Archive

Archive for October, 2007

Yandle on the Tragedy of the Commons and Environmental Regulation

October 31st, 2007 No comments

The Library of Economics and Liberty has just posted a new hour+ podcast featuring Bruce Yandle.


http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/10/yandle_on_the_t.html


 “Bruce Yandle of Clemson University and George Mason University’s Mercatus Center looks at the tragedy of the commons and the various ways that people have avoided the overuse of resources that are held in common. Examples discussed include fisheries, roads, rivers and the air. Yandle talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the historical use of norms, cooperative ventures such as incorporating a river, the common law, and top-down command-and-control regulation to reduce air and water pollution.”


Two other interesting podcasts/presentations by Yandle are here:


“Economics and the Environment: Public and Private Choice”, http://www.mercatus.org/events/eventID.168/event_detail.asp


“Getting Warmer: Addressing Climate Change and Environmental Policy”, http://www.mercatus.org/events/eventID.430/event_detail.asp


And further podcasts can be found here:  http://www.mercatus.org/people/id.127,type.3/people_link.asp

Ron Paul introduces Bruce Fein’s bill to check Constitutional abuses by President

October 31st, 2007 No comments

[This is a re-post, as the first was difficult to read due to formatting problems.] 


American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 (Introduced in House),


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.3835:



110th CONGRESS, 1st Session


H. R. 3835
To restore the Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


October 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Select Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



——————————————————————————–



A BILL
To restore the Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.



Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


This Act may be cited as the `American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007′.


SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.


(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:


(1) Unchecked power by any branch leads to oppressive transgressions on individual freedoms and ill-considered government policies.


(2) The Founding Fathers enshrined checks and balances in the Constitution to protect against government abuses to derail ill-conceived domestic or foreign endeavors.


(3) Checks and balances make the Nation safer by preventing abuses that would be exploited by Al Qaeda to boost terrorist recruitment, would deter foreign governments from cooperating in defeating international terrorism, and would make the American people reluctant to support aggressive counter-terrorism measures.


(4) Checks and balances have withered since 9/11 and an alarming concentration of power has been accumulated in the presidency based on hyper-inflated fears of international terrorism and a desire permanently to alter the equilibrium of power between the three branches of government.


(5) The unprecedented constitutional powers claimed by the President since 9/11 subtracted national security and have been asserted for non-national security purposes.


(6) Experience demonstrates that global terrorism can be thwarted, deterred, and punished through muscular application of law enforcement measures and prosecutions in Federal civilian courts in lieu of military commissions or military law.


(7) Congressional oversight of the executive branch is necessary to prevent secret government, which undermines self-government and invites lawlessness and maladministration.


(8) The post-9/11 challenges to checks and balances are unique in the Nation’s history because the war on global terrorism has no discernable end.


(b) Purpose- The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 is intended to restore the Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.


SEC. 3. MILITARY COMMISSIONS; ENEMY COMBATANTS; HABEAS CORPUS.


(a) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is hereby repealed.


(b) The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy.


(c) The President is prohibited from detaining any individual indefinitely as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States, provided that no United States citizen shall be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant.


(d) Any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States shall be entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28, United States Code.


SEC. 4. TORTURE OR COERCED CONFESSIONS.


No civilian or military tribunal of the United States shall admit as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.


SEC. 5. INTELLIGENCE GATHERING.


No Federal agency shall gather foreign intelligence in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The President’s constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence is subordinated to this provision.


SEC. 6. PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS.


The House of Representatives and Senate collectively shall enjoy standing to file a declaratory judgment action in an appropriate Federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of a presidential signing statement that declares the President’s intent to disregard provisions of a bill he has signed into law because he believes they are unconstitutional.


SEC. 7. KIDNAPPING, DETENTIONS, AND TORTURE ABROAD.


No officer or agent of the United States shall kidnap, imprison, or torture any person abroad based solely on the President’s belief that the subject of the kidnapping, imprisonment, or torture is a criminal or enemy combatant; provided that kidnapping shall be permitted if undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process. A knowing violation of this section shall be punished as a felony punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 2 years.


SEC. 8. JOURNALIST EXCEPTION TO ESPIONAGE ACT.


Nothing in the Espionage Act of 1917 shall prohibit a journalist from publishing information received from the executive branch or Congress unless the publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to the national security of the United States.


SEC. 9. USE OF SECRET EVIDENCE TO MAKE FOREIGN TERRORIST DESIGNATIONS.


Notwithstanding any other law, secret evidence shall not be used by the President or any other member of the executive branch to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence as a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization for purposes of the criminal law or otherwise imposing criminal or civil sanctions.


This closely matches the legislative package suggested by conservatives Bruce Fein, David Keene, Richard Viguerie, and Bob Barr, who on March 20, 2007 announced the formation of the American Freedom Agenda (AFA), a campaign to “restore governmental checks and balances and civil liberties protections under assault by the Bush administration”.  According to the AFA:


<i>”Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and has repeatedly claimed that the President is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence.

“The 10-point American Freedom Agenda would work to restore the roles of Congress and the federal judiciary to prevent such abuses of power and protect against injustices that are the signature of civilized nations.  In particular, the American Freedom Agenda would:



  • Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
  • Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
  • Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
  • Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
  • Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
  • Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
  • Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
  • Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
  • Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
  • Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.”

http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/


Liberals are also starting to support this agenda.  In July a group of well-known liberals launched the American Freedom Campaign, with purposes very similar to those of the American Freedom Agenda. http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/


More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/finally-action-ron-pau_b_69042.html

Can Enviros Manage Land? Give ANWR to the Nature Conservancy!

October 30th, 2007 No comments

The NYT has an interesting article up on Nature Conservancy’s extensive holdings in the Adirondacks:


 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/nyregion/29adirondacks.html?ei=5087&em=&en=8d6ce0f734fb4852&ex=1193889600&pagewanted=all


 Nothing like ownership to incentivize environmentalists to strive for balance and profits.


 

Categories: enviros, Nature conservancy, oil, timber Tags:

Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach (update)

October 29th, 2007 1 comment

For convenience of reference, I`ve excerpted from the long “Malthus and Mein Kampf” thread (http://blog.mises.org/archives/007152.asp) those portions of the exchange of posts I and others had with Fundamentalist that relate to creation science. [This is a re-post – as the first wouldn’t format correctly. Some formatting has been lost.]

 

Philemon: “You know they throw out the high outliers on the ice core data.” Good point. Did you see the documentary on PBS about the guys who rescued the WWII P-38’s from Greenland? Or maybe it was Iceland. Anyway, the planes are about 200 ft below the surface of the ice, which would make them about a thousand years old using the standard dating methods used with ice cores.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 4, 2007 8:43 PM

 

Roger, with your mention of the P-38s I now see why you’ve changed your handle to Fundamentalist! A little Googling shows that most mentions of the P-38s are connected to Creationists’ refusal to accept the idea that the Earth is older than 7000 years – can you please tell me that you are not in this group? Can you point me to any scientist who seriously doubts the ice core aging or our basic data captures from them? And do intend to seriously argue that the conditions of the active glaciers in Greenland’s southern coasts where the P-38s landed, which experience heavy snowfalls, bear any resemblance to the high, stable and much drier ice caps on Greenland or Antarctic wheere the ice cores are taken from? http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about36638.html http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=67&m=62

That you can even throw this into the discussion makes me seriously question your “fundamental” seriousness. TT
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 4, 2007 10:30 PM

 

Fundamentalist, By the way, you neglected to share your thoughts on how old the ice cores (and the Earth) actually are – 7000 years tops? Regards, TT
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 5, 2007 10:22 PM

 

TT: “By the way, you neglected to share your thoughts on how old the ice cores (and the Earth) actually are – 7000 years tops?” 100,000 years tops, based on the research of the Institute for Creation Research. In case anyone is interested, the scientiests at the ICR call GW a hoax. They have a good article at www.icr.org/article/3233.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 6, 2007 7:39 PM

 

Fundamentalist/Roger: Thanks for the cite to mis-named “The Institute for Creation Research” in response to my question to you about the age of the ice cores. I appreciate your courage in confirming (albeit indirectly) that you are approaching the issue of climate change from the perspective of a Creationist.

I’ve taken a stroll through the ICR site and, in the interst of clarifying what the ICR is about and their views on AGW, attach below some excerpts of their views their “work” on the age of the Earth, climate science and man’s duties as steward of Creation. My view is that the ICR’s work is seriously skewed by the view that the Bible is an accurate historical record that tells us that the Earth is less than 7000 years old. Their persistence is admirable, but their approach cannot be fairly said to be either open-minded, clear thinking or scientific – nor does it confirm, Roger, that “the scientists at the ICR call GW a hoax”.

