Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

“I absolutely am not smart enough”

By

Speaking at the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service at Suffolk University Law School on Thursday February 5th, Charlie was snowing the crowd under with his intellectual firepower.  An admiring Globe scribe remarked on Baker’s “somewhat apologetic tutorial on energy pricing” and told how he “talked at length about regulatory overhaul, duplicative bureaucracy, and the esprit de corps he experienced at a once-foundering health plan.”  He practically sounded professorial!  But then Charlie faced a question about global warming: “I don’t think whether I believe that or not matters in this conversation,” Baker said.  He added, ” I can get eight professors from MIT on both sides of this issue and no one in this room will walk away understanding what they said about climate change.” http://www.boston.com/news/loc…  That global warming stuff is way too complicated for anyone to understand, especially Charlie Baker. It’s a good thing he’s willing to settle for something easy like being Governor of Massachusetts.

In case we thought that Charlie had mispoken, we soon learned that he was crystal clear in his incoherence.  In a tidbit buried deep within the paper in a sort of news digest, the Globe told how Baker had enlightened the paper the next day.

“”I’m not saying I believe in it. I’m not saying I don’t,” he told the Globe on Friday, a day after dodging the question at a public forum on Thursday. “You’re asking me to take a position on something I don’t know enough about.””  Baker took a refreshingly self-effacing position-he claims he’s not smart enough to have a position: “He added, “I absolutely am not smart enough to believe I know the answer to that question.” http://www.boston.com/news/loc… If so, what else is he not smart enough to know or to do properly?

So, we are left to wonder:

Is Baker actually as ignorant as he claims to be?

Is he really not “smart enough?”

Or, has he simply decided that it’s good politics to pretend to be stupid?  (If Baker took truth serum before he answered the Globe does anyone honestly believe that he would maintain this pretense that he does not believe in global warming?  Yes-it’s sad but true that some, though not all Republicans (witness the exceptions like Lindsay Graham) have decided it’s good fun to reject science, but Baker headed an organization vitally dependent on the scientific progress.

So which is it: not smart enough or intellectually dishonest?  Could someone explain why either quality would make him well-suited to be governor?

A brief note to all you deniers out there who clog up blog comments with your flat-earth conspiracy theories:

Yeah, I know it’s winter now and I’ve spent many thousands of hours in the bitterest New England cold running and skiing in winter, but we’re talking here about climate, not weather.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I understand Baker’s feelings on the science.  But even if he’s agnostic, he must explain how he would approach the issue as a policy matter.  It’s often necessary to make decisions with incomplete knowledge, so he can’t just punt this one.

    • I have had four years of great plans and rhetoric from patrick and four years of him not delivering. Just saying.  

        • We’ve joined RGGI.
          * Executive orders require purchasing of “most efficient” vehicles for gov’t, as well as efficient use.
          * Green Communities Act.
          * Stretch Code.
          * RPS standards among the best in the nation.
          * Why, just last week they announced they’d used $185M in stimulus funds to leverage $800M worth of energy upgrades to water waste processing facilities around the state — everything from switching to VFD motors to installing solar and wind generation on-site.  At least one of the facilities will become a net-zero facility w.r.t. energy.
          * “Swap” deal with CSXT for the Boston to Worcester line, allowing for more commuter runs west and, eventually, to the south shore as well.
          * MassDOT, which gives the MBTA a fighting chance.
          * Bike lanes on bridges formerly controlled by DCR.

        <

        p>

        <

        p>He hasn’t been perfect, and he doesn’t get sole credit for any of these, as no governor is an island.  At the same time, he deserves tremendous credit for all of these things, and I’m sure I’ve forgotten a few.  On other issues progress has been slower, but frankly Deval Patrick joins Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michael Bloomberg as the top three executives who’ve pushed hardest and accomplished most on green issues.  A second (or third!) term allows for keeping the momentum getting even more done by moving “normal”.

        • The “Patrick hasn’t delivered squat” refrain from jconway and his ilk is getting awfully tiresome, mostly because it is not true.  Yes, Patrick did some dumb things.  But what he’s accomplished actually matches up pretty well with what he said he wanted to do (a glaring exception, of course, is property taxes, but if someone would care to explain how that was possible in light of the epic economic downturn without slashing cops, teachers, etc., I’m all ears).

          <

          p>So, jconway, you want to vote for Baker?  Knock yourself out.  But don’t do it because you think Patrick hasn’t delivered.  He has, whether you like it or not.

