Who says there’s no common ground in Washington anymore?
Tonight, President Obama will try to kick-start his legislative priorities for his second term in his State of the Union address to Congress. Much is being made, as is the case every year, of what the president is likely to say. Most of the guesses so far have him focused on the economy, while also mentioning gun control, immigration reform and climate change. There are bound to be a surprise or two, and I’ll have it covered for you here tomorrow morning.
Much less effort is given to predicting what the Republican response from Sen. Marco Rubio will be — or, for that matter, the “tea party response” from Sen. Rand Paul. But Ira Stoll has taken a crack at writing what he thinks Rubio ought to say, and I think it’s rather clever on his part.
Because “our nation’s challenges are too great” for partisanship, Stoll advises Rubio to say, “first thing tomorrow, I will introduce legislation in the Senate called the Barack Obama Campaign Promise Implementation Act of 2013.”
That legislation and its companion bill in the House, in Stoll’s imagination, would include five specific proposals covering corporate and individual tax reform, energy, immigration, and policy toward Iran. All five, he writes, have GOP support and “one thing in common — they’ve all been endorsed already by President Obama.”
I’ll let you read Stoll’s suggestions for yourself, but I’d add a couple of other promises the GOP could insist that Obama fulfill. One is support for more charter schools across the nation. Another is that, “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” even under Obamacare — a notion the Congressional Budget Office finds increasingly unlikely for millions of Americans.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
212 comments Add your comment
saywhat?
February 12th, 2013
6:32 pm
You are basically referring to a given period of time which can not be extended further back without assumptions.
So in reality you form a belief based on what you think you know today…
————————————————————
How far back do you need it to extend? Fossil evidence of early forms of life exist and are consistent with evolution. Besides which, the theory of evolution doesn’t pretend to explain the origin of life, so why are you bringing it up?
And there is that word “belief” again, as if it has one absolute meaning without differentiation by degree. According to your use of the word, the two statements “I believe 5+5=10″ and “I believe wild rabbits built the pyramids” are equivalent.
MarkV
February 12th, 2013
6:35 pm
Dusty @ 6:28 pm
I do not know about daffodils getting stuck; one of my posts a few days ago disappeared, but I found a part of one word which, when separated, must have been thought unsuitable.
Daffodils not yet, but our early spring flowers are blooming already outside.
md
February 12th, 2013
6:36 pm
Saywhat…..I’m not debating the givens about evolution, I’m debating the unknowns about evolution and the assumptions many make in jumping from one to the other…….
I don’t care if the evidence points in the direction of a conclusion, that conclusion can always be wrong if the evidence is not beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It’s the doubt aspect I’m debating…….
I’ll refer you back to the Shroud of Turin as a personal example. I was raised in a church but for the most part thought it was all a bunch of hoooey. But when I watched the History channel on the Shroud (highly recommended), it presented questions I can not answer (today’s technology can not duplicate it). Although my beliefs were formulated to about 98% against, that 2% will not allow me to think I am 100% correct……
And that is how I view everything else that is not 100% provable….
md
February 12th, 2013
6:39 pm
“What is most disturbing about the global warming/climate change issue is the way politics has distorted the opinions about the state of knowledge. I am sure that without the political implications there would be no doubts about the changes happening and the mankind role. Then people could concentrate on the real issues, which is the best ways to deal with the changes, rather than fighting with those who deny that they are happening”
No Mark, what is most disturbing is that models are used that contain assumptions and people like you poo poo those that understand that as you do a victory dance……there is nothing 100% that says it is all man made Mark, and the level of contribution is and always will be up for debate.
saywhat?
February 12th, 2013
6:52 pm
MarkV @ 6:29. Exactly. It is the “party of no” mentality. Extremists will immediately contradict anything if they have disagreements with the perceived source of the information without first considering exactly what it is they are disagreeing with.
I saw an excellent example of this the other day on Jay’s blog. Jay posted a video, and some goober started posting arguments against whatever Jay had concluded from the video. Three pages later, said goober announces that he had just watched the video and had more arguments against Jays opinion. WTF? Did he run out of the arguments he kept stored up his azz so that he finally had to remove his head and watch the video? Nope. In his mind Jay said something, Jay is a way out commie liberal, so whatever he said must automatically be wrong. Its crazy.