Nevertheless, I certainly agree that the Bible can provide valuable moral guidance about mankind’s role in the world and our obligations to the rest of God’s creation as His appointed stewards. My question to you, Roger, is whether, in trashing many parts of the Garden of Eden through a race – uncontrolled by clear ownership by individuals of large portions of it – to use, take, liquidate or dump our wastes in it without regard to others (much less to the rest of Creation), can we fairly regard ourselves as being good “stewards” of it? If you owned a large and rare property, Roger, let it out to tenants for a span of years and came back and found that they had trashed large parts of it and were still at work at it (except where some had started to fence parts off) – would YOU be happy? (Or would praise them and say that they had done absolutely the right thing, since the property really meant nothing to you and you had intended its destruction, and had come back to bring your friends with you to a better place?) Given your Creationist approach, I am see definite limits to the possibility of fruitful engagement with you on issues of climate science, but am more than willing to continue to explore further with you the moral aspects of man’s impact on Creation and our obligations to each other and with respect to that Creation. Respectfully, Tom

PS: Here are the excerpts from The Institute for Creation Research and its scholars:

God’s written, historical revelation of truth — the inspired text of Scripture — provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits and a philosophy for understanding man’s role as steward over creation. http://www.icr.org/article/3337/

The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. … The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. http://www.icr.org/article/117/10/

ICR has become a major numerical research center in paleoclimatology. http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_misc_climate_modeling/

However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355

Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years…. These data do not address the question about man’s part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. … Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God’s intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12). http://www.icr.org/article/3233/

The Creator designed the earth well, with built-in feedback mechanisms to handle any crises. There is coming a time, however, when excessive heat will be a problem (see Revelation 16:8-9), and these fluctuations may be a foreshadowing, but that too is in God’s hands. http://www.icrmedia.org/article/3336/

In biblical terms, the disease is sin, curable only by regeneration through the work of the Holy Spirit, which is made possible by the love of God the Father expressed in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In human terms, the disease is a naturalistic worldview, curable only by embracing a genuinely theistic worldview that acknowledges the Creator. http://www.icr.org/article/3474/

The whole of creation is now running down and wearing out. “The earth shall wax old like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6), and man’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong! [TT: Amen to that!] http://www.icr.org/article/678/
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 6, 2007 9:12 PM

 

TT: “I appreciate your courage in confirming (albeit indirectly) that you are approaching the issue of climate change from the perspective of a Creationist.” Actually, I didn’t know the ICR had done research on GW until this week. I have been studying it since the late 1980’s. And it doesn’t take much courage to stand up for the truth. The scientists at the ICR are very good scientists. Some are from MIT and other top universities. One worked as a physicist for the Sandia Labs for many years. They’re rejected by the mainstream of the scientific community, not because their bad scientists, but because they refuse to drink the coolaid of evolution.

Being in the minority doesn’t bother me as it does some. The majority is often wrong. Jesus said the path to the truth is narrow and few people find it. If I wanted to be with the majority on religion I’d have to be a Muslim. I studied mainstream econ, even gained a masters degree in it, then discovered it was wrong on most things. That’s why I became an Austrian, another group that’s shunned by the mainstream. I believe that if Austrians would study the science of Creationism with an open mind and with the analytical skills they have learned as Austrians, they would become creationists, too.

TT: “the Bible is an accurate historical record that tells us that the Earth is less than 7000 years old.” That’s not true. A 29th century theologian calculated that the earth was 6,000 years old based on his understanding of the chronologies of the Bible. The Bible never states how old the earth is. Similar scholars have calculated 10,000 years for the age of the earth. I don’t know how old the earth is, but the scientific research at the ICR indicates it’s not more than 100,000 years old.

TT: “If you owned a large and rare property, Roger, let it out to tenants for a span of years and came back and found that they had trashed large parts of it…” Of course I would be unhappy. When that happens to the earth, let me know.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 6, 2007 11:23 PM

 

Roger: A few points:

1. “The scientists at the ICR are very good scientists.” “the scientiests at the ICR call GW a hoax. They have a good article at www.icr.org/article/3233.” “I don’t know how old the earth is, but the scientific research at the ICR indicates it’s not more than 100,000 years old.”

Hmm. Since the ICR is a Creationist organization dedicated to the propositions that the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth”, that God actively intervenes in history through events such as the Flood and to demonstrating that evolution is the “Koolaid” that unthinking scientists and other ignorant the world over have swallowed (except for a brave minority of religiously devout free thinkers in the US, and all of the Muslims) – why do I have such a hard time finding that either the ICR or you is at all “scientific”, as opposed to devoted to clinging to hold together a religiously derived worldview? Perhaps you can tell me which of these follwoing statements by the ICR upthread you agree with?

“The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. … The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. http://www.icr.org/article/117/10/

“However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355

2. “You can’t protect the environment without respect for property and respect for property is almost non-existent in the world, even in the so-called capitalist US. … So to protect the environment in the rest of the world, you have to start to convince them of the benefits of property rights and free markets.”

These are overstatements. Indigenous peoples and despots have all protected valuable environmental resource by the simple method of defending them against others – others who may not have been happy, but backed down in the face of superior power.

3. “Politicians are good at token gestures, like the Kyoto treaty, that accomplish nothing. But the danger of such token gestures is that they lull people into a false sense that something has been accomplished when it hasn’t.”

Kyoto failed because the largest AGW emitters refused to join because they saw greater short-term profit in continuing to treat the atmosphere as an open-access commons, so EU politicians and firms were not brave enough to incur sugnificant pain unilaterally (and thus overallocated permits). The real danger is that hard-boiled economic thinkers will jump to the wrong conclusion, and fail to consider that decisions to finally close commons are multiplayer prisoners dilemmas that often fail.

4. ” quit trying to scare people to death with nightmare scenarios”

Hmm, where have I done that? Or are you referring to Pew, USCAP, Bush and Paulsson, other industry groups, scientists worldwide, the intelligence community and various religious group?

5. “You and TT haven’t convinced anyone posting on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause. So why would any of us support a carbon tax that would not reduce GW?”

Where did I try to convince anyone on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause? You have not established that a carbon tax would have no effect, but of course the reason why the rest of the economics profession and much of industry – including Exxon – is that they believe it would improved our net marginal position.

6. “GW hysteria refuses to admit that the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities. Besides, Robert does not know that “…large parts of our best agricultural lands will become desert…” That’s a prediction based on highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy. Talk about irrational faith.”

For you, “GW hysteria” just seems to mean anyone who disagrees with you. Have you noticed, BTW, that your conclusion that “the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities” not only is based on “highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy”, but there is that pesky little point the the purported “benefits” will be localized in the temperate and Arctic (where Western economies are located), with little benefits accruing to poorer countries that are expected to face the greatest challenges? Regards, TT

“[M]an’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!” http://www.icr.org/article/678/

Posted by: TokyoTom at October 10, 2007 5:33 AM

 

TT: “Perhaps you can tell me which of these follwoing statements by the ICR upthread you agree with?” I agree with all of them.

But the quotes you posted from the ICR web site are not the science, but the conclusions based on the science. Just as atheists like Richard Dawkins conclude from the theory of evolution that God does not exist, and wax eloquent about it, so creationists conclude from their research that God does exist.

Whether or not creationists are good scientists depends upon your definition of science. Since you are impressed with the consensus view on GW, I would guess that you define science as whatever the consensus view is. If so, you might want to read the articles on epistemology posted this week on this site. If science is nothing more than the consensus opinion, then Austrian econ is not science, because it represents the viewpoint of a small minority.

I, along with Austrians, still believe that science is the application of scientific principles to the study of nature. According to that definition, creationism is far better science than evolution. Creationism has two sides to it: 1) the study of the scientific phenomena and 2) drawing conclusions from the results of the study. Just as Austrian econ demonstrates that the real world does not and cannot work according to the principles of socialism, or Keynesian econ, so creationists use science to prove that evolution could not possibly take place as described by the theory. The scientific part of creationism is limited to answering the two questions: “Does the natural world work in the way described by the theory of evolution?” and “If not, how does it work?” The scientific answer to the first question is no, it’s impossible. The scientific answer to the second is to demonstrate the mechanisms by which the earth and life on the planet might have come about.

After answering the scientific part, the creationist takes off his science helmet and puts on his philosophical one, just as Dawkins does when he promotes atheism. The creationist then concludes that the science he has studied matches reasonably well with the Biblical account creation. To dismiss the science because of the theological conclusions would be similar to dismissing evolution because atheists take comfort in it. Atheism is a theological conclusion based on the science of evolution, just as respect for the Bible is a theological conclusion based on the science of creationism.

Anthony: “I’ve heard quite a few fundies allude to this before. I had wondered whence it came.” Why do creationists place so much emphasis on the Biblical flood? There is quite a bit of evidence that the stratified layers of rock did not accumulate over millions of years. The fossil record provides some of the evidence because the fact that the fleshy part of animals are so well preserved proves that they did not decay. It’s similar to the mammoths of Siberia that froze so rapidly that the food in their mouths was preserved. Many fossils had to have been buried very rapidly under tons of mud over a wide area. Also, many stratified rocks show sharp curvature without breaking, which could not have happened after the sediment hardened into rock, but must have occurred while still wet. This is just a sample of the evidence; whole books have been written on it. In sum, the fossil record and geologic record demonstrate a major, catastrophic event in the recent past. The Biblical flood matches that event in many ways, although there is no way to prove it beyond doubt.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 10, 2007 1:09 PM

 

“…many stratified rocks show sharp curvature without breaking, which could not have happened after the sediment hardened into rock, but must have occurred while still wet…” …or when deformed in a plastic state under enormous pressure and temperature conditions, over millions of years, as the science much more convincingly concludes.
Posted by: Jean Paul at October 10, 2007 3:59 PM

 

Jean Paul: “…or when deformed in a plastic state under enormous pressure and temperature conditions, over millions of years, as the science much more convincingly concludes.” You’re talking about metamorphic rock that lies under sendimentary rock. I was referring to sedimentary rock like sandstone and limestone. Several features of sedimentary rock contradict the ancient age of the earth. These, among others, include the fact that sedimentary layers can be traced over hundreds of thousands of square miles, whereas normal processes of sedimentation such as river deltas cover a tiny fraction of that area. Sedimentary layers usually have sharply defined boundaries and are parallel, with layers several thousand feet thick. If layers had been laid down over millions of years, erosion would have destroyed that parallelism. Dead animals and plants decay quickly and are eaten or destroyed by the elements; preservation of fossils in sedimentary rock requires rapid burial in sediments thick enough to preserve their bodily forms. On continents, sedimentary layers are more than a mile thick; conventional explanations of their origins are insufficient for that volume of sediment. Limestone layers hundreds of feet thick are too large and uniform for the conventional explanation that they are bodies of tiny sea creatures. These and many other geological facts point to a rapid formation of the sedimentary layers of the earth’s crust. For more, see the book “In the Beginning” on the web site www.creationscience.com, written by Dr. Walter Brown, PhD, MIT, former professor of science at the Air Force Academy and Chief of Science and Tchnology Studies at the Air War College.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 10, 2007 10:03 PM

 

