home

Heading Home:Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Lewis Libby Trial Coverage
Posted on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:55:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm flying back to Denver today and will be back to regular blogging Thursday night to Sunday, when I return to the Libby trial for closing arguments. If anyone would like to donate, here's how.




donate to TalkLeft




If you'd rather donate anonymously, please use Amazon here.

As always, thanks in advance. Your generosity is really appreciated. As an added incentive, the top three donors will get a free TalkLeft 4th Amendment Subway Tote.

< The Defense Rests | It's Time to Close Guantanamo >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Heading Home:Open Thread | 33 comments (33 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    BALCO- lawyer was leaker (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 09:12:05 AM EST
      Link

       This is the kind of thing that gives lawyers a bad name.

    Global Warming and Common Sense (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 10:12:08 AM EST
    It snowed in Nepal, Katmandu on Wednesday for the first time in 63 years. Southwest Virginia is well on its way to the coldest February on record and the birds are fluttering around the bird feeder on the deck, feeding in preparation for another dose of cold and snow. Even the beautiful Redbirds, Blue Jays and Blue Birds who will normally only feed at the feeder on the edge of the woodlot and brush line, have joined us this morning, and I would swear that the largest male Jay has fussed at me to do my duty and restock his favorite restaurant.

    We have had snow in Las Vegas and cold in LA and my morning orange juice has doubled in price because of the freeze in Florida. My heating bill is up 40% and the cold in the Midwest and Northeast tell me that the demand for oil will double, pushing prices higher.

    And Congress cancelled a hearing on Global Warming  because of extreme cold and snow. How delicious. How absolutely delicious.

    What does the temperature in Katmandu, Southwest Virginia, my back yard or in DC have to do with Global Warming?

    Nothing, of course. Nothing at all. Which is to say the current cold tells us as much about global warming as did the heat last summer. Nothing at all. Yet the media last summer was busy talking about Global Warming and Algore, the new Hollywood idol and environmental extremist prototype released his movie and dumped millions of pounds of the dreaded carbon dioxide  into "Mother Earth's" oh so vulnerable atmosphere while jetting about in his private plane to lecture and hector us.

    Yet based on nothing more than computer models, tree rings and a proven wrong hockey stick, an unholy trinity of Hollywood, politicians and environmental wackos have convinced a fair number of the populace that the end is near unless we give them control of our lives, and of course, unlimited access to our wallets. Of course the "end" was in ten years, but has now been moved out to "30" years. Since no start date is given, I would think that those on the Left, who complain bitterly over what they see as an eternal war on terror would be asking for at least as much detail and transparency as they demand from Bush.

    As has been noted by Nigel Lawson and others:

    As Mr Blair's guru, Lord Giddens (the inventor of the so-called third
    way), laid down in this context in a speech last year, "In order to manage risk,
    you must scare people".

    Yet even with the model for what is happening made clear by those who would tell you when you can drive to the grocery, the press continues to demand even more koolaid and repeat the claims with no reality check and no demands for accountability from the boys and girls from consensus science who claim to be right because "We agree with each other."

    It is truly "I'm okay, you're okay," ran wild.

    So the fear mongering continues.  We have claims that farmers won't be able to grow their crops and we will all starve, completely ignoring that farmers will just grow other crops. Malaria can't be controlled, and that we can't cope with a destructive sea level growth of a quarter inch per century. How dumb do the alarmists take us to be? Very dumb.

    The growth of the .03%... that's three hundredths of 1% ...that comprises the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is waved like the tail of a monster that we can't stop unless a thousand virgins and our economy is sacrificed, while we ignore the moisture content in the atmosphere and can't explain why the earth suddenly warmed a thousand years or so ago without the assistance of the terrible automobile's carbon dioxide exhaust.. yet it did.

    There is archaeological evidence that in Roman Britain, vineyards existed on a commercial scale at least as far north as Northamptonshire.

    And even more puzzling is that as the population increased and the use of carbon increased:

    ...during the 17th and early 18th centuries, there was what has become known as the little ice age, when the Thames was regularly frozen over in winter, and substantial ice fairs held on the frozen river..

    All of this reminds me of a recent book called "The Death of Commonsense." I feel I must tell the author that he should revise it and select a new name. "The Death and Burial of Commonsense."

