On Nov. 5, there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to pro­test pending health care legisla­tion, featuring the kinds of things we’ve grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption “Na­tional Socialist Healthcare.”

It was gro­tesque — and it was also omi­nous. For what we may be see­ing is America starting to be Californiafied.

The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn’t a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leader­ship — in fact, it was officially billed as a GOP press confer­ence. Senior lawmakers were in attendance and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.

True, Eric Cantor, the second­ranking House Republican, of­fered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is “mild.” The signs were “inap­propriate,” said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler compari­sons by such people as Rush Lim­baugh, said Cantor, “conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.”

What all this shows is that the GOP has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

The state of mind visible at re­cent right-wing demonstrations is nothing new. Back in 1964, the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay titled, “The Paranoid Style in American Poli­tics,” which reads as if it were based on today’s headlines.

Americans on the far right, he wrote, feel that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repos­sess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.” Sound familiar?

But while the paranoid style isn’t new, its role within the GOP is. When Hofstadter wrote, the right wing felt dispossessed be­cause it was rejected by both ma­jor parties. That changed with the rise of Ronald Reagan: Re­publican politicians began to win elections in part by catering to the passions of the angry right.

Until recently, however, that catering mostly took the form of empty symbolism. Once elec­tions were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite.

But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long be­lieved that history was on their side, so the GOP establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little lon­ger: Once the party consolidated its hold on power, they’d get what they wanted. After the Demo­cratic sweep, however, extrem­ists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.

Furthermore, the loss of both Congress and the White House left a power vacuum in a party accustomed to top-down man­agement.

At this point, Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reason­able elder statesman of the GOP. And he has no authority: Republi­can voters ignored his call to sup­port a relatively moderate, elect­able candidate in New York’s special congressional election.

Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a con­ventional politician). Because these people aren’t interested in actually governing, they feed the base’s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it. So all the old restraints are gone.

In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York race. But maybe not: Elec­tions aren’t necessarily won by the candidate with the most ra­tional argument. They’re often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.

In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration’s job­creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.

And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in Califor­nia could happen at the national level.

In California, the GOP has es­sentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump re­mains big enough to prevent any­one else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this hap­pens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungov­ernable in the midst of an ongo­ing economic disaster.

The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the ir­rational right is no laughing mat­ter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it’s very bad for America.

On Nov. 5, there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to pro­test pending health care legisla­tion, featuring the kinds of things we’ve grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption “Na­tional Socialist Healthcare.”

It was gro­tesque — and it was also omi­nous. For what we may be see­ing is America starting to be Californiafied.

The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn’t a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leader­ship — in fact, it was officially billed as a GOP press confer­ence. Senior lawmakers were in attendance and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.

True, Eric Cantor, the second­ranking House Republican, of­fered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is “mild.” The signs were “inap­propriate,” said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler compari­sons by such people as Rush Lim­baugh, said Cantor, “conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.”

What all this shows is that the GOP has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

The state of mind visible at re­cent right-wing demonstrations is nothing new. Back in 1964, the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay titled, “The Paranoid Style in American Poli­tics,” which reads as if it were based on today’s headlines.

Americans on the far right, he wrote, feel that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repos­sess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.” Sound familiar?

But while the paranoid style isn’t new, its role within the GOP is. When Hofstadter wrote, the right wing felt dispossessed be­cause it was rejected by both ma­jor parties. That changed with the rise of Ronald Reagan: Re­publican politicians began to win elections in part by catering to the passions of the angry right.

Until recently, however, that catering mostly took the form of empty symbolism. Once elec­tions were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite.

But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long be­lieved that history was on their side, so the GOP establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little lon­ger: Once the party consolidated its hold on power, they’d get what they wanted. After the Demo­cratic sweep, however, extrem­ists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.

Furthermore, the loss of both Congress and the White House left a power vacuum in a party accustomed to top-down man­agement.

At this point, Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reason­able elder statesman of the GOP. And he has no authority: Republi­can voters ignored his call to sup­port a relatively moderate, elect­able candidate in New York’s special congressional election.

Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a con­ventional politician). Because these people aren’t interested in actually governing, they feed the base’s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it. So all the old restraints are gone.

In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York race. But maybe not: Elec­tions aren’t necessarily won by the candidate with the most ra­tional argument. They’re often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.

In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration’s job­creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.

And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in Califor­nia could happen at the national level.