          • It is very likely I might stay in IL to work at a non-profit legal aid service helping to advance immigrant rights so I might change registration to stop Mark Kirk from getting into the Senate. If God had wanted me to vote in Massachusetts he would have given me candidates.

            <

            p>A few reservations

            <

            p>1) Why the f–k did you and others 3 me?

            <

            p>To me a 3 is given when its borderline offensive but not grossly offensive to justify a deletion. A 4 would have been more appropriate if you really disagreed with me. The 3s were unnecessary.

            <

            p>2) Putting the Party first

            <

            p>I am a realist, more so than some on this community supposedly dedicated to reality. I want Democrats to win first and foremost. I want MA to stay Blue. Thats why I opposed Coakley, not sexism as you erroneously claimed. Thats why I opposed Hillary. They were candidates that could not convince me they could win a general election. I saw the Brown surge weeks before you did but you mocked me at the time. I even said ‘ready to eat your crow yet’ and you were convinced that every Democrat would show up.

            <

            p>So I have seen the writing on Deval for months now, he is down to the high 30s low 40s in approval ratings. As Nate Silver put it regarding Harry Reid, that puts an incumbent in a ‘no save position’. I see that all of Cahill’s finances came in from his Treasurer account and I have seen a paucity of donations coming in. Sure you and BMG think money in politics is evil, me too. But at this point its a clear indicator of who has momentum. Baker has been cleaning house, Deval’s fundraising is anemic, and Cahill has no new source of funds and is clearly wasting them early. So I see Cahill dropping out around August or September due to money problems and Deval losing the air war to Baker who will suddenly have good name recognition. As a challenger all he needs to do is say I can do better and not mention specifics, kind of like Deval and Obama did regarding their predecessors.

            <

            p>I want a Democrat in the Governors office, more so than the Deval supporters because unlike them I am not blind to the fact that he is political poison and stands no chance of winning his re-election. So I will support any Democrat willing to take him on. I support Ross hoping that she might inspire a more serious candidate, Gabrielli perhaps, to take a crack at it. Challenging him will only make him a better candidate and might just lead to a miracle where we get a better nominee.

            <

            p>3) The record

            <

            p>JohnD’s rebuttal to Stomv was far more eloquent and concise than anything I could attempt. But let me just say those things are small fish to fry compared to the big bold promises that Deval gave to his supporters. Most of that came from federal money that Deval did nothing to secure or from ideas that had already been floating in the pipeline in the leg that just needed a warm body to sign in the Corner Office.

            <

            p>Also for me, and sadly for the voters, the record is going to be

            <

            p>-Drapegate
            -Bookgate
            -Cadilliac gate
            -Walsh’s hack job
            Backing Wilkerson over ChangDiaz, something BMG should have been up in arms since it showed Deval was no longer committed to good governance or progressivism
            -Charter schools and letting poorly managed ones get contracts and funding
            -Doing nothing on Cape Wind
            Trying to force an unpopular and certainly unprogressive tax on the poor in the form of casino’s
            -Breaking every promise to restore local aid
            -Breaking the promise to review and consider cutting the income tax
            -Breaking the promise to review Romneycare and make progressive adjustments
            -Breaking the promise to be open and transparent regarding all hiring decisions, regarding lobbyists, and regarding what the governor wants to do. From day one with Drapegate that promise was broken, it was broken when the Governor went straight to the media instead of coming to us about casinos; we might have saved him the trouble
            -Breaking promise to clean up Beacon Hill and pass sweeping ethics reforms with real teeth
            Breaking the promise to back progressive challengers to hack legislators (see: Wilkerson, Dianne not to mention neutrality in the McCabeDonato fight)
            -Continuing on that note a tradition of protecting incumbents instead of promoting progressives

            <

            p>And those are just off the top of my head. In terms of the casino’s and progressive challengers Deval actually lied to my face regarding those proposals.

            <

            p>I had high hopes for him, I think he is a good man, if he pulls out a miracle I really hope he uses it wisely to get good things done, I think his wife and daughter are amazing people. I think his candidacy paved the way for Obama in so many ways. After Reich, Dean, and Kerry losing he was the first candidate I backed that actually won. I cried when he won. I was a staunch defender during his first two years when I felt he was unfairly criticized. But now its over and I want someone new.  

            • Because this was your comment.

              <

              p>

              I have had four years of great plans and rhetoric from patrick and four years of him not delivering. Just saying.  

              <

              p>As I and others have pointed out on this thread, that’s a false statement.  It’s also totally non-constructive and doesn’t lead to interesting discussion or debate.  Ergo, worthless.  Hence, a 3.

