(Un)Limited government: Americans For Prosperity
Carla Axtman
There's a new organization in the fanciful strata of the anti-tax, "limited" government world. The ironically titled Americans For Prosperity (as if those Americans not signed up with the group are seeking nonprosperity) gathered last evening for a Marion County information session.
The group of 14 (including myself) was led by former State Rep. Jeff Kropf, who skillfully led the mostly elderly group through a 2 hour whys and whatnots of the organization.
(Keep a weather eye on the horizon, for they might be starting a chapter near you.)
Kropf is the State Director of the Oregon AFP. Other Oregon leaders in the organization include Matt Evans of the essentially defunct Oregon Tax Research organization and Richard Burke, former Exec Director of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (who was basically kicked out of the job).
The goals of this organization seem to be virtually identical to Freedomworks: vastly reduce/eliminate taxes, strip government of most or all of its power and label it as "freedom", pretend global climate change isn't a problem and call it "alarmism", etc. Your basic rightwing stuff.
But Freedomworks has had a tough time in Oregon of late. Their 2006 anti-tax ballot measures went down in spectacular defeat and as far as I can tell, had virtually zero influence with the 2007 and 2008 legislative sessions.
Americans for Prosperity is using a different approach. As Kropf explained last night, they're planning to organize and implement at the local level. Where Freedomworks has taken a more statewide and global approach, AFP is at the grassroots level. They consider themselves a "limited government movement" with a 5 year plan to grow to 30,000 members in Oregon (Kropf says they have 7k now).
Their main mission appears to be to turn themselves into a small and effective grassroots army. They intend to conduct trainings that include writing letters to the editor, writing and giving public testimony and the use of persuasive language in one-on-one conversations with friends/neighbors.
The group claims they are hitting the ground running, too.
Kropf cited a recent victory in Damascus in which the "poster child of Portland socialist mentality" (Damascus--Kropf's words) passed a ballot measure requiring the city to get voter approval for every tax and fee hike (and how much does it cost taxpayers to hold an election for every tax and fee hike..?)
Kropf said that the organization is entirely funded within Oregon. Every penny raised here stays here, Kropf explained. So far, the group has raised $15k from "a local business man", who went unnamed (and curiously, none of the attendees asked).
It was then explained that the organization is coordinating on the ground with locals in various Oregon towns to help them pass schemes that are in step with their ideology. For example in Hermiston, Kropf says that they're partnered with a man who wants to pass a TABOR-style initiative in the town. Given how disastrous TABOR was for Colorado--(and its statewide failure to pass in Oregon), it will be interesting to see if Hermiston will allow itself to be a guinea pig for such a tenuous local experiment.
This group is also big into climate change denial (they call it "climate alarmism"), so they'll be attacking Oregon values on more than one front.
Perhaps the most interesting (and telling) part of the evening was after the meeting had broken up. I stayed behind for a few minutes to introduce myself and explain to Jeff that I was there to do a write-up for Blue Oregon. With us was a Marion County man whom Kropf is trying to tap to lead the local chapter. They started talking with me about the limited government, less taxes goal of the group. I said something like, "Imagine how much we could be saving in taxes just by getting out of Iraq." The Marion Co. man looked at me, clearly appalled. He argued that we can't get out because we have to help the Iraqis create a democracy. In fact, he says, we could be there through the terms of "several more" Presidents.
Apparently the idea of "limited government" is itself, limited.
For those of you interested in really getting your climate change denying groove on, there's a big AFP shindig headed our way July 24-25 in Medford, Bend, Eugene and Portland. They'll be flying a hot air balloon overhead to highlight "climate alarmism". On July 26, they'll congregate in Portland for an activists gathering, presumably in an air-conditioned spot to get out of the non-globally warmed 90 degree heat. Speakers will include Bob Barr, George Taylor (former OSU climatologist and climate change denier) and Cascade Policy's Stephen Moore (more climate change hate). They're also trying to get Vaclav Klaus, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic--who is apparently the holy grail of climate change deniership (the ooos and aaahhhs upon announcing his potential visit trumped all the rest).
The cherry on top? Jeff Kropf says there'll be a spot there for bloggers..and I can have one if I want it.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 19, '08
After our discussion last night, I am disappointed in the tone of your posting.
Among other things, you misquoted me. I was not referring to us being in Iraq for several more US Presidential terms. I was talking about taking several Iraqi Presidential terms before the Iraqis reach a state where they are satisfied with their government.
Like Senator John McCain, I do believe we will have a small force in Iraq in much the same way we have troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and many other countries around the world.
There are tens of thousands of qualified scientists who do not believe that global warming is caused by mankind. Those who are backing the global warming hysteria have been trying to shut up those who do not agree. This is not part of the scientific method. What are they afraid of?
Jun 19, '08
Among other things, you misquoted me. I was not referring to us being in Iraq for several more US Presidential terms. I was talking about taking several Iraqi Presidential terms before the Iraqis reach a state where they are satisfied with their government.
That isn't what I understood you to say..thank you for clarifying. But that still doesn't change the concept that from your POV we'll be in Iraq for a long time. Probably generations.
Like Senator John McCain, I do believe we will have a small force in Iraq in much the same way we have troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and many other countries around the world.
The military bases we are building in Iraq are very large and cost billions of dollars. That is big government at its worst and most expensive, Mr. Brady. Our government lied to us about getting into the war and our government continues to change our reasoning for staying. You are willing to accept that. I am not.
There are tens of thousands of qualified scientists who do not believe that global warming is caused by mankind. Those who are backing the global warming hysteria have been trying to shut up those who do not agree. This is not part of the scientific method. What are they afraid of?
I'm unaware of anyone here at Blue Oregon telling you (or global climate change denying scientists) to shut up. I'm unaware of anyone disallowing the right of peaceable assembly in Portland for a group of climate change deniers on July 26, either. There are many who strongly disagree and back it up with significant scientific data..but that's not the same thing as "shut up", at all.
Perhaps you could link to those telling these climate change deniers to "shut up"?
2:41 p.m.
Jun 19, '08
tens of thousands of qualified scientists who do not believe that global warming is caused by mankind.
Source, please?
And let's be sure to eliminate anyone on the payroll of an industry that produces carbon pollution...
Jun 19, '08
Thanks for attending the meeting and writing it up Carla. This will be useful to us in recruiting. We have meetings coming up in LaGrande, Enterprise, Astoria and Beaverton in the coming weeks. Hope any local BO bloggers can attend.
matt
Jun 19, '08
"Like Senator John McCain, I do believe we will have a small force in Iraq in much the same way we have troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and many other countries around the world."
First of all, how many casualties have there been in the last 5 years in Germany, Japan, S. Korea? How many Guard / Reserve members there on 3rd tour of duty? How many regular military serving there on a 3rd tour of duty with only weeks between their second and third tour?
Anyone from Oregon, esp. the mid-Willamette Valley, should listen to St. Rep. Brian Boquist's (R-23) views on Iraq.
He's an actual Iraq vet who gave a dynamite speech on the subject during the 2007 session. To put it mildly, his views are not McCain's views.
What bothers me most about the debate on Iraq is that Iraq vets aren't listened to in the haste of some to make this a "McCain vs. the Democrats" debate.
If there are to be troops in Iraq for years to come, let's be honest and have a draft. Part of the opposition to long term troop deployment in Iraq is that military families have to deal with 3rd, 4th, 5th deployments, not to mention stop loss. Not to mention the VA system being overwhelmed by treating so many wounded vets.
If Iraq is important enough to have troops there for years to come, it is important enough to debate a draft. And any able bodied person who doesn't like that statement can enlist!
Glad to hear FreedomWorks (which had a diff. name when Kim Thatcher first got elected as I recall) has fallen on hard times. Maybe that is because more and more Oregonians want solutions, not ideology.