In California, the GOP has es­sentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump re­mains big enough to prevent any­one else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this hap­pens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungov­ernable in the midst of an ongo­ing economic disaster.

The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the ir­rational right is no laughing mat­ter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it’s very bad for America.

----- Original Message -----

From: Gary Hoffman

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:50 PM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:02 PM, <jopollack@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "Some proxy data – based on isotopes rather than tree rings – do show those phenomena, but for that very reason we should also be skeptical. After all, if you pick and choose your proxies based on what you already expect, you’re not confirming anything but your bias." [Quotation from "Global Warming Science: Real? Or Too Raw?" by Gerard Harbison (3 November 2009)]
>
> Without isotopes, we would be missing a wealth of ways of obtaining information about past conditions and processes.  One example that immediately springs to mind is the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.  We would not be able to infer temperatures when the ice was laid down, only CO2 levels, since temperature information comes from isotope fractionation of the frozen water.

According to a leading textbook on paleoclimatology, "[s]table-isotope
ratios of oxygen (^18O/^16O), carbon (^13C/^12C), hydrogen (D,
deuterium, ^2H/^1H), nitrogen (^15N/^14N), and other elements
constitute the single most important family of paleoclimate tools used
to reconstruct past climate parameters in many types of archives."
Thomas M. Cronin, Paleoclimates at 39-40 (NY: Columbia Univ. Press,
2010). [Note: the symbol "^" indicates a superscript of the associated
number.] With regard to oxygen isotopes, delta^18O is the standard
unit of measurement, which refers "to changes in the relative amounts
of these two isotopes . . . in parts per thousand (%)." William F.
Ruddiman, Earth's Climate -- Past and Future at 100 (NY: W. H.
Freeman, 2nd ed., 2008). [Note: subscripts are assigned to delta^18O
according to source (e.g., ice cores).] But, in an advance online
publication of Nature Geoscience, the authors (members of a Past
Global Changes (PAGES) project on Past Interglacials (PIGS)) note
significant problems with proxy data that are currently in use in
measuring integrated climate effects vis-a-vis the ebb and flow of
continental ice and state that at present "we are therefore unable to
assess whether interglacials with specific characteristics have a
higher propensity towards climate instability from others." P.C.
Tzedakis, et al., "Interglacial Diversity," Nature Geoscience
(Progress Article, 18 October 2009). They go on to argue that
delta^18O in benthic foraminifera from deep-sea sediments is the best
proxy in measuring interglacial diversity, the purpose of which is to
measure past interglacials with the current interglacial "to inform
projections on the duration and future evolution of the current
interglacial" and "to disentangle the natural variability from the
anthropogenic impact."

Of course, the problem with proxy data is that their validity rests
upon certain assumptions that are not necessarily falsifiable (to use
Popper's terminology). Moreover, according to Feyerabend and others,
empirical observations are not objective because they are
"theory-laden" (i.e., "observational judgments are affected by the
theoretical beliefs of the observer"). Peter Godfrey-Smith, An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Science -- Theory and Reality at 156
(Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press  2003). And that lack of objectivity is
affected by the social structure of science in which " the desire to
do work that is used requires using, and citing, the work of others,"
thereby trading "credit for support . . . in the hope that others will
do the same for them." Ibid. at 164.

In light of the foregoing, there is good reason to have a degree of
skepticism with respect to climate modeling (and supporting data) as
currently used. Indeed, the norms of science developed by Robert
Merton include organized skepticism, "a community-wide pattern of
challenging and testing ideas instead of taking them on trust." Ibid.
at 122-123. A claim of bias, therefore, logically follows when one
method of collecting data is selected to the exclusion of others,
particularly where the selected method is "theory-laden" and is thus
likely to result in an outcome that conforms with the observer's
expectations.

Gary Hoffman

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:02 PM, <jopollack@...> wrote:
>
> "Some proxy data – based on isotopes rather than tree rings – do show
those phenomena, but for that very reason we should also be skeptical. After
all, if you pick and choose your proxies based on what you already expect,
you’re not confirming anything but your bias." [Quotation from "Global Warming
Science: Real? Or Too Raw?" by Gerard Harbison (3 November 2009)]
>
> Without isotopes, we would be missing a wealth of ways of obtaining
information about past conditions and processes.  One example that immediately
springs to mind is the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.  We would not be able
to infer temperatures when the ice was laid down, only CO2 levels, since
temperature information comes from isotope fractionation of the frozen water.


