Jump to content

The Democratic Field

Recommended Posts

Beavah writes: "Yah, science doesn't have politics, but politics uses science."


Oh, really? Gee, who said the following?


"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as synfuels, shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."


That would be the liberal James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute. Nothing political there, right?


Or how about this statement:


"On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing butwhich means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts.


On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."


That would be Dr. Stephen Schneider, in Discover magazine. No politics there, either, right?


So, when ya start puttin' yur faith in the scientist, you might want to check to see if they are a bleedin' heart liberal, who might like to scare ya, since you aren't smart enough to figure some of this stuff out yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So, clear cut logging was corporate conspiracy. I'm not surprised that would be your explanation


Nah, just plain, old fashioned economics and market forces. Yeh know. Capitalism.


Just go look at those companies and pull their corporate statements. Then look at da rise and fall in NW timber jobs. There was no conspiracy. Everything was out in da open, voted at shareholders meetings.


If a company had a large asset base or was well managed and had a strong cash position but undervalued stock price, those daring devils of da junk bond era would borrow a bunch of money at high interest, offer a premium on da stock, and take over the company. Then they'd split da cash, milk or liquidate the assets, pay off da bonds and walk away with a hefty profit. Typically, to find a good company to raid yeh had to look in "boring" sectors like timber because that's where stocks were undervalued. Yeh might be too young to remember da era, but I'm not. At the time, it was the "in" high profit financial roulette scheme, like subprime mortgage derivatives were a couple decades later.


Da spotted owl thing (and all da mudslides) were indirect results, because da irresponsible, unsustainable land use ticked off the tree huggers. But that never had a substantive effect. It was just economically an artificial and unsustainable boom.



Link to post
Share on other sites

. The credit problems is due to the democrats


Yah, hmmm...


There's just no way to say this gently. Vol_scouter, yeh seem like a decent, intelligent chap, and I agree with some of your other statements above. But this is just foolish.


Can yeh explain to us what a tranched collateralized debt obligation security is, how it's created, and how it works? And then describe da groups who first tried to push banks and others into issuing credit default swaps on CDOs?


However competent yeh may be in your chosen profession, yeh just don't understand what you're talkin' about here. Da credit market crash in 2008 had very little to do with fair lending / housing efforts, and nuthin' to do with democrats or republicans. Anyone who is tellin' yeh that is either ignorant or they are just plain lying to you for their own personal or political ends.


Da causes were quite simple and ordinary, eh? Overly creative greed, managerial and regulatory incompetence (especially by da comptroller of the currency), fueled by poorly thought out deregulation pushed by Phil Graham and supported by Clinton.


Da normal stuff that causes bubbles, eh? Plain old greed and incompetence.



(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Link to post
Share on other sites





Democrats and environmentalists have been waging war on the working class for decades. Never more clearly than the Spotted Owl campaign in which they sought and won hegemony over control of public and private lands in Oregon and Washington.


The current campaign is over gaining control of public waters, with the salmon sitting in for the Spotted Owl. This campaign involves destruction of hydroelectric dams, which is already proceeding apace.


In exactly the same way, the Endangered Species Act is being used by the same enviironmental organizations to seize control of waterways and dams.


No lumber companies to blame here, Beavah. The dams are owned by the Federal government and local governments of various kinds. But the greed for power and control is the same as in the Spotted Owl campaign.


The same greed for power and the same campaign is seen over and over again when the ESA is trotted out by environmental organizations to grab power and resources.


Your denial avails you not. The pattern of behavior is 'way too obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, hmmm. Dear me. Well, I'm always up for learnin' somethin'. Can yeh explain to me exactly how the democrats have been "waging war on the working class?". For decades yeh say? I disagree with much if not most of da Democratic Party platform, but in fairness I can't see that they've been waging war on anybody. For da most part, they haven't even been particularly competent, eh?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see....the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Pesticide Control Act of 1972, the Ocean Dumping Act of 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the Clean Air Act of 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the Endangered Species Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Marine Mammal Protection Act....and more...all signed or supported by the most infamous bunch of Democrats and communists in our nation's history....the Richard Nixon Administration.


They would have been envied by that much earlier, ahead-of-his-time environmental activist and infamous Democrat, Teddy Roosevelt.

Link to post
Share on other sites


What, exactly, do you think those CDOs were made up of, what were the securities that started defaulting that caused the problem to begin with? Sub-prime mortgages! If those mortgages hadn't gone bad, the CDOs would have played out, with everyone getting paid.