3:17 p.m.
Jun 19, '08
Thanks for attending the meeting and writing it up Carla. This will be useful to us in recruiting. We have meetings coming up in LaGrande, Enterprise, Astoria and Beaverton in the coming weeks. Hope any local BO bloggers can attend.
Matt: I'd be interested in attending the one in Beaverton. When and where?
3:26 p.m.
Jun 19, '08
Same s**t. Different branding.
That's what Republicans are up to these days. Green backgrounds, fonts prominently used in local academic merchandising, and "limited government", which naturally doesn't apply to warrentless wiretapping, jailing women for having abortions, or torture. All in the name of "freedom", which is one of Bush's favorite words.
I know the public doesn't pay attention. But somehow, this time, I don't think they're buying.
Jun 19, '08
Interesting about all this Iraq stuff in relation to last night's AFP meeting. To the best of my knowledge, AFP has no position on the war at all. Granted, the war impacts our economy (negatively in my opinion), but AFP's emphasis is more domestic in nature along the lines of America's unfunded liabilities, deficits, and tax policy.
Our individual members have their own opinions about the war and they run the gambit: Some support the war like Mr. Brady. I myself oppose the war because I see it as unconstitutional because congress never declared war as the constitution requires (congress has not declared war since WWII). Still other AFP members want out of Iraq now, unconditionally. AFP members are not monolithic.
To reiterate, AFP policy does not deal with the Iraq war. Nor do we deal with social issues like abortion and gay marriage. If AFP is to be branded with a conservative issue, I don't think it is too much to ask that we be branded with one that AFP has actually taken a position on. Thank you.
Richard P. Burke, Dir. of Grass Roots Development AFP - Oregon
Jun 19, '08
So if "AFP's emphasis is more domestic in nature" then why do they advocate against the reality of Global Climate Change?
Jun 19, '08
Mr. Bickford,
While global climate change is not itself "domestic" in nature, America's attempt to address it via the Lieberman-Warner bill is very domestic. AFP opposes this legislation which will return to the US congress next year.
AFP doesn't deny the reality of climate change. It is changing. We are simply saying that man's role in this has not been determined and an increasing body of science indicates that solar cycles are the primary culprit and that man's contribution is quite minor.
If this is in fact the case, Lieberman-Warner ultimately will not work and could seriously damage the economy. Before we pass such a sweeping piece of legislation, we need to be absolutely sure.
Richard P. Burke, Dir. of Grass Roots Development AFP - Oregon
4:30 p.m.
Jun 19, '08
"AFP doesn't deny the reality of climate change. It is changing. We are simply saying that man's role in this has not been determined and an increasing body of science indicates that solar cycles are the primary culprit and that man's contribution is quite minor."
An increasing body from where, exactly? Which of the scientists who are signatories to IPCC IV are now repudiating that report in favor of "solar cycles?"
I'd also like to hear specific evidence on how reducing carbon will not ultimately save billions of taxpayer dollars. Seems fairly intutivie that buying US fuel as opposed to Saudi or Venezuelan fuel would be better for Americans, no?
Jun 19, '08
Carla, Thanks for presenting a fair representation of our meeting last night and I do appreciate that you demonstrated integrity by introducing yourself to me after the meeting in the interest of full disclosure. Aside from the comments by those on our AFP OR leadership team in previous posts, I would offer up only one clarification to you, in that I raised 15k for the Damascus campaign only. Our budget and funds raised is in the 100's of thousands for our operations statewide, all raised from Oregon donors only. Happy to have you blog from our "shindig" on July 26. For Kari, go to www.petitionproject.org for the list of the 31,072 scientists who have signed the petition (minimum of a BS degree, not pun intended), the actual language of the petition, qualifications ect. This is only for American scientists and was started interestingly enough in Oregon. Dr. Frederick Seitz took the lead on this petition and I think his position as President of the National Academy of Sciences and his awards speak for his credibility. You should note that of this group over 9,000 have PHD's, obviously not a group of intellectual lightweights. All individuals who sign this petition have been verified, including one who was removed because she was a plant to discredit the effort.
Jeff Kropf State Director Americans for Prosperity Oregon
Jun 19, '08
Dear Torridjoe,
IPCC has done some interesting things with it's data, which is something we are going to discuss soon. Their latest report left out some data earlier in their timeline which had been published before which undermines their current thesis.
But on the other side, there are scientists like Dr. David R. Legates (Center for Climate Research, Univ. of DE) and Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon (of Harvard-Smithsonian) who represent a growing body of work indicating that 1500 year solar cycles, with their various ups and downs, are reflected in global temperatures. This is just off the top of my head (I don't have time to track town and document the studies we've seen), but more of this will come to light very soon, especially during our July 26 summit.
NASA has also recently discovered "global warming" taking place on Mars, Jupiter, Triton (moon of Neptune) in a manner that reflects what is happening on Earth. To the best of my knowledge, mankind has not introduced a significant carbon footprint on these bodies yet. If man were driving this, it would seem that Earth would be unique in this regard.
The sun is what drives the energy system for our planet to dimensions far exceeding what man can do. I think for man to believe otherwise in the face of conflicting data is indicative of mankind's arrogance as a species.
Point is, we just don't know what man's contribution to global warming is, and we should figure this out before committing to a specific set of policies. Cap & Trade doesn't work in Europe, so why would it work here? AFP is not against reducing pollution (it is always good to have a cleaner world), but Lieberman-Warner is not the way.
Richard P. Burke, Dir. of Grass Roots Dev. AFP - Oregon
5:13 p.m.
Jun 19, '08
I am very impressed with the civility of the conversation so far and the fact that the members of AFP on this blog are using their real names. I wish others who come to this site from conservative backgrounds showed as much courage.
5:46 p.m.
Jun 19, '08
I'm hoping taht the AFP Kidz will get behind Bob Barr's Presidential run. He's way better than McCain on your issues (That's as of 5:44 pm today, McCain's positions seem to do 180s with little warning).
Anyhow, me'n Bob are far apart on a lotta things, but his basic integrity and his devotion the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should impress a lot of your crew.
7:37 p.m.
Jun 19, '08
Take away the domestic funding for the Iraqi Occupation and there would be no Iraq stuff to have a position on.
Jun 19, '08
Just a note to Pat, AFP's official policy is that we don't endorse candidates. We do get involved in issues and in fact I led a protest of John McCain at his recent fundraiser at the Portland Airport Sheraton Hotel over his ideas regarding the federal cap and trade legislation. We even made the evening tv news. McCain is good on some of our issues, but not this one, so we just wanted to send him a gentle reminder that we are watching.
I must admit that I did get some strange looks from some of my Republican friends pulling into the hotel though.
Jun 19, '08
Richard Burke wrote:
The sun is what drives the energy system for our planet to dimensions far exceeding what man can do. I think for man to believe otherwise in the face of conflicting data is indicative of mankind's arrogance as a species.
Ah, such humility is so inspiring.
Except that science has grown increasingly aware that conditions necessary to support the type of life that now dominates earth's biosphere are exceedingly fragile and depend on much more than the amount of solar energy reaching the planet. There have been times when insolation was not so different than today when there was no oxygen in earth's atmosphere. There have been times when ice covered much of the landmass. There have been times when tropical climate was the norm. We can see in Venus and Mars, two planets with solar input of the same order as earth's that have radically different climates. Mars has lost almost all of it's atmosphere and is moon-like. Venus is shrouded in a thick cloud of carbon dioxide that keeps it a bake oven.
