The 32,000 who say “no convincing evidence” for human induced climate change

Watts Up With That?: The 32,000 who say “no convincing evidence” for human induced climate change

Of course the alarmists folks will denounce this as they did the last one, and there are bound to be a few unscrupulous types, such M.J. Murphy of Toronto who blogs as Big City Lib, who by his own admission, made false statements to get “weaseled onto the list” (his words). There are others who will do their best to crash the list so they can claim it is a sham, but there is one name on this list worth noting:

Freeman Dyson is one of the world’s most eminent physicists. You can read an essay about his views on climate change, posted here on WUWT a on 11/05/2007. ...

Comments

[Jim Moss]

32,000 is a very small sample out of the world scientific community, the vast majority of which agrees that humans are playing a role in global climate change. Check out this excerpt from an article on Sciencemag.org by Naomi Oreskes:

"Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8)."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Michael, I must ask - what are your motivations for wanting to show that humans are not responsible?

[VanSkaamper]

I can't speak for Michael's motivations, but I would post this article to put the lie to the assertion that man-made global warming is a non-controversial thesis. 32,000 is not a small number at all when we've been told (repeatedly) by the alarmists that there's no credible dissent.

You should be asking what motivations are for trying to sell us on a theory that is being pushed first and foremost by policy makers and scientists who get government grants to study it. I'd suggest that there's more reason to be suspicious of the IPCC's motives that of the 32,000 who have signed on to the petition.

[Jim Moss]

Van,

(1) To say that global warming theory has been pushed first and foremost by policy makers is simply incorrect. It is a theory that emerged purely from within the scientific community back in the 1970's, and it was a consensus among scientists before the government or the media even took notice. It is agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists - some who get government grants, but also by many, many who do not . These scientists come from countries all over the world, which means that there would have to be some vast inter-governmental conspiracy if what you are saying is true.

(2) There may be some activists and media types who claim that there is no credible dissent, but the scientific community is well aware of the naysayers. They simply disagree.

(3)I'd like to know how many of those 32,000 are getting money that can be traced back to Exxon, GM, and other corporations that stand to lose profits if tigther environmental controls are put in place.

(5) I reall want to know. Some conservatives are on board with global warming concerns, while others seem adamantly opposed. What motivates those who are against stronger environmental standards?

[VanSkaamper]

(1) To say that global warming theory has been pushed first and foremost by policy makers is simply incorrect.

I think that's a fair point. What I should have said is that it's being pushed by a cabal of scientists and politicians united in achieving political ends. ;^)

It is a theory that emerged purely from within the scientific community back in the 1970's, and it was a consensus among scientists before the government or the media even took notice.

This is something I would dispute. The assertion that the theory has settled the debate, and that there's anything resembling unanimity is simply false.

It is agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists - some who get government grants, but also by many, many who do not .

I would dispute this assertion as well. This is what we're being told, but there's now a groundswell of concerned scientists who are going on record as saying they hold dissenting opinions, and that there is no such consensus. And, BTW, since when does science operate on consensus? You're supposed to be able to demonstrate your conclusions based on empirical data. This has not happened.

Neither you nor I is in a position to settle the science. My only point is that there is highly credible dissent, and that the notion that the matter is settled is a politically expedient lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHZOYtAztU&feature=related

These scientists come from countries all over the world, which means that there would have to be some vast inter-governmental conspiracy if what you are saying is true.

No, I don't think so. I think that simply asserting that the IPCC has distorted and politicized its research is an adequate explanation. The IPCC study and its conclusions have been been pretty severely critiqued, in some cases by scientists that the IPCC study cited.

(3)I'd like to know how many of those 32,000 are getting money that can be traced back to Exxon, GM, and other corporations that stand to lose profits if tigther environmental controls are put in place.

Yes, of course you would. And I'm assuming that, because you're fair, you're just as suspicious about the funding and political agendas behind those individuals and organizations that promote the notion of man-made global warming. It would certainly influence my opinion if you could demonstrate that, say, even 20,000 of those 32,000 scientists were receiving checks from Exxon, BP, Shell, and Toyota. Let me know as soon as you've got the goods on them.