              <

              p>Also, if you seriously think that JohnD is more knowledgeable and/or better informed than stomv on climate, energy, and other environmental matters, well, I really don’t know what to say to you.  Again, it’s just not the case.

              • Its not worthless. Daniel Burnham once said ‘make no small plans’ regarding government action and that is exactly what Deval Patrick promised during his election. Thus far all of his great plans and soaring rhetoric have not been delivered. Restoring local aid, fighting for Cape Wind, reforming education, ushering in accountability and transparency on Beacon Hill, backing progressive candidates, making Romneycare more just and equitable, protecting the environment-those are all issues where the Governor promised the moon and the rocket didn’t even get off the ground.

                <

                p>The issues stomv pointed out are like Clinton’s midnight basketball, small ball stuff that might poll well but doesn’t really move the state as a whole in a particularly positive direction. I am not being derisive, I am not being un-constructive I have no offered two rebuttals and long lists of where the Governor has not delivered on his promises. Sabutai, Christopher, and other fine progressives who get a lot more respect from the editors and others around here than I do, have made the same concerns. And they should be addressed.

                • You wrote:

                  JohnD’s rebuttal to Stomv was far more eloquent and concise than anything I could attempt.

                  and (emphasis mine):

                  The issues stomv pointed out are like Clinton’s midnight basketball, small ball stuff that might poll well but doesn’t really move the state as a whole in a particularly positive direction. I am not being derisive, I am not being un-constructive …

                  <

                  p>I presume you refer to this exchange.

                  <

                  p>This “refutation” may be “elegant” and “concise” (I disagree, but so what), but it is also dead wrong on every substantive point, as stomv gently and effectively pointed out.

                  <

                  p>Here is a representative fragment:

                  RPS standards among the best in the nation.

                     When did 15% become better than 20% or 23% or 40%????

                  It is better than nearly all standards.  I’ve got the viewgraphs to prove it since I prepared a 1.5 hour academic lecture on exactly this topic.  Here’s why:
                  1.  The 2020 point is actually pretty high; only 8 states are higher*.
                  2.  Unlike many other states with aggressive RPS requirements, MA goes up by 1% per year — not a big jump followed by a number of years of 0% increase.  This is important because it ensures gradual, constant compliance.  I expect states like NY, D.C, MD, FL, NC, MI, MN, WI, NV, NM, CO, MT, CA, HI, OR, and WA to all struggle because they have larger steps followed by years of 0% increases.  I expect that on the due-date, a number of utilities will have failed to expand their portfolio by enough, furthermore the new demand for renewable will cause a price surge.  Slow but steady wins the race, and MA got it right.
                  3.  Massachusetts is the only state to require the RPS to grow by 1% per year indefinitely; if the lege does nothing it keeps getting bigger.  This is quite clever because it requires a majority to derail further growth.  In all other states, after their final jump (be it 2012, ’14, ’15, ’19, ’20, ’25, or ’30) their RPS is constant, requiring an act of the legislature to improve it.

                  For those 3 reasons, I’d argue that MA’s RPS is among the best in the country.  It’s reasonably aggressive, it’s constant growth ensures compliance and more stable pricing, and that it doesn’t expire means a greater likelihood of even higher RPS standards in the long run.

                  <

                  p>What you call “small fish to fry”, I call a calm, low-key, and utterly devastating demolition of every substantive point in the “elegant” and “concise” “rebuttal.”

                  <

                  p>While stomv needs no defending from me, I will say that your characterization of his comments as being “like Clinton’s midnight basketball, small ball stuff” most certainly is “derisive” and “un-constructive” — not to mention completely false on the face of it.

                  <

                  p>For that, I give your response a “3”. I find it “worthless” because it is (a) not true, (b) self-serving and defensive, and (c) insulting.

  3. He’s acting so cagey.

    <

    p>If he does believe it, just add it to the list of reasons people like billxi aren’t going to vote for him.  I know he still has to win a primary, but if the GOP wants a governor of their ilk, they will not nominate Christy.

    <

    p>In addition, I don’t see whey he didn’t just spin the answer into one about job creation in the green energy market.

  4. Do I personally know of or could I tomorrow go and live with an Amish family. No.
    Could I with my meager engineering skills find thousands of ways to save the enviornment other than that singular focus of establishing a global Bernie Madoff carbon trading bank.  Most definitely.