Richard Burke's faux humility is not unlike the thinking of a lug head who tosses his trash out the car window, pardoning himself with the thought that his polluting is just a trifle in the big scheme of things. Given enough like-thinking lug heads, though, and the litter piles up. What masquerades as humility is the true arrogance: the arrogance of claiming one can do as one wishes without considering the consequence of others joining in like behavior.
Burke's framing is, of course, standard right-wing strategy: accuse opponents of your own sins. Most Americans consider polluting mega-corporations to be arrogant profiteers, so those who want nothing done about greenhouse gas emissions accuse environmentalists of arrogance. It's a brilliant idea if the news media refuses to debunk it. It's pathetic dishonesty if one thinks clearly about it.
9:59 p.m.
Jun 19, '08
From what I can tell viewing the Secretary of State's business registry, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (the main organization has not registered the name in Oregon)is a Washington, D.C.- based group. Claims that its well grounded in Oregon are dubious. They did a direct mail appeal to residences in Marion County and all they could muster from all of Marion County is 10 or 12 people for their "AFP University?" And at the rally against McCain they could only muster about 20.
10:33 p.m.
Jun 19, '08
Welcome to all the conservative AFPers here... and thanks for using your real names. You're not likely to find many converts here, but you'll certainly find lively conversation...
Jun 19, '08
John Calhoun; I am very impressed with the civility of the conversation so far and the fact that the members of AFP on this blog are using their real names. I wish others who come to this site from conservative backgrounds showed as much courag
Tom Civiletti: Richard Burke's faux humility is not unlike the thinking of a lug head who tosses his trash out the car window, pardoning himself with the thought that his polluting is just a trifle in the big scheme of things. Given enough like-thinking lug heads, though, and the litter piles up. What masquerades as humility is the true arrogance: the arrogance of claiming one can do as one wishes without considering the consequence of others joining in like behavior.
JK: No comment needed.
JK: BTW, have you noticed that the U.S. Histoical Climate Network (USHCN), maintained by Al Gore science advisor, Jim Hanson, still shows 1998 tied with 1934 as the warmest year since their records began (essentially at the end of the little ice age)?
That means the climate has been stable or cooling since (or else a new record would have been set).
Further, a number of well respected records have been on a downtrend since 2002. (icecap.us/images/uploads/ALL_SINCE_2002.jpg)
Now, both Science and Nature have published papers saying that global warming is going to take a break for 10 about years. This is because they added natural variability to their models. (Kinda reminds one of the doomsday cult that recalculates the date of doom after the doom didn’t happen.): Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade From a Global Climate Model, Science, 317, 796 Advanced decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature 453,84, doi:10.1038
PS: Al Gore gets $100-$200k PER speech, making him millions. He is president of a green mutual fund and a partner in a green venture capital firm.
PS: Climate realist declaration tops 1,100 endorsers (canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3566)
Thanks JK
Jun 19, '08
torridjoe : I'd also like to hear specific evidence on how reducing carbon will not ultimately save billions of taxpayer dollars. JK: You are making the claim - YOU show us some evidence that we can replace carbon based energy and save money. All alternatives I have seen (except nuclear) cost a whole lot more. That will hurt people who will be forced to choose between food and heat.
torridjoe : Seems fairly intutivie that buying US fuel as opposed to Saudi or Venezuelan fuel would be better for Americans, no? JK: How does “buy US fuel as opposed to ...” Relate to reducing carbon? Or are you advocating that we End prohibition - Drill Everywhere, Drill Now!!?
Thanks JK
Jun 19, '08
1934 is the hottest year for the US. Since the phenomenon in question is Global Warming, statistics for one area are not as important as worldwide temperatures. The hottest year worldwide is 1998.
It does not take long to realize that most signers of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change are not climatologists, astrophysicists, or scientists in other scientific disciplines that relate directly to the issue at hand. About 1/3 of the signers are not scientists or engineers at all.
If we are going to judge the seriousness of global warming by how much Al Gore is paid to speak, I think we should also consider how much is put into the global warming denying industry by the petroleum, coal and other industries that profit on the amount of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere. We should as well know how many of the signers to the the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change work for or contract with those industries.
Jun 20, '08
Tom Civiletti: The hottest year worldwide is 1998. JK: Thanks for making my point: Global warming stopped in 1998. I further argue that there is good evidence that the word has cooled since. Hence the world has been cooling since 1998. Add to that the projections of a further 10 years of cooling (Science, 317, 796 ; Nature 453,84) and you have a long enough time to call it climate.
Tom Civiletti: It does not take long to realize that most signers of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change are not climatologists, astrophysicists, or scientists in other scientific disciplines that relate directly to the issue at hand. About 1/3 of the signers are not scientists or engineers at all. JK: Neither are most of the IPCC’ “scientists.” (Most are actually politicians, not scientists.)
I notice that you appear to be relying on others to think for you - have you actually looked at any evidence? For instance: 1. What, in terms of greenhouse effect, is the most significant greenhouse gas? 2. What % of greenhouse effect is due to CO2? 3. What % of annual CO2 emissions are due to man? 4. How much warming do we expect from a doubling of CO2 from present levels? 5. Historically, which rises first: temperature of CO2?
Tom Civiletti: If we are going to judge the seriousness of global warming by how much Al Gore is paid to speak, I think we should also consider how much is put into the global warming denying industry by the petroleum, coal and other industries that profit on the amount of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere. JK: Tell us how that compares with the approx $5 BILLION government money spent annually supporting research to prove warming.
Tom Civiletti: We should as well know how many of the signers to the the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change work for or contract with those industries. JK: Lets start with your key people: AL Gore’s Money: (the investments are “green” that profit from spreading panic.) 1. Al Gore is Chairman of Generations Mutual fund. see: generationim.com/about/team.html 2. Al Gore is a partner in Silicon Valley's preeminent venture firm: See: money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news/newsmakers/gore_kleiner.fortune/ 3. Al Gore appears to get $100,000 for speaking. See this for one example (price is on page 5): thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717071gore1.html 4. Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria. (tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764) 5. BTW, a British court found a bunch of inaccuracies in Gore’s film (“over-representation of factual presentations”?) See: newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html Of course, Al would never embellish the truth:
I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is , as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are... Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added.
Jim Hansen: Hansen was in Wilmington to receive a 50,000 dollar Common Wealth Award for outstanding achievement, The awards are provided by a trust of the late Ralph Hayes, a former director of Coca Cola and Bank of Delaware, now PNC. (terradaily.com/2007/080407011650.dyqm0pmz.html) (AFP) Apr 07, 2008
NASA Goddard Scientist to Receive Heinz Award Dr. Jim Hansen, Chief of the Goddard Space Flight Center's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, N.Y., and one of this year's recipients of a $250,000 Heinz Award, receives his award tonight at a ceremony at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C. giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20010305/
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- Henry Louis Mencken
Thanks JK
Jun 20, '08
Let us know when the organizers come down to Southern Oregon. I'm interested in learning more.
For those who would pull out of Iraq immediately, I keep asking if they are willing to repeat the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Nobody will answer. I believe that we went into that country for the wrong reasons. To support a unilateral withdrawal at this time is immoral and foolhardy.
talk to me about why we still have hundreds of thousands of troops based in Italy and Germany (63 years); Japan (62 years) and Korea (50 years) and I might have a better understanding of the sound-bite mentality waged by the democratic politicians.
Jun 20, '08
Real Money: Exxon shatters profit records Oil giant makes corporate history by booking $11.7 billion in quarterly profit; earns $1,300 a second in 2007. Comparatively, the awards and speaking fees earned by those warning us of global warming are a pittance.
JK writes as though Al Gore and Jim Hansen invented global warming.
The statement that $5 BILLION government money is spent annually supporting research to prove warming is laughable characterization, especially considering the tendency of the Bush administration to subvert science to fit its preference of doing nothing about global warming.