According to a leading textbook on paleoclimatology, "[s]table-isotope
ratios of oxygen (^18O/^16O), carbon (^13C/^12C), hydrogen (D,
deuterium, ^2H/^1H), nitrogen (^15N/^14N), and other elements
constitute the single most important family of paleoclimate tools used
to reconstruct past climate parameters in many types of archives."
Thomas M. Cronin, Paleoclimates at 39-40 (NY: Columbia Univ. Press,
2010). [Note: the symbol "^" indicates a superscript of the associated
number.] With regard to oxygen isotopes, delta^18O is the standard
unit of measurement, which refers "to changes in the relative amounts
of these two isotopes . . . in parts per thousand (%)." William F.
Ruddiman, Earth's Climate -- Past and Future at 100 (NY: W. H.
Freeman, 2nd ed., 2008). [Note: subscripts are assigned to delta^18O
according to source (e.g., ice cores).] But, in an advance online
publication of Nature Geoscience, the authors (members of a Past
Global Changes (PAGES) project on Past Interglacials (PIGS)) note
significant problems with proxy data that are currently in use in
measuring integrated climate effects vis-a-vis the ebb and flow of
continental ice and state that at present "we are therefore unable to
assess whether interglacials with specific characteristics have a
higher propensity towards climate instability from others." P.C.
Tzedakis, et al., "Interglacial Diversity," Nature Geoscience
(Progress Article, 18 October 2009). They go on to argue that
delta^18O in benthic foraminifera from deep-sea sediments is the best
proxy in measuring interglacial diversity, the purpose of which is to
measure past interglacials with the current interglacial "to inform
projections on the duration and future evolution of the current
interglacial" and "to disentangle the natural variability from the
anthropogenic impact."

Of course, the problem with proxy data is that their validity rests
upon certain assumptions that are not necessarily falsifiable (to use
Popper's terminology). Moreover, according to Feyerabend and others,
empirical observations are not objective because they are
"theory-laden" (i.e., "observational judgments are affected by the
theoretical beliefs of the observer"). Peter Godfrey-Smith, An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Science -- Theory and Reality at 156
  (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press  2003). And that lack of objectivity is
affected by the social structure of science in which " the desire to
do work that is used requires using, and citing, the work of others,"
thereby trading "credit for support . . . in the hope that others will
do the same for them." Ibid. at 164.

In light of the foregoing, there is good reason to have a degree of
skepticism with respect to climate modeling (and supporting data) as
currently used. Indeed, the norms of science developed by Robert
Merton include organized skepticism, "a community-wide pattern of
challenging and testing ideas instead of taking them on trust." Ibid.
at 122-123. A claim of bias, therefore, logically follows when one
method of collecting data is selected to the exclusion of others,
particularly where the selected method is "theory-laden" and is thus
likely to result in an outcome that conforms with the observer's
expectations.


Gary Hoffman

One important lesson that was underlined by this affair is: Never trust initial
reports on incidents like this. For example, initial reports said that Major
Hasan was educated in the Near East, and that there were two accomplices.
Reports said different things about his weapons. Some even had his rank wrong.
We had conflicting reports about his character and personality. Today it turns
out that it isn't yet clear just who shot him.

----- Original Message -----

From: Clayton Naff

To: Clayton Naff

Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:16 AM

Subject: An Alien Talks About God

New blog post at:

http://open.salon.com/blog/clay_farris_naff/2009/11/12/an_alien_talks_about_god

Regards,


Clay
--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
www.claynaff.com
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

----- Original Message -----

From: jopollack@...

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:02 PM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

This anti-isotope attitude:

"Some proxy data – based on isotopes rather than tree rings – do show those phenomena, but for that very reason we should also be skeptical. After all, if you pick and choose your proxies based on what you already expect, you’re not confirming anything but your bias."

Without isotopes, we would be missing a wealth of ways of obtaining information about past conditions and processes.  One example that immediately springs to mind is the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.  We would not be able to infer temperatures when the ice was laid down, only CO2 levels, since temperature information comes from isotope fractionation of the frozen water.

John P.

-----Original Message-----
From: William Hay <whhay@...>
To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, Nov 10, 2009 11:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

"anti-isotope attitude", ??  What are you referring to here?

