I actually used the strange sentence "Take global warming." earlier here today ... I win on timestamp.

More generally, though, I think conservatives were skeptical of the motives of the environmental movement and this particular aspect of it and always viewed it as a backdoor attack on business and progress. That, combined with a general conservative faith in free markets to solve problems and lack of same in government, explains the general dearth of useful discussion of the issue on right-of-center blogs.

C-, since you fail to engage on the science-skepticism spinning off Creationism, and the general echoes of anti-intellectualism in the right's general anti-science stance.

C-, since you fail to engage on the science-skepticism spinning off Creationism, and the general echoes of anti-intellectualism in the right's general anti-science stance.

While that may be true in parts of the base, it's not a serious concern with conservative intellectuals.

I suspect part of the reason you don't see much among conservative intellectuals on global warming is they are probably much like you-not really interested in it at a wonkish level.

As for the wage issue-I think education is an answer, but the focus on a college education isn't. Not everyone is cut out for college, and spending 30,000 dollars on a college degree that nets $10 an hour isn't a good return. I would like to see education focus more on training those who aren't interested in college or those who may not be suitable for college in areas of demand that do have a good return-there are a lot of trades that have a higher pay scale than many fields that require college degrees.

It isn't necessarily going to fix wage disparities, but it would at least result in people with marketable skills that don't have massive debt to repay.

But then I don't think minimum wage increases result in fixing the issue either and that seems to be the answer congress has for the problem.

Well, if you are excluding people like George Will from your "conservative intellectuals" grouping ... I might be for it ... but I'm not sure he, nor the average conservative on the Clapham Omnibus, would agree.

What are the smart folks on the center-right who actually focus on these issues (one presumes there are in fact people who fit that description)offering up as solutions?

They all are working on the Obama economic team.

On the subject of conservatives and global warming, there is a grassroots orgainzation that is taking on the subject of climate change. It's called Republicans for Environmental Protection and can be found at http://www.repamerica.org. The slogan for the group is "Conservation is Conservative." They have an executive summary about climate change (as well as the full report) at their website. You can see the summary here.

I did a blog interview with Jim DiPeso who is the policy director for REP. You can see my inteview here: http://neomugwump.blogspot.com/2008/11/green-conservative-interview-with-jim.html.

There are conservatives that are interested in climate change, it's just that they aren't as well known.

Dennis Sanders

James,

I think that in asking the hard questions that America's Right needs to confront you are doing a better service than most. I am reminded of the work that the Left undertook circa 1994. Kudos.

One of the things about wage inequality that seems to get ignored is illegal immigration. To the extent that their immigration status is not factored in we might be making more out of this then really needs to be. A guy coming here to make $10/hour vs. $1.5/hour is clearly better off. As such fretting over the fact that this is dragging down wages strikes me as a bit much. If everyone is better off where is the problem?

Of course, if once we account for this and there is still a gap again, consumption really is the better measure of one's welfare, so it shouldn't be ignored. For example, health care benefits...are they included in these analyses? They should be. They after all raise one's standard of living and it is somethign Kevin wants everyone to have. So why not count them?

So this idea that conservatives (I'm not one by the way) aren't in the debate is stupid (typical of Kevin). The problem is he is defining the area of the debate and anyone outside of it is de facto anti-intellectual.

Rather dishonest of him, IMO.

A couple of points:

More generally, though, I think conservatives were skeptical of the motives of the environmental movement and this particular aspect of it and always viewed it as a backdoor attack on business and progress.

This is, a rather myopic, and self serving, point of view. First off, there are all kinds of ways to make "progress" (in the truest sense of the word), and very few of them involve "continuing to do things as we always have" (the image that comes to mind just now is urban sprawl). That is to say, "I make money this way, because I have always made money this way." That could be little more than treading water. 2nd, why not a business opportunity?

That, combined with a general conservative faith in free markets to solve problems and lack of same in government, explains the general dearth of useful discussion of the issue on right-of-center blogs.

The problem is that not all problems lend themselves to free market solutions. What is the free market solution to Global Warming (more accurately Global Climate Change)? Cheaper air conditioning? Drought resistant crops? Floating islands? All of which are narrow solutions to specific aspects of the problem, none of which can possibly deal with the overwhelming calamity that could arise. I saw one climate model that said the rainfall in the Ozarks will double in the next 30 years. What would that do to our lumber industry? Our oak/hickory forests are adapted to 40-45 inches per year.

So James, is it possible that conservatives have become so wedded to a narrowly idealogical world view that they have nothing/very little to add to this discussion?

I hate the idea of that.

So, Kevin Drum gets to define the problem, define the terms of the debate in a manner most suiting to him, strawman his opponents and question their motives for good measure, and you are surprised that there just isn't anyone for him to carry on an intelligent conversation with.