The existence of global warming does not require that each year is warmer than the preceding one. Climate change is about long-term trends over wide areas, such as these: Glaciers and Glacial Warming, Receding Glaciers
Glaciers Are Melting Faster Than Expected, UN Reports
10:45 a.m.
Jun 20, '08
Kurt,
The Cambodia analogy to Iraq is not a good one. In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge were a highly organized guerrilla army that controlled subtantial territory from which they launched their final conquest. Meanwhile the U.S. had backed a coup by General Lon Nol who headed the government in Phnom Penh, because Prince Norodom Sihanouk had remained officially neutral and tolerated North Vietnamese and Viet Cong movements and logistical supplies through Cambodia. Lon Nol's coup, abolition of the monarchy and decision to fight the Vietnamese forces and the Khmer Rouge was linked to the massive bombing campaigns by the United States ("secret" in 1969-70, open after that) that killed hundreds of thousands of Cambodians directly or by the prevention of food cultivation and drove hundreds of thousands more from the countryside into towns & esp. Phnom Penh. Peasants in the countryside remained loyal to Sihanouk who was a powerful symbolic embodiment of the nation.
All these circumstances sapped the willingness of an army largely made up of peasant conscripts to fight. Meanwhile on the other side the Khmer Rouge had built a substantial portion of their army by kidnapping children/early adolescents, turning them into deeply indoctrinated child soldiers who grew up within the Khmer Rouge ambit and saw their entire existence and survival as dependent on it. At the time they were one element of an anti-Nol coalition, which cooperated with the seasoned North Vietnamese forces, gradually conquering the entire country excepth Phom Penh by early 1975, often in more or less conventional conflicts. The U.S. never had any military presence in Cambodia except near the eastern frontier at times as an extension of operations in Vietnam, and never had a relationship with Lon Nol's forces remotely like that with the South Vietnamese army the ARVN, or the current Iraqi forces more or less affiliated with the Maliki government (if we discount infiltration for the moment). Thus the U.S. did not "pull out" of Cambodia in the sense that it did from South Vietnam or would from Iraq -- it just stopped bombing.
Those whom Lon Nol was unable to bring into loyalty to his corrupt rule and his demoralized army, the peasants loyal to Sihanouk, the people who wanted the bombing to stop did not know of the fanatical anti-modernist, anti-urban, anti-educated & intellectual ideology and related plans of Pol Pot and his coterie that led to "the killing fields." Nor in fact did the U.S. The Khmer Rouge consolidation within and over other elements of the anti-Nol coalition was not foreseen on the part of many, and reflected changes big enough that their former Vietnamese allies were at war with them within four years.
In the case of Iraq, the U.S. presence creates an unresolvable conflict of interest. It has underwritten a certain amount of temporary stability which depends on force (if it were otherwise, the prospect of expanded civil war would not be a problem) and does not resolve the issues driving the civil conflict. Yet the U.S. presence is also a driver of the continued nationalist insurgency, as well as ambiguous nationalism like that of Muqtada al Sadr, which has a foot in the U.S. backed government but remains willing to fight the U.S. It is because the U.S. presence is a source of conflict that the Iraqi parliament repeatedly has called for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.
Ending the U.S. occupation should go on within a strong multi-lateral international context involving all of Iraq's neighboring countries (including Iran) none of whom have an interest in Iraq's civil war expanding, plus engagement from the U.N., led by nations that opposed the U.S. aggression and have not participated in the occupation (some of whom may be U.S. allies in the bigger picture, e.g. France or Germany). It is possible that the civil war could be stopped under those circumstances, though it might take yet another negotiated re-foundation of the Iraqi state to better accommodate Sunnis who mostly boycotted the process organized under direct U.S. control; at very least new elections. It is possible that the civil war could continue on a level comparable to what it has been. It is possible that it could get worse. But even if it got worse, there is no force in Iraq comparable to the Khmer Rouge with an ideological drive to policies that would result in mass murder.
The idea that Replican war and occupation policy has been supported by anything but soundbites and slogans, many of them sheer, baldfaced lies, is a hoot. You're a better comedian than I'd have guessed, Kurt.
I am not sure I understand what your point is about Italy, Germany, Japan and Korea.
10:47 a.m.
Jun 20, '08
itals off
Jun 20, '08
Chris,
I agree with your analysis above, except that Iraq's neighbors may have one interest in maintaining instability there: civil war or active insurgency likely decreases oil production, keeping oil prices on the world market high. It's my guess is that is this the reason for the weak resistance of Iraq's oil producing neighbors to the US invasion.
11:41 a.m.
Jun 20, '08
Interesting point Tom. Probably that calculus is different for different countries depending on the proximity of their oil fields to Iraq.
Jun 20, '08
Carla Axtman:
...and Richard Burke, former Exec Director of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (who was basically kicked out of the job).
Bob T:
I wouldn't give a penny to any group that has Burke on staff, and have already changed the minds of some people who were getting ready to send them money. It's only a matter of time before he starts doing what he did in the LPO -- treating the party debit card as if it was his own (groceries, etc), has porn downloaded into some of the computers at the office, and starts screwing as many of the female staff as he can. He recently returned from the LP national convention, by the way, at which he was visibly inebriated much of the time.
Of course, this sleazeball will reply with all of the canned replies to these examples. But all one has to do is contact various LPO state committee members from the past two years, such as Wes Wagner, to get all the confirmation and details one needs regarding the above.
And Tom, Burke isn't a right winger. He's incapable of believing in anything other than himself, and since he's incapable of holding real jobs he latches onto this sort of position. Since most of his friends are right wingers, he gets this type of position because that's where it leads.
Bob Tiernan
11:47 a.m.
Jun 20, '08
Richard P. Burke, Dir. of Grass Roots Development AFP - Oregon
The name "AFP Oregon" is already taken -- by the Association of Fundraising Professionals.
They say:
"AFP Oregon’s mission is to provide opportunities for education, philanthropic advocacy and peer networking..."
Why didn't you google the acronym before you double-dipped?
11:52 a.m.
Jun 20, '08
Make that tripple-dipped. This is from the Oregon AFP: the Association of Financial Professionals...
The AFP of Oregon ... holds monthly luncheon meetings featuring presentations by expert guest speakers on various treasury topics, including economic updates, fraud issues, EDI and electronic commerce, foreign exchange, credit and risk management.
It will be interesting to see your lists cross-pollinate!
Jun 20, '08
Bob T:
Oh, I almost forgot the best example: Early last year Burke got caught trying to hack into the LP National database of major donors (with the help of a young female employed at Nat LP HQ in Washington, DC) so that he could tap into their wallets (you see, as LPO fundraiser he got about 20% of donations as a salary). He was a member of the LP National Committee (an alternate or regional rep I think) which then looked into the matter and fired the girl and removed Burke from the committee (he'll say he resigned for other reasons).
Bob Tiernan
Jun 20, '08
LT said, "If Iraq is important enough to have troops there for years to come, it is important enough to debate a draft."
And it is important enough to require that all in Congress and their children go first: Draft At the Top. McCain and Obama are opposed.
Those of you claiming to be libertarians no doubt are supporting Ron Paul's position on Iraq and militarism in general. If so, I salute you.
By the way, no one is for "immediate withdrawal" - that's a strawman that anyone can knock down. Nader is calling for a six-month withdrawal; Obama for leaving in place all the contractors and tens of thousands of regular troops for an indefinite period; McCain for an indefinite period up to a hundred years.
Jun 20, '08
Carla Axtman:
This group is also big into climate change denial
Bob T:
Interesting that you use the term change instead of warming. Does this mean you, too, have doubts as to whether or not it's warming?
Anyway, the point is that there are many who don't buy into the Al Gore scenario but they are themselves divided.
