GOP congressman: Republican Party has become too extreme, incapable of governing

[Person Man]

Is this thread about extremists or the environment?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He is probably burnishing his credentials as a mavericky, pragmatist for the general election now that the primary is over.

[Simfan34]

Of course, Richard Hanna endorsed Jon Huntsman.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Define "Republican Party".  I think the GOP leadership is trying to limit the far right candidates, but in states where the Tea Party is strong, they really don't have any say.  It's not like the party is accomodating them, rather they're being forced in by extremely dedicated people who are willing to give their all.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The guy who mentioned climate change should have a chat with snowguy.

Snowguy is incredibly smart, and he could probably out-debate me, but he is an outlier. The vast majority of published studies and experts in the field accept that the earth is indeed warming and that it is primarily driven by humans.

Only a hardcore denier would reject the Richard Muller study.

[Svensson]

It's not an untrue statement, to say the least - parties of damn-near-theocratic True Scotsman moral guardians don't tend to have the best governance record. I'm glad at least someone on the right of the House has the balls to admit it, although polarization is hardly limited to one side of the field.


P.S. I find the amusing part of this to be that Hanna is, strictly speaking, more conservative than most of the Reps we have loitering about the House, what with his opposition to the PATRIOT Act and his disinclination toward letting the federal government expand into uteri.

[BigSkyBob]

Remember when the Koch Brothers and bunch of other climate skeptics funded the only credible source of denial (Richard Mueller) who then proceeded to confirm the worst fears of climatologists with the caveat that his findings predicted worse results than their climate models? The consensus is unanimous: anthropogenic global warming is real and is already creating severe problems.

A statement that is about 1/4 right. The world has been warming for centuries. That warming is likely due to increases in CO2 concentration. The primary culprit is the percession of the earth. Periodically, the tilt of the earth brings rains to Northern Africa. The resultant grasslands hold large amounts of carbon in both the soil, and in the plants themselves. The current tilt of the earth has brought drought to Northern Africa. This has released all the carbon in the plants and blowing soil. This natural variation in atmospheric CO2 is well documented.

Sure, people are doing to the Amazon basin by choice what nature is doing the Northern Africa. So, man has played some role. That is the entirety of the "consensus" about "anthropomorphic global warming." The actual claims made by the proponents of "global warming" go well beyond that "consensus." For instance, their models about expected temperature and sea levels are breaking down.

Nor, can I let pass without comment your the claims about "severe" effects of "global warming." The earth has been in a cooling trend for a million years. It survived quite nicely for millions of years before the recent cooling trend. Industrialization occured during a particularly good stretch of weather. That probably wasn't an accident. That was probably a necessary condition for that industrialization.  If the weather worsens it is because good weather doesn't last forever.

"End of world" hysteria isn't confined to fundamentalist Christian pastors with radio programs. 2012 theorists are pedaling the same bunk. So are global warming proponents.

[BigSkyBob]

The problem of getting the developing economies to get on board is one reason why I favor using a carbon tax instead of cap and trade as part of any approach to global warming.

First off, it minimizes the overall economic impact, provided carbon taxes are used to replace other existing taxes.  Secondly, it provides additional economic impetus to the development of low-carbon technologies that could be adopted directly by developing countries, thereby mitigating their carbon spikes.

Since it fails to address what is happening in the Amazon basin, it is doomed to failure.

[BigSkyBob]

The current national debt is over 15 trillion, with unfunded liabilities even larger. The "extremists" are the folks whom believe that we can make the current projectory work if we only raise taxes and add another government program here and there.

[Likely Voter]

The extremists are the ones who thing we can solve that problem solely with increasing revenue or decreasing spending. And the super extremists are the ones who refuse any compromise and take a my way or the highway approach.

[BigSkyBob]

The extremists are the ones who thing we can solve that problem solely with increasing revenue or decreasing spending. And the super extremists are the ones who refuse any compromise and take a my way or the highway approach.

There has been an upward bias in the size of government, and taxes. That trend cannot go on forever. Eventually, it ends in one of two ways: the people can't pay any more taxes, or the people won't pay any more taxes. The "extremists" are the folks whom prefer following the path to former. The sensible position is the latter. Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Always amazing to see people engaging with BS Bob. This is the man who believes that there is, indeed, a War On Christmas and that it is also a Jewish Conspiracy. That's all.

[BigSkyBob]

Always amazing to see people engaging with BS Bob. This is the man who believes that there is, indeed, a War On Christmas and that it is also a Jewish Conspiracy. That's all.

You are the one posting "conspiracy theories." While, depending on what you mean by the words "War on Christmas," there is a concerted attack on the public recognition of the Christmas holiday, it is figment of your, perhaps, paranoid imagination that I believe in a "Jewish Conspiracy," whatever that means.

I don't even know what you mean by "Jewish Conspiracy." For instance, when Jonathan Pollard accepted cash from the Israeli government to turn over highly classified information that was "a conspiracy among some Jews to commit treason." It wasn't a "Jewish Conspiracy." Ethnic groups can't enter into conspiracies, only people.