Stunning. Truly he and his progressive friends should rule the world. And if it isn't fixed in six months they should be tarred and feathered. Fair enough?

I'm late to the wage inequality half of this post, but wouldn't the modern fight revolve around globalization and free trade?

It seems obvious that if we open our borders to all goods we are sentencing our workers to a global wage. That dings low-tech workers first, and high-tech later, as the developing world ramps up.

Those of us who believe in wealth creation will believe that ultimately it will raise all boats, and that the world wage will be a high one ... but there will certainly be dislocations along the way, be they auto jobs moved to Canada or IT jobs moved to India.

The liberal criticism that 5 WalMart jobs might not make up for 3 "old style" jobs might have some merit.

Personally, I'm in favor of globalization and ultimately a world wage ... but I think the pace could have been slower and more humane, for US workers.

Man # 1: I'm going to throw an apple at you.

Man # 2: Do you have an apple?

Man # 1: Guess.

I think the three "ways of thinking" are missing the most common amoung true conservatives. Prove that there is a connection between global warming and manmade carbon output. But, first, prove that there is something called "global warming" that isn't just an ongoing cyclical change in the planetary scheme. This isn't a "faith based initiative." This is science.

Oh! And let's not forget that while globalization lowered some boats, it was always argued that the total win could be measured in GDP.

GDP which was increasingly generated by what we now know to be a bloated and over-leveraged financial sector.

It might be interesting to see how GDP washes out with a financial sector falling back to it's traditional size.

As such fretting over the fact that this is dragging down wages strikes me as a bit much. If everyone is better off where is the problem?

Because, quite obviously, not every one is better off.

The problem with illegal immigration is it's illegal. As you well know Steve, there are a whole bunch of labor laws in this country (most of which you probably disagree with) none of which need be followed when one's employees are illegal.

Lets take a simple one: Workmens Comp. Most employers have to carry workmans comp... but not if they hire illegal aliens. I mean, what's an illegal going to do if he loses a hand on the job... SUE you?

I think the three "ways of thinking" are missing the most common amoung true conservatives. Prove that there is a connection between global warming and manmade carbon output. But, first, prove that there is something called "global warming" that isn't just an ongoing cyclical change in the planetary scheme. This isn't a "faith based initiative." This is science.

To me the real cognitive dissonance is that "those" conservatives must reject the US National Academies of Science.

I mean, where do they go instead? In that link above George Will just rambles through a sloppy sophism.

Note, and I mean really note: You can't complain about illegal immigration dragging down wages while also being for free trade over the border with NAFTA.

Maybe it's more obvious to me, 150 miles from the border, but if someone works there and sends a product here, or works here and sells me the same product, what's the diff?

(I'm pro-NAFTA and pro-guest-worker, so I have a non-hypocritical position.)

I'm late to the wage inequality half of this post, but wouldn't the modern fight revolve around globalization and free trade?

Yes lets limit trade. In fact, lets institute similar measures domestically. Each state in the union can charge tariffs!

It seems obvious that if we open our borders to all goods we are sentencing our workers to a global wage. That dings low-tech workers first, and high-tech later, as the developing world ramps up.

Possibly. Transactions costs and all that you know. That is if free movement between countries suddenly materialized I'm not going to back my bags for Switzerland. Moving between countries is a huge step just in terms of language let alone issues like finding a job, and so forth.

Yes there will be change, but the idea that we can keep wages artificially above market clearing wages by political fiat simply isn't going to work all that well in the long run. Protectionism tends to favor the industry getting the benefit, it isn't clear the benefits flow to the workers since it is a rent as opposed to a gain in say productivity, and it raises prices for consumers. But WTF, worked for Hoover.

Those of us who believe in wealth creation will believe that ultimately it will raise all boats, and that the world wage will be a high one ... but there will certainly be dislocations along the way, be they auto jobs moved to Canada or IT jobs moved to India.

This is basically a truism and I think you'll find technology is by far the worse offender than out sourcing. But if you can get Lou Dobbs the STFU and STFD I'd be most appreciative.

The liberal criticism that 5 WalMart jobs might not make up for 3 "old style" jobs might have some merit.

So through political fiat we'll just rule out the 5 WalMart jobs and hold our breath that we get the 3 "old style" jobs, and the other two workers who are now unemployed, why they can FOAD, right?

Personally, I'm in favor of globalization and ultimately a world wage ... but I think the pace could have been slower and more humane, for US workers.

Yes because they are the most important.

Yes there is global warming just like there is global cooling. It's called fluctuation.

Presumably, though, there are conservatives who take the issue seriously. Presumably, too, their solutions involve market-based incentives. What are they? Who’s talking about these issues? Why am I not seeing it on the center-right blogs?

A good place to go for market-based energy policy approaches is Lynne Kiesling.

