|
|
An interesting read, and something I've always believed. I know it's not a direct response to anyone, but the subject has been addressed several times:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall 2012/2012 fall meyer.pdf
An excerpt:
Despite repeated claims of a failed war on poverty, our results show that the combination of targeted economic policies and policies that support growth has had a significant impact on poverty. Better standard headcount measures of poverty show sharp improvement in recent decades. Going beyond traditional headcount poverty measures, deep poverty and poverty gaps show even greater improvement, implying that considerable progress has been made at reducing severe deprivation. here have been noticeable improvements in the last decade, though they arenot as big as the improvements in some prior decades, (but comparable or better than the progress in the 1980s). We may not have won the war on poverty, but we are certainly winning.
There are several explanations for these improvements in poverty. Income poverty has been sharply reduced through tax rate cuts and credits. The difference between changes in preand post-tax poverty are particularly noticeable in the 1960s, 1980s, and 1990s. On the spending side, increases in social security have played a big role in reducing poverty, but other transfers have played only a small role. The use of a biased price index in official poverty statistics leads to a sharply understated view of progress in reducing poverty. While we find that rising educational attainment accounts for some of the decline in poverty over the past five decades, in general, changing demographics account for only a small fraction of the overall improvement in well-being for the poor. Saving and dissaving by households is not the main reason income and consumption differ near the poverty line. A great deal of evidence suggests that under-reporting of income is a likely source of differences, but this explanation merits further examination to fully determine its importance.
|
I would vote for Obama.
As a tourist in the US, iv really spotted the difference between a democrat and a republican governement. Every year or so, we, me and my family, go to the US on vacations, and even the airports security were way more "receptive".
|
On September 26 2012 01:30 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 21:31 radiatoren wrote:On September 25 2012 13:46 aksfjh wrote:On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/720px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png) Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Even if it is proven, I still think the proper course of action would be to either a) Don't combat climate change/warming. Instead, global investment in sustainability in resources and lifestyle. This allow cultures to survive through the adverse weather. b) Combat the symptoms. There are ways in which we can cool the Earth that requires little change in lifestyles for anybody. This can be direct cooling, or we can speed up the process of CO2 absorption into the earth. Those points are interesting for several reasons: a) The argument for what to do about climate is very heavily tied to sustainability. Reducing the use of oil and stone coal is a way to move from a limited resource in the inactive carbon cycle and moving it to the active carbon cycle, which is likely very unsustainable since the production of the inactive cycle carbon is tied to a million year long process. The use is and will be happening over hundred of years to thousands for the most optimistic projections! Having a 1000 times larger use of fossil fuels than production is the definition of unsustainability. Therefore a move away from oil and coal is truely a necessity regardless and increasing the alternatives to the use of those resources is fundamental in many ways (Hint: Oil will get more expensive as it gets harder to extract. Even from a longer term economic sense, alternatives to oil is a must to improve so we do not get too much of a shock from inefficient technologies when we inevitably have to make the switch!). And just to be clear: Fighting the weather is quite a stupid thing to do in almost all cases with our current knowledge of it. Any heads on fight against the weather is futile in so many ways. When we talk about fighting global climate change it is mostly in sense of reducing the future problems caused by increasing the sea- and airborne CO2, which plays exactly into the sustainability argument. b) Give me a cheap one of those and make me a billionaire. The truth is that the CO2-absorbsion into the inactive system are almost universally scientifically dubious. The best I have heard of is releasing iron into the deep ocean to stimulate a huge production of algae. When the algae dies it will hopefully sink to the bottom of the ocean and in time get absorbed into the seabed. The others concentrate on creating carbon in a very hard to degrade form and release it to fields as a "soil improvement product". It has shown a lot of promise in increasing the yields in the field and if a significant part of it gets to be absorbed into the passive carbon storage, it is very interesting in all ways. There is also the pumping of CO2 into a deep part of the soil and praying that it gets absorbed into the passive carbon storage, but that is mpstly guessing still. None of those technologies are even close to being viable as it stands. It might help a little, but it is still beyond speculative. Direct cooling is more or less a myth at the moment as far as I know. Painting mountains white is extremely inefficient to the point of being pointless and other solar radiation management is still completely unproven and could do far more harm than good. For a: The key is the approach. The goal should be to reduce the usage of coal and oil for long term stability in energy production and use. That provides everybody with a better standard of living, cheaper and more reliable energy. The secondary benefit should be the climate and health effects. Fighting weather is ridiculous in some situations. Some coastal regions and islands simply aren't salvageable for the predictions we have. However, things like widespread drought and heatwaves, we do have the tools to mitigate those dangers, and even save some coastal regions. For b: I'd venture that "cold fusion" is more dubious. But yea, our capabilities so far in the realm are underdeveloped. It would take a decade to roll out systems that would have a measurable effect, but the technological gains would be enormous in that case anyways. Those gains far surpass any technology to curb emissions. And the idea isn't to "paint mountains." There are some interesting napkin proposals out there that would work under our current understanding of climate models. One example off the top of my head is to pump cold sea water into the air with hundreds of solar powered ocean sailing rovers. I'm not signing off on the idea, but if the goal is to counteract the warming, the most direct and cheapest way to do so would be to "cool" it.
