coming from the bureaucrats and climatologists, it's coming from the well-paid big industry spin machine and their water carriers in the blogosphere, Murdoch tabloids, and rightwing media. The idea that big money is on the side of the scientists is one of the more comical claims of the denialists. You people did the same thing with acid rain.
Thanks to you, we're still paying for the disinformation campaign you waged in the 1980s in the Adirondacks and elsewhere.

As for DDT, I don't know what you're trying to sell with that one. Some anti-environmental screeds blame DDT for malaria resurgence, ignoring the fact that insects develop resistance to insecticides and that the disuse of DDT had nothing to do with environmentalists, but rather because DDT stopped working.

Rather, blame the "ban" for the resurgence (which wasn't really an effective ban, since countries continued using it).

"I don't believe the government has a right to tell me that I have to carry health insurance. That's just one example, but if I don't want to spend my money on insurance, I believe no government should make me."

Do you whine this much about car insurance too?

Did you complain this much when insurance companies could exclude children from insurance coverage because of 'pre-existing conditions'?

And anyway if you can't afford the mandate the government will subsidize you, what's the problem, again?

Also, commerce clause powers. And about eighty years of case law.

Check and mate.

@Putin, of course they don't whine about car insurance, they accept that driving a car is a privilege, which once licensed must be protected...

Life is not a priviledge, it's a natural right (apparently).

And i believe the problem is that if the government subsidizes the poor then the rich will have to pay more. And if the insurance companies are forced to insure everyone then insurance for everyone will go up, right? sheesh, I at least think it's a disgrace that a rich/productive/intelligent society can't/wouldn't feed it's hungry and provide medical care for it's sick.

NO MATTER WHAT.

First of all, we do feed our hungry. It's called the salvation army. Second of all, our constitution does not mandate that government provide healthcare for anyone. Now, if you roll up to the hospital, they'll treat you whether you have insurance or not, that's the Hippocratic oath. So we do take care of our sick. What we don't need is to start socializing everything, because that's working so well in Spain, Greece, Portugal, hell every European nation is struggling because of the burden on the government to provide. Ireland is bankrupt, I mean the list goes on and on. The U.S. is going down that same path, because it can't afford a 2 trillion dollar health care plan. It has to borrow money from China, and there's no way we can pay that back.

Mandated Health insurance isn't the same as Mandated Car insurance because Car Insurance is required only if you take an action, owning, and operating a car or motorcycle. Mandated Health insurance is arguably unconstitutional in the U.S because it is the regulation of inaction which isn't what the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate. That Clause gives the U.S Congress the right, and duty to regulate commerce across state lines, and commerce is economic action, not inaction. Simply living would be considered inaction, not an action therefore Congress mandating health insurance is unconstitutional in the U.S if that position is held. @Orathaic: That is what would be called a Good Samaritanism law which has never been legally argued for in the U.S, though I believe it exists in some European countries in some matters. I would argue that trying to enforce ethical behavior in general terms is a. beyond the scope of what any government's powers should be, and b. is unrealistic to enforce anyway. Now I believe that you can make the distinction between Good Samaritanism and Minimally Decent Samaritanism, and that no one should fall below the standard of being minimally decent. An example is it appears a seriously injured person is lying on the side of the road you are driving on, a Good Samaritan would stop and help the person and call an ambulance, a minimally decent Samaritan would call emergency personnel, and continue on. Now certainly not calling 911 would be monstrously indecent, but you shouldn't be obligated to get out, and help the person either. In the case of being required to pay for health insurance for the poor I would argue that is beyond even Good Samaritanism, and is heroic in action, and therefore can't be enforced, and while it should be highly praised it shouldn't be required or expected of people.

Putin33 - you sound like a well informed and very intelligent person and I bow to your knowledge and right to believe in the good lberal thinking people. If I understand you correctly, big industry is doing it's best to kill the global warming truth? I think GE is doing very well build crap for "clean" energy, and Al Gore, who was one of the first to scream about global warming has done quite nicely for himself with his this scare - hasn't he? What can you believe in? First it was global warming and the ice caps will melt flooding coastal regions and farmers crops will wither in the fields. But now that evidence comes out that temperatures haven't risen in 5 years the term is now "climate change". That's, the theories of warming have been disproven and found to be wrong so know the scare has been changed to extreme weather conditions. I just wish if the left is going to scare us they would pick a phrase and an outcome and stick with it.

And you make my point about weather predictors, they can't predict three days out due to unknown and unforseen conditions and yet we are to believe they know exactly what will have to weather conditions 20 years from now.

I saw a great piece on Junkscience.com debunking global warming, maybe it's still on their site.

"Mandated Health insurance is arguably unconstitutional in the U.S because it is the regulation of inaction which isn't what the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate. That Clause gives the U.S Congress the right, and duty to regulate commerce across state lines, and commerce is economic action, not inaction."