Roger, you say that “The creationist then concludes that the science he has studied matches reasonably well with the Biblical account creation”, but leave out one of the most important details – as I noted with a number of quotes from the “Institute for Creation Research” upthread: Creationists start out with devout religious beliefs that form the basis of their understanding of the material world (the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth … [that] provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits”) and conduct “research” designed to confirm their beliefs. This is hardly scientific. Of course, Creationists are hardly unique in finding that all of the evidence they see in the world conveniently confirms that which they already believed. My own view is that our God-given cognitive conservatism and tribalism (both of which have provided important advantages) lie at the bottom of this phenomenon. Regards, Tom
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 12:31 AM

 

TT: “Creationists start out with devout religious beliefs that form the basis of their understanding of the material world (the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth … [that] provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits”) and conduct “research” designed to confirm their beliefs. This is hardly scientific.” I suppose you think that evolutionary scientists are blank slates when they approach the subject. That’s a little bit naive. Why did the majority of scientists adopt the theory of evolution long before it had any evidence for it? As Dawkins has written, it made atheism respectable for the first time. Most creationist scientists, such as Dr. Brown and Dr. Michael Behe, taught evolution for many years before changing their minds; the mounting scientific evidence against evolution changed their minds, not the Bible.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 8:03 AM

 

TT: “On the science, it is hard to find anyone who disagress with the IPCC’s summaries of the vast and growing scientific literature…” You really should read the articles on epistemology posted this week on this site. Consensus is not science nor proof of the correctness of one’s argument; it could mean that the majority have been fooled. The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 8:08 AM

 

Fundamentalist/Roger: So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists who see evolution as a much more powerful (and productive in terms of research inquiries) explanation of the biological world than that of a God that made all of creation at once by fiat and intervenes from time to time at His whim to destroy or create further – though evolution is hardly the subject here. Evolution has had an uphill battle against oppression by church establishments, though there are noble holdouts throughout the universe of Islamic free thinkers, with a scattering in the US. Nice try on the IPCC, which I view as I think others like Lindzen, Christy and Michaels do – simply as a valuable digest of the developing science, not as a monolithic “consensus”.

You are right of course that “The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change”, but it cut the other way, doesn`t it? Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift.
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 12:16 PM

 

TT: “So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists…” You know very well that wasn’t what I was doing. Just as you ignore the the scientists who oppose human-induced GW because you think their motives are tainted, while assuming pure motives for the consensus scientists, you also try to impune the science of creationists by judging their motives. I was simply pointing out that evolutionary scientists don’t have pure motives either. You really should get over the habit of determining the validity of an argument by what you perceive the motives of a person are. You seem to be unaware of the fact that you attribute pure motives to those you agree with and evil motives for those you disagree with. Motives are totally irrelevant. Just look at the evidence each side presents and decide for yourself.

TT: “Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift.” Lindzen and others like him are very much like Gallileo, Newton, Einstein and others who stood against the consensus when it was wrong.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 2:35 PM

 

Fundamentalist: – Where do I “ignore the the scientists who oppose human-induced GW because you think their motives are tainted”? Are you talking about Linzen et al., or the Institute for Creation Research? I’ve looked at what I can find at ICR, but didn’t find any science but rather arguments against AGW based clearly on presuppositions that the Bible descriptions of the Flood are literally true. Does ICR have any published (journals or self-) research at all?

– Where do I “assum[e] pure motives for the consensus scientists” or for evolutionary scientists?

– I do not “impune the science of creationists by judging their motives” – there is no science that I can see to impugn. Rather, I’ve simply noted that they have rather clearly stated that they are trying to fit reality into a preconceived box we call the Bible. Is it unfair for us to note that or draw any conclusions from it?

– Yes, you have indicated that you think that “evolutionary scientists don’t have pure motives either”. However, this is not releveant to discussing climate science, and you have not actually made any case for “impure” motives among evolutionary scientists. If the active intervention (intermittent or ongoing) of God is in fact the best explanation for various aspects of the real world, at some point science will be incapable of finding materialistic explanations. Until that point, I prefer a science that does not presume such intervention – as neither has such intervention has ever been demonstrated, nor does such an approach provide any fruitful leads for further research or understanding. The theory of natural selection and ancillary theories in support of evolution gained adherent not because of political or ideological agendas to throw off theological shackles, but because they provided powerful and testable insights into the evidence, as opposed to the “God did it” school. Moving to a materialistic view of creation occurred on the basis of the fit between the evidence and the hypotheses, and often after much struggle with preconceptions based on the Bible and enforced by church establishments and popular culture.

– If I indeed had a “habit of determining the validity of an argument by what you perceive the motives of a person are”, then I would wholeheartedly agree that it is one I should strive to overcome. But I don’t think I actually do have such a habit, even while I do consider it useful to consider motive, self-interest and other aspects of human nature when weighing what people have to say – even Al Gore.

– “You seem to be unaware of the fact that you attribute pure motives to those you agree with and evil motives for those you disagree with.” Yep; I am unaware that I make any such attributions of pure or evil motives – nor do I see any evidence of this on my comments upthread. Rather, it seems to be you (and others like Philemon) who presents dichotomies of pure and evil motives, and “sides”.

– “Motives are totally irrelevant. Just look at the evidence each side presents and decide for yourself.” Understanding motivation may help in weighing evidence presented by others – that’s all. Only fools never try to look behind the curtain.

– “Lindzen and others like him” are largely old codgers (most, with much less relevant expertise than Lindzen) who have not yet been persuaded by new paradgims that everyone else has found convincingly fit the evidence. Some find this heroic, though it is also entirely consistent with our God-given tendencies to defend our worldviews at all costs (as ignoring cognitive dissonance may be less costly than changing our minds). Of course our climate is sufficiently complex that we will never understand it completely, so there is always room for new ideas, evidence and arguments against oversimplification, or concerning public policy. I do appreciate your thoughts. Regards, Tom

Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 10:10 PM

 

… 6. Finally, I note that you have not responded to my previous comments to you about how you and the creationist “scientists” at ICR are letting your “fundamentalist” views of the Bible influence your views on the climate change science. Regards, Tom
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 15, 2007 11:16 PM

 

TT: “Finally, I note that you have not responded to my previous comments…” I didn’t read anything worthy of comments. You pretend that creationists have no science behind their theories. You don’t see it because you don’t want to. Did you follow the link to the book at creationscience.com? The only thing that influences my views on GW is the science.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 16, 2007 8:06 AM

 

Roger/Fundamentalist: Thanks for your further comments. …

2. As to the climate “science” at the Institute for Climate Science, yes of course I followed your link. I have not “pretend[ed] that creationists have no science behind their theories”, but simply couldn’t find any. Can you point to any real climate science at ICR? I saw no science, but could document that summaries of ICR’s views were explicitly grounded on a view that the Biblical view of a young Earth is historically accurate, such as the following:

However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355

Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years…. These data do not address the question about man’s part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. … Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God’s intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12). http://www.icr.org/article/3233/

It is very clear by ICR’s establishment of its own “creation model”-only “science” journal that ICR is operating on the basis of a belief system, and not science: http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/2007/02/institute-of-creation-research-launches.html http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/05/01/peer-reviewed-creationist-research-hahahahahahahaha/

3. BYW, this was not a rhetorical question in my last comment to you: “Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this, but simply consider the costs imposed by any “remedy” to exceed purported benefits? If so, how long do you think we should wait before any policy action is merited – forever, or just until the Second Coming?”

The ICR makes the following observations – do you disagree that they apply to climate change? “[M]an’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … “But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!” http://www.icr.org/article/678/ Regards, TT
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 17, 2007 2:25 AM

 

TT: “It is very clear by ICR’s establishment of its own “creation model”-only “science” journal that ICR is operating on the basis of a belief system, and not science:” How do you think scientists operate? They form a hypothesis (guess) about how things work, then try to find evidence to support their guess. One group is trying to prove evolution, which has never been proven scientifically, just adopted by consensus as has GW. The evidence for evolution is so slim that it drove many of the scientiests at ICR and other places to search for an alternative explanation. They chose creation as described in the Bible. Now they’re searching for evidence that supports their hypothesis. Tell me one scientist that operates differently.

As Mises and Hayek tried to explain with history, it’s impossible to dive into the data of history and surface with a coherent theory about how economics works. To make sense of history, one must have a logical theory first and interpret the data of history through that theory. The same advice works in the natural sciences. I am fairly confident that no scientist has looked at the data without a theory and been overwhelmed with the evidence for evolution; the evidence simply doesn’t exist. Not that evolutionary scientists are trying to prove that evolution is true. They never have tried that. Soon after Darwin’s book came out, the majority of scientists adopted its thesis without question. I don’t know of any scientist many scientists who have even questioned evolution. It’s accepted because it’s the consensus. A few will admit that almost no evidence for evolution exists, but they still accept it on philosophical grounds.

All creationist scientists are doing is questioning the evidence for evolution, which almost no evolutionary scientist does, and proposing an alternative with evidence to back it up. How is that not scientific?

“Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong” As far as I know, creationists don’t dispute the CO2 data in ice cores, just the ages that scientists claim the cores represent. Most scientists claim that each layer of ice represents one year, but finding the P-38’s from WWII proved that wrong. Still, scientists refuse to change their minds. A similar example happened with the strata of mud found in ponds. Scientists used to claim that each layer represented one year, but creationists kept demonstrating that such deposits occur multiple times in a year until other scientists began to agree with them.

TT: “The ICR makes the following observations – do you disagree that they apply to climate change?” Yes I disagree.

TT: “Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this…?” No, I don’t agree. Free markets and property rights haven’t even been tried where the environment is concerned.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 17, 2007 1:07 PM

“But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!”  Most creationists are for protecting the environment when it’s in danger. That’s why we should oppose socialism. But we also don’t believe in inventing dangers that don’t exist.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 17, 2007 1:10 PM

 

Fundamentalist: … 2. The difference between real scientists and creationists is that creationists start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied, and they refuse ever to modify their initial assumptions despite the absence of evidence or to accept alternative explanations that are consistent with the evidence but do not require magical forces. For creationists, protecting the world view is paramount. Real scientists of course start with premises, but they generate hypotheses that are productive and can be tested and confirmed or found wanting – even by critics who operate within a creationist mode.

