There are at least two ideological differences that cloud the issue of global warming.

The first has to do with economics, and opposes two static "mind sets", one socialist and the other free market capitalist. This is a distortion: it is a mathematical theorem that neoclassical economics is compatible with a broad spectrum of economic institutions, of which free market capitalism is only one. In general, there is an enormous variety of markets possible; the socialism/free-market dichotomy is a mathematically ignorant caricature.

The second has to do with ideological attitudes towards global warming, some identified with pro-science attitudes, and others aligned against science. Freeman Dyson goes into this in his June 12th 2008 review in the New York Review of Books. See especially the first section on the results of Keeling on atmospheric C02 concentration, and Dyson's review of "A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies" by economist William Nordhaus. Gore's policy would be only two trillion dollars worse than doing nothing, which would cost 23 trillion dollars in environmental damage by $2100. The British proposal (which Nordhaus calls "Stern") would impoverish millions of Chinese. However, there are carbon tax proposals that would make sense (a net gain of 3 trillion dollars), and if Dyson's prediction comes true that at least by 2050, biotechnology will help create "genetically engineered carbon-eating trees," that would very significantly change prospects on global warming.

Since there is no editing capability, and I'm typing this at breakneck speed, I'm going to repost with corrections. I hope the moderator deletes the previous incarnation.

There are at least two ideological differences that cloud the issue of global warming.

The first has to do with economics, and opposes two static "mind sets", one socialist and the other free market capitalist. This is a distortion: it is a mathematical theorem that neoclassical economics is compatible with a broad spectrum of economic institutions, of which free market capitalism is only one. In general, there is an enormous variety of markets possible; the socialism/free-market dichotomy is a mathematically ignorant caricature.

The second has to do with ideological attitudes towards global warming, some identified with pro-science attitudes, and others aligned against science. Freeman Dyson goes into this in his June 12th 2008 review in the New York Review of Books. See especially the first section on the results of Keeling on atmospheric C02 concentration, and Dyson's review of "A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies" by economist William Nordhaus.

Nordhaus compares several global warming policies using a model he calls DICE (see the review for the meaning of this acronym). Gore's policy would be only two trillion dollars better than doing nothing, which would cost 23 trillion dollars in environmental damage by the year 2100. The Kyoto protocol would net $0 if the United States does not participate, and $1 trillion if the United States does participate. The British proposal (which Nordhaus calls "Stern") would impoverish millions of Chinese and cost $15 trillion. However, there are carbon tax proposals that would make sense (a net gain of 3 trillion dollars), and if Dyson's prediction comes true that at least by 2050, biotechnology will help create "genetically engineered carbon-eating trees," then "...the rules of the climate game will be radically changed. In a world economy based on biotechnology, some low-cost and environmentally benign backstop to carbon emissions is likely to become a reality."

My point was that global warming denial is only one of the tactics of the conservative naysayers. I agree that the science is in. On the subject of what to do about global warming, conservatives launch into the specious free-market versus socialism dichotomy.

My point in mentioning Dyson is that one did not have to be a global warming denier to take issue with some of the proposed remedies. Nordhaus assumes that a dollar invested today will be worth $54 by 2100--a 6% growth rate. If a certain policy results in less than $54 in this calculus, it will be invested elsewhere. The analysis gives the benefit of implementing various policies, minus the cost of implementing them, in trillions of dollars. A commonly heard conservative allegation against any reasonable policy is that it would be "socialist." This can be dismissed as meaningless.

Dyson is more conservative than I would be, but he does not dismiss the Nordhaus "optimal policy" of carbon taxes as "socialist."

Another ideological thorn in the side of libertarians, conservatives and advocates for universal privatization is that the oceans and the atmosphere cannot be privatized. I forgot to mention this endless source of conservative frustration, which is animating some portion of the attack.

You might point out two characteristic features of a democracy:

1. Fair and periodic elections.

2. The rule of law and due process.

The telecom immunity bill eliminates 2. It is fair to conclude on the example of the telecom immunity bill alone that the United States is not a democracy (and not in the trivial sense that it is a republic).

LW, your girlfriend's interest level dropped below 49% at some point. There's no hope. Exit with a modicum of dignity. No declarations of love, no putting yourself on the line for nothing, no vows of unrequited fidelity for six months (Cary Tennis has to be a sadist for suggesting that you go through ANY period of pining for someone who has obviously lost interest). If you do any reflection on this relationship at all, figure out what you managed to do to bore your girlfriend. My guess is that you were too available.

If the LW did manage to "train" his GF, then he might as well retrain Pavlov's dogs. That train has left the station.

And speaking of departed trains, there once was a TV repairman in the deep south. Every day he'd stop work at 4PM and announce that he had to go meet his fiancée at the train. He'd walk miles across town to the old station, and wait. No train had come that way in years.

She's talking about seeing other men. Hint! It's over.