    <

    p>Let me start with Dark Mission and the 60 year history of NASA suppressing science.  Then on to chemtrails, HAARP, S 517 the Weather modification bill, mainstream media advancement of geo-engineering including starting volcanic activity to block out the sun, the 2012 solar CME theory which takes out the entire US power grid, hyperdimensional physics, Eugene Mallove,EISCAT,sonoluminescence,black light power,HHO torches,Floyd Sweet’s VTA,Searle,Testatika,water cavitation,Sterling solar engines,Philio T Farnsworth multipacitor, Charles Nelson Pogue,low head hydro, Japanese patents on improving motor efficiency,supressed patents of Nicola Tesla and the Nazi Bell experiments just to name a few.

    <

    p>The salvation of millions would be easily accomplished by us here in the US simply by giving up a couple of needless redundant convieniences instead of promoting a global Bernie Madoff bank of carbon traders.  It does not have to mean herding populations into carbon megacity gulags nor does it have to involve depopulating the world down to 500 million.

    <

    p>Politically Charlie is right to not give an answer.

  5. that going to Harvard does not make one smart — and that being smart does not make one right for the job. Charlie Baker is certainly proof of that, though I’m not entirely sure which one of those categories he fits in yet. What I can say is I’ve found Charlie Baker to be very unexceptional, for many years now. A Republican Savior of the State he is not.

    <

    p>Say what you want about Deval Patrick, but there’s no doubt that the man has helped lead this state through the Great Recession better than the vast majority of states in the country, and left it poised to rebound far quicker than most other states out there. He’s done that through careful budget policies, emphasizing some balance (not just cuts, but closing loopholes, adding revenue), sparing communities the pain the state is feeling as much as possible, and passing the transportation bond bill which has acted as a second stimulus bill, just in the nick of time.

    <

    p>As he said on my podcast, that Massachusetts is better off than most states is of little comfort to those who’ve suffered in these economic times (and I’ve certainly been one of them), but he’s taken his job very seriously, which is precisely why we’re poised for a rebound. I’m sure a few more bumps may be on the road ahead, but he’s the only candidate running with any kind of ambitious, forward-looking ideas, asking what we want government to achieve and how we want to pay for it. The rest just want to cut, cut, cut until there’s nothing left, running the status quo into oblivion.  

  6. …I am not sure who advised him to be so intellectually incurious. Perhaps this is a new Republican meme to justify doing nothing about the environment. But so far Baker has looked like a fool out there.

      • …I’m much more likely to vote for someone who gives off the vibe of being smarter than I about these complex issues than not smart enough to handle them.

      • I’ve been noticing for a while now that my conservative friends tend to be more excited by the idea of electing folks who are similar to them in educational and economic background- usually blue collar or middle class types. They seem to believe that electing folks with similar life experiences will make those individuals more sympathetic to their own struggles and experiences when in office.

        <

        p>My left-of-center friends, on the other hand, seem to be more positive about idea of electing and elevating individuals who are, in the words of a friend, “embarassingly better than me in every way”. These folks tend to want someone who is smarter, more talented, better educated and with greater life accomplishments than the average person to put in positions of real power in society.

        <

        p>Although honestly I see the merit in both arguments, personally I tend to favor type 2 candidates in my voting behavior, just because I think that  you need to be a pretty exceptional and talented soul to make government work and get results in this Commonwealth of ours, and that a “one of us” candidate even with  the best of intentions would struggle one in office.

        <

        p>I think what is interesting about the bruhahah that is the subject of this post is that Charlie Baker, who is clearly, by any standards, a candidate of the 2nd type (way better educated and more successful in life than most of us), is trying to win an election by coming off as a type 1 candidate (jus’ one of da guys).

        <

        p>I, for one, will be interested to see how that works for him.

        • I think this sentiment may swing from time to time depending on “who” previously was in disfavor with the voters.

          <

          p>As Sabutai says, I would not want Joe Sixpack doing my heart surgery or defending me at my trial. But you also have to be careful since much of the angst about Obama in 2008 was because he lacked any real experience for a “President”. How many people are running for office right now with little to no experience in that field?

          <

          p>Guy Glodis is the Worcester County Sheriff, so how does this make him qualified for State Auditor?

          <

          p>Niki Tsongas for Congresswoman… what office did she emanate from… hr “home” office?

          <

          p>Who is better at running a state… a former CEO of a large company or a former corporate lawyer for Texaco and Coke-Cola?

          <

          p>How many people win public office because of their last names? Kennedy… Bush… O’Neil… too many to list.

          <

          p>How many people win office because they are “attractive”?