Pumping water into the athmosphere is actually in itself increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses. I reckon that the solar radiation management is a way to lower the effects on the short term, but it will also increase the amount of a certain greenhouse gas (water) in the athmosphere (which is part of why stopping the SRM has potential to be even more devastating than not doing anything. Proponents opinion piece on SRM (box 4 page 14-15)).
What is even more important is that solar radiation management is treatment of the symptoms and not even looking at the problem. It is not doing anything against the rise in CO2-levels. You need to combine it with a scrubbing system and those are even more speculative.
All in all, we are talking pre-research ideas and even though it may be necessary to use in the future, the withdrawal is a "Breeze In The Clear Heaven" and it is not a solution to the core problem to begin with.
|
On September 26 2012 03:09 BluePanther wrote:An interesting read, and something I've always believed. I know it's not a direct response to anyone, but the subject has been addressed several times: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall 2012/2012 fall meyer.pdfAn excerpt: Show nested quote +Despite repeated claims of a failed war on poverty, our results show that the combination of targeted economic policies and policies that support growth has had a significant impact on poverty. Better standard headcount measures of poverty show sharp improvement in recent decades. Going beyond traditional headcount poverty measures, deep poverty and poverty gaps show even greater improvement, implying that considerable progress has been made at reducing severe deprivation. here have been noticeable improvements in the last decade, though they arenot as big as the improvements in some prior decades, (but comparable or better than the progress in the 1980s). We may not have won the war on poverty, but we are certainly winning.
There are several explanations for these improvements in poverty. Income poverty has been sharply reduced through tax rate cuts and credits. The difference between changes in preand post-tax poverty are particularly noticeable in the 1960s, 1980s, and 1990s. On the spending side, increases in social security have played a big role in reducing poverty, but other transfers have played only a small role. The use of a biased price index in official poverty statistics leads to a sharply understated view of progress in reducing poverty. While we find that rising educational attainment accounts for some of the decline in poverty over the past five decades, in general, changing demographics account for only a small fraction of the overall improvement in well-being for the poor. Saving and dissaving by households is not the main reason income and consumption differ near the poverty line. A great deal of evidence suggests that under-reporting of income is a likely source of differences, but this explanation merits further examination to fully determine its importance.
As much a poverty sucks, people of the world have more access to education and technology and social welfare and healthcare than they ever did at any point in civilization.
|
On September 25 2012 22:27 Souma wrote:Romney is now dubbed the 'Stench,' courtesy of Paul Ryan.
Wow. Good for him. The author is right about Powerpoint though. LOL.
|
On September 26 2012 01:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 20:08 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: + Show Spoiler +Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Er... what? That graph proves my point. We were in a state of global warming when industrialization happened. But we've more than doubled the natural effect in a shorter amount of time than nature would have. And I just posted a climate change skeptic who explains how he was convinced that they are incredibly separate. Here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www![[image loading]](http://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.png) http://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.pngLook, I understand that the idea of manmade climate change is scary. I understand that people don't like the economic implications of it. But the economic implications of climate change if we do nothing to stop it could be catastrophic. It's incredibly myopic to think "yea, but do we actually want to do anything about it?" It's also a dangerous precedent you're setting for your opponent's claims. It sounds to me like there is no way to convince you, even when all the evidence is against you. Exactly what do climate scientists need to show you before you are spurred to action? Because there is a scientific consensus on this. The scientific community has been overwhelmingly convinced of how serious this is. But you, like so many others, have convinced themselves to be more skeptical than scientists and choose not to do anything about it. This is a seriously dangerous precedent. I asked a simple question: how do you separate man-made warming from natural warming? Why are you responding by trying to paint me as an someone that completely ignores science?
You separate them by following the scientific theory as best you can. We have historical data of what the Earth's typical climate cycles have looked like, both with and without human influence. You assume that humans started polluting the earth around the time of the dawn of agriculture, with it ramping up severely around the time of industrialization. Then you compare various climate parameters as they exist now to what we might expect if the Earth were to just continue it's normal cycles as if humans never existed. The difference is the man-made warming.