Some believe there is indeed a warming trend but don't believe human activity is capable of influencing this very much (if it's warming, it'll warm up with or without our help). Others don't think there is any warming trend at all, at least not lately. Many of these think that there's simply not enough data.
Most or all think that to do what Gore or the Kyoto Treaty demands will at best result in a change of a fraction of a degree (this is even supported by those who wrote Kyoto), and that money spent (or lost) to achieve that paper-thin goal is better off being spent on most anything else that can improve our lives.
You don't do your cause any good by snide talking point labeling of those who don't agree with Al Gore. Now, APF is 0ne group and represents only a small group, so they may actually officially state that there is no change, period. But then, what else would you expect from a group that hires a seazeball like Richard Burke?
Bob Tiernan
1:18 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
Interesting that you use the term change instead of warming.
Oh Oh. Let me.......
Global Warming, while accuratly describing the long term trend, is not a good description for what people will actually see and experience:
Greater and more frequent examples of Extreme Weather, for example the record breaking Tornado season currently extant in the midwest, brought on by huge late snowfalls in the mountain west; Or earlier average start dates for fire seasons, and so on.
Citing these as examples of Cimate Change is both accurate and more immediately descriptive.
The newly opened Northwest Passage through the Arctic Circle, the accelerated melting if the ice sheets at both poles, and the forecast of massive new ports being planned for Alaska, can be understood using either term.
Jun 20, '08
I was at this meeting as well.
Carla, I thought you looked familar, have you been to the pro open border anarchy rallies?
One important clarification if I may do so please.
We are exicted to hear from the former leader of the Czech Republic not on global warming but because he lived in a Communist nation and had to live in a BIG government society and really understands why it does not work (U.S.S.R. is?). He may actually enjoy being a free Man now and able to make his own decisions.
So by the tone of discussion here apparentely you guys want even more Government? The idea of us controlling our lives, making are own decisions and taking more of OUR money home to support our families, is a silly idea? And more Freedom via less Big Brother is also stupid?
And yes the Earth has had billions of years of "Climate change" and so does our Sun, all the others when their were no Humans here.
Jun 20, '08
Carla, I thought you looked familar, have you been to the pro open border anarchy rallies?
I don't know what a "pro-open border anarchy rally" is, exactly. But I haven't been to any rallies in the last couple of years that didn't have to either with peace/ending the Iraq War, electing Jeff Merkley to the U.S. Senate or electing Barack Obama.
We are exicted to hear from the former leader of the Czech Republic not on global warming but because he lived in a Communist nation and had to live in a BIG government society and really understands why it does not work (U.S.S.R. is?). He may actually enjoy being a free Man now and able to make his own decisions.
I took some pretty copious notes on this, Rick..and it very much came across to me that this was as much about having a prominent global climate change denier in the form of this Czech Republic Prime Minister as anything else.
He's also potentially showing up to be a part of a global climate change denying event, so I'm not especially convinced that AFP's excitement for his visit has much to do with Communism (and its spurning thereof). But..okay.
So by the tone of discussion here apparentely you guys want even more Government?
I'd be thrilled to have less government in the form of getting out of Iraq, Rick. If you're looking for common ground on shrinking government, that's as good a place as any to start.
2:54 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
"But on the other side, there are scientists like Dr. David R. Legates (Center for Climate Research, Univ. of DE) and Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon (of Harvard-Smithsonian)"
Richard, didn't we say no Exxon flacks? Legates and Soon are both notorious deniers funded by the equally notorious George Marshall Institute, as well as the Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise. Marshall in particular is rife with contributions directly from Exxon, but also nutbag, nonscientific organizations with all kinds of crosspollination of members and groups.
In any case, Marshall's been pimping sun cycles for almost 20 years now. IPCC has rejected the theory once already; I'm sorry if I'm not confident of a reversal.
Jun 20, '08
Pat Ryan: The newly opened Northwest Passage through the Arctic Circle, the accelerated melting if the ice sheets at both poles, and the forecast of massive new ports being planned for Alaska, can be understood using either term. JK: You left out a little detail which makes your statement wrong:
You inaccurately said: newly opened Northwest Passage Correct statement: newly RE-opened Northwest Passage
See: Amuundson Navigates the Northwest Passage, New York Times, Dec 7, 1905 Top of the World, New York Times, May 5, 1946
Please quit paying attention to climate lying, money grubbing, multimillion dollar, multinational environmental corporations (Sierra club etc.) and admitted liars like Al Gore ( I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is , as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are... Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added.)
How can anyone believe Al Gore after he said the above?
Since you repeated the extreme weather fallacy from the warmers, here are some articles you might find interesting: NYT, Feb 24, 1895 - Prospects of another glacial period. NYT, Oct 7, 1912 - Sees Glacial age coming. NYT, May 15, 1932 - Melting Polar Ice Caps... NYT, Feb 20, 1969 - Expert says arctic ocean will soon be ab open sea. NYT, May 21, 1975 - Scientists ask why climate is changing; major cooling ,may be ahead Harpers, Sept 1968 - Cover story - the coming ice age. Newsweek, April 28, 1975 - the cooling world.
Here are some sources on the other side for those who are interested in the whole story: junkscience.com; icecap.us; climateaudit.org; CO2Science.org; science and public policy.org; climate-skeptic.com; WorldClimateReport.com; iceagenow.com; Let me be perfectly clear these sites are not the last word, but they are a gold mine of information to track down peer reviewed papers that challenge the orthodoxy.
Thanks JK
2:58 p.m.
Jun 20, '08
And why is Jim Kaarlock commenting as "Bill Jones?"
I could ask "when will he get new material beyond Hansen and the Hockey Stick," but I know that's futile.
Jun 20, '08
torridjoe Richard, didn't we say no Exxon flacks? Legates and Soon are both notorious deniers funded by the equally notorious George Marshall Institute, as well as the Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise. Marshall in particular is rife with contributions directly from Exxon, but also nutbag, nonscientific organizations with all kinds of crosspollination of members and groups. JK: How is that different than Jim Hansen receiving 1/4 million from the democrats (via Hinz fopundation)?
How is that different than Al Gore getting tens, if not hundreds, of millions in speaking fees and profits from his scaring little school children?
torridjoe In any case, Marshall's been pimping sun cycles for almost 20 years now. IPCC has rejected the theory once already; I'm sorry if I'm not confident of a reversal. JK: If sun cycles are not important, please explain: The correlation between sunspots and the price of wheat that was found two hundred years ago. The century’s long correlation between sun cycles and temperature. It is a better match than CO2. * Then many peer reviewed papers on the subject.
Thanks JK
Jun 20, '08
torridjoe: I could ask "when will he get new material beyond Hansen and the Hockey Stick," but I know that's futile. JK: They, along with Al Gore are the key players in this greatest scientific fraud of the 20th century. To bring you up to date: The hockey stick has been proven wrong by Mcintyre , who’s work was verified by the National Academy of Sciences’ Wegman report. Hansen keeps climate data at NASA and has made a series of “adjustments” that have the effect of increasing the apparent warming. Further many of his stations are in locations totally unsuitable for accurate temperature measurement like parking lots. Recent automated ocean temperature measurements show a cooling trend. Arctic ice melting stories seldom mention that satallit measurements started just s few years ago and do not show the ice conditions in 1905, the time of the first passage over the north pole. The dramatic ice calving in Al’s sci-fi movie were actually a Hollywood special effects. (Just another Al Gore lie.) Glaciers have been retreating since the end of the little ice age. Recently most have lowed their rate of retreat.