Conservatives are skeptical about science being pushed into the political arena by those who want to use that science to advance their agendas. In the beginning the basic problem with accepting global warming was the recent turnaround from the global cooling scare from the 70's. The overtly convenient "discovery" seemed manufactured or contrived to change economic policy more than advance science. A reasonable intellectual response would be to say it has yet to be proven or in less words, it's not happening.

The next response as more (but insufficient) evidence mounted was the commonsense question of asking if it was truly man made. It is incumbent on the proponents of the theory to prove their position and until that time it is again reasonable to say it's not man's doing.

The last of Drum's straw man points is the logical progression of dealing with any problem. Faced with the ultimatum of something must be done now it would make sense to then do a cost-benefit analysis. The results showed inaction could be the best response.

Drum's complaint is baseless. Every step of this debate has been met with intellectual debate but since it conflicts with the left's position it is somehow lacking? The conservatives responded in a logical and reasonable manner to this hoax. From the debunking of the Mann "hockey stick" to the failed NASA numbers to the current trend of lowering temps we are seeing it is the left who is lacking the intellectual chops in it's rush to change the world economy.

This whole idea of conservatives being less intellectual is looking more like another urban myth being pushed by the left and not being countered by the right. If conservatives have one weakness it's that we fight our political battles as gentlemen.

Yes lets limit trade. In fact, lets institute similar measures domestically. Each state in the union can charge tariffs!

You jumped the gun on that one.

Yes lets limit trade. In fact, lets institute similar measures domestically. Each state in the union can charge tariffs!

This is where I see the conservatives without a good talking point. Either they take the Lou Dobbs route, or they wave hands (or weak statistics) and say there is no wage-inequality issue.

Seriously, what if a rapid deconstruction of trade barriers has lowered household income and standard of living for the bottom half?

If that is factually true, what is the conservative response?

Should we go all protectionist like Dobbs? Chew the furniture like Verdon? Is there another course?

Yes there is global warming just like there is global cooling. It's called fluctuation.

And you are a better source than the National Academies because ... ?

Conservatives are skeptical about science being pushed into the political arena by those who want to use that science to advance their agendas. In the beginning the basic problem with accepting global warming was the recent turnaround from the global cooling scare from the 70's. The overtly convenient "discovery" seemed manufactured or contrived to change economic policy more than advance science. A reasonable intellectual response would be to say it has yet to be proven or in less words, it's not happening.

Somehow this "turnaround" held sway without being factually true. The scientific community never did in fact warn about global cooling. There were a few scientists with isolated results, and those were very much inflated by the general press.

But the thing is repeated ... because it is convenient to whom ... ?

Hey I had one of those doomsday, the world is going to end type films back in the 70's that promoted the idea of global cooling. It also predicted the world would run out of food-and while certain portions of the world do have issues with starvation it isn't exactly the "we are going to run out of land to produce the food" the reality is that we produce much more food now than we did back then. I don't think the predictions accounted for the kind of urbanization we experience and technological advances in farming.

But doom and gloom seemed to be the stuff of most science and social studies films I saw back in the 70's. Most of it did not play out the way it was predicted.

As for illegal immigration-I am sure it plays a huge role in depressing wages-for both legal and illegal workers. There have been studies which indicate it and it makes sense. If you have a huge supply of workers willing to work for less than market value and without the costs of the required paperwork and other taxes, then wages are going to reflect that-whether the supply is legal or not.

I am think there needs to be a sane immigration policy that makes coming here legally to work easier and cheaper, but makes coming here to work illegally more painful for both the immigrant and those who employ them-I think part of the problem is we turn a blind eye to the illegal immigrant and slap the wrists of the employers, because it is hard policy to crack down on the immigrants and the businesses that want to employ them.

Global Warming. LOL

As a former physical chemist, the data and propositions are laughable on their face. As a strict analyst, I note that key proponents have recently suffered embarrassing data gaffes. And I note funding sources......

As a political observer, can the motivations be any more obvious?

And also as a strict analyst, even if true, the future greenhouse gas emmision projections from China and India alone - no matter US and European remedial actions - are so huge as to dwarf any economy debilitating actions we might take. The truth be told, if Global Warming has any merit we are effing doomed - so grab as many cases of 1990, 1998, 2000 and 2005 (I hope we live long enough for it to mature) Chateau Petrus as your bank account can stand, grab the prettiest and willingest lady you can find.........and head for Rio... NOW!!!

Should we go all protectionist like Dobbs? Chew the furniture like Verdon? Is there another course?

Yes we can go the Americans are the best route like Odograph.

Seriously, you have nothing here other than sophmoric observations. You focus on trade because it is in the news, but ignore that empirically technological advancement is far more destructive to jobs than trade and globilization.