3. “Most scientists claim that each layer of ice represents one year, but finding the P-38’s from WWII proved that wrong.” You brought this up before, but have failed to respond to my comments. Do you have a reference to any scientific studies that you think disprove the various means (not solely layers) by which the deluded scientists generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland? …

5. “Most creationists are for protecting the environment when it’s in danger.” And not only creationists – but all manner of religious groups, citizens groups and corporate leaders as well, who all care for the planet – even the parts they don’t personally own. Regards, Tom
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 18, 2007 6:16 AM

 

TT: “The difference between real scientists and creationists is that creationists start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied,...” And evolutionists don’t? The “big bang” postulates an entire universe popping into existence out of nothing. Where’s the evidence for that? It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Biological evolution violates the law of biology that life cannot come from nonliving matter. No evidence exists that it can or has. There are hundreds more examples of where evolution violates the laws of physics and biology.

 

TT: “…and they refuse ever to modify their initial assumptions despite the absence of evidence or to accept alternative explanations that are consistent with the evidence but do not require magical forces.” You’ve just described the “science” of evolution very well.

TT: “Do you have a reference to any scientific studies that you think disprove the various means (not solely layers) by which the deluded scientists generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland?” The science of ice cores isn’t rocket surgery. They count the layers of ice like you count tree rings. They assume each layer is one year. But creationists have shown them that that assumption is wrong. That’s really all there is too it.

TT: “I think that mine is the standard Austrian analysis…When you say that “property rights haven’t been tried” for much of the environment, you are essentially conceding the principal point – where resources which are not effectively owned, markets don’t work.” I don’t think you understand Austrians. The solution to the problem of commons is not greater government control, but getting rid of the commons by establishing private property. The air presents a more difficult property issue, but not one that can’t be solved, as many Austrians have shown.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 18, 2007 8:03 AM

 

Fundamentalist: …

2. Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang? I suppose not. But if you have good evidence for that, of course I’d be interested.

3. I see, you really do think that the scientists who generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland ARE deluded, that ice core “data” rests only on a simple counting of annual layers that creationists have decisively proven wrong. Please give us the cites? The science of ice core dating is actually quite advanced, and isn’t a simple matter of counting annual layers. I offer for you this discussion the following lay-friendly pieces: The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah’s Flood Was Not Global, http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf Ice Core Dating, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 18, 2007 9:51 AM

 

TT: “Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang? I suppose not.” Again, I’d be pretty stupid to believe what you wrote. What you’re doing is twisting my words to make them sound ridiculous and then claiming that’s what I said. It’s a technique for getting out of an argument when you know you’re losing, but most people outgrow it when the leave junior high. I think I’ve explained my position on science well enough.

TT: “The science of ice core dating is actually quite advanced, and isn’t a simple matter of counting annual layers.” If you want the best information on the science of dating ice cores, visit the chapter on it in the online book “In the Beginning” at www.creationscience.com.
Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 18, 2007 12:30 PM

 

Roger, I didn’t call you stupid. You are obviously very intelligent, but like the rest of fundamentalists, I see you as invested primarily in defending a particular mind view. Cognitive conservatism is a basic human trait that we all have to struggle with, and I also am a sinner.

3. On creationism, I am certainly not twisting what you said, but mirroring it to you by asking you to confirm whether you intend the implications. You indicated that, like my argument about creationists, evolutionists also “start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied” and that “The “big bang” postulates an entire universe popping into existence out of nothing. Where’s the evidence for that?” How is it at all “twisting your words” (much less a juvenile debating tactic) to ask you whether you are “seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang?” In fact, that is precisely what you suggested, and it is clearly wrong. Darwin and other evolutionists didn’t start by positing a Big Bang or some such thing at all, but by looking at the differences between clearly related species and wondering if there was a scientific (non-God, non-magical) explanation for them. OTHER scientists got to the Big Bang – not as anything proven, but as a theory – by working backwards from a growing understanding of mechanics, physics and evidence of the motions of stars and galaxies collected with increasingly sophisticated instruments.

4. On the ice core data, I’d like to take a look at what “www.creationscience.com” has to say, and to put it up on my blog with the various sites I’ve offered to you. I’ve taken a look, but can’t find the chapter you’re referring to. Could I trouble you for a more precise link? BTW, the creationist response to the article on ice core dating that I sent you earlier precisely indicates my criticism of creationism generally. Allow me to quote:

“The resulting difference in age-interpretation is a result of the starting paradigm; the data is the same and does not speak for itself. What we believe colours what we see. … If one starts with the uniformitarian paradigm, it is easy to see how the various methods appear to be corroborating. However, when one steps back and questions the unspoken starting assumptions and allows the parameters to vary by the full range available, completely different consistent results can be obtained. This shows the importance of where we start. The Bible claims to be a reliable historical record and this history from the very beginning was attested to by Christ and the Apostles. Thus, it is a logical starting position from which to create our worldview. On the other hand, belief in deep time may be internally reinforcing, but has no external reference point. Either must be accepted by faith, only one will be right. “It is unfortunate that Seely and others in the American Scientific Affiliation accept man’s fallible, continually changing stories about the past rather than God’s clear Word. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp

This creationist is clearly trying to fit the facts into his Bible-based view of reality rather than conducting science; scientists, on the other hand, work from the assumption that, to the extent possible, physical laws rather than magic or miracles should provide the basis for our understanding of the world. Regards, Tom
Posted by: TokyoTom at October 19, 2007 1:15 AM

Get behind Ron Paul`s American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007!

October 28th, 2007 No comments

Ron Paul introduced this bill (H.R. 3835) in the House of Representatives on October 15:

American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 3835 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3835
To restore the Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government
abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and
Select Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To restore the Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government
abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007′.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Unchecked power by any branch leads to oppressive transgressions on
individual freedoms and ill-considered government policies.
(2) The Founding Fathers enshrined checks and balances in the Constitution
to protect against government abuses to derail ill-conceived domestic or
foreign endeavors.
(3) Checks and balances make the Nation safer by preventing abuses that
would be exploited by Al Qaeda to boost terrorist recruitment, would deter
foreign governments from cooperating in defeating international terrorism,
and would make the American people reluctant to support aggressive
counter-terrorism measures.
(4) Checks and balances have withered since 9/11 and an alarming
concentration of power has been accumulated in the presidency based on
hyper-inflated fears of international terrorism and a desire permanently to
alter the equilibrium of power between the three branches of government.
(5) The unprecedented constitutional powers claimed by the President since
9/11 subtracted national security and have been asserted for non-national
security purposes.
(6) Experience demonstrates that global terrorism can be thwarted,
deterred, and punished through muscular application of law enforcement
measures and prosecutions in Federal civilian courts in lieu of military
commissions or military law.
(7) Congressional oversight of the executive branch is necessary to prevent
secret government, which undermines self-government and invites
lawlessness and maladministration.
(8) The post-9/11 challenges to checks and balances are unique in the
Nation’s history because the war on global terrorism has no discernable
end.
(b) Purpose- The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 is intended to restore the
Constitution’s checks and balances and protections against government abuses as
envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
SEC. 3. MILITARY COMMISSIONS; ENEMY COMBATANTS; HABEAS
CORPUS.
(a) The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is hereby repealed.
(b) The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of
war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an
immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local
anarchy.
(c) The President is prohibited from detaining any individual indefinitely as an
unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the
individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States,
provided that no United States citizen shall be detained as an unlawful enemy
combatant.
(d) Any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States shall be
entitled to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under section 2241 of title 28,
United States Code.
SEC. 4. TORTURE OR COERCED CONFESSIONS.
No civilian or military tribunal of the United States shall admit as evidence
statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.
SEC. 5. INTELLIGENCE GATHERING.
No Federal agency shall gather foreign intelligence in contravention of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The President’s
constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence is subordinated to this
provision.
SEC. 6. PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS.
The House of Representatives and Senate collectively shall enjoy standing to file a
declaratory judgment action in an appropriate Federal district court to challenge
the constitutionality of a presidential signing statement that declares the
President’s intent to disregard provisions of a bill he has signed into law because
he believes they are unconstitutional.
SEC. 7. KIDNAPPING, DETENTIONS, AND TORTURE ABROAD.
No officer or agent of the United States shall kidnap, imprison, or torture any
person abroad based solely on the President’s belief that the subject of the
kidnapping, imprisonment, or torture is a criminal or enemy combatant; provided
that kidnapping shall be permitted if undertaken with the intent of bringing the
kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a
tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process. A knowing
violation of this section shall be punished as a felony punishable by a fine or
imprisonment of up to 2 years.
SEC. 8. JOURNALIST EXCEPTION TO ESPIONAGE ACT.
Nothing in the Espionage Act of 1917 shall prohibit a journalist from publishing
information received from the executive branch or Congress unless the publication
would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to the national security of
the United States.
SEC. 9. USE OF SECRET EVIDENCE TO MAKE FOREIGN TERRORIST
DESIGNATIONS.
Notwithstanding any other law, secret evidence shall not be used by the President
or any other member of the executive branch to designate an individual or
organization with a United States presence as a foreign terrorist or foreign
terrorist organization for purposes of the criminal law or otherwise imposing
criminal or civil sanctions.

More here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/finally-action-ron-pau_b_69042.html

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071019/OPINION01/710190335/1021/OPINION01

Categories: ron paul constitution Tags:

Francis Fukuyama hates America,

October 28th, 2007 No comments

and is now fervently praying that the Lilliputians tie down Gulliver, NOW.

His latest post concludes:

“America’s founding fathers were motivated by a similar belief that unchecked power, even when democratically legitimated, could be dangerous, which is why they created a constitutional system of internally separated powers to limit the executive.