But I get the distinct feeling you already know all this, so I'm still not sure what you are looking for.
|
On September 26 2012 02:57 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 01:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 20:08 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: + Show Spoiler +Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Er... what? That graph proves my point. We were in a state of global warming when industrialization happened. But we've more than doubled the natural effect in a shorter amount of time than nature would have. And I just posted a climate change skeptic who explains how he was convinced that they are incredibly separate. Here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwhttp://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.pngLook, I understand that the idea of manmade climate change is scary. I understand that people don't like the economic implications of it. But the economic implications of climate change if we do nothing to stop it could be catastrophic. It's incredibly myopic to think "yea, but do we actually want to do anything about it?" It's also a dangerous precedent you're setting for your opponent's claims. It sounds to me like there is no way to convince you, even when all the evidence is against you. Exactly what do climate scientists need to show you before you are spurred to action? Because there is a scientific consensus on this. The scientific community has been overwhelmingly convinced of how serious this is. But you, like so many others, have convinced themselves to be more skeptical than scientists and choose not to do anything about it. This is a seriously dangerous precedent. I asked a simple question: how do you separate man-made warming from natural warming? Why are you responding by trying to paint me as an someone that completely ignores science? Evidently I misunderstand your question. You want a graph of natural global warming and a graph of manmade global warming or something? Because that would obviously be purely speculative, and we want to use data.I took your question more as biased skepticism. I still don't quite know what you want.
Isn't that the entire crux of the argument - is global warming man-made or natural?
My question was how is the conclusion that global warming is almost entirely man-made reached. The article you linked to linked to a Berkley study that seems to just assume that any increase in CO2 is man-made. But that's not accurate. Some will be man-made and some will be caused by nature. What is mankind's contribution? 90%? 50%? 10%? 99.9%?
It kinda matters, so I'm asking the question. And no, I'm not going to assume 100% without someone making the case.
|
On September 26 2012 04:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 02:57 DoubleReed wrote:On September 26 2012 01:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 20:08 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: + Show Spoiler +Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Er... what? That graph proves my point. We were in a state of global warming when industrialization happened. But we've more than doubled the natural effect in a shorter amount of time than nature would have. And I just posted a climate change skeptic who explains how he was convinced that they are incredibly separate. Here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwhttp://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.pngLook, I understand that the idea of manmade climate change is scary. I understand that people don't like the economic implications of it. But the economic implications of climate change if we do nothing to stop it could be catastrophic. It's incredibly myopic to think "yea, but do we actually want to do anything about it?" It's also a dangerous precedent you're setting for your opponent's claims. It sounds to me like there is no way to convince you, even when all the evidence is against you. Exactly what do climate scientists need to show you before you are spurred to action? Because there is a scientific consensus on this. The scientific community has been overwhelmingly convinced of how serious this is. But you, like so many others, have convinced themselves to be more skeptical than scientists and choose not to do anything about it. This is a seriously dangerous precedent. I asked a simple question: how do you separate man-made warming from natural warming? Why are you responding by trying to paint me as an someone that completely ignores science? Evidently I misunderstand your question. You want a graph of natural global warming and a graph of manmade global warming or something? Because that would obviously be purely speculative, and we want to use data.I took your question more as biased skepticism. I still don't quite know what you want. Isn't that the entire crux of the argument - is global warming man-made or natural? My question was how is the conclusion that global warming is almost entirely man-made reached. The article you linked to linked to a Berkley study that seems to just assume that any increase in CO2 is man-made. But that's not accurate. Some will be man-made and some will be caused by nature. What is mankind's contribution? 90%? 50%? 10%? 99.9%? It kinda matters, so I'm asking the question. And no, I'm not going to assume 100% without someone making the case.
Oh, so you are denying science and I responded properly the first time. Phew! I thought I had needlessly talked down to somebody there...
Again, I ask what evidence would you like to see. Because it sounds to me like you're asking for impossible evidence deliberately so that you can be "skeptical" about it. So first tell me what could possibly convince you, hypothetically.
Edit: Conservative estimates probably put manmade global warming as like 75%+, probably more like 85-90
|
On September 26 2012 04:29 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 04:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 26 2012 02:57 DoubleReed wrote:On September 26 2012 01:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 20:08 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: + Show Spoiler +Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Er... what? That graph proves my point. We were in a state of global warming when industrialization happened. But we've more than doubled the natural effect in a shorter amount of time than nature would have. And I just posted a climate change skeptic who explains how he was convinced that they are incredibly separate. Here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwhttp://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.pngLook, I understand that the idea of manmade climate change is scary. I understand that people don't like the economic implications of it. But the economic implications of climate change if we do nothing to stop it could be catastrophic. It's incredibly myopic to think "yea, but do we actually want to do anything about it?" It's also a dangerous precedent you're setting for your opponent's claims. It sounds to me like there is no way to convince you, even when all the evidence is against you. Exactly what do climate scientists need to show you before you are spurred to action? Because there is a scientific consensus on this. The scientific community has been overwhelmingly convinced of how serious this is. But you, like so many others, have convinced themselves to be more skeptical than scientists and choose not to do anything about it. This is a seriously dangerous precedent. I asked a simple question: how do you separate man-made warming from natural warming? Why are you responding by trying to paint me as an someone that completely ignores science? Evidently I misunderstand your question. You want a graph of natural global warming and a graph of manmade global warming or something? Because that would obviously be purely speculative, and we want to use data.I took your question more as biased skepticism. I still don't quite know what you want. Isn't that the entire crux of the argument - is global warming man-made or natural? My question was how is the conclusion that global warming is almost entirely man-made reached. The article you linked to linked to a Berkley study that seems to just assume that any increase in CO2 is man-made. But that's not accurate. Some will be man-made and some will be caused by nature. What is mankind's contribution? 90%? 50%? 10%? 99.9%? It kinda matters, so I'm asking the question. And no, I'm not going to assume 100% without someone making the case. Oh, so you are denying science and I responded properly the first time. Phew! I thought I had needlessly talked down to somebody there... Again, I ask what evidence would you like to see. Because it sounds to me like you're asking for impossible evidence deliberately so that you can be "skeptical" about it. So first tell me what could possibly convince you, hypothetically.