You think American jobs are paramount while ignoring the fact that removal of trade barriers can have beneficial effects for those in other countries, many of whom live in very harsh conditions. For example, American agriculture is heavily protected. This has two negative consequences:

1. It results in intensive farming in the U.S. with soil erosion and heavy use of various chemical pesticides.
2. Reduces the ability of other countries that have a comparative advantage in food production from engaging in food production and selling it to the U.S.

So it is reduces welfare in other countries, is hard on the environment, and raises food prices. But we are protecting those "3 old style" jobs that are apparently oh-so important.

You jumped the gun on that one.

No, I decided to shoot your high horse in the head before you could get on it.

Limiting trade is rarely a good way to increase output, welfare, and so forth. One would think this is obvious.

Yes we can go the Americans are the best route like Odograph.

Is that the route I picked?

"I'm pro-NAFTA and pro-guest-worker, so I have a non-hypocritical position."

No, I decided to shoot your high horse in the head before you could get on it.

Maybe you should have started with some reading comprehension. Being pro-NAFTA and pro-guest-worker is not actually American-first.

As a former physical chemist, the data and propositions are laughable on their face. As a strict analyst, I note that key proponents have recently suffered embarrassing data gaffes. And I note funding sources......

Would being a physical chemist equally allow you to pronounce choices in cancer treatment? Or in the safety of railway bridges?

Come on, if you remember that science you might remember the time someone is expected to put in to build expertise before claiming it.

Though this has been an issue previously only really considered by the illuminati, I think one way of attracting younger conservative voters is to make the environment more of a priority. The younger generation is very much more socially conscious.

I can't help but notice Steve V, that you still have not addressed my point:

The problem with illegal immigration is it's illegal. As you well know Steve, there are a whole bunch of labor laws in this country (most of which you probably disagree with) none of which need be followed when one's employees are illegal.

Am I an idiot? Or are these uncomfortable facts that you would rather not deal with?

Am I an idiot? Or are these uncomfortable facts that you would rather not deal with?

Actually I didn't see them.

However, I'm not an expert in labor law and how precisely it applies to illegal immigrants. However, my default answer would probably be I bet most of those laws would still apply.

Another point concerning wage inequality:

Charles Austin is largely right. Drum wants to pick the topic of debate, define the positions for his opponents then ignore anything that might actually be a valid reason why wage inequality might exist, then act disappointed in the anti-intellectual nature of "conservatives" broadly defined.

Has Drum looked at the Theory of Incentives by Jean-Jaques Laffont and David Martimort? What the "great intellectual" Drum cannot be arsed with such an intellectual text? I'm shocked, shocked I say.

Why might wage differentials be important? Well incentives, duh. You have to realize that workers value not only income but also leisure time. To the extent that a worker can gain both income and leisure time that is out of sink with their work effort the worker can be better off. In this case you could get high effort workers masquerading as low effort workers and getting higher welfare and less output. So wage differentials can work to induce workers to self-select.

Odograph,

Didn't you write,

Personally, I'm in favor of globalization and ultimately a world wage ... but I think the pace could have been slower and more humane, for US workers.

The implication here is that its okay to be humane to the U.S. worker who has a high living standard, and that we do this possibly at the expense of the non-U.S. worker who has a low standard of living.

Maybe you should have started with some reading comprehension. Being pro-NAFTA and pro-guest-worker is not actually American-first.

You also want to go slow as well. I don't see you as being quite what you are painting yourself as.

The problem with both arguments is that, to contribute to the discussion, a conservative must accept doubtful premises. Premises that must be proven before a discussion can even start.

The Questions are, "Are there undesirable consequences of the Earth increasing its temperature?" "Are there undesirable consequences of unequal wage rates?" Only a Socialist or an envious person would automatically say yes.

Have there been times warmer or colder than now? Yes. Were there catastrophic consequences of the Earth getting warmer? No, never. The catastrophe has always been from colder weather. That is where the deaths are--because crops fail and people starve.

Is there evidence that the climate is getting colder now? Yes, this has been true, according to satellite data, for ten years. Last winter was one of the coldest on record in many regions going back 30 to a 100 years. It snowed in Baghdad, for instance. Colder weather has already set in now, in many places. We will see as the season progresses.

A partial reason for this is that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has entered its cold phase. This means that we are in for colder weather for the next 30 years.

Also, Sun Spot Cycle 24 should have started two years ago. A lack of Sun Spots means colder weather in the future. We had, in September, the first occurrence, since January 1930, of a month go by without a single Sun Spot being seen. This is not good.

Will these facts change the minds of the Global Warming fanatics? Eventually, even they, and their pet scientists, will notice the evidence. Their behinds will freeze off.

But, I expect them to be stubborn. They will irrationally blame the colder weather on Global Warming.