Such a system does not exist on a global scale today, which may explain how America got into such trouble. A smoother international distribution of power, even in a global system that is less than fully democratic, would pose fewer temptations to abandon the prudent exercise of power.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C10%5C25%5Cstory_25-10-2007_pg3_5

Categories: bush, fukuyama, state Tags:

Climate science: a Fundamentalist/creation science approach

October 27th, 2007 2 comments

<blockquote>[Sorry about this mess.  I was able to get the formatting to work here:  http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/30/climate-science-a-fundamentalist-creation-science-approach-update.aspx]</blockquote>


For convenience of reference, I`ve excerpted from the long “Malthus and Mein Kampf” thread (http://blog.mises.org/archives/007152.asp) those portions of the exchange of posts I and others had with Fundamentalist that relate to creation science. Philemon: “You know they throw out the high outliers on the ice core data.” Good point. Did you see the documentary on PBS about the guys who rescued the WWII P-38’s from Greenland? Or maybe it was Iceland. Anyway, the planes are about 200 ft below the surface of the ice, which would make them about a thousand years old using the standard dating methods used with ice cores. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 4, 2007 8:43 PM Roger, with your mention of the P-38s I now see why you’ve changed your handle to Fundamentalist! A little Googling shows that most mentions of the P-38s are connected to Creationists’ refusal to accept the idea that the Earth is older than 7000 years – can you please tell me that you are not in this group? Can you point me to any scientist who seriously doubts the ice core aging or our basic data captures from them? And do intend to seriously argue that the conditions of the active glaciers in Greenland’s southern coasts where the P-38s landed, which experience heavy snowfalls, bear any resemblance to the high, stable and much drier ice caps on Greenland or Antarctic wheere the ice cores are taken from? http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about36638.html http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=67&m=62 That you can even throw this into the discussion makes me seriously question your “fundamental” seriousness. TT Posted by: TokyoTom at October 4, 2007 10:30 PM Fundamentalist, By the way, you neglected to share your thoughts on how old the ice cores (and the Earth) actually are – 7000 years tops? Regards, TT Posted by: TokyoTom at October 5, 2007 10:22 PM TT: “By the way, you neglected to share your thoughts on how old the ice cores (and the Earth) actually are – 7000 years tops?” 100,000 years tops, based on the research of the Institute for Creation Research. In case anyone is interested, the scientiests at the ICR call GW a hoax. They have a good article at www.icr.org/article/3233. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 6, 2007 7:39 PM Fundamentalist/Roger: Thanks for the cite to mis-named “The Institute for Creation Research” in response to my question to you about the age of the ice cores. I appreciate your courage in confirming (albeit indirectly) that you are approaching the issue of climate change from the perspective of a Creationist. I’ve taken a stroll through the ICR site and, in the interst of clarifying what the ICR is about and their views on AGW, attach below some excerpts of their views their “work” on the age of the Earth, climate science and man’s duties as steward of Creation. My view is that the ICR’s work is seriously skewed by the view that the Bible is an accurate historical record that tells us that the Earth is less than 7000 years old. Their persistence is admirable, but their approach cannot be fairly said to be either open-minded, clear thinking or scientific – nor does it confirm, Roger, that “the scientists at the ICR call GW a hoax”. Nevertheless, I certainly agree that the Bible can provide valuable moral guidance about mankind’s role in the world and our obligations to the rest of God’s creation as His appointed stewards. My question to you, Roger, is whether, in trashing many parts of the Garden of Eden through a race – uncontrolled by clear ownership by individuals of large portions of it – to use, take, liquidate or dump our wastes in it without regard to others (much less to the rest of Creation), can we fairly regard ourselves as being good “stewards” of it? If you owned a large and rare property, Roger, let it out to tenants for a span of years and came back and found that they had trashed large parts of it and were still at work at it (except where some had started to fence parts off) – would YOU be happy? (Or would praise them and say that they had done absolutely the right thing, since the property really meant nothing to you and you had intended its destruction, and had come back to bring your friends with you to a better place?) Given your Creationist approach, I am see definite limits to the possibility of fruitful engagement with you on issues of climate science, but am more than willing to continue to explore further with you the moral aspects of man’s impact on Creation and our obligations to each other and with respect to that Creation. Respectfully, Tom PS: Here are the excerpts from The Institute for Creation Research and its scholars: God’s written, historical revelation of truth — the inspired text of Scripture — provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits and a philosophy for understanding man’s role as steward over creation. http://www.icr.org/article/3337/ The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. … The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. http://www.icr.org/article/117/10/ ICR has become a major numerical research center in paleoclimatology. http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_misc_climate_modeling/ However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355 Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years…. These data do not address the question about man’s part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. … Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God’s intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12). http://www.icr.org/article/3233/ The Creator designed the earth well, with built-in feedback mechanisms to handle any crises. There is coming a time, however, when excessive heat will be a problem (see Revelation 16:8-9), and these fluctuations may be a foreshadowing, but that too is in God’s hands. http://www.icrmedia.org/article/3336/ In biblical terms, the disease is sin, curable only by regeneration through the work of the Holy Spirit, which is made possible by the love of God the Father expressed in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In human terms, the disease is a naturalistic worldview, curable only by embracing a genuinely theistic worldview that acknowledges the Creator. http://www.icr.org/article/3474/ The whole of creation is now running down and wearing out. “The earth shall wax old like a garment” (Isaiah 51:6), and man’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong! [TT: Amen to that!] http://www.icr.org/article/678/ Posted by: TokyoTom at October 6, 2007 9:12 PM TT: “I appreciate your courage in confirming (albeit indirectly) that you are approaching the issue of climate change from the perspective of a Creationist.” Actually, I didn’t know the ICR had done research on GW until this week. I have been studying it since the late 1980’s. And it doesn’t take much courage to stand up for the truth. The scientists at the ICR are very good scientists. Some are from MIT and other top universities. One worked as a physicist for the Sandia Labs for many years. They’re rejected by the mainstream of the scientific community, not because their bad scientists, but because they refuse to drink the coolaid of evolution. Being in the minority doesn’t bother me as it does some. The majority is often wrong. Jesus said the path to the truth is narrow and few people find it. If I wanted to be with the majority on religion I’d have to be a Muslim. I studied mainstream econ, even gained a masters degree in it, then discovered it was wrong on most things. That’s why I became an Austrian, another group that’s shunned by the mainstream. I believe that if Austrians would study the science of Creationism with an open mind and with the analytical skills they have learned as Austrians, they would become creationists, too. TT: “the Bible is an accurate historical record that tells us that the Earth is less than 7000 years old.” That’s not true. A 29th century theologian calculated that the earth was 6,000 years old based on his understanding of the chronologies of the Bible. The Bible never states how old the earth is. Similar scholars have calculated 10,000 years for the age of the earth. I don’t know how old the earth is, but the scientific research at the ICR indicates it’s not more than 100,000 years old. TT: “If you owned a large and rare property, Roger, let it out to tenants for a span of years and came back and found that they had trashed large parts of it…” Of course I would be unhappy. When that happens to the earth, let me know. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 6, 2007 11:23 PM Roger: A few points: 1. “The scientists at the ICR are very good scientists.” “the scientiests at the ICR call GW a hoax. They have a good article at www.icr.org/article/3233.” “I don’t know how old the earth is, but the scientific research at the ICR indicates it’s not more than 100,000 years old.” Hmm. Since the ICR is a Creationist organization dedicated to the propositions that the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth”, that God actively intervenes in history through events such as the Flood and to demonstrating that evolution is the “Koolaid” that unthinking scientists and other ignorant the world over have swallowed (except for a brave minority of religiously devout free thinkers in the US, and all of the Muslims) – why do I have such a hard time finding that either the ICR or you is at all “scientific”, as opposed to devoted to clinging to hold together a religiously derived worldview? Perhaps you can tell me which of these follwoing statements by the ICR upthread you agree with? “The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet’s history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. … The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. http://www.icr.org/article/117/10/” “However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355” 2. “You can’t protect the environment without respect for property and respect for property is almost non-existent in the world, even in the so-called capitalist US. … So to protect the environment in the rest of the world, you have to start to convince them of the benefits of property rights and free markets. These are overstatements. Indigenous peoples and despots have all protected valuable environmental resource by the simple method of defending them against others – others who may not have been happy, but backed down in the face of superior power. 3. “Politicians are good at token gestures, like the Kyoto treaty, that accomplish nothing. But the danger of such token gestures is that they lull people into a false sense that something has been accomplished when it hasn’t. Kyoto failed because the largest AGW emitters refused to join because they saw greater short-term profit in continuing to treat the atmosphere as an open-access commons, so EU politicians and firms were not brave enough to incur sugnificant pain unilaterally (and thus overallocated permits). The real danger is that hard-boiled economic thinkers will jump to the wrong conclusion, and fail to consider that decisions to finally close commons are multiplayer prisoners dilemmas that often fail. 4. ” quit trying to scare people to death with nightmare scenarios” Hmm, where have I done that? Or are you referring to Pew, USCAP, Bush and Paulsson, other industry groups, scientists worldwide, the intelligence community and various religious group? 5. “You and TT haven’t convinced anyone posting on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause. So why would any of us support a carbon tax that would not reduce GW?” Where did I try to convince anyone on this thread that GW is a serious problem, let alone that humans are the major cause? You have not established that a carbon tax would have no effect, but of course the reason why the rest of the economics profession and much of industry – including Exxon – is that they believe it would improved our net marginal position. 