    Common Sense (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 10:58:43 AM EST
    Love the prose Jim. The setting with the birdfeeder in the backyard was a nice touch.

    I don't claim to know anything. I certainly don't succumb to fear of much of anything. The success of humanity has been our ability to adapt and if the climate changes, I suspect it is this ability that will come in handy as our species continues to evolve and survive into the future. And, if we don't--well, then it is to the fossil records we will go.

    But common sense, I think I have. And I don't fear global warming any more than I fear the Muslim radicals taking over the US and killing us in our sleep. Who has times for such fears when we have gardens to till and birdfeeders to fill.

    My common sense does tell me a few things though. Your common sense tells you that military spending and troops stationed overseas is necessary for keeping the world at bay so we can enjoy the fruits of our heritage and peace in the heartland. So, much for common sense. My common sense tells me some things too, though. Let me begin with some background or fearmongering.

    Scientists tell me, and I have no way to personally verify, but they tell me anyway that CO2 content in the atmosphere has been on the rise since the beginning of the industrial age (how much and percentages always seem to vary depending on the presentation and the agenda of the presenters). They tell me also the CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Then they tell me that the polar ice regions are melting. I have also been told that CO2 is produced from the powerplants that produce opur electricity and the gasoline that powers my car.

    oh, finally, they tell me that the average global temperatures are on the rise and the highest average global temperatures on record have generally occurred in the last decade or something like that. But, thats not common sense thats science. I'm a skeptic. I don't trust science. I turst my common sense for good or bad.

    I'm a human and I try to explain things around me, using what I have at my disposal. All that science above is one of those things I have. They tell me that climate change is most noticable in the polar regions. I live far from the polar regions, but closer than most in the US, in MN. I have memory. I have been ice fishing on a lake in Central Minnesota since I was a child. When I was a child,  the question going into winter was whether or not the ice would be thick enough to get the ice houses out on during thanksgiving break. There was no question, the ice would be thick enough by Christmas break. The ice fishing season in Minnesota was always long (and very fruiful-I used to catch all kinds of nice walleyes as a kid. Still do, but now we throw em back). Well, not lately. I'm not sure the last time was that the ice was thick enough by christmas to get the ice houses out. Its been a few years. Thanksgiving? Not since, the 1970's maybe early 80's.

    So, My common sense, in order to search for an explanation says global warming seems plausible. And the human trait that puts a cuase to an effect, in order that we can adapt thinks, perhaps this might not be such a good thing, especially for the little ones and the ones not yet born. My common sense, as faulty as common sense sometimes is - but, what has been at the core of humans ability to adapt, thinks it would be prudent to drive less, use compact florescents, turn the heat down in the winter, turn off the Air conditioning in the summer and try all means of reducing my energy consumption. If my common sense is wrong, I'm a little more cramped in a small car, colder in the winter, warmer in the summer, but so what. It's not fear that is my motive, but common sense.

    Parent

    Yes and Yes. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 01:47:15 PM EST
    Jim and Peaches, nice job. I agree with both of you, to the extent that you are saying the same thing: Less hysterics (so-called "fearmongering") and more discussion of options.

    Why do I stop caring when someone starts talking about Global Warming? Because people have been freaking out about this issue from the time I started elementary school. It has been nothing but near-hysterics since that time, culminating in Al Gore's fantastical claim that Global Warming is leading to more hurricanes.

    The first step to any discussion of climate change these days, as far as I am concerned, is convincing the audience that you aren't simply trying to scare the be-jesus out of everyone in order to make political gains. Then you can move on to your science project.

    Parent

    I agree, (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    for you, me, Jim and others. However, what does one learn from the post 9/11 rhetoric of terrorists attacking and the fear of them taking away our way of life. As far as political gain-the fear tatics worked. We were so scared out of our pants we probably would have supported a decision to drop one big nuclear bomb in the mountains of Afghanistan so we could sleep safe with the knowledge that one more boogie-man was dead. And if Saddam didn't scare the bejeebers out of us, we would never have gone into Iraq. Same goes for the cold war and the build up of our nuclear arsenal. or just about any war in the history of western civilization.

