Then if my recollection is correct, he was indeed reaching for that "uber-strawman". He was attempting to deny that any climate change was occurring. This would, it seems, support my argument that indeed he is a fake conservative, who comes here posting extreme arguments that he does not actually believe in, to make the conservative message look bad.
That moves the discussion to the size of the delta.
My JE was dated to July 2009. The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act wasn't passed until 2010, so it was pretty well impossible to know at that point whether or not the government could roll out a website correctly for a bill that in July 2009 hadn't been written.
Healthcare.gov is a disaster in keeping with every other aspect of ObamaCare, from conception, to legislation, to adjudication, to implementation. Your chronological point, while factual, is but a clean square of toilet paper in the middle of a settling pond: SO, WHAT?
Well, being as the administration itself was barely 6 months old at that time, it is quite difficult to rationally make an argument for them to be epically terrible at that point in time. If, on the other hand, one is interested in just making those who would so quickly try to such an aim look silly, that is more than enough time.
Hey, if you want to isolate every decision to a point call, blowing away the full context of the subject under discussion, you can rationalize anything. This is, ironically, akin to arguing that 8" of snow in my neighborhood yesterday refutes the notion that the planet is warming. Go ahead; argue that way.
The majority of the hysteria is manufactured by people with various agendas, including those whose agendas involve preventing any kind of climate change action from happening.
In the context of a government that cannot budget properly, and regularly passes unread, multi-ream legislation, your seeming surprise and the non-confidence on display is, itself, surprising.
I can't tell if this means you have started to actually read what I write again (which would be a nice step in the right direction) or what you might be trying to indicate here. I have never held confidence in the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. I have consistently argued that it is the wrong way to address the problem.
It would be irresponsible to give even more power to a proven pack of incompetents.
"everyone's backside"? Really? Do you know anyone personally who has had their daily existence altered directly by anything that the EPA has done differently in the past 10 years?
So your definition of standing is that I have to know personally, as opposed to merely being a Virginia resident, for any opinion about EPA over-reach to matter?
No. My point is first that EPA policies have hardly changed at all in the past decade, and the overwhelming vast majority of all EPA policy changes that have occurred in that time have been for less regulation rather than more. Second, while a lot of people point at the EPA as some horrible boogeyman, very few people actually are effected in a negative way personally by anything the EPA does. Hence I say your statement of them being on "everyone's backside" is dubious.
I think you're doing a fine job of ignoring what's afoot. If there wasn't significant reason to think that this has more to do with punishing enemies (e.g. the whole BP imbroglio down in Louisiana) then maybe the EPA wouldn't look a PEA-brained APE. Alas, and you can blame the Bush administration for really getting this going, if you like, we just can't trust our government anymore.
Credibility? How would thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles do for you in terms of credibility?
When I want to remind myself about peer-reviewed articles, I pull out some back issues of MISQ.
I'm not sure exactly what you're after with that statement and link. Care to elaborate?
I'm saying the publish-or-perish mentality has not helped the signal-to-noise ratio.
is to find some better venues for getting the word out.
Which venues should they be? Any time the peer reviewed material is covered in the main stream media the conservatives attack the media itself as being "partisan". Do you want the scientists to leave the bench and go stand on a soapbox somewhere?
I don't think scientists are on any bench.
For example, a series about a business owner who is conservative, and values conservation of both nature and culture. The hero fights nasty bureaucrats who are more interested in regulating her out of existence, and making dependent little clients of the local people with their little velvet entitlement handcuffs than actually preserving nature.
Sounds like a good bit of fiction there. Maybe you could write it into a book and get it published by the same people who published Glenn Beck's magnus opus...
Still working on the re-write of my Afghanistan novel.
But of course that won't happen, because the climate conversation is dominated more by control issues than actual concern for nature.
That is a truly sweeping generalization, there. Just because you fear the idea that maybe some parts of your lifestyle could be bad for the long term health of our planet, you go and try to describe all the people who have contributed to the science of climate change as being personally involved in taking away your favorite pastime. I suspect that if a politician instead took to a podium and asked the car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars to make life less expensive for the consumer you would be thanking them.
Why aren't more fuel-efficient cars driven by market demand?
Maybe I'm wrong, but that's some crow I'd eat with relish.
While it is rather hard to prove you wrong, it is even more difficult for you to prove yourself right. There are a lot of people who are concerned with climate change and are involved in studying its causes and effects. Very few of them are ever on the news. I suggest your fear and demonization of all of them is terribly misplaced.
I'm not the one asking others to commit economic suicide over a theory.