It is also self-defeating. Because it is conservatives who have pulled the stupid on man-made global warming, they won’t be included in the search for a solution.
MarkV
February 12th, 2013
6:56 pm
md @6:39 pm
“No Mark, what is most disturbing is that models are used that contain assumptions and people like you poo poo those that understand that as you do a victory dance……there is nothing 100% that says it is all man made Mark, and the level of contribution is and always will be up for debate.”
Another disturbing thing is that people write nonsense like the one above. Making assumptions is a necessary part of any science, and nobody misunderstands that, nobody is doing a victory dance, and you write that “there is nothing 100% that says it is all man made” in a post to me, after I wrote just a little while ago (@6:09 pm) that nobody claimed that it was all man made.
MarkV
February 12th, 2013
7:00 pm
saywhat? @ 6:52 pm
I see this all the time, and the global warming/climate change debate is a prime example.
md
February 12th, 2013
7:02 pm
” I am sure that without the political implications there would be no doubts about the changes happening and the mankind role.”
That is your victory dance Mark. What that tells me is that you think everyone else is wrong and you are right. it’s pretty clear.
md
February 12th, 2013
7:05 pm
” Because it is conservatives who have pulled the stupid on man-made global warming, they won’t be included in the search for a solution.”
The problem is searching for solutions based on assumptions……now, if we want to work toward having a clean planet for the sake of having a clean planet I’m all for it, but if you plan solutions that may have adverse consequences on society based on assumptions then you can leave me out.
saywhat?
February 12th, 2013
7:07 pm
md- going through life willing to make decisions based only on 100% certainty is not sane. The exact percentage of man’s influence on global warming is irrelevant to the generally accepted fact that it is large enough to be the primary driver.
Loud noises, bright lights, difficult decisions, certain foods or drugs can all cause headaches. So can getting hit on the head with a club.
One day you may have a headache at a loud concert with bright flashing lights, where you drank alcoholic caffeinated beverages, and are deciding whether to break up with your girlfriend. You may also get told by somebody you hate that that somebody else is hitting you over the head repeatedly with a club.
What do you do?
Do you disbelieve the guy who informed you of the clubbing? Do you refuse to even turn around to look and see if its true? If you do turn and see that it is true, what do you do then? Swear to give up caffiene?
MarkV
February 12th, 2013
7:07 pm
md @ 7:02 pm
” I am sure that without the political implications there would be no doubts about the changes happening and the mankind role.”
“That is your victory dance Mark. What that tells me is that you think everyone else is wrong and you are right. it’s pretty clear.”
Another nonsense. I have expressed my opinion about the subject based on what I know about it . That is no “victory dance.” You are only making a fool of yourself.
G’nite.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 12th, 2013
7:07 pm
In his mind Jay said something, Jay is a way out commie liberal, so whatever he said must automatically be wrong.
Considering that what ever bookman says is usually wrong, I’m having a hard time following the gripe.
md
February 12th, 2013
7:09 pm
“The exact percentage of man’s influence on global warming is irrelevant to the generally accepted fact that it is large enough to be the primary driver. ”
That’s bs……there is nothing that proves that statement.
Mr_B
February 12th, 2013
7:10 pm
Hey, Kyle! Have I been put on some sort of persona non grata list? I always play nice over here.
md
February 12th, 2013
7:11 pm
“The exact percentage of man’s influence on global warming is irrelevant to the generally accepted fact that it is large enough to be the primary driver. ”
And you do know that makes no sense…right? What is the exact percentage? And at what percentage does it become the primary driver?
Mr_B
February 12th, 2013
7:17 pm
“And you do know that makes no sense…right? What is the exact percentage? And at what percentage does it become the primary driver?”
Let’s say that 40% of you income goes to housing, 10% to healthcare, 10% to energy, 10% to transportation and 20% to food.
What’s the primary expense factor?
Easy, wasn’t it?
saywhat?
February 12th, 2013
7:17 pm
“….but if you plan solutions that may have adverse consequences on society based on assumptions then you can leave me out.”