(5) I reall want to know. Some conservatives are on board with global warming concerns, while others seem adamantly opposed. What motivates those who are against stronger environmental standards?

If you watch the short presentation by Bob Carter (the one I linked to...in 2 pieces on YouTube) he makes quick mention of both the cost and the futility of trying to prevent global warming (or cooling).

We're not talking here about opposition to sensible environmental policy (I personally wish that the MSM spent a fraction of the coverage they're giving global warming to what's happening to our oceans. That's the real environmental crisis, and we could actually do something about that one...).

The reason for the opposition to the political agenda of global warming is the enormous cost to global economies, the political power that is being demanded by those who want to make changes in our economies and our life-styles, as well as the very negative impact this agenda will have on our ability to feed and clothe people around the world.

Quite simply, it's an incredibly costly proposition that has no promise of meaningful success whatsoever. If you're going to come calling and demand such an enormous sacrifice in wealth, personal liberty, and in global prosperity, then you'd damn well better be able to make a case that's beyond credible criticism. And this is just simply not the case.

Read the comments by Dyson, and check out the short clips of Carter. It's just the tip of the iceberg of the opposition, but it should give us pause. What if we're being hyped, and scare-mongered into believing something that is, at best, debatable, by politicians with agendas, and by some scientists who are trying to convince us that they know more than they actually do? I have no reason to trust the IPCC blindly, and plenty of reasons not to.

You seem awfully keen on holding the motivations of the dissenters up to close scrutiny (and there's nothing wrong with that), but I suggest you do the same with equal concern for the proponents. It's the latter that want to exert control over you. My current opinion (subject to revision based on facts and figures) is that the global warming movement is, first and foremost, a political power grab via fear-mongering, and not a reasoned and measured response to an actual environmental crisis.

[Jim Moss]

Van,

We could go back and forth ad nauseum on this topic, citing sources and statistics to support our respective sides. I've been reading a book by Robert Henson of the National Center for Atmosphere Research which refutes in detail pretty much everything you've argued. And I'm sure that you could refer me to authors who do the same to my arguments.

But what it boils down to for me is this: The vast majority of reputable scientists in fields relevant to global warming believe that it is caused by humans at least in part, and that action taken now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can make a significant difference. To say that all of these reseacrhers are in league or have been bought off by certain politcal interests is, to me, the mother of all bad conspiracy theories.

As for the motivations question - it is a genuine question. I honestly want to know why fair-minded people such as yourself are so skeptical of a vast majority of the world's scientists. I suspect that is has something to do with loss of profits for certain companies and investors, but I am not ready to make that accusation. I just wan't to know the source of the skepticism.

[Jim Moss]

And the implication that measures to reduce global warming will hurt poor people is misleading. Global climate change will have the most severe impact on poor people. From rising sea levels, to changing precipitation patterns, to more extreme summertime heat waves (just to name a few effects) - those with little or no economic power will have the least ability to adapt.

I am sorry, Van, but you are giving the same old tired arguments that big business has been trotting out for years. Less and less people are buying it these days...

[Michael W. Kruse]

I’ve been blogging about these issues for the last three years. I’ll try to encapsulate as much as I can but this is a long one. All address my motives at the end.

First, my dad was a research chemist and spent the last 15 years of his life as the head of the Geological Survey at the University of Illinois. I’ve been around science and scientists all my life. While not a scientists, I do enjoy learning about scientific issues. A friend who attends my church is the head of the local state university’s science department and he has a degree from MIT in astronomy. I’ve known his concerns about these issues for years but was still surprised to see that he signed this document. I have other scientist friends who occasionally feed me stories and info but stay anonymous because they don’t want to get caught up in the politics of all this.

Second, yes I’m familiar with the Naomi Oreskes article. She was writing as a science historian doing a content review. Other scientists immediately seized upon her claims and showed her methodology and inferences were flawed. (See here) There is a decided lean toward some affirming anthropogenic affect but exactly how much and to what degree it matters is widely debated.