Really, are you this stupid? Do you not understand English? I'm not "denying" that global warming exists or that humans are contributing to it. I'm asking if humanity's impact can be quantified.
|
On September 26 2012 04:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 04:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 26 2012 04:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 26 2012 02:57 DoubleReed wrote:On September 26 2012 01:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 20:08 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: + Show Spoiler +Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Er... what? That graph proves my point. We were in a state of global warming when industrialization happened. But we've more than doubled the natural effect in a shorter amount of time than nature would have. And I just posted a climate change skeptic who explains how he was convinced that they are incredibly separate. Here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwhttp://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.pngLook, I understand that the idea of manmade climate change is scary. I understand that people don't like the economic implications of it. But the economic implications of climate change if we do nothing to stop it could be catastrophic. It's incredibly myopic to think "yea, but do we actually want to do anything about it?" It's also a dangerous precedent you're setting for your opponent's claims. It sounds to me like there is no way to convince you, even when all the evidence is against you. Exactly what do climate scientists need to show you before you are spurred to action? Because there is a scientific consensus on this. The scientific community has been overwhelmingly convinced of how serious this is. But you, like so many others, have convinced themselves to be more skeptical than scientists and choose not to do anything about it. This is a seriously dangerous precedent. I asked a simple question: how do you separate man-made warming from natural warming? Why are you responding by trying to paint me as an someone that completely ignores science? Evidently I misunderstand your question. You want a graph of natural global warming and a graph of manmade global warming or something? Because that would obviously be purely speculative, and we want to use data.I took your question more as biased skepticism. I still don't quite know what you want. Isn't that the entire crux of the argument - is global warming man-made or natural? My question was how is the conclusion that global warming is almost entirely man-made reached. The article you linked to linked to a Berkley study that seems to just assume that any increase in CO2 is man-made. But that's not accurate. Some will be man-made and some will be caused by nature. What is mankind's contribution? 90%? 50%? 10%? 99.9%? It kinda matters, so I'm asking the question. And no, I'm not going to assume 100% without someone making the case. Oh, so you are denying science and I responded properly the first time. Phew! I thought I had needlessly talked down to somebody there... Again, I ask what evidence would you like to see. Because it sounds to me like you're asking for impossible evidence deliberately so that you can be "skeptical" about it. So first tell me what could possibly convince you, hypothetically. Really, are you this stupid? Do you not understand English? I'm not "denying" that global warming exists or that humans are contributing to it. I'm asking if humanity's impact can be quantified.
Now now, let's not get nasty with each other (I'm aware he started it). So I think I understand your position now. You are willing to believe it exists, and that humans are contributing to it, but without factual evidence that we are the driving factor behind it, you don't want to enact countermeasures?
My immediate answer is that it is impossible to accurately quantify humanity's impact on global warming. We can make all the educated guesses we want based on historical climate conditions, but it will still be an educated guess. But the science would indicate that for whatever reason, we are experiencing climate change that could ultimately have adverse, even catastrophic, effects on the Earth's population. The science also indicates that there are things humans do which contributes to this warming effect. While it may be impossible to determine how much of it is a result of human activity, don't we sort of have an obligation to slow, halt, or reverse where we can, the progress of global warming, even if it isn't our fault? Unless Curiosity finds a Mass Effect relay on Mars, this is the only planet we have for the foreseeable future, and it's already kind of crowded without the masses living near the water having to seek higher ground (obvious worst case scenario).