They will, eventually, proclaim a new "Ice Age," but they will have the same solution as Global Warming: more governmental action, more regulations, more taxes and less freedom. This is a political, not a scientific, movement.

Next, there are unequal wage or salary rates because some people's efforts are more valuable than others. Socialists want to tear down some to build up others: they are levelers. The result of that, in Socialist countries, everyone starves together. That's considered okay, because it is equal in misery; except for the bureaucrats and politicians who are more "Equal" than everyone else. Naturally, those aristocrats should be paid more.

Besides, what business is it of yours if the boards of directors of a company overpays their leadership? It's not your money, that they are spending. If a company guesses wrong and overpays its management, then let the company might go belly up.

The problem here is that these are Socialist nonsense questions. The assumption is that the Left is correct when they have proven nothing.

Conservatives need not debate them, because it is up to the Socialists to prove their contentions correct. Both issues are false and conservatives should say so.

Don't get dragged into discussing false questions. A consensus of politicized, third rate scientists proves nothing.

I wrote:

Personally, I'm in favor of globalization and ultimately a world wage ... but I think the pace could have been slower and more humane, for US workers.

Steve Verdon thinks:

The implication here is that its okay to be humane to the U.S. worker who has a high living standard, and that we do this possibly at the expense of the non-U.S. worker who has a low standard of living.

I'd love to hear you frame that as a Republican National Convention Speech. Could you get Sarah to deliver the line "Our wages are too high!"?

Anyway, you are choosing to parse my sentence in a weird way. I endorsed the world wage. It's hard to turn that around as "at the expense of the non-U.S. worker" unless you think the equalization has to be ... rapid?

How would that play on the golf course? "US Doctors should make wages more like those in Europe or Asia!"

Don't get dragged into discussing false questions. A consensus of politicized, third rate scientists proves nothing.

If that's who we've got at NASA they should be fired and we should get some new ones!

Of course, if the answer was that simple the Bush administration would have done it, rather than admitting defeat before those same NASA scientists.

Thank you Steve,

However, I'm not an expert in labor law and how precisely it applies to illegal immigrants. However, my default answer would probably be I bet most of those laws would still apply.

I am not an expert in labor law either... but I can say that those laws still do apply... BUT only if one has standing in a US court of law. But how much standing does one have from El Salvador? Find a lawyer to take that case on...

The point is, no illegal alien dare complain about labor law violations because as soon as he does... he is elsewhere.

"Overtime? Forget about it. He got hurt? He was a contractor. OSHA? Hahahahaheeeheeeehee...." "INS? I just discovered that this man who has been working for me for the past 6 months (who, by the by, doesn't speak a word of English) is an illegal alien..." I'm OFF the hook!!!!

To be honest, I have been competing with these guys for years.... And I have nothing but respect for their work ethic, but we, here, in this country, have decided that a work ethic should be rewarded.

I have one, they have one, I want them to get the same rewards as I. Not me, the same as them.

One last thing: A guy I have worked with for years, lost his leg 2 weeks ago.... A year and a half of operations, and they could not save it (gangrene), but there is a dollar limit on what a leg is worth, and not one dollar more. I came within less than a half inch of death last week (not a big thing, sh*t happens)(I only bled a little) but I would like to think my sons would get something for it... workmens comp... it ain't much, but it is better than nothing.

Illegals... their bodies get a ride out in the desert (or woods)... if their lucky.

Don't get dragged into discussing false questions. A consensus of politicized, third rate scientists proves nothing.

Louis, You crack me up!!! Where do you get this stuff?

I think there's a large body of evidence, with a relatively new branch of science being utilized (see the "we've only been recording weather specifics for a hundred years" fact), that can plausibly be interpreted along two separate lines.

That being said, if one is interested in intelligent discussion of the issue without listening to the liberal illuminati drone incessantly about how evil we all are for drinking bottled water, there are some sound sources from an unexpected arena.

A growing number of evangelical Christians.

You heard me. Yep. And don't think for a minute that just because the lingo shifts ("stewardship of creation"), the science is different. Nope. Lots of concrete data and studies. One recent book is by an M.D. who's seen asthma cases skyrocket on summer days with lots of smog (Matthew Sleeth's "Serve God, Save the Planet).

see the "we've only been recording weather specifics for a hundred years" fact

It's pretty neat that ship's logs report ocean temperatures back to 1670.

if one is interested in intelligent discussion of the issue without listening to the liberal illuminati drone incessantly about how evil we all are for drinking bottled water,

OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The liberal illuminati... They found me again.... HELP ME... Help me... help me....

Maybe it's more obvious to me, 150 miles from the border, but if someone works there and sends a product here, or works here and sells me the same product, what's the diff?

I think it's more likely that we're dealing with obliviousness on your part, rather than obviousness.