6. “GW hysteria refuses to admit that the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities. Besides, Robert does not know that “…large parts of our best agricultural lands will become desert…” That’s a prediction based on highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy. Talk about irrational faith.” For you, “GW hysteria” just seems to mean anyone who disagrees with you. Have you noticed, BTW, that your conclusion that “the benefits of GW will at least equal the liabilities” not only is based on “highly flawed computer models that have never been tested for accuracy”, but there is that pesky little point the the purported “benefits” will be localized in the temperate and Arctic (where Western economies are located), with little benefits accruing to poorer countries that are expected to face the greatest challenges? Regards, TT “[M]an’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!” http://www.icr.org/article/678/ Posted by: TokyoTom at October 10, 2007 5:33 AM TT: “Perhaps you can tell me which of these follwoing statements by the ICR upthread you agree with?” I agree with all of them. But the quotes you posted from the ICR web site are not the science, but the conclusions based on the science. Just as atheists like Richard Dawkins conclude from the theory of evolution that God does not exist, and wax eloquent about it, so creationists conclude from their research that God does exist. Whether or not creationists are good scientists depends upon your definition of science. Since you are impressed with the consensus view on GW, I would guess that you define science as whatever the consensus view is. If so, you might want to read the articles on epistemology posted this week on this site. If science is nothing more than the consensus opinion, then Austrian econ is not science, because it represents the viewpoint of a small minority. I, along with Austrians, still believe that science is the application of scientific principles to the study of nature. According to that definition, creationism is far better science than evolution. Creationism has two sides to it: 1) the study of the scientific phenomena and 2) drawing conclusions from the results of the study. Just as Austrian econ demonstrates that the real world does not and cannot work according to the principles of socialism, or Keynesian econ, so creationists use science to prove that evolution could not possibly take place as described by the theory. The scientific part of creationism is limited to answering the two questions: “Does the natural world work in the way described by the theory of evolution?” and “If not, how does it work?” The scientific answer to the first question is no, it’s impossible. The scientific answer to the second is to demonstrate the mechanisms by which the earth and life on the planet might have come about. After answering the scientific part, the creationist takes off his science helmet and puts on his philosophical one, just as Dawkins does when he promotes atheism. The creationist then concludes that the science he has studied matches reasonably well with the Biblical account creation. To dismiss the science because of the theological conclusions would be similar to dismissing evolution because atheists take comfort in it. Atheism is a theological conclusion based on the science of evolution, just as respect for the Bible is a theological conclusion based on the science of creationism. Anthony: “I’ve heard quite a few fundies allude to this before. I had wondered whence it came. Anthony: “I’ve heard quite a few fundies allude to this before. I had wondered whence it came.” Why do creationists place so much emphasis on the Biblical flood? There is quite a bit of evidence that the stratified layers of rock did not accumulate over millions of years. The fossil record provides some of the evidence because the fact that the fleshy part of animals are so well preserved proves that they did not decay. It’s similar to the mammoths of Siberia that froze so rapidly that the food in their mouths was preserved. Many fossils had to have been buried very rapidly under tons of mud over a wide area. Also, many stratified rocks show sharp curvature without breaking, which could not have happened after the sediment hardened into rock, but must have occurred while still wet. This is just a sample of the evidence; whole books have been written on it. In sum, the fossil record and geologic record demonstrate a major, catastrophic event in the recent past. The Biblical flood matches that event in many ways, although there is no way to prove it beyond doubt. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 10, 2007 1:09 PM “…many stratified rocks show sharp curvature without breaking, which could not have happened after the sediment hardened into rock, but must have occurred while still wet…” …or when deformed in a plastic state under enormous pressure and temperature conditions, over millions of years, as the science much more convincingly concludes. Posted by: Jean Paul at October 10, 2007 3:59 PM Jean Paul: “…or when deformed in a plastic state under enormous pressure and temperature conditions, over millions of years, as the science much more convincingly concludes.” You’re talking about metamorphic rock that lies under sendimentary rock. I was referring to sedimentary rock like sandstone and limestone. Several features of sedimentary rock contradict the ancient age of the earth. These, among others, include the fact that sedimentary layers can be traced over hundreds of thousands of square miles, whereas normal processes of sedimentation such as river deltas cover a tiny fraction of that area. Sedimentary layers usually have sharply defined boundaries and are parallel, with layers several thousand feet thick. If layers had been laid down over millions of years, erosion would have destroyed that parallelism. Dead animals and plants decay quickly and are eaten or destroyed by the elements; preservation of fossils in sedimentary rock requires rapid burial in sediments thick enough to preserve their bodily forms. On continents, sedimentary layers are more than a mile thick; conventional explanations of their origins are insufficient for that volume of sediment. Limestone layers hundreds of feet thick are too large and uniform for the conventional explanation that they are bodies of tiny sea creatures. These and many other geological facts point to a rapid formation of the sedimentary layers of the earth’s crust. For more, see the book “In the Beginning” on the web site www.creationscience.com, written by Dr. Walter Brown, PhD, MIT, former professor of science at the Air Force Academy and Chief of Science and Tchnology Studies at the Air War College. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 10, 2007 10:03 PM Roger, you say that “The creationist then concludes that the science he has studied matches reasonably well with the Biblical account creation”, but leave out one of the most important details – as I noted with a number of quotes from the “Institute for Creation Research” upthread: Creationists start out with devout religious beliefs that form the basis of their understanding of the material world (the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth … [that] provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits”) and conduct “research” designed to confirm their beliefs. This is hardly scientific. Of course, Creationists are hardly unique in finding that all of the evidence they see in the world conveniently confirms that which they already believed. My own view is that our God-given cognitive conservatism and tribalism (both of which have provided important advantages) lie at the bottom of this phenomenon. Regards, Tom Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 12:31 AM TT: “Creationists start out with devout religious beliefs that form the basis of their understanding of the material world (the Bible is “God’s written, historical revelation of truth … [that] provides a framework for numerous intellectual pursuits”) and conduct “research” designed to confirm their beliefs. This is hardly scientific.” I suppose you think that evolutionary scientists are blank slates when they approach the subject. That’s a little bit naive. Why did the majority of scientists adopt the theory of evolution long before it had any evidence for it? As Dawkins has written, it made atheism respectable for the first time. Most creationist scientists, such as Dr. Brown and Dr. Michael Behe, taught evolution for many years before changing their minds; the mounting scientific evidence against evolution changed their minds, not the Bible. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 8:03 AM TT: “On the science, it is hard to find anyone who disagress with the IPCC’s summaries of the vast and growing scientific literature…” You really should read the articles on epistemology posted this week on this site. Consensus is not science nor proof of the correctness of one’s argument; it could mean that the majority have been fooled. The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 8:08 AM Fundamentalist/Roger: So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists who see evolution as a much more powerful (and productive in terms of research inquiries) explanation of the biological world than that of a God that made all of creation at once by fiat and intervenes from time to time at His whim to destroy or create further – though evolution is hardly the subject here. Evolution has had an uphill battle against oppression by church establishments, though there are noble holdouts throughout the universe of Islamic free thinkers, with a scattering in the US. Nice try on the IPCC, which I view as I think others like Lindzen, Christy and Michaels do – simply as a valuable digest of the developing science, not as a monolithic “consensus”. You are right of course that “The minority has often been right about such things while it has taken decades for the consensus to change”, but it cut the other way, doesn`t it? Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift. Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 12:16 PM TT: “So you turn from defending Creationist science to attacking the scientists…” You know very well that wasn’t what I was doing. Just as you ignore the the scientists who oppose human-induced GW because you think their motives are tainted, while assuming pure motives for the consensus scientists, you also try to impune the science of creationists by judging their motives. I was simply pointing out that evolutionary scientists don’t have pure motives either. You really should get over the habit of determining the validity of an argument by what you perceive the motives of a person are. You seem to be unaware of the fact that you attribute pure motives to those you agree with and evil motives for those you disagree with. Motives are totally irrelevant. Just look at the evidence each side presents and decide for yourself. TT: “Lindzen and others who take “noble” stands against consensus are like those who stood against Gallileo, Einstein, Darwin and continental drift.” Lindzen and others like him are very much like Gallileo, Newton, Einstein and others who stood against the consensus when it was wrong. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 11, 2007 2:35 PM Fundamentalist: – Where do I “ignore the the scientists who oppose human-induced GW because you think their motives are tainted”? Are you talking about Linzen et al., or the Institute for Creation Research? I’ve looked at what I can find at ICR, but didn’t find any science but rather arguments against AGW based clearly on presuppositions that the Bible descriptions of the Flood are literally true. Does ICR have any published (journals or self-) research at all? – Where do I “assum[e] pure motives for the consensus scientists” or for evolutionary scientists? – I do not “impune the science of creationists by judging their motives” – there is no science that I can see to impugn. Rather, I’ve simply noted that they have rather clearly stated that they are trying to fit reality into a preconceived box we call the Bible. Is it unfair for us to note that or draw any conclusions from it? – Yes, you have indicated that you think that “evolutionary scientists don’t have pure motives either”. However, this is not releveant to discussing climate science, and you have not actually made any case for “impure” motives among evolutionary scientists. If the active intervention (intermittent or ongoing) of God is in fact the best explanation for various aspects of the real world, at some point science will be incapable of finding materialistic explanations. Until that point, I prefer a science that does not presume such intervention – as neither has such intervention has ever been demonstrated, nor does such an approach provide any fruitful leads for further research or understanding. The theory of natural selection and ancillary theories in support of evolution gained adherent not because of political or ideological agendas to throw off theological shackles, but because they provided powerful and testable insights into the evidence, as opposed to the “God did it” school. Moving to a materialistic view of creation occurred on the basis of the fit between the evidence and the hypotheses, and often after much struggle with preconceptions based on the Bible and enforced by church establishments and popular culture. – If I indeed had a “habit of determining the validity of an argument by what you perceive the motives of a person are”, then I would wholeheartedly agree that it is one I should strive to overcome. But I don’t think I actually do have such a habit, even while I do consider it useful to consider motive, self-interest and other aspects of human nature when weighing what people have to say – even Al Gore. – “You seem to be unaware of the fact that you attribute pure motives to those you agree with and evil motives for those you disagree with.” Yep; I am unaware that I make any such attributions of pure or evil motives – nor do I see any evidence of this on my comments upthread. Rather, it seems to be you (and others like Philemon) who presents dichotomies of pure and evil motives, and “sides”. – “Motives are totally irrelevant. Just look at the evidence each side presents and decide for yourself.” Understanding motivation may help in weighing evidence presented by others – that’s all. Only fools never try to look behind the curtain. – “Lindzen and others like him” are largely old codgers (most, with much less relevant expertise than Lindzen) who have not yet been persuaded by new paradgims that everyone else has found convincingly fit the evidence. Some find this heroic, though it is also entirely consistent with our God-given tendencies to defend our worldviews at all costs (as ignoring cognitive dissonance may be less costly than changing our minds). Of course our climate is sufficiently complex that we will never understand it completely, so there is always room for new ideas, evidence and arguments against oversimplification, or concerning public policy. I do appreciate your thoughts. Regards, Tom Posted by: TokyoTom at October 11, 2007 10:10 PM 6. Finally, I note that you have not responded to my previous comments to you about how you and the creationist “scientists” at ICR are letting your “fundamentalist” views of the Bible influence your views on the climate change science. Regards, Tom Posted by: TokyoTom at October 15, 2007 11:16 PM TT: “Finally, I note that you have not responded to my previous comments…” I didn’t read anything worthy of comments. You pretend that creationists have no science behind their theories. You don’t see it because you don’t want to. Did you follow the link to the book at creationscience.com? The only thing that influences my views on GW is the science. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 16, 2007 8:06 AM Roger/Fundamentalist: Thanks for your further comments. 