At what point is the data conclusive enough to warrant "aggressive" measures to counteract global warming? When the water rises 1 foot? 2 feet? When we start losing significant land mass? It's a bad argument to say that it will be too late to do anything about it, so we have to act before there is conclusive evidence, but the fact that it's a bad argument won't be any consolation when it's actually true. Can we afford to take that risk?
|
|
|
On September 26 2012 04:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 04:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 26 2012 04:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 26 2012 02:57 DoubleReed wrote:On September 26 2012 01:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 20:08 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: + Show Spoiler +Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Er... what? That graph proves my point. We were in a state of global warming when industrialization happened. But we've more than doubled the natural effect in a shorter amount of time than nature would have. And I just posted a climate change skeptic who explains how he was convinced that they are incredibly separate. Here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwhttp://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.pngLook, I understand that the idea of manmade climate change is scary. I understand that people don't like the economic implications of it. But the economic implications of climate change if we do nothing to stop it could be catastrophic. It's incredibly myopic to think "yea, but do we actually want to do anything about it?" It's also a dangerous precedent you're setting for your opponent's claims. It sounds to me like there is no way to convince you, even when all the evidence is against you. Exactly what do climate scientists need to show you before you are spurred to action? Because there is a scientific consensus on this. The scientific community has been overwhelmingly convinced of how serious this is. But you, like so many others, have convinced themselves to be more skeptical than scientists and choose not to do anything about it. This is a seriously dangerous precedent. I asked a simple question: how do you separate man-made warming from natural warming? Why are you responding by trying to paint me as an someone that completely ignores science? Evidently I misunderstand your question. You want a graph of natural global warming and a graph of manmade global warming or something? Because that would obviously be purely speculative, and we want to use data.I took your question more as biased skepticism. I still don't quite know what you want. Isn't that the entire crux of the argument - is global warming man-made or natural? My question was how is the conclusion that global warming is almost entirely man-made reached. The article you linked to linked to a Berkley study that seems to just assume that any increase in CO2 is man-made. But that's not accurate. Some will be man-made and some will be caused by nature. What is mankind's contribution? 90%? 50%? 10%? 99.9%? It kinda matters, so I'm asking the question. And no, I'm not going to assume 100% without someone making the case. Oh, so you are denying science and I responded properly the first time. Phew! I thought I had needlessly talked down to somebody there... Again, I ask what evidence would you like to see. Because it sounds to me like you're asking for impossible evidence deliberately so that you can be "skeptical" about it. So first tell me what could possibly convince you, hypothetically. Really, are you this stupid? Do you not understand English? I'm not "denying" that global warming exists or that humans are contributing to it. I'm asking if humanity's impact can be quantified.
Oh you just want some numbers? Well off a quick google search I found this article which seems pretty good. Talks about how much is from different natural effects.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=three-quarters-of-climate
|
It seems that both skeptics and nonskeptics say that CO2 = manmade. Judging by your graph (which is measured in hundreds of thousands of years) natural CO2 must just be completely negligible for our timeframe. That's what I'm seeing.
|
|
|
On September 26 2012 04:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 04:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 26 2012 04:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 26 2012 02:57 DoubleReed wrote:On September 26 2012 01:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 20:08 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: + Show Spoiler +Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Er... what? That graph proves my point. We were in a state of global warming when industrialization happened. But we've more than doubled the natural effect in a shorter amount of time than nature would have. And I just posted a climate change skeptic who explains how he was convinced that they are incredibly separate. Here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwhttp://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.pngLook, I understand that the idea of manmade climate change is scary. I understand that people don't like the economic implications of it. But the economic implications of climate change if we do nothing to stop it could be catastrophic. It's incredibly myopic to think "yea, but do we actually want to do anything about it?" It's also a dangerous precedent you're setting for your opponent's claims. It sounds to me like there is no way to convince you, even when all the evidence is against you. Exactly what do climate scientists need to show you before you are spurred to action? Because there is a scientific consensus on this. The scientific community has been overwhelmingly convinced of how serious this is. But you, like so many others, have convinced themselves to be more skeptical than scientists and choose not to do anything about it. This is a seriously dangerous precedent. I asked a simple question: how do you separate man-made warming from natural warming? Why are you responding by trying to paint me as an someone that completely ignores science? Evidently I misunderstand your question. You want a graph of natural global warming and a graph of manmade global warming or something? Because that would obviously be purely speculative, and we want to use data.I took your question more as biased skepticism. I still don't quite know what you want. Isn't that the entire crux of the argument - is global warming man-made or natural? My question was how is the conclusion that global warming is almost entirely man-made reached. The article you linked to linked to a Berkley study that seems to just assume that any increase in CO2 is man-made. But that's not accurate. Some will be man-made and some will be caused by nature. What is mankind's contribution? 90%? 50%? 10%? 99.9%? It kinda matters, so I'm asking the question. And no, I'm not going to assume 100% without someone making the case. Oh, so you are denying science and I responded properly the first time. Phew! I thought I had needlessly talked down to somebody there... Again, I ask what evidence would you like to see. Because it sounds to me like you're asking for impossible evidence deliberately so that you can be "skeptical" about it. So first tell me what could possibly convince you, hypothetically. Really, are you this stupid? Do you not understand English? I'm not "denying" that global warming exists or that humans are contributing to it. I'm asking if humanity's impact can be quantified.