For a good presentation on the current state of the science see: blip.tv/file/791876 (Choose MP4 for best quality)
Thanks JK
Jun 20, '08
Jeff Kropf State Director Americans for Prosperity Oregon
Bob T:
Hey Jeff Kropf,
Who fooled you into bringing Burke into your organization? I have zero interest in it for that reason, and make sure that other potentially interested people stay away from your group. That's a price your group will pay for having that sociopathic piece of garbage on your staff, and you'll also pay by having him around to cause damage to your organization.
Who recommended him to you? You're smarter than that. Call LPO HQ and ask for a contact number for Wes Wagner and then call him -- he'll let you know everything and will give you dozens of names of others to back him up (including those of many former Burke supporters who got burned badly).
In the meantime:
Put porn filters on APF computers right now!
Don't give him a debit or credit card!
Bob Tiernan
Jun 21, '08
Chris, nice bit of revisionist history. Interesting, but utterly useless. Since you weren't over there perhaaps you should step away from the Kool-Aid.
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rogue were financed, supplied and supported by the Chineses, as were the Viet Cong. Everyone involved at the time knew that. I can't debate the democrat president decision to go into Southeast Asia, nor can I debate his democrat sucessor who decided to escalate the occupation. What is known is that once there, US forces kept the Kmer Rouge and other factions from wholesale slaughter. That is the tie to Iraq and needless bleating about immediate withdrawal.
Chris, I never said I supoprted the Iraq invasion, I never resorted to soundbyte analysis which you seem to be so found of. No Chris, you are the comedian and a rather poor one at that.
That you don't even get the historical perspective of US occupation troops still in Europe, Japan and Korea pretty much tops your pin-headed narrow view of history and the world. Have a nice day Chris.
11:28 a.m.
Jun 21, '08
What do you mean by "I wasn't there" Kurt? In Cambodia? That's true. Were you? Or do you mean "not alive or politically conscious or following the news at that time?" In that case you are mistaken.
You're just wrong about the U.S. and Cambodia. As you say the Khmer Rouge were funded by China. The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were not, at least after the 1960s, because the Chinese and the Soviets split (to the point of brief armed conflict at the Amur River in 1969) and the VC/NLF and the North Vietnamese went with the Soviets.
Prior to the overthrow of Sihanouk by Lon Nol, who was neutral in Vietnam, had relationships with China, and permitted the use of the Ho Chi Minh trail through eastern Cambodia for North Vietnamese troop and logistical movements as a price for not facing wider war, there was no substantial threat to his government posed by the Khmer Rouge. After Lon Nol came in, the U.S. supported him with material and financial aid, but there was no U.S. troop presence to pull out.
The civil war in Cambodia began as a nationalist opposition coalition to Lon Nol, in which the non-communist elements may have been naive about the Khmer Rouge and about NVA intervention and long term intentions. But at the time, the nature of the Khmer Rouge was not known. Go back and look at the sources from the time, i.e. before 1975. The KR invariably are described in language like "shadowy," "mysterious," "secretive," "inaccessible." In retrospect, that degree of disconnection from society can be seen to indicate a source of the nature of their acts in power.
But U.S. intervention did not in any way protect Cambodia. The invasion of Cambodia and the massive, massively destructive bombing campaigns, in addition to the political intervention in backing the Lon Nol coup all contributed to weakening, destabilizing and dividing the country in ways that increased vulnerability to the Khmer Rouge, and provoked expanded North Vietnamese intervention and attacks on the Nol government that had not existed against Sihanouk's. It is just an utterly non-comparable case from beginning to end, in which the term "U.S. pullout" can mean at best "refusal to send more aid" and "stop bombing."
In my previous post I cut out a long section on Korea, Japan, Germany and Italy. Korea is a particular case, because U.S. troops are there as part of a formally continuing war in which there is just a 55 year cease-fire. That was a cold war hot war, as you know. Into involves a territorially divided nation with two states & governments. The U.S. troops are there as semi-hostages, a "trip wire" guaranteeing U.S. involvement if North Korea attacked South Korea, and warning China of that fact in the aftermath of Chinese intervention during the war, after the UN (U.S., ROK and other allied) forces had conquered nearly all of North Korea up to the Chinese border at the Yalu River. The terms of the long-term U.S. commitment involve defending an allied country against an external threat in the aftermath and with the prospect of a conventional war, not an internal civil war characterized by guerrilla insurgency. It was never an occupation of a country in which sustantial portions of the population regarded themselves as conquered or occupied by the U.S., nor took up arms against them. It was never a situation of civil war within South Korea, though maybe you could look at the overall war as in some way a civil war -- except that Korea had been ruled by Japan since 1894, so there was no pre-existing independent state & associated civil society.
The original U.S. troop presence in South Korea was part of the occupation of Japan in a sense, though to make it independent. The occupation of Japan came in the aftermath of 3 & 1/2 years of total conventional war primarily between two of the world's great powers in which the Japanese home islands had been severely hammered, and in which the military-dominated government and the emperor completely capitulated in the face of the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The emperor did not play the role of Sihanouk in Cambodia (in any case there was no backing power to give him sanctuary), nor did any of the political-military leaders play a role like that of Saddam Hussein when he fled Iraq. Although evidently there had been plans for resistance within the home islands, with the U.S. military planning for at least two more years fighting comparable to their island-by-island experience but probably more intense, there was no Japanese insurgency against the occupation, nor any internal civil war.
The occupation there lasted 10 years. Its most useful aspect for comparison might be to imagine what Iraq would be like if the U.S. had conquered Iraq with a competent plan for occupation aimed at rebuilding the country, preserving its functioning administrative structures, working with and through its existing business leadership, encouraging trade unions, reconstructing the existing army, and had started carrying out that plan with sufficient armed forces on the scale General Shinseki had accurately identified as necessary for such an occupation. Instead, on top of an illegal war of aggression we should never have started, we got an appalling compound of arrogance and stupid incompetence that ignored the question of what to do after conquest, partly to lowball the cost of the war in order to sell it, ignored the advice of the military commanders, and tried and failed miserably to run an occupation on the cheap.
Anyway, after the occupation ended in 1955, the U.S. military presence in Japan has been overwhelmingly centered in Okinawa, and is nothing like the continuing U.S. presence in Iraq promoted by Bush-McCain.
I won't go into Germany now, I can if you want to. But I would point out that like Japan it involved a thoroughly defeated major power country with no internal resistance or civil war, and moreover, as the cold war developed a great deal to fear from the Soviet bloc. And in both cases you left out the U.S. commitment to rebuilding the countries based on local institutions, organizations, businesses and contractors, which stand in stark contrast to the still-incompetent and U.S. contractor/profit driven aspects of occupation in Iraq.
You left out the Philippines, which in some ways might be more comparable, inasmuch as they had a colonial history with the U.S., and a U.S. military presence which especially during the Vietnam era was directed toward U.S. military aims in Vietnam and not really to the defense of the country itself. Notably Filipino nationalism ended that presence once U.S. backed dictatorship was overthrown.
You also left out the most salient (although still quite different) comparative case, which would be South Vietnam, in which, as in Iraq, the country was the former colonial territory of a U.S. ally that had been defeated by an internal uprising (though much earlier for Iraq and Britain in the 1920s) and in which there was an internal civil war in which the U.S. was involved in supporting a local government, which the United States had a substantial hand in creating, and certainly shaping by virtue of helping to overthrow Ngo Dinh Diem.
<hr/>My historical view of Cambodia is not revisionist in the sense of "new, not what has been previoiusly accepted." Have a look at William Shawcross' Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia, originally published in 1979. Revisionism has if anything gone in your direction. Shawcross himself apparently supported the invasion of Iraq, although he appears to stand by his view that U.S. actions in Cambodia created the conditions allowing the rise of the Khmer Rouge to control of the country.