    Fear is a powerful motivator for political and social change. I'm not endorsing it, just acknowledging a fact. I want to believe that love and respect can be an equally powerful motivator, but that is the idealist in me and is not reflected by recent history. If the hysterics and fear mongering are a product of a campaign of propaganda to motivate sweeping social and political change in favor of less reliance upon fossil fuels, rather than merely the pragmatic spread of information to the public so we can make informed decisions--well, this still might be the most pragmatic and productive means to achieve a desired result. Certainly, it is the means we have most evidence for in the recent past to achieve success.

    Parent

    Reality vs Denial (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 11:15:16 AM EST
    What is an abrupt climate change?

    Could an abrupt climate change really happen?

    What is the difference between "global warming" and "climate change?"

    Should we worry about global warming?

    Do scientists agree about global warming?

    What is the Atlantic thermohaline circulation?

    Could climate change shut down the thermohaline circulation?

    What are the chances of the thermohaline circulation shutting down?

    How can global warming cause cold weather?

    If "The Day After Tomorrow" is fiction, what is the truth about global warming?

    What can be done about global climate change?

    How can I learn more about climate change?
    ----------

    Report: Global Warming's Smoking Gun is on the Table

    WASHINGTON (AP)--Human-caused global warming is here, visible in the air, water and melting ice, and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.

    "The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak,'' said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling.''

    Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles.''
    Edger (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    If you had bothered to read the link you would have discovered that no is denying, merely questioning.

    You should try it rather just passing out the canned information fed to you.

    For someone who can't believe demonstratable proof that we are engaged in a war with people who want to control the world through terror, you are quite ready to believe anything propping up global warming.

    Why?

    Could it be that the concept of a real terrorist threat that is being combated by your political enemy is not acceptable?

    And that a concept pushed by a Marxist like political theology is acceptable?


    Parent

    jim (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 01:10:55 PM EST
      Let's start from the assumption, that the proof that human activity is a contributing factor to  macro-climate change is insufficient.

      Would you not still agree that until the proof that human activity is NOT  a contributing factor it is prudent policy to limit activities we have reason to suspect might be a factor?

    Parent

    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 03:01:43 PM EST
    What you ask is for proof of a negative, which is always almost impossible.

    I do not claim that climate change is not possible. In fact, the link I provided states that climate change is real.

    The issue is what, if any, thing man has done to cause the change, and what, if any, man can do reverse or stop the chnage.

    My base contention is that the current investigations and claimed results are too speculative and too politically driven to be trustworthy. Especially when what is asked is for the west to give up growth while demanding nothing from countries such as China and India.

    Now, if you can suggest something that is not growth limiting based on a political agenda, I'd be happy to hear it. (I can think of several.)

    Parent

    "Marxist like political theology" (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 01:23:58 PM EST
    So, you're suggesting that its all some kind of left wing commie conspiracy, Jim? With no scientific basis; just a "political theology".

    Bred, no doubt, by all those left wing dominated universities that place politics ahead of science.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 02:51:33 PM EST
    Why is it that you are incapable of making an honest comment?

    I suggested no conspiracy and your introduction of such is a mere strawman unworthy of a reply.

    You may, of course, try again.

    Parent

    Climate costs: (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    The global picture
    A British government report says global warming could have a disastrous effect on the world's economy, shrinking it by 20%.

    Tackling the problem now would require 1% of global gross domestic product, the report by the economist, Sir Nicholas Stern, says.

    The latest global warming report is a huge contrast to Washington's current approach to global warming.

    The Bush administration decided not to ratify the Kyoto protocol and that called for far more moderate cuts in carbon dioxide emissions than those suggested by the Stern report:

    The world has to act now on climate change or face devastating economic consequences, according to a report compiled by Sir Nicholas Stern for the UK government.
    No eger (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 02:48:29 PM EST
    The problem is that whatever we do now will destroy the economy. Waiting to see what is really required, if anything, is prudent and sensible.

    Parent
    no, it will "destroy ther economy" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 03:06:32 PM EST
      It will have an adverse effrect because keeping  the price of energy artificially low does "fuel" economic activity, but sensible policies to reduce the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels don't have to lead to global collapse.

      Smaller more fuel efficient vehicles, and/or alternative fuel vehicles, smaller homes closer to work, increased mass transit, general energy conservation,  use of BAT to reduce power plant emissions, increased reliance on wind, hydro and solar power, reinvigoration of, gasp, nuclear power production, and just less wasteful consumption for luxuries can all be accomplished without "destroying the economy."