I'll answer your question in a proper way:
There is one indisputable fact - the climate is changing. The variation in climate makes it extremely unlikely to be just random changes. But I think even the deniers don't often insist on this point.
From there, we go to modeling the patterns of climate and looking for causes. The closest correlation to climate variation is manmade CO2 emissions. When they're graphed together, it looks very close.
Now, does that mean CO2 emissions are for sure causing climate change? Not necessarily. I mean, every year for the Super Bowl, the media rolls out all kinds of crazy coincidences or things that act like they can predict the winner. Correlation is not causation. BUT, there's no denying that CO2 is the best model we've got and the explanation makes sense.
That doesn't mean you should stop asking questions about it or stop worrying about the policy implications, btw. We are at the point where implementing environmental regulations would require a large human cost, mostly paid by citizens in developing countries. It also becomes a big tax issue in the US, a new weapon for the government to bludgeon businesses they don't like. Which sounds great when the US is beating up BP over the oil spill, not so great when the Obama campaign threatens to use it on Koch Industries because they're donating a little too much to Republicans.
|
On September 26 2012 04:40 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 04:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 26 2012 04:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 26 2012 04:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 26 2012 02:57 DoubleReed wrote:On September 26 2012 01:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 20:08 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: + Show Spoiler +Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Er... what? That graph proves my point. We were in a state of global warming when industrialization happened. But we've more than doubled the natural effect in a shorter amount of time than nature would have. And I just posted a climate change skeptic who explains how he was convinced that they are incredibly separate. Here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwhttp://berkeleyearth.org/images/annual-comparison-small.pngLook, I understand that the idea of manmade climate change is scary. I understand that people don't like the economic implications of it. But the economic implications of climate change if we do nothing to stop it could be catastrophic. It's incredibly myopic to think "yea, but do we actually want to do anything about it?" It's also a dangerous precedent you're setting for your opponent's claims. It sounds to me like there is no way to convince you, even when all the evidence is against you. Exactly what do climate scientists need to show you before you are spurred to action? Because there is a scientific consensus on this. The scientific community has been overwhelmingly convinced of how serious this is. But you, like so many others, have convinced themselves to be more skeptical than scientists and choose not to do anything about it. This is a seriously dangerous precedent. I asked a simple question: how do you separate man-made warming from natural warming? Why are you responding by trying to paint me as an someone that completely ignores science? Evidently I misunderstand your question. You want a graph of natural global warming and a graph of manmade global warming or something? Because that would obviously be purely speculative, and we want to use data.I took your question more as biased skepticism. I still don't quite know what you want. Isn't that the entire crux of the argument - is global warming man-made or natural? My question was how is the conclusion that global warming is almost entirely man-made reached. The article you linked to linked to a Berkley study that seems to just assume that any increase in CO2 is man-made. But that's not accurate. Some will be man-made and some will be caused by nature. What is mankind's contribution? 90%? 50%? 10%? 99.9%? It kinda matters, so I'm asking the question. And no, I'm not going to assume 100% without someone making the case. Oh, so you are denying science and I responded properly the first time. Phew! I thought I had needlessly talked down to somebody there... Again, I ask what evidence would you like to see. Because it sounds to me like you're asking for impossible evidence deliberately so that you can be "skeptical" about it. So first tell me what could possibly convince you, hypothetically. Really, are you this stupid? Do you not understand English? I'm not "denying" that global warming exists or that humans are contributing to it. I'm asking if humanity's impact can be quantified. Now now, let's not get nasty with each other (I'm aware he started it). So I think I understand your position now. You are willing to believe it exists, and that humans are contributing to it, but without factual evidence that we are the driving factor behind it, you don't want to enact countermeasures? My immediate answer is that it is impossible to accurately quantify humanity's impact on global warming. We can make all the educated guesses we want based on historical climate conditions, but it will still be an educated guess. But the science would indicate that for whatever reason, we are experiencing climate change that could ultimately have adverse, even catastrophic, effects on the Earth's population. The science also indicates that there are things humans do which contributes to this warming effect. While it may be impossible to determine how much of it is a result of human activity, don't we sort of have an obligation to slow, halt, or reverse where we can, the progress of global warming, even if it isn't our fault? Unless Curiosity finds a Mass Effect relay on Mars, this is the only planet we have for the foreseeable future, and it's already kind of crowded without the masses living near the water having to seek higher ground (obvious worst case scenario). At what point is the data conclusive enough to warrant "aggressive" measures to counteract global warming? When the water rises 1 foot? 2 feet? When we start losing significant land mass? It's a bad argument to say that it will be too late to do anything about it, so we have to act before there is conclusive evidence, but the fact that it's a bad argument won't be any consolation when it's actually true. Can we afford to take that risk?
I don't think we should do nothing. I'm for a carbon tax so long as it isn't too onerous and is structured well.