Third, from the standpoint of science, claims of consensus and documents like the one linked here, are irrelevant. Science is not a democratic process where matters are determined by straw polls and article content analysis. Science is accomplished by developing relatively comprehensive models of reality and then systematically testing those models from every conceivable angle. No model has fully emerged that can persuade on the basis of its explanatory and predictive merits. Climate science is still in its infancy. The attempt to shut of debate by claims of consensus is an appeal to authority not science.

Fourth, the IPCC is a political body as well as a scientific body. There are hundreds of scientists that focus on specific aspects that may contribute to the content of one or two pages of the report. This input is gathered and assimilated by a small team of editors who also incorporate policy recommendations by other teams. There are prominent scientists who will not participate with the IPCC because they believe it compromises the integrity of the science to link it with policy recommendations. Other scientist who have participated have been appalled at the representation of their work in IPCC reports and requested that their names be deleted from the report (which is often is not honored.) The inclusion of the fatally flawed “hockey stick” graph of CO2 emissions in their report (used so prominently by Al Gore) is just one demonstration of the lack of scientific rigor being used to produce the reports.

Fifth, I’m reading a book right now about cholera epidemics in England that began in the early 19th Century. I variety of views were held about how cholera spread but for a couple of decades the consensus view among the medical and scientific community was that it was through the air. They were wrong. That scientific organizations think there is an climate issue is very important, not determinative. It certainly is not grounds for shutting of all dissent and demonizing dissenters.

Climate study is magnitudes more complex than an issue like cholera. It involves study of the interaction of the a) atmosphere, b) oceans, c) ice - covered regions (cryosphere), d) land masses (lithosphere), and e) plant and animal life (biosphere). The primary tool in climate forecasts is computer models run on supercomputers, all based on assumptions about how variables work and their iterative effects. Feeding 1900 data into most of these models (are there are dozens, not one) results in temperature projections more than double what happened in the 20th Century. That is isn’t confidence inspiring.

Sixth, as to motives I have little doubt that there are vested interests who challenge science claims that harm their interests. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It is part of how a free and open society processes difficult issues. Enron was a big backer of the cataclysmic climate change scenario because it would make their natural gas more cost competitive and they were uniquely positioned to take advantage of cap and trade models, should they ever be implemented. I’m sure the nuclear power industry is quite pleased the climate change “consensus” this days. Other biasing factors?

A) Super computers are very expensive to build and maintain. Corporations that build them want to keep pushing the envelope with new capabilities. Climate modeling is a wonderful application of the technology. These computers require large amounts of funding, which means they need a demand for their product. What better demand could there be than saving the planet from certain disaster. How convenient the supercomputing technology emerged at precisely the time we needed it to detect and solve a global disaster. :)

B) Politicians need to make a case that they are doing something about problems. Scientists need funding for research. The media loves tales of impending disaster and calamity. Put these three together and you have a “perfect storm” for climate change hype.

C) Many scientists working today have grown up in a period where environmental science is all the rage. Many were motivated by visions of the saving the planet from certain doom. What happens to people when the central theme of their whole narrative is found to be without merit? There is tremendous emotional and personal investment by many scientists in cataclysmic climate change. For many, I don’t think this so much affects their integrity concerning any particular study as it affects what they choose to study (say CO2 emissions vs solar radiance.)

D) Fear is a great motivator. Climate cataclysm is a powerful tool for mobilizing suppression of political and economic freedom and silencing opponents. Progressives point out again and again George Bush’s declaration that if you are not with us you are against us. How does this differ from cataclysmic climate change enthusiast’s (like Al Gore) declaration that dissenters are nefarious and on a par with holocaust deniers?

E) Many have an antipathy toward market economies. The narrative of cataclysmic climate change dovetails perfectly with their predispositions and they therefore need not examine the science and underlying issues. It is self-evidently true for them. Those that depart from the narrative merely demonstrate their own captivity to false narratives and are not worthy of civil dialog.