———————————————————————–
Which is exactly why a general acceptance of basic fact is so important. Then plans can be discussed intelligently.
As for whether or not they “may have adverse consequences on society”, that in itself is a giant assumption based solely on conjecture, and not scientific evidence. Doing nothing about global warming WILL have adverse consequences on society, and has been witnessed already throughout the world. If the head-stuck-in-the-ground contingent could accept this, then real discussion about whether a certain solution would be worse than the problem could take place. If found to be so, alternate solutions could be proposed and the discussion continued. The “do nothing” argument has already been shown to lead to ever more disaster and is no longer a viable argument.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 12th, 2013
7:21 pm
As one who has taken more science courses and admittedly forgotten more science than a dozen of these Libs put together, I can say, the only absolute I learned in Science is to question everything and everybody. It it can’t be repeated by others when done using the same methods, it probably never happened.
Evolution has and is happening. Did we or the wood pecker get here by evolution, no one knows. How many squirrels bounced off the forest floor before they grew the webs linking their front paws? Why did flying squirrels evolve or did the other squirrels evolve and drop their webbed fore legs. No one knows, that is what is great about Science, the know it all’s don’t last long in Science. Science breeds humility, because we understand and know so little.
Often we don’t know, what we think we know.
Sailfish
February 12th, 2013
7:28 pm
hillbilly d
That’s pretty strange that you brought up the idea that presidents in the past used to just send over a copy of their state of the union to congress; Imagine if the president reverted back to that practice today? All the talking heads and 24/7 news cycle enablers heads would surely explode! For that reason alone, I say mr. president – send it in.
Hillbilly D
February 12th, 2013
7:30 pm
All the talking heads and 24/7 news cycle enablers heads would surely explode!
Now that I would watch.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 12th, 2013
7:31 pm
saywhat
There is an old scientific principal, if you don’t know what you are doing, first do no harm. The people who rush us usually have an ideological agenda that they want to get enacted, while the time is right. Delay often proves the need was never there to begin with. Al Gore in his book, Earth in the Balance, said the ocean levels would be 6 feet higher by now. New Orleans and New York are not under water. We didn’t ruin our economy and do anything he said, and ocean levels have not appreciably risen. He supposedly was basing his book on all the most advanced science available.
md
February 12th, 2013
7:35 pm
“Let’s say that 40% of you income goes to housing, 10% to healthcare, 10% to energy, 10% to transportation and 20% to food.
What’s the primary expense factor?
Easy, wasn’t it?”
Let’s say you answer the other question vs answer with a hypothetical…..
And then for grins and giggles, can you please post the data associated with the natural climate cycles of the earth, and not just the last few hundred years.
And that is where the problem begins, as we don’t have it, can’t get it and never will have it, so what do we do?
We assume……..
md
February 12th, 2013
7:37 pm
” Doing nothing about global warming WILL have adverse consequences on society, and has been witnessed already throughout the world.”
And what exactly has been witnessed? Are we witnessing a natural cycle or something else?
this is where our earlier conversation kicks in…….the possibilities are endless, yet you want to draw conclusions based on assumptions……
saywhat?
February 12th, 2013
7:38 pm
That’s bs……there is nothing that proves that statement.
——————————————————-
There is nothing that proves God exists with 100% certainty either, and yet from your posts,you appear to conduct your life based on the assumption that he does. I assume you would agree that it is beneficial to the individual and society as a whole to conduct oneself as if God does exist, and follow his laws etc, even if it turns out he doesn’t exist.
The same could be said for man made global warming, especially since there is far more evidence that it does exist, and that the consequences of ignoring it are dire.
Just as their have been and may always be imperfect results from the application of peoples’ belief in God (war, persecution of innocents, etc.), does that convince you that belief in God should be abandoned?
Coversely, just because there will be misapplication of solutions based on the more factually based belief in manmade global warming should hardly indicate that nothing should be attempted. A guarantee of 100% perfect results is never possible for any endeavor, no matter how well grounded in fact.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 12th, 2013
7:38 pm
saywhat
If the choice is being cynical or gullible, I will take cynical every time. Cynical gives you options, gullible means you are a fish on the hook.
md
February 12th, 2013
7:41 pm
“He supposedly was basing his book on all the most advanced science available.”