My worry is that if we want to get aggressive on global warming we will turn a blind eye to the costs. There's a real risk of making the price energy a real problem for most people. There's also a risk of carbon arbitrage - countries that don't tax carbon will have dirty industries move there. Jobs will be lost domestically and the planet won't be better off for it.
There's also a risk that aggressively fighting global warming will create a lot of unintended consequences at an environmental level. Some ideas for fighting global warming include dumping iron into the ocean - that seems dangerous to me.
I think we also need to keep in mind that the environment in a lot of rich-world nations is improving. CO2 emissions in the US are falling as we switch from coal to nat gas (source). Solar technology is improving rapidly too. So I don't see a need to panic.
|
Have you ever wondered why the Romney campaign is freaking out about polling data, and insisting it is biased, skewed or flat-out wrong?
It's simple really. Donors don't bet tens of millions of dollars on losing horses.
If conservative donors lose faith in Romney's ability to win the presidency, they will focus their money on shoring up their majority in congress.
If things don’t start looking better for Mitt Romney soon, they’re going to get a lot worse for him, and very quickly.
To understand the Romney campaign’s nightmare scenario, you need to understand the Romney campaign’s much-vaunted finances. It’s become conventional wisdom that the Romney campaign has more money than the Obama campaign. But that’s not quite right.
If you just compare the Romney and Obama campaigns, Obama’s actually got a cash advantage. Up until August, the most recent month for which fundraising numbers are available, Obama raised $337 million to Romney’s $194 million. He’s also got about $88 million on-hand, as compared to Romney’s $50 million. That’s in part because Romney wasn’t the clear nominee until a few months ago, leaving Republicans who wanted Obama out of office unsure where to put their money. Many of them sent that money to the Republican Party itself.
For that reason, the picture looks better for Romney when you add in the money raised by the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee. The RNC has raised $189 million to the DNC’s $111 million, though the joint Obama/DNC “Victory Fund” has raised $291 million to the Romney/RNC’s $207 million, and, for technical reasons related to the number of small donors, more of that money is available to the Obama campaign than to the Romney campaign.
Romney’s financial advantage only comes clear when you add in the Republican-affiliated super PACs. The major pro-Romney super PACs — American Crossroads and Restore Our Future — have raised more than $150 million, and are able to raise more seemingly at will. The major pro-Obama super PAC — Priorities USA — has only raised $34 million.
But here’s the catch: Romney only controls the money raised by his campaign. The money raised by the RNC is controlled by the RNC. The money raised by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads super PAC is controlled by Rove and his partners. And while these groups want Romney to be president, they are not solely devoted to the task of electing Romney as president. If they are devoted to anything, it’s to blocking Obama.
Which leads to Romney’s nightmare scenario: If things don’t turn around for Romney soon, those super PACs may give up on the task of electing Romney as president and turn to the task of encircling Obama’s second term with a Republican House and a Republican Senate.
[...]
After all, Romney’s deficit in the polls is not a momentary blip. He hasn’t led in the polls since 2011. And as Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien point out in ‘The Timeline of Presidential Elections,’ in the last 15 elections, which are all the elections we have accurate polling for, every candidate who has led in the polls at this point in the cycle has gone on to win in November. It would be literally unprecedented for Romney to mount a comeback at this stage.
Which isn’t to say it can’t happen. But time is running short. Romney’s probably got at least until the first debate to show he can make up some ground. But if he’s not able to make some big gains soon, his last remaining advantage could collapse.
The RNC and the super PACs know that their money is becoming less and less useful in the presidential race. At this point, voters know Obama very well, and they know Romney well enough. Swing state voters have seen enough ads to last them a lifetime. Sinking a few more dollars into the presidential campaign just isn’t going to do much. The same can’t be said for House and Senate races, where voters have less information about the candidates and are more susceptible to advertising.
At some point, if Romney looks likely to lose, the RNC and the super PACs are going to move to a strategy of damage control, flooding House and Senate races with cash in order to assure that most anything Obama attempts to do in a second term will have to make it through a Republican Congress. Making matters worse, interest groups that were betting on a Romney victory might switch sides in a last-minute attempt to curry some favor with the Obama administration, further starving Romney of the funds necessary to mount a comeback.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/romneys-nightmare-scenario/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein
Right now Romney is on life-support, and just trying to tread water until the first debate. The stakes for him are much higher. If he has a bad first performance, most of his donors and supporters are likely to shift focus.
|
On September 26 2012 07:51 Defacer wrote:Have you ever wondered why the Romney campaign is freaking out about polling data, and insisting it is biased, skewed or flat-out wrong? It's simple really. Donors don't bet tens of millions of dollars on losing horses. If conservative donors lose faith in Romney's ability to win the presidency, they will focus their money on shoring up their majority in congress. Show nested quote +
If things don’t start looking better for Mitt Romney soon, they’re going to get a lot worse for him, and very quickly.