But "revisionism" in any case is a peculiar adoption of Maoist language by conservatives as a pejorative for quite normal and appropriate changes in historical interpretation that they don't like, but somehow not to those they do like. Revisionism was the ideological crime of which the Chinese Communists accused the Soviet Union under Khruschev as it came to criticize aspects of Stalin's rule.
It is almost always the case that historical interpretations made close to the time of events change, as new evidence becomes available, and new interpretive arguments that connect facts or change emphases on them come to be seen as persuasive. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Interpretations can always be argued, of course, and should be. But revising historical views is part of the task of historians.
12:20 p.m.
Jun 21, '08
Nice job on SE Asian history, Chris. I love that period, and could have said much the same thing--but you offer much richer detail than I would have recalled. Saying the Cong were under the thrall of the Chinese is exactly the same mistake made in the late 40s by people like Dulles, thinking that China was who we were really stopping in Vietnam.
12:23 p.m.
Jun 21, '08
"How is that different than Jim Hansen receiving 1/4 million from the democrats"
The Democrats aren't a profit-based organization bent on preserving fossil fuel use to sustain those profits? Maybe?
"If sun cycles are not important, please explain: (etc)"
Explain? How about that people write papers funded by the fossil fuel industry, but those specific theories have been rejected by a consensus of climate scientists?
And why is the one point you failed to answer, the easiest one to explain? Why are you writing as "Bill Jones?"
Jun 21, '08
Of all the arguments forwarded by those who wish to minimize human-caused global warming, suggesting that concern is all about making money is the silliest. The average third grader could understand quite quickly that the amounts at stake are exponentially larger for those who wish to continue business as usual. Petroleum companies and allied businesses, coal extractors, automobile manufacturers, road builders, electric utilities that burn fossil fuels, etc. have trillions of dollars at stake. Yet, deniers are concerned about Al Gore's speaking fees and Jim Hansen's grants and awards.
As with Richard Burke's attempt to label environmentalists "arrogant", this is blaming the other other side for one's own sins.
Jun 21, '08
torridjoe: "How is that different than Jim Hansen receiving 1/4 million from the democrats"
The Democrats aren't a profit-based organization bent on preserving fossil fuel use to sustain those profits? Maybe? JK: No they are a power-based organization bent on seeking power by scaring little children that they will die unless they convince their parents to elect democrats. Did you happen to notice that a British court banned AL Gore’s sci-fi flick from schools unless it had a disclaimer about all the lies in it (it “overemphasized the danger” even more than the alarmist IPCC)?
torridjoe: "If sun cycles are not important, please explain: (etc)"
Explain? How about that people write papers funded by the fossil fuel industry, but those specific theories have been rejected JK: Oh, then how come they are being published in the reputable peer reviewed journals?
torridjoe: by a consensus of climate scientists? JK: What consensus? Or, do you mean the discredited Naomi Oakes paper where she lied about what she searched for? (Claimed to have searched for “ climate change” but actually searched for “global climate change”. )
I ran this search on my library of skeptic papers and very few hits resulted. (There are many alternative phrases that have similar meaning.)
torridjoe: And why is the one point you failed to answer, the easiest one to explain? Why are you writing as "Bill Jones?" JK: I thought I was wrighting as JK. BTW, why are writing as torridjoe. I thought your real name was Mark Bunster. (My real name got trapped by the spam filter as the result of posting a full internet address.)
Thanks JK
Jun 21, '08
I just found this: (sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142112.htm) The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago. (bold added) JK: So much for the warmer's claim that today's rate of warming is unusual.
What is left of the warmer's claims anyway? Hockey stick - a fraud Latter 20th century warmest in xxx years - oops tied with 1934 Rapid climate change - wrong, see above. Temperature careening out of control - oops - it has been cooling since 1998 (depends on source - but now all major temperature records are headed down.) Glaciers rapidly retreating -oops most are retreating slower today than in the first part of the 20th century. Greenland glaciers melting - oops they are exposing bushes from 800AD. * Cascade snow pack trending down - not when you show people the whole data record. starting in then early 1900s.
The warmers have no data behind their scare stories. Thanks JK
Jun 21, '08
THIS CONSENSUS:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
The Consensus on Global Warming
A surprising consensus is transforming the complex politics of global warming
Consensus of scientists regarding global warming
6:05 p.m.
Jun 21, '08
What consensus Jim? The consensus of scientific scholarship on the matter. What other consensus is important?
And regardless of what my name may be (and the bizarre fascination certain people seem to have with it, as if it exposes some great mystery), I consistently use the same handle everywhere I go. There are no other torridjoes (hallelujah, say some). Online, I am known as torridjoe.
Online, YOU are known as Jim Kaarlock. Which makes the question, "Why are you commenting under the name Bill Jones" a relevant one.
Jun 22, '08
JK:Here is the key paragraph (except the one where she misrepresents the search key as “climate change”, when in fact it was “global climate change”) (I made her list of six categories into a numbered list):
The 928 papers were divided into six categories:
So, Tom please tell us: Where is the category for papers that contain the phrase:” thus global warming is disproved beyond reasonable doubt.” Where is the category for papers proposing alterative explanations for global warming? Where is the category for papers disproving the consensus, without saying so? Of course she wouldn’t even find papers with the term global warming!
Tom, please quit pawning off such garbage as science. BTW that was an essay, probably not peer reviewed.
As to your other “references”
The Consensus on Global Warming - a secondary source
A surprising consensus is transforming the complex politics of global warming a weekly “news” mag that is scientifically illeterate
Consensus of scientists regarding global warming This one is the funniest of all - it refers us to Wikipedia: “ For more information . . . read the full article at Wikipedia.org, “
You are going to continue getting sucked into these lies until you at least learn the difference between a primary source and wikipedia.
You might also want to contemplate the following quotes from those who you follow: I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might. have. Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time
How can you believe anything that they say after they tell you that they are lying?
Thanks JK
Jun 22, '08
torridjoe: What consensus Jim? The consensus of scientific scholarship on the matter. What other consensus is important? jk: Where is your evidence? Al Gore, admitted lier? Show me a peer review proof. Note that the Naomi Oaskes Essay is probably NOT peer-reviewed and easily discredited (see above.)
Thanks JK
Jun 22, '08
JK: Hey, Tom I’m still waiting for your answers:
Thanks JK
Jun 22, '08
A study just posted in the journal Nature by an international team of scientists took a look at millions of ship-based measurements taken since 1950 that when corrected, shows that the world's oceans are warming and rising faster than previously reported.
Here is what they found........
--The global average ocean warming between 1961-2003 is 50% larger than previously reported and rose about 0.4 celsius (0.7 F) over the period.
--The world's seas rose an average of 1.6 mm a year during the 1961-2003 period, but increased to more than 3 mm a year from 1993-2003.
In a complex system such as that controlling the temperature of earth's biosphere, macro influences like insolation reflectivity, and natural greenhouse gas levels have produced a equilibrium that has endured throughout human existence. It is the factors that show large change in a short time, such as the increased CO2 level caused by the burning of millions of years worth of fossil fuel in the last 200 years that can throw the system out of equilibrium. There are lags in response caused by factors like the ocean's ability to absorb excess CO2 that can mask the alterations to the system for awhile. Recent reports suggest that the ocean's are close to saturation with CO2 now. Then there are tipping-point phenomena like the huge amounts of CO2 and methane released by melting tundra. A building that leans a little more each year, stands until it falls over. When it is a pile of rubble on the ground, no amount of mitigation will tease it back up.
Earth's climatic system is complex enough that there will never be a time when human effect cannot be doubted and responsibility evaded. Once a major tipping point is reached, change will come rapidly and without recourse. At that point, knowing who was right and who was wrong will no longer matter. If any folks like JK survive, they will still be able to shift blame to the sun, volcanoes, or bovine emissions.