2. As to the climate “science” at the Institute for Climate Science, yes of course I followed your link. I have not “pretend[ed] that creationists have no science behind their theories”, but simply couldn’t find any. Can you point to any real climate science at ICR? I saw no science, but could document that summaries of ICR’s views were explicitly grounded on a view that the Biblical view of a young Earth is historically accurate, such as the following: However, some creationist models predict significant quantities of snow immediately after the Flood (Oard, 1990). Perhaps as much as 95% of the ice near the poles could have accumulated in the first 500 years or so after the Flood. From a creationist perspective, it would be extremely valuable to thoroughly explore these ice-core data. … We would expect considerably higher precipitation rates immediately following the Flood. … Nothing in the ice-core data from either Greenland or Antarctica requires the earth to be of great age. In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the ice cores are revealing important information about conditions following the Flood of Genesis and the recent formation of thick ice sheets. Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong, if the Genesis Flood occurred as described in the Bible. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355 Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years…. These data do not address the question about man’s part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. … Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God’s intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12). http://www.icr.org/article/3233/ It is very clear by ICR’s establishment of its own “creation model”-only “science” journal that ICR is operating on the basis of a belief system, and not science: http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/2007/02/institute-of-creation-research-launches.html http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/05/01/peer-reviewed-creationist-research-hahahahahahahaha/ 3. BYW, this was not a rhetorical question in my last comment to you: “Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this, but simply consider the costs imposed by any “remedy” to exceed purported benefits? If so, how long do you think we should wait before any policy action is merited – forever, or just until the Second Coming?” The ICR makes the following observations – do you disagree that they apply to climate change? “[M]an’s sinful nature has disrupted man’s relationship to the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God’s rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal of man to practice love to his fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of His creation, and man’s desire to serve his own personal ends. … “But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong! http://www.icr.org/article/678/ Regards, TT Posted by: TokyoTom at October 17, 2007 2:25 AM TT: “It is very clear by ICR’s establishment of its own “creation model”-only “science” journal that ICR is operating on the basis of a belief system, and not science:” How do you think scientists operate? They form a hypothesis (guess) about how things work, then try to find evidence to support their guess. One group is trying to prove evolution, which has never been proven scientifically, just adopted by consensus as has GW. The evidence for evolution is so slim that it drove many of the scientiests at ICR and other places to search for an alternative explanation. They chose creation as described in the Bible. Now they’re searching for evidence that supports their hypothesis. Tell me one scientist that operates differently. As Mises and Hayek tried to explain with history, it’s impossible to dive into the data of history and surface with a coherent theory about how economics works. To make sense of history, one must have a logical theory first and interpret the data of history through that theory. The same advice works in the natural sciences. I am fairly confident that no scientist has looked at the data without a theory and been overwhelmed with the evidence for evolution; the evidence simply doesn’t exist. Not that evolutionary scientists are trying to prove that evolution is true. They never have tried that. Soon after Darwin’s book came out, the majority of scientists adopted its thesis without question. I don’t know of any scientist many scientists who have even questioned evolution. It’s accepted because it’s the consensus. A few will admit that almost no evidence for evolution exists, but they still accept it on philosophical grounds. All creationist scientists are doing is questioning the evidence for evolution, which almost no evolutionary scientist does, and proposing an alternative with evidence to back it up. How is that not scientific? “Reports of ice-core data containing records of climatic changes as far back as 160,000 years in the past are dependent upon interpretations of these data which could be seriously wrong” As far as I know, creationists don’t dispute the CO2 data in ice cores, just the ages that scientists claim the cores represent. Most scientists claim that each layer of ice represents one year, but finding the P-38’s from WWII proved that wrong. Still, scientists refuse to change their minds. A similar example happened with the strata of mud found in ponds. Scientists used to claim that each layer represented one year, but creationists kept demonstrating that such deposits occur multiple times in a year until other scientists began to agree with them. TT: “The ICR makes the following observations – do you disagree that they apply to climate change?” Yes I disagree. TT: “Austrians are compelled at least to recognize the ongoing failure of catallaxy with respect to unowned open-access resources and other resources which are no effectively owned. Do you acknowledge this…? No, I don’t agree. Free markets and property rights haven’t even been tried where the environment is concerned. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 17, 2007 1:07 PM “But man is not a perfect steward anymore. Even though the resources which God created are there for our use, man now often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellowman, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God’s creation. Surely this is wrong!” Most creationists are for protecting the environment when it’s in danger. That’s why we should oppose socialism. But we also don’t believe in inventing dangers that don’t exist. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 17, 2007 1:10 PM Fundamentalist: 2. The difference between real scientists and creationists is that creationists start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied, and they refuse ever to modify their initial assumptions despite the absence of evidence or to accept alternative explanations that are consistent with the evidence but do not require magical forces. For creationists, protecting the world view is paramount. Real scientists of course start with premises, but they generate hypotheses that are productive and can be tested and confirmed or found wanting – even by critics who operate within a creationist mode. 3. “Most scientists claim that each layer of ice represents one year, but finding the P-38’s from WWII proved that wrong.” You brought this up before, but have failed to respond to my comments. Do you have a reference to any scientific studies that you think disprove the various means (not solely layers) by which the deluded scientists generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland? 5. “Most creationists are for protecting the environment when it’s in danger.” And not only creationists – but all manner of religious groups, citizens groups and corporate leaders as well, who all care for the planet – even the parts they don’t personally own. Regards, Tom Posted by: TokyoTom at October 18, 2007 6:16 AM TT: “The difference between real scientists and creationists is that creationists start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied,…” And evolutionists don’t? The “big bang” postulates an entire universe popping into existence out of nothing. Where’s the evidence for that? It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Biological evolution violates the law of biology that life cannot come from nonliving matter. No evidence exists that it can or has. There are hundreds more examples of where evolution violates the laws of physics and biology. TT: “…and they refuse ever to modify their initial assumptions despite the absence of evidence or to accept alternative explanations that are consistent with the evidence but do not require magical forces.” You’ve just described the “science” of evolution very well. TT: “Do you have a reference to any scientific studies that you think disprove the various means (not solely layers) by which the deluded scientists generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland?” The science of ice cores isn’t rocket surgery. They count the layers of ice like you count tree rings. They assume each layer is one year. But creationists have shown them that that assumption is wrong. That’s really all there is too it. TT: “I think that mine is the standard Austrian analysis…When you say that “property rights haven’t been tried” for much of the environment, you are essentially conceding the principal point – where resources which are not effectively owned, markets don’t work.” I don’t think you understand Austrians. The solution to the problem of commons is not greater government control, but getting rid of the commons by establishing private property. The air presents a more difficult property issue, but not one that can’t be solved, as many Austrians have shown. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 18, 2007 8:03 AM Fundamentalist: 2. Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang? I suppose not. But if you have good evidence for that, of course I’d be interested. 3. I see, you really do think that the scientists who generally agree that the ice core record goes back 800,000 years or so in the Antarctic and 100,000 in Greenland ARE deluded, that ice core “data” rests only on a simple counting of annual layers that creationists have decisively proven wrong. Please give us the cites? The science of ice core dating is actually quite advanced, and isn’t a simple matter of counting annual layers. I offer for you this discussion the following lay-friendly pieces: The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah’s Flood Was Not Global, http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf Ice Core Dating, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html Posted by: TokyoTom at October 18, 2007 9:51 AM TT: “Are you seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang? I suppose not.” Again, I’d be pretty stupid to believe what you wrote. What you’re doing is twisting my words to make them sound ridiculous and then claiming that’s what I said. It’s a technique for getting out of an argument when you know you’re losing, but most people outgrow it when the leave junior high. I think I’ve explained my position on science well enough. TT: “The science of ice core dating is actually quite advanced, and isn’t a simple matter of counting annual layers.” If you want the best information on the science of dating ice cores, visit the chapter on it in the online book “In the Beginning” at www.creationscience.com. Posted by: Fundamentalist at October 18, 2007 12:30 PM Roger, I didn’t call you stupid. You are obviously very intelligent, but like the rest of fundamentalists, I see you as invested primarily in defending a particular mind view. Cognitive conservatism is a basic human trait that we all have to struggle with, and I also am a sinner. 3. On creationism, I am certainly not twisting what you said, but mirroring it to you by asking you to confirm whether you intend the implications. You indicated that, like my argument about creationists, evolutionists also “start with magical/miraculous forces and occurrences, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or denied” and that “The “big bang” postulates an entire universe popping into existence out of nothing. Where’s the evidence for that?” How is it at all “twisting your words” (much less a juvenile debating tactic) to ask you whether you are “seriously suggesting that Darwin and those who his arguments persuaded and everyone after them started off by nailing down the fields of astronomy and cosmology, much less assuming the Big Bang?” In fact, that is precisely what you suggested, and it is clearly wrong. Darwin and other evolutionists didn’t start by positing a Big Bang or some such thing at all, but by looking at the differences between clearly related species and wondering if there was a scientific (non-God, non-magical) explanation for them. OTHER scientists got to the Big Bang – not as anything proven, but as a theory – by working backwards from a growing understanding of mechanics, physics and evidence of the motions of stars and galaxies collected with increasingly sophisticated instruments. 4. On the ice core data, I’d like to take a look at what “www.creationscience.com” has to say, and to put it up on my blog with the various sites I’ve offered to you. I’ve taken a look, but can’t find the chapter you’re referring to. Could I trouble you for a more precise link? BTW, the creationist response to the article on ice core dating that I sent you earlier precisely indicates my criticism of creationism generally. Allow me to quote: “The resulting difference in age-interpretation is a result of the starting paradigm; the data is the same and does not speak for itself. What we believe colours what we see. … If one starts with the uniformitarian paradigm, it is easy to see how the various methods appear to be corroborating. However, when one steps back and questions the unspoken starting assumptions and allows the parameters to vary by the full range available, completely different consistent results can be obtained. This shows the importance of where we start. The Bible claims to be a reliable historical record and this history from the very beginning was attested to by Christ and the Apostles. Thus, it is a logical starting position from which to create our worldview. On the other hand, belief in deep time may be internally reinforcing, but has no external reference point. Either must be accepted by faith, only one will be right. “It is unfortunate that Seely and others in the American Scientific Affiliation accept man’s fallible, continually changing stories about the past rather than God’s clear Word. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/icecore.asp This creationist is clearly trying to fit the facts into his Bible-based view of reality rather than conducting science; scientists, on the other hand, work from the assumption that, to the extent possible, physical laws rather than magic or miracles should provide the basis for our understanding of the world. Regards, Tom Posted by: TokyoTom at October 19, 2007 1:15 AM