If a product is imported into the US, then the consumers don't have to pay for the schooling of the children of the factory workers, their water system, their health care, their policing infrastructure, their transportation infrastructure but when we import the worker into the US in order to fabricate that good, that worker is likely a net tax recipient and, on the margin, isn't contributing enough in tax revenues to balance the civic expenses expended on his behalf.

If you think that GM losing money on each vehicle, but making it up on volume is not a winning financial strategy then why on earth do you think that importing workers who are net fiscal drains on society is a good thing when done in large measure.

As for Kevin Drum's request that conservatives offer insight on wage inequality, there are some inconvenient facts that weaken the liberal position:

1.) We've known since the early 80s that when IQ is controlled that the wage inequality between blacks and whites disappears. Further, we know that the return to education, for every year of additional schooling, that the returns to black males are the highest, followed by black women, white women, and at the bottom of the pack, white men.

2.) Whenever the Achievement Gap topic arises liberals like to defuse the issue by making note of the fact that there is more IQ variation within each group than there is between groups. Their conclusion is that between group differences are immaterial. That being the case, we also know that the within group wage variation amongst blacks, whites, and hispanics, is far, far larger than the between group income variation:

It is important to recognize that most wage inequality occurs within and not between groups. The unweighted average Gini coefficient across all race, gender, and education groups was 0.256 in 1995, over 80 percent of the total Gini. Put another way, if all groups had identical mean wage rates (for example, black male dropouts had the same average wages as white male college graduates) but wages differed within groups as they do today, nearly all the inequality in wage rates would remain.

IF income variation is really a social problem, then we really should be focusing on reducing gini within group categories for that is where the bulk of the variation is found. To continually harp on the small racial gap simply plays into racist Democratic demagoguery and cedes the argument to the Democrats to frame on their own terms.

odo says: "Come on, if you remember that science you might remember the time someone is expected to put in to build expertise before claiming it."

A fascinating statement. Too bad the leftist advocates are not held to such a standard....say, Al Gore.

Let me know when you want to argue point by point.

But please spare me simplistic citing of your faves. That will be boring. I can argue the technical facts. Can you?

Perhaps we can start with an easy, but basic, one. Does a CO2 increase in the atmosphere precede, or follow, atmospheric temperature change.

Why? Or why not. Please be specific.

Let me know when you want to argue point by point.

Do you understand the meta-argument in that? If I debate you "point by point" I accept that you and I are the preeminent climate scientists in the world! WE get to decide.

But then, I haven't put in the 10-20 years to become an expert. I haven't even put the time and effort that old Al Gore has done.

Have you? Where's your power point movie ;-)

TangoMan, you are talking about tax base, and I am talking about jobs migration. Globalization has certainly meant jobs migration.

I just bought a laser thermometer that doesn't seem to work. I called the 800 number and got an Indian gentleman. That's OK with me, but I wonder why some see a big distinction between that and someone sneaking in to illegally answer the same phone here.

From a jobs standpoint it's the same. From a tax services viewpoint it is different, that's true ... but can we run a "consumer" society taxing our legal workers as jobs leave? How many jobs, eh?

It's a really interesting question, how much of the last "recovery" was funded by debt, from Asia, to under employed and over consuming Americans.

Don't think expanding debt and jobs migration are disconnected. There was a feedback loop.

Perhaps we can start with an easy, but basic, one. Does a CO2 increase in the atmosphere precede, or follow, atmospheric temperature change.

I can't leave this dumb question alone. It is dumb because no one in their right mind would expect a multi-variable non-linear system to produce one answer, ("precede, or follow").

if you are excluding people like George Will from your "conservative intellectuals" grouping ... I might be for it

Will isn't a Creationist. Indeed, he's an atheist.

He's arguing that global climate change is an ongoing, natural phenomenon and that science has done a lousy job of understanding it in the past.

He's arguing that global climate change is an ongoing, natural phenomenon and that science has done a lousy job of understanding it in the past.

Whoops. I thought we were past that. The National Academies have an answer. NASA has an answer.

And yet the conservative "value network" likes to dance around it, cast it as a "lousy job" without providing a stronger scientific case on their own.

They don't actually engage the National Academies or NASA and win. They inhabit the back-threads at blogs and try to engage random strangers in "point by point" arguments.

If they, or you, or will, are right about that "lousy job" get out there and win at science!

G.A.Phillips<----pro-intellectualism in the Rights general pro-science stance.

you are told about a global flood by God with us pointing to it in it's overwelming evidence now and in history and you don't believe.

Then you are told by the likes Algore and his spiritual leaders, oops I meant scientific colleges who have not but hypothetical evidence and you do believe.

you are told about a global flood by God with us pointing to it in it's overwelming evidence now and in history and you don't believe.