      Yes, our standard of living will be reduced if we price energy to reflect all of its true costs including short and long-term environmental impact. And, yes, as is always true the less affluent will pay a larger price for the decline.

       For the affluent it might just mean that living in a 6000 square foot home 30 miles from work and driving separate SUVs back and forth to work each day is no longer feasible. For the poor, it will probably mean fewer available jobs and lower wages for the available jobs.

       That might mean higher taxes are necessary to support expanded social welfare programs and that less money will be available for investment causing reduced economic growth.

       All of that is true, but it doesn't mean that we would be thrown into depression and the economy would be ruined.

       

    Parent

    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 08:55:18 PM EST
    We're somewhat on the same side, but I am also unconvinced that "alternative" fuels will be doing anything besides taking a dollar from one pocket and putting .80 cents in the other while having all sorts of unintended consequences along the way. Such as the skyrocketing corn prices in Mexico leading to price controls. All caused, if we can believe what we read, because of the new demand on corn to be used to produce alcohol... What we don't need is a worsening economy in Mexico driving more people north.

    As to the others, many remind me of the feels good looks bad joke.. People won't move closer to work until transportation costs hit them very hard in the wallet. Wind power doesn't work until you build storage systems that will take care of the calm day, or have a fully redundant back up network... What that would do is double the cost of electric power.

    Hybrid cars may be wonderful for reducing the pollution of a single car, but when they all get plugged in to the utilities grid at 6PM we will discover that we need a much bigger grid...powered by electric generation using coal, oil, natural gas or dams (unless the environmental whackos haven't had them all torn down..)

    In short, wind power offers some help, but still requires backup and storage. Other than that all we have done is use carbon from different places...

    The one thing that I absolutely agree with you is that we need to be building nuclear power plants. But don't hold your breath. However, since they are evidently good enough for Iran, France and Germany I would think the Left would finally agree we can have them.

    Even there I am not sure of the effect of all the additional water vapor pumped into the atmosphere from the cooling towers...

    Don't misunderstand. While I distrust "scientists" I am a firm believer in technology. Science has given up on the concept of proof and will sell its soul for another round of funding. Technology is its own proof. It either works or it doesn't. Models, forecasts and movies by Algore don't count.

    And hopefully there are enough real scientists left to keep feeding basic research results to the engineers.

    But that, with the exception of nuclear power, is all speculative stuff, and if there is any real studies on what the real consumption of carbon is for alternative fuels, I haven't seen one....i.e.  What is the amount of carbon burned/consumed to produce "X" amount of alcohol delivered to the gas tank of a vehicle. And don't forget that since alcohol is less effective as a fuel, it will take more of it to produce the same miles driven... In other words, let's don't forget to add the  side effects to the carbons burned per mile.

    So nothing is going to happen in the short term unless the government rations energy or increases the price through variable taxes designed to absorb any reduction in the well price of oil.

    Since rationing would be an immediate political disaster, what they will do is opt for increased prices through taxes. I read somewhere that a 20% sustained increase in energy costs(not just gas)would trigger inflation leading to the Feds jacking the overnight, and resulting business recession and most likely a depression because this time  the politicians won't opt for a tax cut to prime the pump because we will be committed to carbon usage reduction.

    So yes. This has all the trappings of the destruction of the economy.

    In the meantime I keep planting trees and teaching my grandchildren how to farm and raise a productive garden. How to preserve by canning and sun drying, smoke curing and salt curing. How to store seeds and how many must be kept to cover at least three planting /growing cycles.

    And most important. The Internet is fun but books are important. They don't go away when the power goes off.

    I doubt it is needed. But as the lady said about her prescription of an enema for a heart attack........."Can't hurt."

    Parent

    Destroyed economy (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 03:10:15 PM EST
    One of the legacies of six years of the George W. Bush Administration is that America has gone "From $20 trillion in fiscal exposures in 2000 to over $50 trillion in only six years? What shall we do for an encore... shoot for $100 trillion?"

    The United States is Insolvent
    © Dr. Chris Martenson

    The US is insolvent. There is simply no way for our national bills to be paid under current levels of taxation and promised benefits. Our combined federal deficits now total more than 400% of GDP.