          <

          p>How many lose at attempts to win public office due to bad hair, bad teeth, wrong religion, wrong last name (Joe Hitler), bad relatives, less than attractive qualities which have ZERO to do with their public office (like porn)…

          <

          p>I don’t know what the requirement should be for a candidate but I know some very successful politicians who are regular Joes and some failures who were much smarter than a 5 year-old.

          <

          p>If you look for the most important qualities people desire for their leaders you will see honesty, integrity, trustworthy… but intelligence is not usually high on the list.

  8. the President’s policy or to retreat ASAP?

    <

    p>Is the answer to our economic woes to spend another 1-2 Trillion dollars to help our economy without regard to the deficit or concentrate on controlling the deficit? We could find economists on either side of this argument to answer yea or nay!

    <

    p>I wish more politicans would be thoughtful about their answers before spouting bullshit from the “cuase of he day” crowd.

    <

    p>Does anyone know the ACTUAL QUESTION? Was he asked about Global warming, climate change, how much effect do humans have on this…

    <

    p>The second reference above quoted it this way.

    <

    p>

    Though he played the intellectual on economic issues, Baker ducked a question about whether he agrees with the “scientific majority that climate change is caused by human activities.”

    “I don’t think whether I believe that or not matters in this conversation,” Baker said. “What I do believe is that our overreliance on foreign oil is a big problem for national security and the economy. People can fight that fight all day long. I can get eight professors from MIT on both sides of this issue and no one in this room will walk away understanding what they said about climate change.”

    <

    p>The second reference above quoted it this way.

    <

    p>

    GOP gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker has a reputation as a smart guy, but he said last week he wasn’t smart enough to form an opinion on the hottest environmental topic of the day. Climate change: Does he believe in it, or doesn’t he?
    “I’m not saying I believe in it. I’m not saying I don’t,” he told the Globe on Friday, a day after dodging the question at a public forum on Thursday. “You’re asking me to take a position on something I don’t know enough about.”

    <

    p>Maybe this second Globe hit piece is a typical “low blow” opinion trying to say Charlie Baker doesn’t believe the climate is changing. Scientists are almost in agreement with that. Who/what is causing it? How much of the change is from humans vs. nature’s natural cycles? Lots of debate their and I would defy anyone here to say THEY know the answer. How much sulfur dioxide comes from man vs. volcanoes…

    <

    p>Sometimes it i the wise man who admits he doesn’t know the answer to life’s questions.

    • If someone isn’t quite sure about an issue its fine to say so, but then you also run the risk of accusations of “nuance”, which is fine with me, but apparently not with everybody.  This particular issue is largely settled though, so I get awfully suspicious when people hedge on it.  It would be one thing if he said he wasn’t completely sure what the best policy approach was to address global warming, but it sounds like he was questioning its existence or human culpability, for which there really is not room for legitimate debate anymore.

      • … sometimes given by GOP reps on the birther question.  “I haven’t looked into it.”  “Lets just let the facts speak for themselves.”  Etc.

    • I’m sure Baker will say more on Global Warming, but skepticism certainly isn’t a bad starting point.  A little skepticism would have done GW well before going into Iraq.  Each side has its own crazy schemes and the War on Carbon Dioxide is becoming the Democrats’.

      • emissions and climate change is the Democrats’ “crazy scheme” akin to George Bush’s invasion of Iraq?  

        <

        p>Are you really suggesting that Democrats should be more skeptical about climate change?  

        • Democrats should be more skeptical about the proposed solutions to climate change.  But just like the Republicans’ “do whatever it takes” attitude towards terrorism, the Democrats can’t help themselves.  With current technology, we can’t stop climate change by reducing CO2.  The best we can hope for is to slow it down at great cost.  NPR publicized research last night that showed for every $1 spent on CO2 reduction, we save 2 cents in climate damage down the road.  It’s a terrible waste of resources, and the way it will be implemented will just be a free-for-all for every government and corporation on the planet to pick our pockets.  

          <

          p>And let’s not forget the sad example of Haiti – it’s crushing poverty that makes some of us so vulnerable to the ravages of nature.  Every thinking person is concerned about the planet, but we need to keep our eye on the ultimate concern here – people.

          • capable of raising sensible questions such as these, rather than positing that the entire phenomenon is a hoax perpetrated by dem dang in-tuh-Lek-Shulls.

          • Okay, since we’re on the slippery slope to a Haiti-like existence, what do you suggest we do?  Nothing?  Something?  Move to Mars?  