 

Bill

----- Original Message -----

From: jopollack@aol.com

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 1:57 PM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

If he's a biochemist, I wonder if his colleagues know about his anti-isotope attitude!
It's about as absurd as stating that you're opposed to weighing things because
people will just use the information to support their own biases.

John P.

-----Original Message-----
From: William Hay <whhay@...>
To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2009 12:17 am
Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

I'd be more impressed if he were a climitologist instead of a biochemist.

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Clayton Naff

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:59 PM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

See his op-ed here:

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2009/11/03/4af046682940f

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
www.claynaff.com
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

----- Original Message -----

From: William Hay

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:50 PM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

Look at this guy's blog, he's a real conspiracy hound.  He even calls it "The Right Wing Professor's Blog"

 

http://homepage.mac.com/gerardharbison/blog/RWP_blog.html

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Clayton Naff

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:59 PM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

See his op-ed here:

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2009/11/03/4af046682940f

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
www.claynaff.com
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

----- Original Message -----

From: Harvey Madison

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 4:59 PM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] Fw: NYTimes.com: A Fateful Day, and the East Tasted Freedom

 

 

This piece helped me realize the feeling about the fall of the Berlin Wall that I had completely missed in 1989. Quite a day.

Harv

INTERNATIONAL / EUROPE   | November 09, 2009 A Fateful Day, and the East Tasted Freedom By SERGE SCHMEMANN The fall of the Berlin Wall was so fine a moment, it takes effort to recall how spontaneous the breach really was. Advertisement Copyright 2009  The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

Carpool from Omaha?

  ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Brian Ellis" <bpe3812@...>
>> To: <progressiveomaha@...>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 12:34 PM
>> Subject: [progressiveomaha] LUNk Collective House
>>
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> The LUNk (Lincoln's Underground Network) Collective has just started a
>>> collective house, LUNk House, in the North Bottoms of Lincoln - 1213 N.
>>> 12th near 12th and Charleston. This house is to serve as a hub for local
>>> progressive activists and a clearinghouse for our propaganda. The house
>>> will also serve as a free store, radical lending library, place for
>>> progressive groups to have meetings, debates, potlucks, movie showings,
>>> and other events. We will also be broadcasting LUNk Radio
>>> (www.lunkradio.org) with a low power AM transmitter.
>>>
>>> We are very excited about getting all of this started and would like to
>>> invite all of you to our open house event on November 14th (next
>>> Saturday), starting at 6 PM and going until 10 PM. Any donations would
>>> be much appreciated. Please bring vegetarian food and drink to share (No
>>> alcohol please - LUNk House is a drug and alcohol free space).
>>>
>>> Hope to see you soon,
>>>
>>> Brian Ellis
>>> For the LUNk Collective
>>>    To post on the ProgressiveOmaha Forums or Omaha/Lincoln Calendar, go
>>> to http://www.progressiveomaha.com/tikidir/tiki-forums.php and register
>>> in the top right corner
>>>    To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to
>>> progressiveomaha-unsubscribe@...
>>>    For complete info about this list, go to http://riseup.net and log
>>> in.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Jim Bechtel

To: reason

Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 10:52 AM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] "outside the realm of science"

 

Taxpayers to pay for prayer in health care reform bill?

Instead of limiting it to "paying for care that produced proven medi­cal results."

 

------------------------------------------------

 

 

Provision would add prayer treatment to bill

â–  Some question whether the provision violates separation of church and state.


THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

WASHINGTON — Backed by some of the most powerful mem­bers of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the health care over­haul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, with the support of Democrats John Kerry and the late Edward Ken­nedy — both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ Scientist.

The measure would put Chris­tian Science prayer treatments — which substitute for or sup­plement medical treatments — on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against “religious and spiritual health care.”

It would have a minor impact on the overall cost of the bill — Christian Science is a small church, and the prayer treat­ments can cost as little as $20 a day. But it nevertheless has stirred controversy over the con­stitutional separation of church and state, and the possibility that other churches might seek reim­bursements for so-called spiri­tual healing.

Phil Davis, a senior Christian Science church official, said that prayer treatment is an effec­tive alternative to conventional health care.

“There is a connection between health care and spirituality,” said Davis, who distributed 11,000 let­ters earlier last month to Senate officials urging support for the measure. “We think this is an important aspect of the solution, when you are talking about not only keeping the cost down, but finding effective health care.”

The provision would apply only to insurance policies offered on a proposed insurance exchange where consumers could shop for policies that meet standards set by the government.