Here is a good explanation of CDOs and tranches (Wikipedia):

One analogy is to think of the cash flow from the CDOs portfolio of securities (say mortgage payments from mortgage-backed bonds) as water flowing into the cups of the investors in the senior tranches first, then junior tranches, then equity tranches. If a large portion of the mortgages enter default, there is insufficient cash flow to fill all these cups and equity tranch investors face the losses first.


An early indicator of the crisis was the failure of two Bear Stearns hedge funds in July 2007. The assets held by these hedge funds had declined in value, due in large part to increasing defaults on subprime mortgages. Investors demanded their money back under contractual arrangements referred to as margin calls. The now defunct Bear Stearns, at that time the fifth-largest U.S. securities firm, said July 18, 2007 that investors in its two failed hedge funds will get little if any money back after "unprecedented declines" in the value of securities used to bet on subprime mortgages, despite investment-grade ratings from rating agencies.


I do know a little about investments - I am Series 7 and Series 63 licensed.


No comments on the liberal leanings of the global warming scare-mongering non-political "scientists?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, da brilliant and well informed Wikipedia quote! :p. As always, real understanding about any issue, whether it's economics or climate science takes some time and effort. Googling is nice and all, and readin' political bloggers that agree with our own views is entertaining in a sorta mindless way. But knowledge requires work.


And if yeh don't do the work, then you're just a patsy for whatever group is able to play off your laziness, eh?


So now here's somethin' to think about. Where did the money come from to finance all those sub-prime loans? I mean, nobody in their right mind would loan their own money to these deadbeats, right?


As for da other thing, there's no question that there's a science lobby, if yeh will. Scientists like every citizen are goin' to lobby for their viewpoint. That's natural and is their right, and it's naturally goin' to be da administrative types who aren't actually doing any science (like those yeh quote) who are involved in that. That's not a democrat/republican thing. I'm a pilot and there's a general aviation lobby. Both support both liberal democrats and conservative republicans - because it supports folks who agree with aviation issues. Even da NRA funds democrats that share their views. Lobbys are just lobbys. They try to spread a viewpoint. It shouldn't surprise yeh that scientists try to spread theirs. Same as doctors and businessmen.


Da question yeh have to ask yourself is if 98% of da engineers in da country were lobbying because they thought da bridges that were being built were unsafe, would yeh really want your children driving on 'em? If 98% of da doctors and nurses were tryin' to convince everybody that somethin' is medically dangerous would yeh blow 'em off and have your children do that thing, just because yeh didn't like da politics of the AMA representative expressed on one talk show?



Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, da brilliant and oft repeated attack on a Wikipedia source, even though you can't dispute it - yep, that takes a lot of work. No lazy person would ever do such a thing, would they?


The directors of Fannie and Freddie (Democrats at the time) stood to make a fortune in bonuses (which they did), so they pushed the idiotic idea that every American should own a home - whether they could afford it or not. Barney Frank was a big supporter of the idea. Yep, a lot of greedy people saw a way to make money off the deal, but they couldn't do it unless the buyers signed on the dotted line. You can dance around all you want and call me lazy, but if the mortgage holders hadn't defaulted, this whole mess would have never happened. CDOs were a bad idea, but the trip mechanism was the mortgage defaults.


I knew fairly smart people who took out interest only loans to buy bigger houses than they could afford, thinking they would live like kings for 5 years, sell them for a huge profit and bank the equity. They didn't see the down side, and are now under water with no equity. So, who was more greedy - the banks or the borrowers?


As for the scientist and engineers, would you believe the engineers when you found out they weren't giving you all the information? They were only giving you the data that supported their agenda? When 90% of journalists are liberal Democrats, I go to conservative channels to get balance. I have liberal friends who are quick to jump on any mistatement by Bachmann or Palin, but if I ask them about Obama "visiting 57 states" they have no idea what I'm talking about. Why? They only go to the mainstream media, who are Democrats. They never hear the other side of the story (or see the other conflicting data). Of those 97% of scientists who believe in man-made global warming, I would bet good money that 98% are liberal Democrats. I can't believe someone who thinks they are so brilliant can't see this!


Chew on this: Climate change will be the predominant moral issue of the 21st century, declared NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, comparable to Nazism faced by Churchill in the 20th century and slavery faced by Lincoln in the 19th century. Can you say "over the top?"(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So again, rather than just quote mindless political bloggers, explain where the money came from. These were private dollars from da capital markets that financed the sub-prime loans, eh? And only a small fraction were FHA. Who loaned the money to all these folks? Da small banks didn't have the money themselves to make those loans. Who is more stupid, the homebuyer who risks a downpayment or da lender who risks da remaining principal on a bad loan? Why did they do it?