    That is the conclusion of a recent Treasury/OMB report entitled Financial Report of the United States Government that was quietly slipped out on a Friday (12/15/06), deep in the holiday season, with little fanfare. Sometimes I wonder why the Treasury Department doesn't just pay somebody to come in at 4:30 am Christmas morning to release the report. Additionally, I've yet to read a single account of this report in any of the major news media outlets but that is another matter.

    But, hey, I understand. A report is this bad requires all the muffling it can get.

    More...

    Regardless of whether global warming (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    exists or not, and if it does, whether it's totally man-made, partially man-made, or totally natural, does anyone truly think that there is a good probability that "we" humans worldwide will do what's necessary to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?

    For example, according to the NY Times the IPCC defines "significant" as enough to cause a blunting of the warming trend (and that that's the best we could ever hope for, that we can't stop it) - and that blunting the warming trend would require "massive" worldwide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of a "prompt and sustained shift away from the 20th-century pattern of unfettered burning of coal and oil"- and that even if the warming trend were "blunted" the already existing greenhouse gases "will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium."

    Personally, never mind prompt, the realist in me doesn't see a massive, worldwide, sustained shift away from burning oil and coal ever...or at least not before oil and coal run out.

    I agree, Sarc (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    I think that you're right, and that people will remain in denial too long. Beyond a point of no return. I think that the biggest exacerbating problem is a psychological one - that most people confuse their "wants" with their "needs" and that too many people will fight addressing climate change by convincing themselves that they'll have to give up too much or that it will cost them too much (both of which are untrue), and that they can somehow avoid facing reality and continue doing the things that cause the problem -without ever having to pay the piper, IOW.

    Here's a good example of that kind of short term thinking:

    US answer to global warming: smoke and giant space mirrors

    Parent

    Your realist perspective is correct (none / 0) (#18)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 03:48:03 PM EST
    as long as everything remains the same in the future. A shift in burning oil and fossil fuels won't happen without disincentives. Oil and coal are still relativley cheap. However, prices will rise and behaviors will change as prices go up. The question is not whether or even when we run out of oil and coal, the question is price of oil and coal and when it reaches a point that behaviors change significantly.

    Oil has already risen to an extent that investment in alternatives is starting to be feasible, albiet with government incentives and subsidies. But, most large-scale commodities in the economy were supported by subsidies in their infancies and, with proper accounting, oil and gas are also supported and prices held down through large government investment and subsidies. I think alternative fuels that reduce the production of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to become more viable and profitable versus fossil fuels in our lifetimes and behaviors will shift accordingly. Whether they shift enough I don't know.

    Parent

    Incentives? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 04:03:41 PM EST
    It would be nice to see governments, particularly the US Government, establishing some kind of system of incentives. But it seems it is being left to the private sector, and to individuals to do what they each can on a personal level to rweduce their contributions to the problem.

    $25 million prize for greenhouse gas removal
    09 February 2007
    NewScientist.com news service
    Catherine Brahic, London

    A prize of $25 million for anyone who can come up with a system for removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere was launched on Friday. It is the biggest prize in history, claims its sponsor, Richard Branson.

    The head of Virgin Group said at the launch in London, UK, that the prize was not for removing emissions from power plants before they reach the atmosphere and storing them deep underground - an existing technology known as carbon capture and sequestration.

    Instead, the brief is to devise a system to remove a "significant amount" of greenhouse gases - equivalent to 1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide or more - every year from the atmosphere for at least a decade....



    Parent
    well a $25 million prize (none / 0) (#20)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 04:23:58 PM EST
      for a devising a technology that would likely cost 25 billion to develop and 25 trillion to build an implement isn't much in the way of a realistic incentive.

     

    I think it is (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    intended to be something along the lines of the $10M X-Prize. It's not intended to defray development costs entirely - but to "incentivize?" "incentivizable" people. :-)

    Parent
    And maybe to shame(?) (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 04:29:48 PM EST
    governments into getting involved.

    Parent
    alright Jim, (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 05:39:00 PM EST
    explain what "a concept pushed by a Marxist like political theology" means. Is anyone "pushing" the concept who dosnt have a "Marxist like political theology"?