Jun 22, '08
JK,
Most scientific journal are available online by subscription only, and the cost is often substantial. Therefore, references that folks reading this blog can check are going to be secondary sources like news reports by science writers who do have access to the professional journals. The relevant, peer reviewed literature has been considered by the relevant scientific organizations. That has resulted in the scientific consensus you wish to deny.
Jun 22, '08
Your clip : In a complex system such as that controlling the temperature of earth's biosphere, macro influences like insolation reflectivity, and natural greenhouse gas levels have produced a equilibrium that has endured throughout human existence. JK: Simply wrong. CO2 has varied from 4000 ppm down to today’s level (Fig 6.1, AR4). If there anything to fear it is low CO2.
That same figure shows previous ocean temperatures up to 12 degrees warmer than today. Why are you so worried about levels well within historical norms?
Your clip : It is the factors that show large change in a short time, such as the increased CO2 level caused by the burning of millions of years worth of fossil fuel in the last 200 years that can throw the system out of equilibrium. JK: Large??? Man’s contribution to CO2 is a single digit % of the annual emissions. This will hardly upset a system that has “ produced a equilibrium that has endured throughout human existence”.
If you actually looked at your reference, you might have noticed the first criticism:
Fellow report author John Church said he had long been suspicious about the historical data because it did not match results from computer models of the world's climate and oceans.
"We've realigned the observations and as a result the models agree with the observations much better than previously," said Church, a senior research scientist with the climate centre.
So, if I am reading this correctly, they adjusted the actual, measured data so it would fit what the computer models were predicting. (Reply: We do not know that for sure.) When the real data didn’t match what their concocted computer models were telling them they didn’t question the concocted models, instead, they questioned the actual data? I can certainly appreciate the fact that man-made equipment has faults and requires calibrating but this just doesn’t pass the smell test. On second thought, that is a little too diplomatic. THIS IS GALACTICLY STUPID!!
Is there a credible scientist left on the AGW side? If so, what is his/her name?
This is just another report of the Hansen mind set of adjusting real data so that it fits their crappy play station models. Why do believe anything that they claim?
BTW, I am still waiting for you to answer: 1. What, in terms of greenhouse effect, is the most significant greenhouse gas? 2. What % of greenhouse effect is dut to that gas? 3. What % of greenhouse effect is due to CO2? 4. What % of annual CO2 emissions are due to man? 5. How much warming do we expect from a doubling of CO2 from present levels? 6. Historically, which rises first: temperature of CO2?
Thanks JK
Jun 22, '08
Tom Civiletti: Most scientific journal are available online by subscription only, and the cost is often substantial. Therefore, references that folks reading this blog can check are going to be secondary sources like news reports by science writers who do have access to the professional journals. JK: Have you heard of a library? Unfortunately, too many “science” writers are scientifically illiterate. I was arguing with one that did not even understand a log graph.
Tom Civiletti: The relevant, peer reviewed literature has been considered by the relevant scientific organizations. JK: Like the IPCC, whose task is to verify man’s influence on climate.
Tom Civiletti: That has resulted in the scientific consensus you wish to deny. JK: Do you have any proof of this consensus you keep claiming? Naomi’s frquently quoted claim is simply garbage as I showed above.
PS: Still waiting for you to actually look at some data and answer the questions in my previous message.
(Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less)
(Save Plants, Liberate CO2)
Thanks JK
1:09 p.m.
Jun 22, '08
"Where is your evidence? Al Gore, admitted lier?"
That little matter of IPCC stands as pretty good evidence. No credible scientist on the planet denies man-influenced climate change, sorry.
Jun 22, '08
Rick Hickey asked, "So by the tone of discussion here apparentely you guys want even more Government?"
Real libertarians oppose ALL forms of anti-democratic oppression, not just that which government represents. If you right-wingers were to call for an end to corporatism in all its myriad forms, and an end to militarism and military funding, then we could agree on something substantive.
Saying "Al Gore" over and over again is not an argument, especially since only the truly religious DP worshipers think much of Al.
Jun 22, '08
torridjoe: That little matter of IPCC stands as pretty good evidence. No credible scientist on the planet denies man-influenced climate change, sorry. JK: Actually, the IPCC is NOT evidence, it is a review of the literature by scientists under close control of politicians who write the summaries. As to man-influenced climate - the disagreement is whether the influence is enough to make a difference. So one can say 99% of scientists agree that man affects the weather and be accurate even if 98% of those think man’s influence is tiny and insignificant.
Here is a nice sample from the IPCC: Over the same period, antarctic temperature and CO2 concentrations covary, indicating a close relationship between climate and the carbon cycle. . . . it is unlikely that CO2 variations have triggered the end of glacial periods. Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2 during past glacial terminations. (AR6, ch 6)
Note what the statement actually says: 1. CO2 & temperature covary. 2. Antarctic temperature started to rise several centuries before atmospheric CO2
All they left out was: therefore, if there is a cause and effect, temperature must cause CO2 to increase (because a cause cannot follow the effect)
Please learn to understand this stuff, before believing it. Especially when the main purveyors admit to lying.
Thanks JK
1:31 p.m.
Jun 24, '08
"Please learn to understand this stuff, before believing it. Especially when the main purveyors admit to lying.
Thanks JK"
I certainly understand what it means when every single credible climatologist in the world agrees on the situtation we're in, and only crackpots dissent.
Jun 27, '08
Dear all,
Needless to say, I disagree with the statements made by Mr. Bob Tiernan on this blog about me. Mr. Tiernan was on the other side of a series of factional battles within the Libertarian Party of Oregon, and he has been writing nasty things about me for years. I actually collect his writings, which can be quite creative and colorful.
It is a reality that one makes friends and enemies in politics at every level if one is active enough, why should I be an exception?
During the factional battles I referred to, many charges were made relating to alleged criminal action and election law violations - none of them stuck. There were lawsuits filed against friends of mine, who also were the targets of Bob's writings, all of them were dismissed.
Now, apart from my work with AFP, I work with many members of th Libertarian party including current LP Oregon officers, and the former national LP Executive Director who held that position during all of the madness.
Mr. Kropf is aware of everything that happened during the Libertarian Party factional battles, and hired me anyway. He understands how nasty internal political struggles can be. Jeff and I enjoy working together, and I look forward to being engaged in a number of important issues within the context of my job. I am very proud to be working with AFP. If anyone really cares about this history, they can email me privately ([email protected]).
Aside from that, I invite Mr. Tiernan to make a positive contribution by getting more involved in his community or adding to this discussion that actually relates to climate change. Thank you.
Richard P. Burke, Dir. of Grass Roots Development Americans for Prosperity - Oregon
Jun 30, '08
Burke:
During the factional battles I referred to, many charges were made relating to alleged criminal action and election law violations - none of them stuck. There were lawsuits filed against friends of mine, who also were the targets of Bob's writings, all of them were dismissed.
Bob Tiernan
Nonsense - it was all about whether or not the courts would force the state committee to follow the party's own rules (which I had nothing to do with), and the court didn't want to get involved. You always rely on getting the last word - sorry, but no court addressed the issue of you planning to hack into the national LP datebase of large donors, and the Nat LP quietly kicked your ass out and you're happy to say you "resigned" for personal reasons. No court addressed the porn issue, either (which you like to claim was "accidentally" downloaded into the party computers.
If Kropf knew all of this stuff and still hired you, then he's a moron. You've fooled and tricked loads of people for years - Kropf is vulnerable to that, too. I hope for the sake of his donors that he recognizes the real you before it's too late.
Bob Tiernan
Jul 8, '08
"Speakers will include...Cascade Policy's Stephen Moore..."
<h2>For clarification, Moore is on the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal; he has no formal affiliation with Cascade Policy Institute.</h2>