I'm sorry. The Flood is overwhelmingly proved? Could you please provide some links to the relevant scientific studies that demonstrate that?

Then you are told by the likes Algore and his spiritual leaders, oops I meant scientific colleges who have not but hypothetical evidence and you do believe.

I'm sorry. Scientific data is now only hypothetical these days? The Bible is now factual?

G.A., I think you put your underwear on backwards today. Also, time for the Zoloft.

What are the smart folks on the center-right who actually focus on these issues (one presumes there are in fact people who fit that description)offering up as solutions?

Allegedly, that was the McCain campaign, and they spent the last three months calling the President-elect a terrorist coddling socialist.

Ho-hum...
S.O.S. now = "Same Old Scatology"!

NPR had a story this morning, saying that the average American 30 year-old male makes less in inflation adjusted dollars than did a similar 30 year-old male in the 1970s.

Two income families and easier credit have helped maintain the high living standard which Steve and I have been discussing.

I'm really asking the OTB folks to engage on this. You don't have to like my prescription (globalization, but not all at once), but I think you should acknowledge the problem and name your better solution.

What this whole discussion shows, James, is that the know-nothings have won your party. Seriously. There's no debate among climatologists of any repute on this, nor has there been for quite some time, yet most of your rightish commenters STILL think this is just Global Cooling Deux, even though THAT never happened either (not in the scientific journals; just as speculative thinking by a few scientists and a lot of writers).

When will enough be enough for the few people on your side who don't disavow science that's politically inconvenient? At some point you have to decide whether you'd rather keep aligning yourself with those who would turn us back to the Middle Ages.

At some point down this road, even your own lower personal tax rate won't make up for the lack of global competitiveness we endure as we abandon science and logic.

Odograph,

I'd love to hear you frame that as a Republican National Convention Speech. Could you get Sarah to deliver the line "Our wages are too high!"?

Ahhh, screw what is right, lets go for what is politically expedient. And it isn't that our wages are too high, but that we are using protective barriers to insulate industries we shouldn't. The idea that wages across the board have to fall isn't clear at all. When it comes to economics, you get an F.

Anyway, you are choosing to parse my sentence in a weird way. I endorsed the world wage. It's hard to turn that around as "at the expense of the non-U.S. worker" unless you think the equalization has to be ... rapid?

But that is the implication. We will go slow so that the U.S. worker doesn't suffer. The flip side is that wages in other countries rise at a slower rate and hence keep them at lower incomes, some income levels which are extremely low. But he, you think its the best thing to do politically, so it must be right.

How would that play on the golf course? "US Doctors should make wages more like those in Europe or Asia!"

Ahhh yes, now lets cater to the special interest groups too. Great idea Odograph.

I think the three "ways of thinking" are missing the most common amoung true conservatives. Prove that there is a connection between global warming and manmade carbon output. But, first, prove that there is something called "global warming" that isn't just an ongoing cyclical change in the planetary scheme. This isn't a "faith based initiative." This is science.

I think the problem here is the "lather, rinse, repeat" manner in which many seem to be doing this.

In the beginning the basic problem with accepting global warming was the recent turnaround from the global cooling scare from the 70's.

Equating an article in Time and Newsweek to dozens of articles in 'Science' and 'Nature' and hundreds in relevant peer reviewed scientific journals is not a good start.

Hey I had one of those doomsday, the world is going to end type films back in the 70's that promoted the idea of global cooling.

Neither is drawing equivalence between a film and the scientific literature.

Every step of this debate has been met with intellectual debate

Fine for the initial response, but this response has been moved back to steps one and two so many times that I have lost count. The three questions really properly belong to 1 the 80s, 2 the 90s, and 3 the present decade. Just because you weren't paying attention doesn't mean people weren't actively seeking the answers to those questions.

As a former physical chemist, the data and propositions are laughable on their face.

Why then the dearth of peer reviewed articles that support your position?

As a political observer, can the motivations be any more obvious?

No.

even if true, the future greenhouse gas emmision projections from China and India alone - no matter US and European remedial actions - are so huge as to dwarf any economy debilitating actions we might take.

Certainly China, India, and the rest of the developing world need to participate in any amelioration efforts.

Have there been times warmer or colder than now? Yes. Were there catastrophic consequences of the Earth getting warmer? No, never. The catastrophe has always been from colder weather. That is where the deaths are--because crops fail and people starve.

Silly on its face. Desertification, coastal flooding, and other consequences of warming global climate can and have had disastrous consequences. Here is a simple search that can point you to dozens of peer reviewed articles that enumerate some of the consequences. I can cite specific articles on request.

Is there evidence that the climate is getting colder now? Yes, this has been true, according to satellite data, for ten years.