The Supreme Court has never argued that its commerce power is limited to commercial activity. For example, the court has said that Congress can use its commerce power to forbid hotels and restaurants from discriminating based on race, even though they were refusing to engage in commercial activity.

Congress has the authority to regulate activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Nobody in their right mind would argue that healthcare and its costs do not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce (n 2007, health care expenditures totalled $2.2 trillion and accounted for 16 percent of GDP). As Man-o-War mentioned, people are treated in emergency rooms regardless of whether they are insured. The government is trying to cover costs that the uninsured have on the system.

" big industry is doing it's best to kill the global warming truth"

You ever heard of Koch industries? Koch Industries is the second largest private company in the U.S., with estimated 2008 revenues of $100 billion. They've spent 50 million since 1997 in anti-science "research" trying to deny climate change - > from 2005 to 2008 they spent 25 million doing this. Nearly 40 climate denial organizations are funded by Koch industries, including:

"More than $5 million to Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) for its nationwide “Hot Air Tour” and “Regulation Reality Tour” campaigns to spread misinformation about climate science and oppose clean energy and climate legislation.

– More than $1 million to the Heritage Foundation, a mainstay of misinformation on climate and environmental policy issues.

– Over $1 million to the Cato Institute, which disputes the scientific evidence behind global warming, questions the rationale for taking climate action, and has been heavily involved in spinning the recent ClimateGate smear campaign.

– $800,000 to the Manhattan Institute, which has hosted Bjorn Lomborg twice in the last two years. Lomborg is a prominent media spokesperson who challenges and attacks policy measures to address climate change.

– $365,000 to Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) which advocates against taking action on climate change because warming is “inevitable” and expensive to address.

– $360,000 to Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP) which supported and funded “An Inconvenient Truth…or Convenient Fiction,” a film attacking the science of global warming and intended as a rebuttal to former Vice-President Al Gore’s documentary. PRIPP also threatened to sue the US Government for listing the polar bear as an endangered species.

– $325,000 to the Tax Foundation, which issued a misleading study on the costs of proposed climate legislation."

In addition to Koch industries, Exxon Mobil has spent $9 million doing the same thing.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/03/18/koch-industries-multibillionaire-koch-brothers-bankroll-attacks-on-climate-change-science-and-policy/

"I think GE is doing very well build crap for "clean" energy, and Al Gore, who was one of the first to scream about global warming has done quite nicely for himself with his this scare - hasn't he? What can you believe in? First it was global warming and the ice caps will melt flooding coastal regions and farmers crops will wither in the fields. But now that evidence comes out that temperatures haven't risen in 5 years the term is now "climate change"."

Al Gore donated all the money he got from Inconvenient Truth to the Alliance for Climate Protection. Paramount Classics donated 5% of receipts from the movie to the Alliance (an unprecedented donation from any film). Al Gore is endlessly smeared because he dared raise awareness about this important issue.

Where do you get this nonsense that temperatures haven't risen? The 2000s are the hottest decade on record. 19 countries experienced record high temperatures in 2010. .Arctic sea ice has experienced 14 straight years of decline.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100915_globalstats.html
http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/18/noaa-2010-hottest-year-on-record-zambia-national-all-time-record/

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1656606569118&oid=130944964906&comments

must watch dudes.

@nowheels: the Salvation Army doesn't have the resources to feed the hungry. In any case, are you part of the Salvation Army?

They don't. That's why they ring the bell every Christmas, and I give every year. No, I'm not affiliated with the salvation army. I was just using them as an example. There are too many charities to count that feed and provide shelter for the homeless in America. It sucks that there are people who are homeless, and can't turn to family or friends for help. @ Putin- I'm not a fan of mandated car insurance, but at least it's 1/5th the cost of health insurance.

All the charities put together can't make up the difference.

"Somethings you can't do with observation, but you can model and show that the model agrees with prediciton."

That's a real classic! I predict that I am going to win the lottery and if it doesn't work than I will keep changing the input numbers until it does. That, in a nut shell, is why we are in the state we are in!

A confession......I and some coauthors submitted a paper to a reasonably good scientific journal. The editor and one of the anonymous rewiers rather liked it and only suggested minor changes. The second reviewer said it lacked computational modelling to support our carefully collected experimental data and analysis there of. Firstly, I have to admit that the employment of the model did actually help in terms of gross understanding on one particular point, but that wasn't good enough for this guy. He wanted the model to reproduce the experimental results almost exactly (or should that be the experiment reproduced the model's results exactly? :-]). Anyway, to cut a long story short, we didn't lie with the data, but what we did was to omit to input some and introduce a fudge factor to others. Hey presto the model worked and one more reference is added to all that wonderful corpus on computational modelling. Citations came in and everyone was happy........but something tells me it wasn't science!

Do you absolve me?

Incidently I later found out that the stroppy guy had written several papers on computational modelling to the exclusion of either original experiment or observation. Science and politics again?

no, modelling is hard, but i still put forward the claim it is useful.

If you cut corners to get the desired result then that's a shame. If the model was hard to get right then you could at least demonstrate that...