Patterico's Pontifications


The Levi/DRJ Debate Thread Is Complete

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:42 pm

I’ve been quite busy, but I finally got around to updating the page with the “debate” between DRJ and Levi. You can read the final product here.

I put the word “debate” in quotes because the debate proceeded something like this:

DRJ and Levi: “We each agree to provide 10 substantive comments, each with a link to facts.”


Levi, here is my well thought out position. Here is a link to prove what I am saying. And here is another link. Finally, here is more persuasive argumentation with even more links.


Says you.

So, it’s not really worth reading, and DRJ, I’m sorry you wasted your time. Except that you didn’t, in two meaningful ways: 1) you demonstrated that the concerns about Barack Obama’s ties to Rev. Wright are genuine, and 2) you saved me twenty bucks, which is what I would have had to pay Levi if he had followed the rules.

In the interim, Levi has apparently claimed that he “crushed” DRJ in the debate, which is the funniest thing I ever heard. Levi is banned for a minimum of 10 days. Enjoy them.

Mmm, That’s Good Irony

Filed under: Race — Patterico @ 8:17 am

As regular readers know, I’m a fan of irony. Here’s some: Whoopi Goldberg talking about how oppressed she is.

I have an offer for Whoopi: you give me half of your wealth, and I’ll take half your skin hue as well.

Deal? Have your girl call my girl, babe. Oh, wait: I don’t have a “girl.” Well, just call me, then.

Ashcroft on His Way to Liberal Doghouse Again

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:42 am

John Ashcroft has defended waterboarding before a House panel.

The controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding has served a “valuable” purpose and does not constitute torture, former Attorney General John Ashcroft told a House committee Thursday.

. . . .

“The reports that I have heard, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, indicate that they were very valuable,” Ashcroft said, adding that CIA Director George Tenet indicated the “value of the information received from the use of enhanced interrogation techniques — I don’t know whether he was saying waterboarding or not, but assume that he was for a moment — the value of that information exceeded the value of information that was received from all other sources.”

Remember that brief period when Ashcroft was a big hero with all the liberals? Yeah, that’s done.

My position on waterboarding remains essentially the same as ever:

1) Of course it’s torture.

2) If used, it runs the risk of mucking up any criminal trial, because a waterboarding-induced confession is worthless. Also, the information you get may well be worthless as well.

3) That said, it’s conceivable that you might need to do it in extreme circumstances. You’d want to recognize points 1 and 2 before you did it. But those who claim that five seconds of waterboarding makes us INHUMAN!!!!!1!! in every case, are simply high on self-righteousness. They are the same people who think it’s evil to execute murderers, because Killing is Always Wrong.

Global Warming/Terrorism: A Real Problem/A Manufactured Issue (UPDATED)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:29 am reports:

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

Does this mean anthropogenic global warming is a fraud? Of course not. It just means that those who tell you with supreme confidence that there is only one side to the issue are wrong.

I stand by my usual position that, while we shouldn’t crater our economy to respond to the possibility that we are causing global warming, we should treat the possibility seriously. First, pollution is ugly anyway; look at L.A.’s atmosphere. Second, if the danger is real, it’s a very significant danger.

I think there is an interesting parallel here with terrorism.

We don’t really know how likely it is that a group of terrorists are going to obtain and set off a nuclear bomb. People on either side like to pretend that they can tell you, but they really can’t. But if it happened, it would be catastrophic, so we should do everything within our power, within reason, to prevent it. Most conservatives agree, while most liberals tend to shrug off the issue as fearmongering by Republicans.

I feel the same about global warming.

We don’t really know how likely it is that we are throwing off the balance on our planet and causing it to become overheated. People on either side like to pretend that they can tell you, but they really can’t. But if it happens, it will be catastrophic, so we should do everything within our power, within reason, to prevent it. Most liberals agree, while most conservatives tend to shrug off the issue as fearmongering by Democrats.

Each of you is completely right. Your pet issue is the real danger, while the other side’s pet issue is a joke. Discuss.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey says only a subgroup has changed its mind. That sounds at odds with the quote, but maybe I’m missing something. I’m off to work; you guys sort it out.

UPDATE x2: My apologies for having a day job! It’s taken me some time to get back to this. Further perusal seems to reveal that the piece was just flatly wrong in its central assertion: that the group itself has reversed its stance. The piece now ends with this update:

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

I wonder how they got this so wrong. It appears they found the posting but didn’t realize that the group that made the posting was merely a subgroup of the main group. But I don’t think even that explains it.

Meanwhile, my initial update (popped up before I walked out the door) is, I think, also wrong, as the subgroup doesn’t seem to have changed its mind. It just differs from the conclusions of the main group — at least in the sense of recognizing that there is a debate out there. (That doesn’t mean it recognizes one side as credible, however.)

My bottom line remains the same: those who tell you with supreme confidence that there is only one side to the issue are wrong. Then again, supreme confidence is often a bad idea with science; the whole idea is to keep an open mind (but not so open that you’re ignoring the evidence).

I still think that the evidence is strong enough that we may as well take the threat seriously.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2848 secs.