            • Lightiris – Compare the human cost of an Earthquake in Port-au-Prince to a similar one in San Francisco (1989).  That’s my point.  The US will adapt to global warming fairly well.  It’s economically undeveloped areas where there will be the greatest human impact.  Helping them to develop and get their act together today will prevent far more human suffering than reducing CO2 emissions.

              • of the earthquake in Port-au-Prince with the Loma Prieta quake of 1989 because they are entirely different earthquakes despite their being strike slips of similar magnitude–and I tell you that as someone with a degree in geology.  Comparing the cost–human or otherwise–is apples to oranges, especially when one considers the socioeconomics of each respective region, the actual geomorphology of the terrain itself, the quality of engineering & construction, and the ability of the two populations to respond to emergencies.  San Francisco has stringent earthquake specs for construction and regularly scheduled trauma drills for both the geological community, the emergency preparedness/medical community, and local law enforcement.  Haiti has no such responder infrastructure.    

                <

                p>What we can say is that the socioeconomics of Haitri contributed to shoddy construction, deforestation,  poor engineering, poor emergency infrastructure, and ineffective emergency response.  For example, Haiti only graduates about 80 physicians a year (poorly trained, at that) for about 9 million people.  We graduate over a 1,000 each year in Massachusetts alone.  

                <

                p>I think, however, the larger point you are trying to make is valuable despite the flawed comparison.  The poverty in any third-world nation contributes substantially to the nation’s inability to respond effectively to a natural disaster or crisis.    

                • The socioeconomic differences are exactly what I’m talking about.  Poorest, least developed country in the hemisphere vs. richest – look at the different outcomes.  Of course, there are differences in the geographic situation, but you seem to agree that the socioeconomic differences are key here.  Heck, even the deforestation is caused by desperate people looking for fuel.  

                • in a rational world that any comparison that pits Haiti against San Francisco is valid.  

                  <

                  p>I agree that poverty is bad.  

          • … except for the alternative which is where WE ALL DIE

            <

            p>

            Democrats should be more skeptical about the proposed solutions to climate change.  But just like the Republicans’ “do whatever it takes” attitude towards terrorism, the Democrats can’t help themselves.  With current technology, we can’t stop climate change by reducing CO2.  The best we can hope for is to slow it down at great cost.  NPR publicized research last night that showed for every $1 spent on CO2 reduction, we save 2 cents in climate damage down the road.  It’s a terrible waste of resources, and the way it will be implemented will just be a free-for-all for every government and corporation on the planet to pick our pockets.  

            <

            p>The only way this paragraph would make any sense at all is the scenario in which the cost of doing nothing was… well… nothing.  It is not.  As I see it, climate change mitigation will be supremely cheaper than anything else proposed: doing nothing will incur significant costs even if it doesn’t eliminate the species as we trend towards individual mitigation: health care costs, building code changes for regional climate differences, agro- and horti-cultural based dietary shifts and arable land reclamation… even if global climate change were trending towards that which me might view as positive, the sheer size and magnitude of the changes would incur significant costs.  Anybody who doesn’t recognize this has their head stuck in the sand… or somewhere else…  

            <

            p>In effect, the resources have already been wasted: we mindlessly toss what we consider ‘waste’ into the atmosphere thinking that just because we can’t see it, it’s not important.

            <

            p>

            • …is not “supremely cheaper than anything else.”  If investing $1 in mitigation spares us 2 cents in climate damage, then it’s obviously much cheaper to just deal with climate change as it happens.  In other words, if we’re going to have to spend $.98 to deal with the damage anyway, why waste $1 today just to reduce that burden by only 2 cents?  If you break it down, the War on CO2 is an unbelievable waste.

              • *[new] But climate change mitigation… (0.00 / 0)

                …is not “supremely cheaper than anything else.”

                <

                p>Sure it is… if you believe, as I do, that complete and wholesale revision of how we exist on this planet is the other option.

                <

                p>You can spend one dollar to keep your tires properly inflated and free of damage. But if forgo that dollar because somebody once told you that you’d only recoup .02 cents, you risk having to spend THOUSANDS of dollars on a new car if you crash… and that’s not even counting medical expenses if you hurt yourself or anyone else.  

                <

                p>

                If investing $1 in mitigation spares us 2 cents in climate damage, then it’s obviously much cheaper to just deal with climate change as it happens.  In other words, if we’re going to have to spend $.98 to deal with the damage anyway, why waste $1 today just to reduce that burden by only 2 cents?