Categories: climate, creationist, Fundamendalist Tags:

Tribal pigheadedness: RedState bans Ron Paul supporters

October 26th, 2007 2 comments

“The simplest way to explain the behavior of RedState [in banning Ron Paul supporters] is to assume that it doesn`t want to be controlled by a cabal of its enemies” (to misquote Thomas ;)).

 [The above and following are from a post I made with respect to the recent decision of RedState to refuse to allow Ron Paul supporters to comment about Ron Paul.

My post was here: http://techrepublican.com/blog/me-and-the-other-twenty-five-percent. And more here: http://techrepublican.com/blog/redstate-bans-ron-paul-supporters

http://redstate.com/blogs/leon_h_wolf/2007/oct/22/attention_ron_paul_supporters_life_is_really_not_fair

 http://www.redstate.com/stories/miscellanea/with_regard_to_our_position_on_morons_and_the_unsolicited_media_attention_from_third_parties

 http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/015298.php

BTW, “Thomas” is an RS founder who commented on the techrepublican site. His home page is here: http://t-crown.blogspot.com/

Actually, because RS is very tribal, it doesn`t even want to LISTEN to those who disagree with its hawkish, big government/big defense ways. That`s why RS management and members reflexively see those who are turned off with what the Bush administration has wrought as “liberal” enemies rather than really engaging with the critique. To listen might require too much introspection, which must be avoided at all costs. As Lew Rockwell noted (emphasis  added):

The conservatives … want to evade responsibility for the results of the policies imposed by monsters that they themselves created. When the left does this, we know not to take it too seriously. If you give the state the right to expropriate all private property, you can’t be too surprised when dictators take over. Similarly, when the whole of your intellectual enterprise has been wrapped up in celebrating the nation-state and its wars, condemning civil liberties, casting aspersions on religious liberty, and heralding the jail and the electric chair as the answer to all of society’s problems, you can’t complain when your policies produce tin-pot despotic imperialists like Bush. You have no intellectual apparatus with which to beat them back.

The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America. I’m speaking now of the variety of conservatism created by William Buckley, not the Old Right of Albert Jay Nock, John T. Flynn, Garett Garrett, H.L. Mencken, and company, though these people would have all rejected the name conservative as ridiculous. After Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR, what’s to conserve of the government? The revolutionaries who tossed off a milder British rule would never have put up with it.

For my part, I’m hoping that the whole conservative movement will go down in flames with the decline and fall of the Bush administration. The red-state fascists have had their day and instead of liberty, they gave us the most raw and stupid form of imperial big government one can imagine. They have given America a bad name around the world. They have bamboozled millions. They have looted and bankrupted the country. They have killed tens of thousands. If they don’t crack up on their own, we must do what we can to discredit them and their ideology forever.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/conservative-hoax.html

Further:

Whereas the government is considered to be bubble-headed and ham-handed in domestic policy, in matters of foreign policy the government is suddenly imbued with virtuous traits such as courage. Taxes, in this case, are not a burden but the price we pay for civilization. The largest and most violent government program of all – namely war – is not an imposition with unintended consequences but an essential and praiseworthy effort at protection. I don’t mean to pick on the right exclusively. The left often offers the inverse of this recommendation. They believe that the government can’t but unleash Hell when it is waging war and spending on military machinery. But when it comes to domestic policy, they believe the same government can cure the sick, comfort the afflicted, teach the unlearned, and bring hope and happiness to all. Each side presumes that it potentially enjoys full control over the government it instructs to do this thing as versus that thing. What happens in real life, of course, is that the public sector – always and everywhere seeking more power – responds to the demands of both by granting each party’s positive agenda while eschewing its negative one. Thus is the left given its welfare, and the right given its warfare, and we end up with a state that grows ever more vast and intrusive at home and abroad.

What neither side understands is that the critique they offer of the programs they do not like applies also to the programs they do like. The same state that robs you and me, ties business in knots, and wrecks the schools also does the same – and worse – to countries that the US government invades. From the point of view of the taxed, the destination of the money doesn’t matter; it is all taken by coercion and all of it saps the productive capacity of society. Similarly, the state that uses military power to impose its imperial will on foreign regimes – destroying property and lives, and making endless enemies – is the one the left proposes to put in charge of our economic lives. … It is undeniable that the warfare state will not restrict itself to harming and bullying foreign peoples. It always and everywhere does the same to the domestic population. It occupies us, attacks our property, ferrets out political enemies, and wages low-intensity warfare against us.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/two-brains.html

Categories: redstate, ron paul, state, tribalism Tags:

GeoEngineering – More on How to Cool the Globe

October 24th, 2007 No comments

More on geo-engineering at the NYT by climate scientist Ken Caldeira:


 


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/opinion/24caldiera.html?th&emc=th


I will visit later the question of whether this is something that should be investigated.

Ron Paul on the environment and energy

October 18th, 2007 2 comments

1.  There is an excellent interview of Dr. Ron Paul now up at Grist, the environmental news and commentary site, that explores some of his views on environmental and energy issues. I am with him in principle but think he has underestimated the seriousness of the climate change problem and not seriously thought through the issues yet.


http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/


Selected remarks on international issues include the following (emphasis added):



If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems.”


Q:  “What’s your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that’s human-caused?”


A:  “I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don’t think there’s a conclusion yet. There’s a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we’ve had a lot of climate changes. We’ve had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we’re not going to be very good at regulating the weather.

“To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there’s a fear that we’re going to have this global warming and that we’re going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that’s extreme. I don’t buy into that. Yet, I think it’s a worthy discussion.”


Q:  “So you don’t consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?”

 

A:  “No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus — those are immediate threats. We’re about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that’s going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.”

 

Q: “What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?”

A:  “They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don’t emit poisons and contribute to it.

And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can’t use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion.”


Q:  “You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?”


A:  “It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things, I don’t think that would work.”


Q:  “You believe that ultimately private interests will solve global warming?”


A: “I think they’re more capable of it than politicians.”

Q:  ” What’s your position on a carbon tax?”


A:  “I don’t like that. That’s sort of legalizing pollution. If it’s wrong, you can buy these permits, so to speak. It’s wrong to do it, it shouldn’t be allowed.”


[Note:  This seems ambiguous, but I suppose RP intended to disagree with the concept of permits as well as taxes.]


Q:  “You’ve described your opposition to wars for oil as an example of your support for eco-friendly policies. Can you elaborate?”


A:  “Generally speaking, war causes pollution — uranium, burning of fuel for no good purpose. The Pentagon burns more fuel than the whole country of Sweden.”


Q:  “Do you support the goal of energy independence in the U.S.?”


A:  “Sure. But independence does not mean to me that we produce everything. I don’t believe governments have to provide every single ounce of energy. I see independence as having no government-mandated policy: If you need oil or energy, you can buy it.”


Q:  “What about being independent from the Middle East, so we’re not buying oil from hostile countries?”


A:  “I think it’s irrelevant. We wouldn’t be buying it directly, we would be buying it on the world market. I don’t think the goal has to be that we produce alternative fuel so that we never buy oil from the Middle East. The goal should be to provide all useful services and goods through a market mechanism instead of central economic planning or world planning. That system doesn’t work.”


2.  Dr. Paul also discussed energy and the environment in an interview in June, when he said the following:



Q:  “Especially after the release of Al Gore’s global warming documentary, the environment has been very much on people’s minds.  Where do you stand on global warming?”   



A: “Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age.  Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process.  As a Congressman, I’ve done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies.  I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending, I’ve opposed foreign wars for oil, and I’ve spoken out against government programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood insurance.”


Q:  How about KYOTO?  



A:  “I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty.  Providing for a clean environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn’t do that.  Instead it’s placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China – the world’s biggest polluter – and other polluting third-world countries to do a thing.  Also, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don’t apply.  It’s bad science, it’s bad policy, and it’s bad for America.  I am more than willing to work cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions that place an unnecessary burden on the United States.


http://www.teamliberty.net/id447.html 


3.  The New York Times has a new article on the views of the Republican candidates on climate change, but somehow they managed to miss Ron Paul:


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/politics/17climate.html?bl&ex=1192852800&en=07847552491b852f&ei=5087%0A