To understand the Romney campaign’s nightmare scenario, you need to understand the Romney campaign’s much-vaunted finances. It’s become conventional wisdom that the Romney campaign has more money than the Obama campaign. But that’s not quite right.
If you just compare the Romney and Obama campaigns, Obama’s actually got a cash advantage. Up until August, the most recent month for which fundraising numbers are available, Obama raised $337 million to Romney’s $194 million. He’s also got about $88 million on-hand, as compared to Romney’s $50 million. That’s in part because Romney wasn’t the clear nominee until a few months ago, leaving Republicans who wanted Obama out of office unsure where to put their money. Many of them sent that money to the Republican Party itself.
For that reason, the picture looks better for Romney when you add in the money raised by the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee. The RNC has raised $189 million to the DNC’s $111 million, though the joint Obama/DNC “Victory Fund” has raised $291 million to the Romney/RNC’s $207 million, and, for technical reasons related to the number of small donors, more of that money is available to the Obama campaign than to the Romney campaign.
Romney’s financial advantage only comes clear when you add in the Republican-affiliated super PACs. The major pro-Romney super PACs — American Crossroads and Restore Our Future — have raised more than $150 million, and are able to raise more seemingly at will. The major pro-Obama super PAC — Priorities USA — has only raised $34 million.
But here’s the catch: Romney only controls the money raised by his campaign. The money raised by the RNC is controlled by the RNC. The money raised by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads super PAC is controlled by Rove and his partners. And while these groups want Romney to be president, they are not solely devoted to the task of electing Romney as president. If they are devoted to anything, it’s to blocking Obama.
Which leads to Romney’s nightmare scenario: If things don’t turn around for Romney soon, those super PACs may give up on the task of electing Romney as president and turn to the task of encircling Obama’s second term with a Republican House and a Republican Senate.
[...]
After all, Romney’s deficit in the polls is not a momentary blip. He hasn’t led in the polls since 2011. And as Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien point out in ‘The Timeline of Presidential Elections,’ in the last 15 elections, which are all the elections we have accurate polling for, every candidate who has led in the polls at this point in the cycle has gone on to win in November. It would be literally unprecedented for Romney to mount a comeback at this stage.
Which isn’t to say it can’t happen. But time is running short. Romney’s probably got at least until the first debate to show he can make up some ground. But if he’s not able to make some big gains soon, his last remaining advantage could collapse.
The RNC and the super PACs know that their money is becoming less and less useful in the presidential race. At this point, voters know Obama very well, and they know Romney well enough. Swing state voters have seen enough ads to last them a lifetime. Sinking a few more dollars into the presidential campaign just isn’t going to do much. The same can’t be said for House and Senate races, where voters have less information about the candidates and are more susceptible to advertising.
At some point, if Romney looks likely to lose, the RNC and the super PACs are going to move to a strategy of damage control, flooding House and Senate races with cash in order to assure that most anything Obama attempts to do in a second term will have to make it through a Republican Congress. Making matters worse, interest groups that were betting on a Romney victory might switch sides in a last-minute attempt to curry some favor with the Obama administration, further starving Romney of the funds necessary to mount a comeback.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/romneys-nightmare-scenario/?wprss=rss_ezra-kleinRight now Romney is on life-support, and just trying to tread water until the first debate. The stakes for him are much higher. If he has a bad first performance, most of his donors and supporters are likely to shift focus.
A lot of big donors just give money to whoever they think will win. That way they can say "hey buddy, 'member that time I gave ya all that cash?" whenever they need a favor.
|
On September 26 2012 07:51 Defacer wrote:
Have you ever wondered why the Romney campaign is freaking out about polling data, and insisting it is biased, skewed or flat-out wrong?
It's simple really. Donors don't bet tens of millions of dollars on losing horses.
If conservative donors lose faith in Romney's ability to win the presidency, they will focus their money on shoring up their majority in congress.
They could be insisting it is biased, skewed, or flat-out wrong...
Or it could actually be biased, skewed, or flat-out wrong.
Your argument would support either case.
Either way, the only poll that matters is the one on November 6th.
|
On September 26 2012 07:58 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2012 07:51 Defacer wrote:
Have you ever wondered why the Romney campaign is freaking out about polling data, and insisting it is biased, skewed or flat-out wrong?
It's simple really. Donors don't bet tens of millions of dollars on losing horses.
If conservative donors lose faith in Romney's ability to win the presidency, they will focus their money on shoring up their majority in congress.
They could be insisting it is biased, skewed, or flat-out wrong... Or it could actually be biased, skewed, or flat-out wrong. Your argument would support either case. Either way, the only poll that matters is the one on November 6th.
Actually either way, there is no confidence among conservative high-rollers that Romney will or can win. Romney can't afford to have a bad debate. And the first debate could be Obama's opportunity to put Romney away early, and turn a respectable lead into a blow-out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/finanical-crises-employment-baseline.jpeg)