                <

                p>It’s not a zero sum… we aren’t ‘left’ with a remainder of .98 cents.  We could spend that .98 cents, plus and entirely new 300.98 for each dollar we don’t spend today in mitigation. Any effort to ‘just deal with climate change’ is going to be extremely expensive…. or, as I pointed out, we could just go extinct. That’s, actually, the cheapest solution at this point.

                • is built into those numbers.  According to the study, “Climate damage” is the total cost of just dealing with the consequences of Warming.  Dollars to donuts, technology will catch up with the problem before we go extinct. đŸ™‚

    • Sorry John, but Charlie Baker is just dodging, weaving, and ducking to stay in line with GOP denialists about climate change. This exchange is a case study in GOP dissembling.

      <

      p>My first observation is that in Friday’s exchange with the Globe, he missed a golden opportunity to actually educate and advance the discussion, an opportunity that we here should seize even if Mr. Baker passes.

      <

      p>Like evolution, relativity, and gravity, climate change is not something we “believe in”. The very phrasing of the question launches the discussion down an unproductive rat-hole with no good outcome. More specifically, it moves the discussion from a reasonable, constructive and crucially important path (with outcomes that GOP hardliners don’t like) into yet another sh*t-slinging insult-fest that seems to characterize the GOP approach to every issue of substance.

      <

      p>So the first thing that Charlie Baker should have said is something along the lines of “With all due respect, climate change is a matter of science, and is far too important to be determined by our beliefs.” To your credit, I think that’s what you’re trying to say in your last paragraph.

      <

      p>The rub here is that politicians who are not scientists must make crucial policy decisions driven by science. It seems to me that even given the shortcomings of current climate science, the climate science community is nevertheless far more likely to provide reliable guidance than all the alternatives — specifically including personal belief and political ideology.

      <

      p>In Thursday’s exchange, he was asked a different question — whether or not he agrees with the scientific majority that climate change is caused by human activity. The scare quotes on “scientific majority” aren’t needed — an overwhelming majority of climate change scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activity. This question has been asked and answered, both informally and in two peer-reviewed papers. Its outcome is clear. This does not mean that anthropogenic climate change is necessarily a fact. It does mean that overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the evidence points that way.

      <

      p>His assertion about the “eight professors from MIT” is an outright lie. He might get Richard Lindzen to speak against. There simply aren’t eight climate science professors at MIT who have challenged AGW in peer-reviewed literature. Yes, there are crackpots everywhere. Hopefully even Charlie Baker knows that, for example, Nobel Prize winner William Shockley is not going to add value to a discussion about the influence of genetics on intelligence.

      <

      p>The claim that a debate exists in the climate science community about the anthropogenic origin of current climate change is simply a lie. It is the same lie, often made by the same people, that a similar debate exists in the life science community about evolution. There simply is no scientific debate; the science on this specific aspect is, in fact, settled and has been for a very long time. So much so that any climatologist who publishes a paper to the contrary in a relevant peer-reviewed publication, and whose work is subsequently validated and confirmed by independent research, will surely get a Nobel Prize. That’s how science works.

      <

      p>There was no “low blow” in the second Globe piece. Charlie Baker clearly sought to avoid separating himself from the GOP party line on climate change denial.

      <

      p>Thinking Republicans (and voters) deserve better.

      • I don’t think these two comments from the Globe phrased the question the same way which is why I would like the “exact” quetion quoted…

        <

        p>First…

        <

        p>

        Baker ducked a question about whether he agrees with the “scientific majority that climate change is caused by human activities.”
        The second reference above quoted it this way.

        <

        p>Second…

        <

        p>

        Climate change: Does he believe in it, or doesn’t he?

        <

        p>It just seems to me the first asked does he agree with scientists that humans cause climate change while the second suggests he doesn’t believe the climate has changed?

        • What’s your relationship with the Baker campaign, again?

          <

          p>If this is the best defense you can muster, he’s off to a bad start.

        • Thursday, he was asked if he agreed with the scientific majority that climate change is caused by human activities. His answer was both evasive (reliance on foreign oil is a different topic, and would be problematic even if the AGW weren’t an issue) and dishonest (there is no scientific debate about the “A” in AGW). As I wrote earlier, in fact he could not find eight MIT climatologists who argue against AGW (Richard Lindzen is the only one that I’m aware of, and even Dr. Lindzen disputes the timeframe and extent of AGW rather than its existence), and I strongly suspect he knows it.

          <

          p>Friday, he was asked a different question — does he “believe” in anthropogenic climate change.

          <

          p>As I wrote earlier those are two different (though related) questions. Because they were two different questions, in two different settings, they were reported as such. No “low blows”, no “hit pieces”.