But critics say the effect of the measure could be broader, con­ferring new status and medical legitimacy on practices that lie outside the realm of science.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, who heads the Freedom From Reli­gion Foundation, a group of athe­ists and agnostics who promote separation of church and state, said that the opportunity to re­ceive payment for spiritual care could encourage other groups to seek similar status.

“This would be an absolute invitation to organize,” Gaylor said.

The Christian Science Church, which was founded in Boston in 1879, has pushed to secure rec­ognition for its paid prayer prac­titioners. Their job, as outlined by the church’s founder, Mary Baker Eddy, was to pray for heal­ing and charge for treatment at rates similar to those charged by medical doctors.

About 90 years ago private in­surance companies began paying for church prayer treatments, but more recently, managed care insurers declined reimburse­ments, insisting on paying for care that produced proven medi­cal results.

The Internal Revenue Ser­vice allows the cost of Christian Science prayer sessions to be counted among itemized medi­cal expenses for income tax pur­poses — one of the only religious treatments explicitly identified as deductible by the IRS. Some federal medical insurance pro­grams, including those for mili­tary families, also reimburse for prayer treatment.

Two committees in the House voted to include the measure in their versions of the overhaul, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D­Calif., stripped it from the House bill after a few members object­ed to it as unconstitutional.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine law school, said the pro­vision raises serious questions about government support of re­ligion.

“I think when Congress man­dates that health companies pro­vide coverage for prayer, it has the effect of the government ad­vancing religion,” he said The legal issue, however, may not be cut and dried. Michael Mc­Connell, who heads the Stanford University Constitutional Law Center, said, “As long as patients are the ones who choose, and religious choices are given no legal preference or advantage, the proposals would appear to be consistent with constitutional standards.”

In the Senate, the provision is included in a version of the bill drafted by the health committee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is considering whether to include it in the bill he will send to the Senate floor.

From: Clayton Naff

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:59 PM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

See his op-ed here:

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2009/11/03/4af046682940f

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
www.claynaff.com
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

----- Original Message -----

From: Jim Bechtel

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 10:10 AM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

But "one percent" of what? A cyanide pill would be a lot less than one percent of my body but ....

Water vapor is part of a pretty stable cycle, so ceteris paribus we look at man-made gases, of which CO2 is the dominant factor.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-1.3.html 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Gary Jones

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 6:56 AM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

Or even an economist - one of his points was that CO2 only contributes 1 percent to the heat retention.  Ask an honest financial advisor what 1% compounded annually over 150 years would do.

He also implied that the loss of raw data for one important study severely damaged the entire concept of global warming.  It is an embarrassment, but it hardly invalidates all the other studies.

Gary

On Nov 6, 2009, at 12:17 AM, William Hay wrote:

 

I'd be more impressed if he were a climitologist instead of a biochemist.

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Clayton Naff

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:59 PM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

See his op-ed here:

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2009/11/03/4af046682940f

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
www.claynaff.com
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

----- Original Message -----

From: Gary Jones

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 6:56 AM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

Or even an economist - one of his points was that CO2 only contributes 1 percent to the heat retention.  Ask an honest financial advisor what 1% compounded annually over 150 years would do.

He also implied that the loss of raw data for one important study severely damaged the entire concept of global warming.  It is an embarrassment, but it hardly invalidates all the other studies.

Gary

On Nov 6, 2009, at 12:17 AM, William Hay wrote:

 

I'd be more impressed if he were a climitologist instead of a biochemist.

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Clayton Naff

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:59 PM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

See his op-ed here:

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2009/11/03/4af046682940f

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
www.claynaff.com
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA

----- Original Message -----

From: jopollack@...

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 1:57 PM

Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

If he's a biochemist, I wonder if his colleagues know about his anti-isotope attitude!
It's about as absurd as stating that you're opposed to weighing things because
people will just use the information to support their own biases.

John P.

-----Original Message-----
From: William Hay <whhay@...>
To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2009 12:17 am
Subject: Re: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

I'd be more impressed if he were a climitologist instead of a biochemist.

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Clayton Naff

To: Reason-Omaha@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:59 PM

Subject: [Reason-Omaha] UNL prof in denier camp

 

See his op-ed here:

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2009/11/03/4af046682940f

--
Clay Farris Naff
Executive Director, Lincoln Literacy Council
Member, National Association of Science Writers
www.claynaff.com
(402) 310-0572
Lincoln, NE
USA