StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 09:00 PM) See, this is where the biggest issue is...with our worldwide division. Never mind the fact that we're all human, and we're all to blame...some of us are white...and some of us are chinese...and some of us are black...you get the idea. We can't do this because if one nation caps themselves, or taxes their own companies to hell and back, and another doesn't follow suit, undoing any good we attempt to do, they would also crush us economically when everything they produce is uncapped, and untaxed...thus cheap and impossible to compete with on an macro-economic level. These suggestions aren't real world solutions. They're utopian solutions, at best. Until we are a united Earth, one currency, one culture...those solutions cannot work, because when implemented, they will overburden your GDP and give others that do not follow these same rules a huge advantage. So...what are some actual non-utopian solutions to this? Or is the answer so simple, but so scary, you don't want to say it? There is no solution. Because the human race won't allow there to be. pretty much the last thing. This is the worst sort of problem to need a political solution to.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:54 PM) Wouldn't these types of solutions hinder the economy at a time when that's the last thing we can do? Sure, and that's what i was saying a week or two ago when we were talking about addressing the issue. The response to that is that "do nothing" isn't a zero-cost option. More warming means rising oceans, which presents issues for ocean-front property (and not just beach houses). It means stressed ecosystems and increased rates of extinctions globally. It means a more energetic climate, so more tornadoes and droughts and floods and hurricanes. It means increased acidity in three ocean, which leads to coral bleaching asking other things.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:50 PM) Now, to get this conversation back on track...if there is definitive proof that man made CO2 is the cause, and there is NO doubt left because of the numerous studies you keep citing say so, which were obviously peer reviewed and published...then what are the solutions? Are there any actual viable solutions? Or will we just continue to go around and around here and accomplish nothing? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I've now bought into your arguments...we did it. Now what? Carbon caps, for starters. Heavy investment in alternative energy. Probably need strong carbon taxes as well.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:41 PM) Because YOU said their study showed they looked at the cause of warming, but the director of comms refutes what you say. And I'm to believe you over them? Why? Ah, I see, I should ignore an official statement from one of the main contributors to the study you cite, but I should just take your word for it. ...and you wonder why you lose people when you talk about this? Seriously? Funders, not contributors. Important distinction.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:41 PM) Because YOU said their study showed they looked at the cause of warming, but the director of comms refutes what you say. And I'm to believe you over them? Why? Don't. Go to the science and the scientists, not PR guys for corporations.

Why should we care what a very politically active corporation says about scientific studies? I thought we were interested in the science.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:34 PM) The Koch Foundation claims the BEST study had nothing to do with cause of warming. This is the problem. You claim the BEST story confirms a bunch of other studies that show human emitted CO2 is the cause...and the director of communications from Koch claims the study did nothing of the sort. Why should we care what the director of communications (PR) of the Koch Industries says about scientific studies? I thought we were interested in the science? As part of the BEST study, they performed climate modeling. This modeling matches very well with other models (and actual data) and relies on CO2 being the dominant driver. The goal of their study was to validate or refute surface temperature data, but to do so they had to look at the cause of warming.

Billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch own Koch Industries. They are major political contributors to libertarian and conservative causes and founders of the CATO institute. They have actively funded and promoted skeptic studies for years (they have major investments that would be impacted by CO2 legislation). They're currently the liberal boogeyman, similar in nature to the way the rightwing reacts to Soros.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:23 PM) I don't read random skeptic blogs, so I don't really care what the skeptics have to say. I only care what the science is saying. Then you should be interested in the BEST study and its confirmation of a whole bunch of other studies that show human-emitted CO2 as essentially the only driver of current warming.

He started the BEST study specifically because of his skepticism regarding the temperature data. He was accepted as a skeptic by skeptics until the results came out. Does that say anything to you about the skeptics' integrity? edit: Muller's op-ed, which started this link, starts with him saying "Call me a converted skeptic." That, along with his previous acceptance among skeptic bloggers, is why he is referred to as a former skeptic.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:47 PM) Because they're morons? How could they, or anyone with a brain consider someone a skeptic that was ringing the alarm bell about this for almost a decade before this BEST study you continue to reference? That's just stupid. I dunno, but WUWT is probably the #1 skeptic blog on the internet. Does their intellectual honesty regarding him and the BEST study give you any pause?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:44 PM) ...and again, he was never a skeptic. Then why did Powerline and WUWT regard him as such and eagerly anticipate the BEST study validating their claims? edit: you know why they did the BEST study, right? It was specifically because he was skeptical of the claimed temperature record.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:38 PM) Reading through the references, I'd have to agree with that site he was never a skeptic...he was talking about CO2 causing this long before your post about him claiming to be a skeptic...sounds made up. I'm not saying his science is wrong...but somewhere along the lines, people called him a skeptic, but I see nothing skeptical about what he's been saying over time. According to this new study, which he concluded last year...he's no longer a skeptic. But published on MIT's website, by Muller himself...he says, "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium." That doesn't sound skeptical to me...at all. And since that was written by him in 2003...he's been a skeptic longer than the single year since his study. It's stuff like this why you have a hard time getting people to listen to your arguments, guys...you are going along with the media, or him in this case, in making up converted skeptics in an attempt to make a point. Why do this? Why make up converted skeptics? I just don't get it...this added nothing to the conversation and did less than nothing in getting me to listen. This is the garbage I hate about this entire conversation. If you wouldn't go along with crap like this, and keep the argument on point, rather than doing this...maybe you'd get peoples attention and keep it. Instead, what you'll do now, is try to make the story of him ever being skeptical real...when it's clearly not. He was touted as a skeptic by skeptics prior to the release of the BEST results, then he became another apostate. It's not "the media" that pushed that angle, it was blogs like Powerline and WUWT that promoted him and the BEST study until it came out with conclusions they didn't like.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 07:38 PM) Reading through the references, I'd have to agree with that site he was never a skeptic...he was talking about CO2 causing this long before your post about him claiming to be a skeptic...sounds made up. I'm not saying his science is wrong...but somewhere along the lines, people called him a skeptic, but I see nothing skeptical about what he's been saying over time. Denialists called him a skeptic. That's what my link demonstrates: in 2008, he was being hailed as a great iconoclast against the religion of global warming. As recently as last year, Anthony Watts was very confident that the BEST group would affirm his beliefs. It was only after their initial results came out that they started distancing themselves from him in a No True Skeptic manner. Anyway, it doesn't really matter what some bloggers on the internet think he is or isn't. As you've said, the science should speak for itself, and it keeps saying the same thing: the globe is warming, the only known causal factor at this scale is CO2, and human emissions are what have thrown it so off-balance.