He was basing his book on the fact that people are gullible……and he is dancing all the way to bank.
Cap and trade will make him a billionaire with a b, and he just sold his TV station to a group that gets their funding from oil sales………he played the game just like all the other guys that profited off the gullible masses.
md
February 12th, 2013
7:44 pm
“There is nothing that proves God exists with 100% certainty either, and yet from your posts,you appear to conduct your life based on the assumption that he does.”
Then you aren’t comprehending what I’m posting. I said I’m at 98-2 against a creator but the 2 will not allow me to believe the 98 is correct. I can’t prove that he doesn’t exist and the Shroud raises the possibility that I may be wrong……
The same applies to the belief that man is the primary cause of the warming when that isn’t measurable without assumptions…..
CC
February 12th, 2013
7:44 pm
Rafe:
Conderning evolution . . . I think many times that the conversation I would much rather have is about adaptaion rather than evolution. Sometimes I believe that the wrong arguments are being made . . .
Gotta go and unplug stuff including this computer , , , severe lightning storm!
saywhat?
February 12th, 2013
7:54 pm
“And what exactly has been witnessed?
Do your own research- there is plenty out there, or just possibly trust the people who know ALOT more about it than you? Would you take a drug thats supposed to cure some ailmet if it was offered to you by some stranger on the street, or would you go to a doctor? Would you insist a doctor explain down to the cellular amino acid level or even atomic level how a prescribed medication works (if he even could) before you would take it? What if the science couldn’t conclusively prove the exact mechanism of how the drug worked? Or, do you trust that your doctor has enough personal expertise based on years of study, experience and continuing education to know that it will. He in turn has to decide whether or not to trust the research that says it does work. He makes that decison to trust the research based on what significant knowledge he DOES have regarding human biology and scientific method. It is generally not arbitrary.
“Are we witnessing a natural cycle or something else?”
No.
All assumptions are not equal. I assume you believe in God. I also assume you paint yourself blue and wave your thingie at farm animals. One of these assumptions is based on observations of fact which I am qualified to make (i.e. I am literate and have read the posts you make on this blog). The other assumption is made solely because I like to think it is true. Are they equal in validity? (Please say yes
)
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 12th, 2013
8:00 pm
Let’s see here, are we going to watch another obozo speech chock full of lies or are we going to watch the hockey game?
Go Blackhawks!
saywhat?
February 12th, 2013
8:01 pm
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 12th, 2013
7:38 pm
saywhat
If the choice is being cynical or gullible, I will take cynical every time. Cynical gives you options, gullible means you are a fish on the hook.
—————————————————————
What about people who were cynical about the research that said smoking causes lung cancer?
Gullibility is belief without any evidence to support the belief.
People who are cynical without the application of reason are just being gullible in a different way.
md
February 12th, 2013
8:07 pm
“Would you take a drug thats supposed to cure some ailmet if it was offered to you by some stranger on the street, or would you go to a doctor?”
Now there is a question for the ages. most doctors are not pharmacists and go off information given to them by their drug reps. The last time I had a side effect do to a drug my doctor told me it wasn’t one of the published side affects.
And have you read the latest news out of Europe about the booster flu shots? turns out many of the kids given the shot now have permanent narcolepsy…….
So, street pusher or doctor….hmmmm.
saywhat?
February 12th, 2013
8:12 pm
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 12th, 2013
7:31 pm
saywhat
“There is an old scientific principal, if you don’t know what you are doing, first do no harm.”
Actually, that is part of the Hippocratic oath
“The people who rush us usually have an ideological agenda that they want to get enacted, while the time is right. Delay often proves the need was never there to begin with.”
You mean like the decison tom invade Iraq?
” Al Gore in his book, Earth in the Balance, said the ocean levels would be 6 feet higher by now. New Orleans and New York are not under water.”
They both were recently, New York more recently than New Orleans. How many more times does it have to happen before it becomes a “real” problem?
“We didn’t ruin our economy and do anything he said, and ocean levels have not appreciably risen.”