          <

          p>You’ve summarized the two rather nicely in your last sentence.

          <

          p>The fact that the candidate gave two woefully inadequate (and, in the first example, outright dishonest) answers is a problem for Charlie Baker to solve, not the Boston Globe.

    • Is the right answer in Afghanistan… (2.67 / 3)

      the President’s policy or to retreat ASAP?
      Is the answer to our economic woes to spend another 1-2 Trillion dollars to help our economy without regard to the deficit or concentrate on controlling the deficit? We could find economists on either side of this argument to answer yea or nay!

      I wish more politicans would be thoughtful about their answers before spouting bullshit from the “cuase of he day” crowd.

      <

      p>Whether or not the thoughfulness went into the action is debatable. What is not debatable is that, wrt Afghanistan Obama made a decision.  What is similarly not debatable is that Obama made a specific decision on economic matters and on the deficit.  

      <

      p>He made the call.  

      <

      p>Now whether or no Charlie Baker is too stupid to understand the ‘cause of the day‘ he still has to say what, or at least how, he’s going to actually decide upon those issues when he is The GOVERNOR of the CommonWealth of Massachusetts.  Simply signalling that he’s too stupid to make the call is, in fact, an endorsement of the do nothing position. And if Charlie Baker had taken a similar attitude with respect to health care issues he WOULD be leaning on a shovel right now…

      <

      p>

      Lots of debate their and I would defy anyone here to say THEY know the answer. How much sulfur dioxide comes from man vs. volcanoes…

      <

      p>Too much.  There. Happy now? You have your answer.  You can continue to debate it, long past it’s shelf life, but the mere presence of debate, especially when one side of the debate is debating issues THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND, does not mitigate the need for decisions.    

  9. Baker tried out his new, I don’t know nothing, stance on Thursday.  By Friday, when he as asked directly by the Globe whether he really meant it, he had gotten good and warmed up.  If someone says something stupid in the spur of the moment, and then amplifies the comment the next day after having a chance to think about it we’re not talking about a “hit piece.”

    <

    p>Republicans and those inclined to give Baker a shot should rest easy.  This comment is a disgrace in every single possible way–it should, in my view, absolutely disqualify Baker from holding any office, but it won’t because the Media does not really care that much about the issue.

  10. Does anyone know the details of Charlie Baker’s severance package from Harvard Vanguard?  he is so driven to cut everyone else’s pension, I was curious to know what he got for working at Harvard Vanguard, for what 10 years, if that long.

    <

    p>Provide info if you have it.

    <

    p>Thanks,
    Rhonda

      • I have worked for the state for 23 years as a social worker on a locked psychiatric unit.  I am insulted by your comment about leaning on a shovel.  Anytime you or Charlie Baker want to come and do my job, come on ahead.  Your comment is so typical of people who think all state employees are hacks. Sorry to burst your bubble, but most are not.  I will more than earn my pension as it will require me to work close to 35 years to earn it.  It is important to know the facts before you comment, which is why I wanted to know the details of Charlie Baker’s severance package.  His severance should be clearly stated as mine is.  All state employees income/pension is public information.

  11. Not only is Charlie Baker achieved a new low on the stupid scale he fails, utterly, to credit anybody else with smarts of any kind enough to get anything done.  According to him, the mere presence of ‘debate’ on the issue precludes the taking of action  I feel stupider just trying to argue this point…   I’m sure there are plenty of health care issues attendant with more than their share of debate… but he musta come down on one side or the other in order to be

    <

    p>The crux of his argument is that nobody can pinpoint a clear problem. Not he. Not you. Not anybody.  It’s a clear signal to the troglodytes on the right that, as Governor, he won’t do anything in advance of the issue… which means he’ll probably reverse all of Governor Patricks efforts (RGGI, solar, electric, etc).

    <

    p>But what’s pan-galactically brain-foozling is the clear attempt to both run on expertise (“I’m a health care exec, trust me”) and run away from expertise (“I’m too stupid to be trusted”).   It’s one thing for Dubya and Cheney to pull this anti-expert line, since they never were perceived as having any expertise themselves but rather they ran on ‘honor and decency’ (yup, just threw-up in my mouth…).  I could maybe see how some people (I’m looking at you Texas) could buy this line with Dubya and Cheney, but Baker is trying to do this in a state that has MIT and Harvard the two of which together make 7 outta the top 10 universities on the planet…  

    <

    p>Whoever is advising you on this run, Charlie, fire them now.  

Archives