Actually no. There was a spike in 1998 due to a strong El Niño. Following that temperatures returned to near 1997 levels and continued to rise until at least 2008. Start on any recent year other than 1998 or graph 3 or 5 year averages and the warming trend is visible. Choosing one anomalously warm or cool year as the starting point to determine a trend or lack thereof is not an honest exercise. Whoever you borrowed this information from was either ignorant or had an agenda.
For a good graph of warming trends Google nasa climate change graph and pick either of the first two links. I don't want to lose this comment due to overlinking or I would just link one here.

Last winter was one of the coldest on record in many regions going back 30 to a 100 years.

One year does not make a trend and one season even less so.

A partial reason for this is that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has entered its cold phase.

Which has of course been accounted for in the climate models.

his means that we are in for colder weather for the next 30 years.

That is not what it means. Refer to the previous link.

Also, Sun Spot Cycle 24 should have started two years ago...

current data suggests that sun spot activity appears to be a second order effect. One ref of several - Bard and Frank (2006) "Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun?".

Will these facts change the minds of the Global Warming fanatics? Eventually, even they, and their pet scientists, will notice the evidence.

So in your world the vast majority of the real world's scientists including the vast majority of climate scientists are the pets of a cabal of climate fanatics? Do you really expect this line of attack to convince any but the rabidly anti-intellectual?

Drew,

Let me know when you want to argue point by point.

OK. I'll take you up on that, but to separate the wheat from the chaff each point either of us makes should be backed up with peer reviewed research from respected and relevant journals. Are you game Drew?

Steve, you are chewing the carpet again, and trying to make this about me ...

Am I the reason family income in the bottom half has stagnated in the last 25 years?

Here (pdf) is the before-tax family income for the 5 quintiles. Look all the way back at the starting (1979) values for the bottom quintiles.

If conservative policies can change that, and "raise all boats" ... why exactly didn't they?

(Conversely Steve, if you are going to go beyond my position and really open trade (and guest workers?), explain how you'll stop China say from populating each market segment with low cost workers.

I worry that you are telling a "just so" story ... open trade and "just so" all wages world-wide will raise, before your uncle the car-builder or support-technician can be out of a job.)

...should be backed up with peer reviewed research from respected and relevant journals.

See, that's the problem right there, Grewgills. The problem isn't who has the better science (it's obvious the scientists do), but how to *weigh the evidence*.

Most of the naysayers and nutties here opining about global warming (or evolution) simply do not know how to weigh evidence properly. What they have is *information* that they seemingly cannot convert to *knowledge*. Instead of being pushed in the direction by the *preponderant* evidence, they focus on the one or two seemingly contradictory results and say, "See, I told you so."

I've had similar discussions with nutties over these very issues more times than I care to remember. I would send them link after link to the major research articles from the major research organizations and institutions from around the world--the primary evidence--and they will reply with a link to some report by some guy on Fox News and pretend that that one report is equivalent to what the scientific consensus is.

There is simply no getting through to these nuts. I mean, G.A. reallio and trulio believes that the Bible is primary evidence "proving" the Flood and that the rest of us are just idiot fanatics wasting out time trying to brainwash the masses with the scientific method. Damn our Vulcan logic, say their Bones to our Spock.

The "discussion" above highlights the problem. While there may be conservatives actually thinking about these issues, I see two problems: in practice, Republican administrations have downplayed, ignored and denied scientific findings and expertise pretty much across the board, and particularly in climate science and economics, where it clashed with desired ideological decisions. Second is the deliberate appeal to folks who distrust expertise, and the notion that everyone's opinion is equally valid--Sarah P., anyone?

The only academics or scientists denying the existence and dangers of climate change are the same ones who denied the tobacco/cancer link, and for the same reasons. And the promoters of endless deregulation, Laffer curves and tax cuts as panacea are the same types, ignoring real world outcomes and economic predictions. The notion that a middle class can survive while pursuing policies that result in the biggest income and wealth disparities since the twenties, and allocating 65% of income growth over the last 8 years to less than 10% of income earners, is at best unlikely on it's face. And to justify it by noting that, while real wages for the majority of the people are decreasing, it's ok because they have better tv's is, unfortunately, typical of conservative thought, to the extent you can find any.

"I’m pretty sure global warming is happening and that human technology is a contributor to it and even think we’ll need government — indeed, intergovernmental — solutions. I just don’t have the scientific interest to get excited beyond the margins."

I've criticized Yglesias and Ezra Klein in the comments of their respective blogs on this point. If you present yourself as a generalist and if you feel that global warming is a serious problem, then you are failing by your own lights if you don't give it serious attention.

I personally feel it is one of three civilization-threatening problems (the others being nuclear weapons and big meteors). If you don't share my convictions, well, please at least have the courage of YOUR OWN convictions. Never mind your "scientific interest": honor the public interest by informing yourself and then informing your audience of what you do believe to be the scope of the problem.

St