What proof do you have that any proposed solution would “ruin the economy”? Republicans and wall street managed to do that that without doing anything proposed in Gore’s book.
” He supposedly was basing his book on all the most advanced science available.”
He is a popular author, not a scientist, and the book/movie was written on a level for laymen to understand. Believe it or not, the consensus of the worlds scientists was not in any way influenced by anything Al Gore wrote.
Good night.
md
February 12th, 2013
8:13 pm
“Adverse Drug Reactions put 2.2 million people in hospitals and 106,000 died, “making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death.” Journal of American Medical Assoc, 4-15-1998 ”
I have the utmost respect for doctors, but I also know they too have limitations……
md
February 12th, 2013
8:15 pm
“They both were recently, New York more recently than New Orleans. How many more times does it have to happen before it becomes a “real” problem?”
Using storm surge as an example?
Really?
saywhat?
February 12th, 2013
8:21 pm
The last time I had a side effect to a drug my doctor told me it wasn’t one of the published side affects.
————————————————–
Maybe that’s because you just “believed” you had a side effect, and made the assumption that the drug caused it when it did no such thing. After all, you don’t have 100% proof the alleged side effect would not have happened even if you hadn’t taken the drug, and you have no way to ever prove it. You should therefore have no objection to taking that drug again, right?
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 12th, 2013
8:21 pm
Gullibility is belief without any evidence to support the belief (or so much trust in the person providing the “evidence” (your doctor, Algore, Obama) that you suspend your innate cynicism.
Conservatives seem to be innately cynical, no matter the source, libs tend to only be cynical of those they disagree philosophically with. Just my observation,
I’m outta here, gotta find something on the DVR to watch, other than Oblabber.
saywhat?
February 12th, 2013
8:25 pm
Yesterday’s storm surge may become tomorrow’s high tide. Just ask the residents of Tuvalua, and the Kiribati islands.
md
February 12th, 2013
8:27 pm
“Maybe that’s because you just “believed” you had a side effect, and made the assumption that the drug caused it when it did no such thing. After all, you don’t have 100% proof the alleged side effect would not have happened even if you hadn’t taken the drug, and you have no way to ever prove it. You should therefore have no objection to taking that drug again, right?”
Cute….but wrong.
Had the same effect every night for months after taking the drug…..once the drug was switched for another there was no more side effect. Cause and effect and a common denominator…..
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
February 12th, 2013
8:28 pm
What proof do you have that any proposed solution would “ruin the economy”?
Well, how about my heating bill. Obama’s executive actions closing coal fired electrical plants is causing energy prices to rise. How about the price of gasoline. Checked the pump price lately. You think rising energy prices is good for the economy?
Del
February 12th, 2013
8:29 pm
Looks like the rouge ex-cop far left mass killer has met a fiery end. This fiery end will probably only be a preview of what he faces in eternity.
md
February 12th, 2013
8:33 pm
“Giant Lost Island Found on Atlantic Seafloor”
http://news.discovery.com/earth/ancient-island-sank-beneath-the-atlantic-110718.htm
Hint….the tectonic plates are constantly moving……and that includes islands.
md
February 12th, 2013
8:49 pm
“Contractors using echo-sounding technology to search for deep-sea oil found the lost world beneath the sediments and debris that accumulated in the 56 million years since the island sank northeast of the Orkney-Shetland islands.”
Were we polluting the earth and causing all this mayhem 56 million years ago?
Natural cycles…..what percentage? Buehler? Anyone?
tiredofIT
February 12th, 2013
9:08 pm
Don’t Tread
February 12th, 2013
10:56 am
The cornerstone of the Democrat party platform is limiting the freedoms of people they don’t like. (It’s no wonder CPUSA supports them.) Bait and switch, abuse of power, the constant coverups, “selective” enforcement, etc. are all just ways “the end justifies the means”.
Bigger government = less freedom.
++
Then why do republican’s keep increasing the size and influence of the government? Home Land Security, Medicare D, No Child Left Behind, etc.