[BigSkyBob]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm not responding to Bob per se but I've noticed that all climate change deniers say that the main contributor behind increase carbon emissions are natural factors. No serious climatologists has agreed with this assertion: it's 100% clear that humans are responsible for the rapid increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's so obvious that you don't even need to look at the data to understand imo (although by all means, you should). Get real.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Remember when the Koch Brothers and bunch of other climate skeptics funded the only credible source of denial (Richard Mueller) who then proceeded to confirm the worst fears of climatologists with the caveat that his findings predicted worse results than their climate models? The consensus is unanimous: anthropogenic global warming is real and is already creating severe problems. On top of the huge droughts that have been afflicting us over the past few years, southern Russia has consistently had precipitation problems and India is facing problems with their monsoon (as predicted).

You can try to wiggle your way out of this issue all you want because the results seem far-fetched and damaging to your ideology but the verdict is in: global warming isn't going away. If we put this issue off for another decade, the damage will be done and the positive feedback loop will run away from us. Minute amounts of methane trapped in the permafrost of the arctic circle are already beginning to be released, over ten years ahead of schedule.

Torie is ignoring the models and the findings:

Pretty much. Only someone purposefully naive wouldn't believe in climate change after Muller's study.

[Likely Voter]

While there are always stragglers, climate change denial has evolved and I think will soon move to a new level. First they denied it was happening, then they agreed it was happening but said humans didn't cause it. The next step is to accept that humans are causing it but say it will cost too much to do anything about it and trying to change things will just destroy the world economy so just accept it and move on.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

While there are always stragglers, climate change denial has evolved and I think will soon move to a new level. First they denied it was happening, then they agreed it was happening but said humans didn't cause it. The next step is to accept that humans are causing it but say it will cost too much to do anything about it and trying to change things will just destroy the world economy so just accept it and move on.

True, the arguments against doing something about climate change are kind of inconsistent.

1. What climate change?
2. OK, there's climate change, but it's natural causes
3. OK, humans caused climate change but it's too expensive to do anything about.

For some reason, the people in these categories don't argue with each other, but only with people who say that we should do something about climate change.

[BigSkyBob]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

The fact that you are incredulous about the notion of the electorate saying, "Enough, we are choosing not to pay higher taxes!," just means you are one of the people whom has to be politically defeated, else taxes will rise to the point that people can't pay them any more.

One of those two limits is going to be reached. It might as well be the electorate choosing not to pay higher taxes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hanna is definitely no Jacob Javitts, but I could see him getting primaried because he didn't drink enough kool-aide.

[MaxQue]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

The fact that you are incredulous about the notion of the electorate saying, "Enough, we are choosing not to pay higher taxes!," just means you are one of the people whom has to be politically defeated, else taxes will rise to the point that people can't pay them any more.

One of those two limits is going to be reached. It might as well be the electorate choosing not to pay higher taxes.

Well, the taxes aren't raised right now, as much than I know.

[BigSkyBob]

Remember when the Koch Brothers and bunch of other climate skeptics funded the only credible source of denial (Richard Mueller) who then proceeded to confirm the worst fears of climatologists with the caveat that his findings predicted worse results than their climate models? The consensus is unanimous: anthropogenic global warming is real and is already creating severe problems. On top of the huge droughts that have been afflicting us over the past few years, southern Russia has consistently had precipitation problems and India is facing problems with their monsoon (as predicted).

You can try to wiggle your way out of this issue all you want because the results seem far-fetched and damaging to your ideology but the verdict is in: global warming isn't going away. If we put this issue off for another decade, the damage will be done and the positive feedback loop will run away from us. Minute amounts of methane trapped in the permafrost of the arctic circle are already beginning to be released, over ten years ahead of schedule.

Torie is ignoring the models and the findings:

A couple of points about the graph above. First, the temperatures before 1850 are wild-ass guesses, and the black line is merely kinda the center of a series of wild-ass guesses. The next fifty years aren't particularly well documented either. Only the twentieth century is well documented. Since the temperature trend of the twentieth century is pretty uniform, it is fairly easy to "model." That doesn't prove the validity of the model since the model is based on past data points. The validity of the model is tested by its predictive value going forward. The reality is that in the last few years the model has broken down. Temperature increases predicted by the model simply have not occurred.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Since the government is going to have to accept that there is a limit to revenue, it might as well be today's level of revenue.

Why?

Why not?

The basic choice is between biting the bullet and doing it now, and, putting it off to a latter date.

Sure, it is theoretically possible to either raise, or cut taxes, from their current level and freeze them forever at that level, but, that's not how humans operate. In practise, the decision to raise taxes will only result in a debate later in which the tax-raisers will claim the underlying facts are the same as they were in 2012.

I really don't think the argument will use 2012 as its touchstone.

The fact that you think taxes can or should be frozen forever at any given level says an awful lot about you, Bob.

The fact that you are incredulous about the notion of the electorate saying, "Enough, we are choosing not to pay higher taxes!," just means you are one of the people whom has to be politically defeated, else taxes will rise to the point that people can't pay them any more.

One of those two limits is going to be reached. It might as well be the electorate choosing not to pay higher taxes.

With respect, I don't think you understand which part of your argument it is that I'm incredulous about.