The open political discussion thread. Read the first post!

[eTiMaGo]

Looks like I'll get the ball rolling... As we are aware, there's talks of Texas seceding from the rest of the US, becoming its own country... And who has stepped up to become president? None other than Chuck Norris... Are we to take this seriously? discuss.

[SailDesign]

Originally Posted by eTiMaGo

Looks like I'll get the ball rolling... As we are aware, there's talks of Texas seceding from the rest of the US, becoming its own country... And who has stepped up to become president? None other than Chuck Norris... Are we to take this seriously? discuss.

Did we take Ronald Ray-gun seriuosly when he ran for President of the Whole Shebang? Kinda....
I guess if Chuck is the kinda guy that Texans WANT for a president, that'll work, but be careful what you wish for.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by SailDesign

Did we take Ronald Ray-gun seriuosly when he ran for President of the Whole Shebang? Kinda....

Yes. Some of us literally bled for Ronald Reagan. Later, once we learned what a screw up he was about certain things, we regretted supporting him.

I do not understand the Cult of Reagan. Most of the people that I know who idolized Reagan did not understand how Reagan betrayed his own principals, especially about the War on Drugs, and later how he supported the Brady Campaign. They compare W Bush to Reagan, but I remember Reagan, and he would have dismissed Bush's spending and pointless wars as foolishness.

That being said, was Reagan a stupid man? No. He was very idealistic. I think to a large extent the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc was facilitated (but not caused) by Reagan's pressure on the USSR. Many people in Eastern Europe I think owe Reagan a debt of gratitude.

Gene

[GeneW]

Looks like the EPA has ruled in agreement with the Courts that Carbon Dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" are a menace to public well being. They are doing this under the aegis of the Clean Air Act.

I was not aware that the Clean Air act allowed for computer models and shoddy experimental data when considering a change in law.

It's easy to see how NOx can lead to photochemical smog, how SOx can damage plants or how soot can damage property. These are easily demonstrable.

Human caused global warming, at least to me and many others, is a whole other issue. The science is simply not there at this time in history. Science is not consensus, science is data and interpretation of data, and not computer models, anecdotes and so on. Certainly science follows the rules of logic, among them being rejecting arguments that rely upon authority.

It's ironic to me that the US FDA insists upon clinical studies to show the efficacy of a drug but the EPA goes along with computer models and anecdotes.

I'm sure that owners of the Chicago Climate Exchange are warming up for the big shafting that they're going to deliver to the American people. I am also confident that manufacturers in China and India are getting ready to take more good paying manufacturing jobs as American businesses are pushed offshore.

As far as "Green Jobs". Where, besides paperwork and enforcement? If consumers demanded green energy we'd have it. They don't, because they are not convinced that it's worthwhile.

Gene

[SailDesign]

Originally Posted by GeneW

It's ironic to me that the US FDA insists upon clinical studies to show the efficacy of a drug but the EPA goes along with computer models and anecdotes.

No contention here, Gene, but the EPA do not have the luxury of "full-scale" tests here. The world itself IS the full-scale test. What do you want to do if it fails?
The penalty for failure in this case is quite literally the end of life as we know it. Say what you want about methodology, but this is the case. The FDA can "afford" to have tests run ,and people die or be seriously injured in such tests. The "Patient" in the EPA's case is all of us, and I'm not willing to take the risk that their projections are wrong. Even if their projections are RIGHT we are not in a good place right now.
Science is about more than "cold, hard facts", science is the knowledge to make informed projections. I do it every day with knowng roughly how my boats perform. Computer predictions. Not perfect, but when it's all you have, it's better than nothing.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by SailDesign

Science is about more than "cold, hard facts", science is the knowledge to make informed projections. I do it every day with knowng roughly how my boats perform. Computer predictions. Not perfect, but when it's all you have, it's better than nothing.

Sometimes a faulty projection or model is worse than nothing. You have the illusion of knowing what is going on but in reality you're getting more and more lost.

I'm in engineering now. I work with power conversion systems. We also use models. We also subject our work to tests, as you do with your boats.

I have seen engineers make mistakes too.

I used to work in R&D, on a problem that has plagued one industry since the 1950s. They're still, at this time, hashing out the details.

Science isn't knowledge. Science is a process of acquiring knowledge. One must be willing to jettison a model at any time when it does not fit the facts. As my former Boss in R&D used to say, "Let the data speak". Projections to not yield data, they yield forecasts. Woe to the person who confuses experimental data with forecasts.

Gene

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by SailDesign

The world itself IS the full-scale test. What do you want to do if it fails? The penalty for failure in this case is quite literally the end of life as we know it.

If the US embraces some of the extreme carbon limits we will see the end of life as we know it, for certain rather than maybe.

Originally Posted by SailDesign

The "Patient" in the EPA's case is all of us, and I'm not willing to take the risk that their projections are wrong. Even if their projections are RIGHT we are not in a good place right now.

If we were really "addicted to oil" the US government would be working on effective substitutes for petroleum. They wouldn't be wasting time and energy on satrapies like corn based ethanol, saw grass based ethanol, and other pointless measures.

Instead they be working on coal gasification, increased use of nuclear energy and pouring much more money into nuclear fusion R&D. They wouldn't be binding us to peasant energy.

I watch what these characters do - what they're about is buying votes with subsidies and levying novel taxes onto the populace. That's not going to help anyone but themselves.

Gene

[coheed]

I think why the rest of the world doesnt particularly like the US is that we're the only country in the world that goes around saying how great we are and how important we are.


Resigning from thread. Thats all I have to say.