Seventh, clearly the planet warmed at the end of the 20th Century (although warming stopped about five or more years ago and temps are not expected to change much between now at about 2015.) It appears likely that human created gases play a role in this. How much of role they play and whether the play a significant role in the overall complexities of climate adjustments is not well understood. Forecasts of the impact of human created gases decades down the road is only a little above the level of fortune telling.

What we are dealing with is assessing risk in the context of uncertainty. If the cataclysmic view is entirely accurate, then there are very serious consequences for failure to act that future generations will hold us accountable for. However, if the cataclysmic view is in error, then we will have diverted trillions of dollars away from more productive challenges like eliminating AIDs, addressing hunger, and ending infectious diseases. We will have stunted the economic growth of emerging countries leading to much higher rates of death and misery. It is very possible that we will have placed the world in the control of totalitarian or near totalitarian governance. Future generations will hold us accountable for this as well.

The truth is likely in between. Cataclysm is unlikely. So is the chance of zero impact. Therefore, what is needed is prudence. What is needed is wide open debate and discussion, not demagogues telling people to shut up. We need to be skeptical from all sides. We need to stop assigning pristine motives and behavior to one camp, while totally demonizing another. We are dealing with human beings on all sides after all. :) These are my motivations for this post.

[VanSkaamper]

Jim, there was a little bit of tongue-in-cheek hyperbole in my post, but you'll note at the end that I distinguish between the politicians pushing immediate and urgent actions, and the scientists who sincerely believe that man-made global warming both exists and is an urgent threat. The former I don't trust at all, the latter I read and think about.

As I said before, you and I aren't qualified to pick a winner in the scientific debate...and, frankly, I question whether the scientists can do so at this time as well. Daily we learn more about how complex climate is, and how inadequate our current modeling techniques are.

It is a fact, however that the earth has been cycling through warm and cold periods for a very, very long time. It's been significantly warmer than it is now...and yet the polar bears are still here, and so are we.

I disagree with your assessment about the poor and under-developed nations. I think Michael's cautionary statements in that regard are spot on, as are his descriptions of the vested interest involved in both the scientific and political communities that are pushing so hard on an alarmist view.

As I said, I have friends who are biologists and geologists who buy the idea of man-made global warming, and other geologist, earth science, and climate science friends who don't. They're all sincere, and I don't think that any of them, on either side of the discussion, have an untoward motive. I follow their conversations closely and I learn from them.

I do not, however, have the same sanguine attitude about political bodies who use this controversy to advocate centralization of power, and further global economic and legislative control over the world's populations. I think that there are closet totalitarians that will use any viable means to consolidate power, and environmentalism is a superb bit of sheep's clothing for the totalitarian wolf. Did you know, for example, that Hitler's party, when it was a green party in Germany? They were.

So, as per Michael, I'd like to see a more open scientific debate, where the consensus BS is dispensed with, and we can make prudent and measured policy decisions (if any are necessary) based on solid empirical data, and not Hollywood's vision of a climate apocalypse.

[VanSkaamper]

Sorry for the multiple posts Michael...the wireless network at the Denver airport is flaky, and it caused a bit of a submit problem...

[Jim Moss]

I know a little about science myself. I was a chemistry major until my junior year in college. My brother is a PhD chemist who specializes in environmental chemistry. He used to do research and teach at Cal Tech. Now he works for an independent firm that focuses on research and education. Between him and several friends in the science community, I have good connections as well - and they all have deep convictions that the large corporations such as Exxon are intentionally skewing the research on global warming. I've never heard them say anything similar about the other side.

[VanSkaamper]

Fair enough...deep convictions are more compelling with accompanied by tangible evidence, but if they think something smells funny that's not something I'd dismiss out of hand. As I said, I believe that there are utterly sincere and well-intentioned people on both sides of the debate (some of whom I know personally...on both sides). But, please Jim, don't you think it's just a tad naive to imply that the pro-man-made warming side of the debate is without its conflicts of interest, especially on the political end of the spectrum? Again, I think Michael gives a good, cautionary summary of that angle in his post, and I think that even a cursory familiarity with world history gives us plenty of reason to be suspicious of those who seek more control over our activities in the name of making the world a better place. Untold millions have died because we're an all too gullible species.