But yeh can't, because yeh won't find that in a Wikipedia article, eh?


Da mistake you're makin' about scientists and such is that they think like you do in terms of democrat/republican. Most folks in their profession just think like a professional. Even in their hobby. When I'm a scouter, I think like a scouter, eh? I don't worry at all about liberal/conservative/democrat/republican. Just what makes sense scouting-wise. Yah, sure, some politico is goin' to look at scouting and say it's those darn anti-gay conservatives or those darn liberal LNT tree hugger types. But really, it's just scouting.


Science is just science, da way medicine is just medicine or scouting is just scouting. If you're a strong believer in scouting, you're goin' to tend to align yourself with da politicians and parties that support scouting. If you're a scientist, you're goin' to tend to align yourself with da politicians and parties that support science in the same way. Most people don't change their beliefs or how they work to fit their political party, they change their political party to match their work and beliefs. Only a politico changes his/her work or beliefs to match a party, because politics is their profession or hobby.


So if there really is a trend that scientists are becoming more democrats ( which never used to be the case), then all that really says is how much da current republicans have become da anti-science party.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, that may have been the way science was 20 years ago, or maybe it still is in other areas other than climate, but not today. Journalist will tell you they aren't biased in their reporting, even though they are overwhelmingly Democrats. Sorry, but that just isn't the case. Same with scientist, or at least those in the field of climate science. Here's another one for you - science is now about ethics, not real science.


Pennsylvania State Universitys Professor Donald A. Brown argues that ethics requires acknowledging the links between tornadoes and climate change, despite scientific uncertainties about increased frequency and intensity of tornadoes in a warming world. Get that - ethics requires it. They have to resort to fear-mongering to scare the easily-duped to their side.


So, Beavah, how come the scientist that line up on your side of the field are all unbiased, but those that line up on mine are paid-for hacks? Those on your side have admitted over-hyping the problem and pushing worst-case scenarios to scare everyone. They admit they feel an "ethic" to create links where they don't exist. That Flavor-Aide must be mighty good! (you happy, packsaddle?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, yeh didn't get it, BA. If 98% of engineers tell yeh the bridge is unsafe and then a political party takin' lots of bridge builder donations says they're lying, which do yeh suppose is more likely? That the engineers are all really supporters of the other party who secretly stopped being good engineers and started lying about engineering just to "get" the other party, or that they just stopped supportin' the odd party that was anti-engineering? And if they really thought the bridges were unsafe, don't yeh think that some of 'em would also appear in the media and talk about nightmare scenarios of bridge collapse?


Only politicians really believe that they and their political party are so important that people change their professional beliefs just to be in their party or to try to oppose their party. Because that's the sort of thing they do. Just look at Mitt Romney. ;)


Historically, da Republicans always used to be bigger supporters of science and high quality education. While Republicans would vote research funds, Dems would vote social programs and try to cut research funds. So it's truly remarkable that there's been such a shift recently to the Republicans becoming anti- science. In da face of that, it's not surprising that some scientists feel ethically obligated to oppose what they see as a radically anti-science agenda. Just normal, eh? The way you and I would feel obligated to oppose a radically anti-gun agenda. Not because we're democrats or republicans, but because we're gun owners.


So da tragedy of the story is that the party has changed and become anti-science, not that the scientists have all suddenly given up science in order to oppose da Republicans.


Just like in order to evaluate da 2008 credit market collapse yeh have to actually understand how some things work rather than quote wikis and bloggers, I figure in order to evaluate climate change yeh actually have to understand da science rather than quote wikis and bloggers.


B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, Beavah - the reason I went to Georgia Tech is because I'm anti-science. No, I'm just anti-junk science and anti-science by consensus. I've read the science the global warmers have built their case on, and I don't buy it. Mann's hockey stick is based on such a small set of data, it is ridiculous. The science has "been settled" for how long now? Yet, Hansen recently admitted the models were overstating the warming, and they can't even explain the aerosol and cloud links. So many variables, but they've got it all figured out with just one...until some other variable raises its ugly head and they can't explain it.


Here is what I would expect - I would expect those who are the true believers, the guys making the Flavor-Aid, to live as if they believed in the snake oil they were selling. Al Gore would be living in a 1,200 sq. ft apartment with a windmill on the roof. He'd be riding his bike everywhere. Instead, he lives in a mansion and travels in ways that generate tons of carbon. Meanwhile, he is getting filthy rich off the whole scam. I wouldn't expect those engineers to be travelling over the bridge every day, while they are telling me it is unsafe - which is what Al Gore and company are doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...