Rightbloggers are trying to distance themselves from his as much as possible since it turns out that, after looking at the facts and letting them speak for themselves, he has concluded that AGW is real. This is unsurprising because their denialism is based on ideology.

He was a skeptic until he disagreed with them. Nor does this cast any doubt on a scientific study or warrant the use of scare quotes around study.

Ilya Somin fleshes out the legal argument in much more detail here: http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/07/same-sex-...discrimination/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/10/sex-discr...-and-tradition/

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 05:20 PM) Jenks is making the classic winning argument against SSM. Every man can marry a woman, and every woman can marry a man. That is equality. Which is why (imo) to actually win the entire debate, you must argue that in and of itself marriage has become a right or sexual orientation is a right, and therefore the govt denying it to consenting adults, is a deprivation of rights. Gender discrimination usually refers to a man or woman being treated different due to their gender. In this case, neither men nor women are being treated differently. That's not a winning argument. Men and women are treated differently when they apply for a marriage license. Being a man, I have the right to marry a woman but not a man while women have the right to marry a man. I do not have the same right to marry a man that women do because of my gender. You do not have to make marriage itself a right to demonstrate that the government is denying it to two consenting adults based solely on gender.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:58 PM) You being a man has nothing to do with the denial. You being gay does. That's the discriminatory characteristic there. Being a man is part of the requirement for getting a license in the first place. The only thing determining that is my gender. Sexuality is not on the form. If your argument made sense, then gays would be barred from marriage regardless of who they were going to marry. The restriction is entirely gender-based as two homosexuals can get married as long as they are opposite-gendered.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:44 PM) It's the gay right agenda bullying people. They owners are also against divorce. Where are the divorcees protesting? I doubt they discriminate in hiring. No one asks in an interview if you are gay unless you are interested in a job being a bartender at a gay bar. (gays do discriminate) I know straight people who work at a gay bar. I know gay people who were fired for being gay.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) I guess i'd argue that the fact that your a man doesn't stop you from receiving the benefits of marriage. You can go marry a woman if you wanted them. What stops you is your sexuality, which isn't protected. I'm not being denied a marriage license to another man because I'm gay, I'm being denied a marriage license because I'm a man. That is straight-up gender discrimination. The "everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex" argument just doesn't fly.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) 1) Just because it isnt protected, doesnt mean it shouldnt be protected. The argument isnt about what it, it is about, what should be. 2) I did read it carefully, which is why I remarked that calling them contracts is a terrible argument. They are more than a contract, you are saying they are a "right." I was not calling marriage a right. Equal protection is a right, and discriminatory marriage laws violate that. No such constitutional right is violated, imo, by MPM prohibition. I never disagreed that if it's the right thing to do, it should be changed. I was only remarking that the process for doing so for MPM would necessarily be more complicated. You are not simply redefining everything from "husband" and "wife" to gender-neutral "spouse," you have to consider each individual law and whether it should be restricted to one spouse and how it should be restricted. That does not apply to replacing husband/wife with spouse. I admit that I was wrong that SSM would not require any legislative changes. I still maintain that it requires less changes than MPM because you are only replacing language with gender-neutral terms, not considering the actual structure and impact. If every pertinent law had been written with "spouse" instead of "husband/wife," then there would be zero changes. The same could not be said for MPM, and each program or benefit would have to be analyzed to determine if it should be restricted to one or given to all. You're right, I don't really care, because it's not relevant to my side-comment that started this whole thing. I do not fundamentally disagree with what you are saying. I didn't address it because I don't really disagree with the main thrust of your argument. I disagree that the legislative changes necessary would be comparable in nature to SSM, and I do not think that MPM is protected constitutionally as SSM is. That doesn't mean we shouldn't allow it, but imo it's a policy argument, not a constitutional rights one.

Apparently Mass. did have to amend affected laws: I still maintain that definitional changes such as these are less complicated than the structural changes that would have to be considered for MPM. Hopefully we can end this tangent now.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:35 PM) Well, there's not. But that's the point of this debate. There's also not a protected class discrimination for SSM either, but you want it. I'm relating your arguments to other situations. Yes, there is. I cannot marry a man. On what basis is that determined? It's still a definitional change at worst, not a structural change as MPM would require. I would be surprised if Mass laws weren't very similar to Illinois laws yet still did not have to be re-written. Hell, the bill legalizing gay marriage could include a broad statement on that, changing it simply to "spouse" instead of husband and wife.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 04:31 PM) But you're not being denied those rights because you are a man or a woman, it's because you like a man or woman. My ability to marry a man is determined by my gender. How is that not gender-based discrimination?