[Jim Moss]

One last point - I am not contending that global warming is an open and shut case, or that there shouldn't be ongoing discussion that includes all sides.

My concern is about how corporate power is influencing the debate - which mirrors your concern about governments using environmental issues to consolidate political power.

But please answer this - Would legislation in the United States aimed at reducing carbon emissions constitute a totlaitarian attempt to consolidate politcal power? Would a grassroots movement to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels constitute a totalitarian attempt to consolidate politcal power? Would a consumer-based movement that encourages people to patronize companies with strong "green" policies constitute a totalitarian attempt to consolidate politcal power? Those are the types of things I'm advocating.

Michael mentioned fear mongering on the part of the environmentalists, but what do you call it when you invoke Adolf Hitler in a conversation about greenhouse gas emissions? That is almost offensive, Van.

[VanSkaamper]

Would legislation in the United States aimed at reducing carbon emissions constitute a totlaitarian attempt to consolidate politcal power?

Yes. Read the proposals regarding carbon credits and the regulation of business.

Would a grassroots movement to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels constitute a totalitarian attempt to consolidate politcal power?

No, if it didn't involve the government's coercive power.

And "no" to your last suggestion as well.

As for the Hitler comment, I stand by that. It's shouldn't be offensive to point out that wolves dress themselves in sheep's clothing. This is not to suggest that every environmentalist is a closet Hitler, only that the bad guys aren't stupid, and they smile at you when they're asking for the knife they'll use to cut you.

No apologies.

[Jim Moss]

There are wolves on both sides of the aisle.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Jim

People freely choosing to live according to convictions about climate change is something all for. I'm supportive of businesses who think they ca create a market for alternative energy. In fact, I'm very supportive of finding alternative energy because of geopolitical concerns, because I think there ought to be cheaper ways, and because fossil fuels do create pollution.

Its the legislation question I'd need to know specifics about. I don't think it is wise to have the government picking winners and losers in the alternative energy game (i.e., subsidies for ethanol.) It would be better to create a carbon tax that discourages the use of fossil fuels and motivates entreprenuers to enter into the alternative fuel market and compete for finding the best solution.

If the consequences of CO2 are truly toward the cataclysmic side of the equation, then I would suggest that our investment is best spent in alternative energy development rather than carbon minization.

I don't think Kyoto is a realisitc solution. I do think there is always a potential for mission creep by governments and international entities and that combined with other trends that challenge free decentralized democratic societies in the West give me concern.

Van

No problem with the multiple posts. Typepad often messes me up.

As to the Hitler stuff. I throughly understand what your getting at. Still, even when it is a perfectly legit comparison, my experience is that it nearly always ends a good conversation. As someone who is often tone deaf to the emotional content of my communication, I've tried to find other ways to say the same thing. It reduces the temperature elevation in my blog climate. :)

[Jim Moss]

Let's not totally discount the power of centralizedgovernment to help with society's problems. History may give us plenty examples of politicians using social issues to consolidate power, but it also gives us many positive examples of government intervention - I'm thinking child labor laws and consumer safety measures, for starters.

As for global warming, I'm a firm believer that change has to originate with personal moral decisions, not governmental legislation. But responsible legislation can really boost the cause - as it has with so many other good social movements.

[VanSkaamper]

Jim wrote: There are wolves on both sides of the aisle.

Yes. That was precisely my point, Jim. You refer often to the corrupting influence of the profit motive (the examples of that are legion), and you even asked Michael what his motive was for publishing this blog post. (I'd like you to affirm here and now, Michael, that the Kruse Kronicle isn't being subsidized by a subsidiary or front group for Exxon or Hummer.) ;^)

I just wanted to level the playing field by pointing out that very bad people have, historically, exploited popular concerns like the environment in order to further sinister agendas...and there's no reason for us to believe that the human motivations that led to that kind of exploitation and deception have evaporated or evolved out of our species. It remains a danger today.