Just how big should the government be with over 300,000,000 people? This isn’t 1790. At least government employees wages go back into the economy, not in an off-shore bank account.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
February 12th, 2013
9:18 pm
Obozo’s legislative priorities? Dead on arrival. Unless he includes something that isn’t his typical anti-American nonsense.
md
February 12th, 2013
9:19 pm
“At least government employees wages go back into the economy, not in an off-shore bank account.”
Yes, but they first have to come out of the economy in the form of taking them from someone else…..gov’t employees do not pay for themselves.
Bruno
February 12th, 2013
9:22 pm
JDW: You want a culprit…in 2001 when Duhbya took over it was $825 billion….he grew to $1.3 trillion. You want a reason the problem has not been addressed in the last 4 years…look no further than the Republican House that refuses to acknowledge historic low revenues and wants to fund tax decreases with Grandma’s Social Security and Health Care.
Folks–That’s the long version of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s simpler “They want to push Grandma off the cliff.
You need some math work Bruno…that $2.5 trillion in taxes was on a GDP of $13.88 trillion…last year it was $15.6 trillion. What we needed to do was collect at the same rates that were in effect in 2000. Those rates in a healthy economy yield tax revenue at about 20.5% of GDP which is what we need.
Your argument would make more sense if our biggest tax collection years were in 2000 or prior. The historic collection years were in 2005 and 2006, long after the Bush tax cuts went into effect. And, as long as we’re spreading the blame around, maybe I need to remind you that it was Obama and the Dems who extended the BTCs in Dec, 2010, when they had solid majorities in both the House and the Senate. But, even by your stated favorite tax rate of 20.5% of GDP, the collections last year would have been $3.12 T, still far short of what we spent.
What bothers me about you, JDW, is that you appear to be the best and brightest of the Libs who inhabit the Wingfield blog. Yet, you don’t seem to have the ability to answer a straight-up question without resorting to all kinds of gyrations in order to make Obama and the Dems look better. Try having a little integrity for once in your life.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
February 12th, 2013
9:44 pm
The historic collection years were in 2005 and 2006, long after the Bush tax cuts went into effect.
———-
Heads exploding. Kinda like Obozo’s debt.
Bruno
February 12th, 2013
9:44 pm
indigo: Those opinions about Evolution and Climatology show your “extensive background in Science” is strictly of the Christian fundamentalist variety, and is esentially worthless.
indigo–In case you haven’t followed, I’m not a Christian in any strict sense of the word, and most certainly not a fundamentalist. My Science training came at Harvey Mudd College, considered by many to be one of the premier schools of Math and Science in the world. My objections to the above theories are strictly on Scientific grounds. But, since you have apparently limited yourself to dividing the world into two camps, those who agree with you and “fundamentalists”, I won’t waste any time enlightening you as to why Evolution and climatology (in its present state) are junk Science. If you like, however, I can direct you to numerous Bookman archives in which I’ve shredded both.
JDW: As for the Theory of Evolution…that is theory as in the scientific sense which has nothing to do with faith…Much like the Theory of Gravity
For starters, JDW, there is no “Theory of Gravity”. We know that gravity exists because we can measure it, and we have been able to quantify it’s effects. In a qualitative way, however, no one understands why gravity exists or how it works, just as no one understands why positive and negative charges exist at the atomic level.
Based upon some of your other posts, such as your 5:33, your 5:46, your 5:56, and your 6:14 among others, I know for a fact that you don’t know your ass from your elbow when it comes to understanding Science. All you can do is make blind appeals to authority, since you don’t understand any of the concepts involved well enough to discuss them on your own. Maybe you can take a crack at my challenge to MarkV a few days ago:
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2013/02/08/who-says-i-never-let-yall-have-fun-on-the-weekend/?cp=9#comment-183629
Bruno
February 12th, 2013
10:02 pm
MarkV: What is most disturbing about the global warming/climate change issue is the way politics has distorted the opinions about the state of knowledge.
You know, MarkV, I probably couldn’t have said it any better myself. Anyone who dares to hold an opinion outside of the new orthodoxy is ridiculed and ostracized. Yet many brilliant scientists like Freeman Dyson aren’t buying the hogwash. This is what Mr. Dyson has to say about the computer models which are driving the current hysteria:
“The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in…”