Let's not totally discount the power of centralizedgovernment to help with society's problems.

For the record, that's not what I'm doing. Both government and the profit motive have benefited human kind. Both can, and have, been abused and caused large scale death, destruction, pain and suffering. I'm therefore suspicious of anyone, any institution, that tells me the time for thinking and discussion is over, and that I have to surrender personal freedom, cash, or my internal combustion engine NOW...for the sake of:

a. the environment
b. the children
c. change!
d. Hitler (threw that one in again, Michael, just to be provocative)

And I say this as someone who is an activist in the area ocean pollution from Asia, and bad fish farming practices (I have attacked the pursuit of profit without regard to environmental consequences in this area...because fish lice absolutely suck).

As stated before, I'd really like to see this particular issue actually settled scientifically, with all sides getting a place at the table, and no suppression of opinions, and no hysteria injected by self-serving politicians and political groups.

IF we can scientifically demonstrate that CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas, that the warming of the last few decades is something other than a primarily natural cycle, and that human CO2 emissions are somehow threatening the very survival of our species, then yes, we would be foolish not to explore legislation and--more importantly IMHO--technologies that could actually help address the problem.

But I don't think we're anywhere near that stage yet in the scientific debate given the attempts at the suppression of dissenting voices at this time, as well as the the fact that the proposals that some are trying to ram down our collective throats are pointless because they don't make a significant impact on the unproven problem.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Jim

Centralized government indeed has a role but it is a subsidiary role other institutions, not the prime mover and shaker of change. Often, as with child labor laws in the US, the federal law cements the social change that has already occurred. Government also has a role in rectifying market externalities (consequences of market decisions to third parties who were not party to given economic transaction; pollution being a prime example.) The primary impetus for change should normally emerge from localized action in most circumstances in my opinion.

Van

I keep sending copies of my posts to Exxon in hopes of at least getting a stipend but no takers yet. :)

[Jim Moss]

Michael,

I somewhat disagree. Sometimes centralized government needs to take the lead. Perhaps the integration of schools is a better example. It was forced on many, many local places where it was not wanted, but it was the right thing to do.

[VanSkaamper]

I keep sending copies of my posts to Exxon in hopes of at least getting a stipend but no takers yet. :)

Have you registered at e-shill.com? I learned you need to do that before they'll take you seriously.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/grantsmanshipand_the_global_wa.html

[Michael W. Kruse]

Jim, I agree in execptional cases like this one.

Using the idea of subsidiarity, a broader institution steps in to restore health to localized institutions when they have become unhealthy, but with the aim of stepping back once a measure of health is resotred. Unfortunately, the political left, seeing how effectively social change could be rendered using this approach now tries to frame every agenda item as a federal issue to be resolved with federal intervention rather than doing the hard work of cultural transformation.

So yes to the example you mention, but not as the normative means of instituting social change. That is my perspective.

[Michael W. Kruse]

I'd also add by way of analogy that I think we all agree that the state needs to step in to a family situation when there is child abuse. Yet I hope we would agree that the normative way to solve family problems is not through state intervention.

[Jim Moss]

Michael,

I think you are unfairly generalizing the political left. Many liberals fit your description, but many (such as myself) are involved in community-based efforts to meet needs and work for transformation. For example, I just spearheaded an effort to open a food pantry here in Honea Path. We are supplying it completely with church food drives and private donations - no government money involved in any way.

Many of us on the left are well aware of the failures of the welfare state and have lost a lot of faith in the ability of the government to "fix" things. But we are still fighting for things like living wage and universal health coverage, and we know that government has a role to play that is greater than just getting involved in extreme circumstances or emergency situations.

We're more complex than you give us credit for. :)

[VanSkaamper]

I wish that a preference for local, non-governmental solutions characterized the liberals in my state...particularly in the area of healthcare.

[Jim Moss]

Maybe we're the minority of liberals - but we're out there.