    Try to be a little less pathetically disengenuous this time. If thats possible.

    I really shouldn't answer, but I will (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 09:27:29 AM EST
    The basic concept being pushed is that the industrialized world is the villian, and should reduce its use of carbon fuels while the second and third world does not. i.e. China and India

    This a clear taking from one who has to give to one who needs. That is a Marxist philsophy/theology.

    Sorry you couldn't get it.

    Now. Let me ask you something.

    Why did you feel it necessary to add:

    Try to be a little less pathetically disengenuous this time. If thats possible.

    Did it make you feel superior? If so, why? After all, you are the one who is apparently unaware of the fundamental concept of Marx.

    Parent

    CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS BY COUNTRY (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 10:43:48 AM EST
    .............TOTAL*...PER CAPITA
    U.S.     1,446,777    5.37

    China    917,997     0.76

    India    272,212     0.29    

    *thousands of tons


    THE TOP 20 CARBON DIOXIDE EMITTERS

    Edger - Thanks for showing us (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 11:14:45 AM EST
    your bias.....

    If you believe that Globabl Warm is real, that is caused by man and that it is destructive, the issue isn't how many people a country has, but how much carbon dioxide it is dumping into the atmosphere.

    BTW - Did you also factor in how much carbon dioxide is exhaled by all those Indians and Chinese? Cooking fires? Trees destroyed and not replaced??

    Your excuse shows that you are only concerned with causing the US to suffer, and not in correcting the problem... (IF the problem exists.)

    Parent

    The Climate Skeptic Scam (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:14:50 PM EST
    There is a line between public relations and propaganda - or there should be. And there is a difference between using your skills, in good faith, to help rescue a battered reputation and using them to twist the truth - to sow confusion and doubt on an issue that is critical to human survival.

    And it is infuriating - as a public relations professional - to watch my colleagues use their skills, their training and their considerable intellect to poison the international debate on climate change.

    That's what is happening today, and I think it's a disgrace. On one hand, you have the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific consensus in history, advising that:

    • climate change is real;

    • it is caused by human activity; and

    • it is threatening the planet in ways we can only begin to imagine.

    On the other hand, you have an ongoing public debate - not about how to respond, but about whether we should bother, about whether climate change is even a scientific certainty.

    Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change.

    This is a triumph of disinformation. It is a living proof of the success of one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of the best PR talent in the world.
    ...
    ...few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change.
    ...
    One of the best examples - the most compelling proofs that the disinformation generation is no accident - came in a November 2002 memo from political consultant Frank Luntz to the U.S. Republican Party.
    ...
    So please read on. Read everything. Check out the sites that deny the reality of climate change and then check on sourcewatch to see who paid for those opinions. Don't accept the word of people who pass themselves off as "skeptics." Be skeptical yourself. Ask yourself what motive the scientific community has to gang up and invent a phony climate crisis. Compare that to the motives that ExxonMobile or Peabody Coal might have to deny that burning fossil fuels indiscriminately could change irrevocably our existence on the planet.

    And if you still leave the lights on when you're done, make sure they're shining in the shamed faces of the PR pros who are still trying to prevent sound, sensible policy change to affect this, perhaps the biggest threat humankind has ever faced.
    Twisting and Dodging Scam (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 12:30:04 PM EST
    On Twisting Words and Dodging Responsibility
    Two items have come up in the DeSmogBlog recently that deserve further analysis. The first is the conversion of Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz who, until very recently, has been directing governments in the U.S. and Canada on how to communicate about climate change. For example, in a 2002 strategy memo to the Republican Party, Luntz wrote:

    The Scientific Debate Remains Open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.


    Parent
    Right wing paranoia (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 01:41:08 PM EST
    and hysterical fear, again, has to grossly oversimplify this complex issue into a question of who "only wants to hurt (hate) the U.S" and who dosnt; it apparently has little or nothing to do with the application of the scientific method in investigating and possibly working towards correction of error. Its, in Hannity-speak all about "Agendas".

    If the cretinism favored by these Faux types continues to progress we'll eventually be reduced to grunting about my-tribe-good, you-tribe-bad with no vocabulary to think about any issue of greater complexity.

    Aren't they doing that already? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 02:34:12 PM EST
    ::my-tribe-good, you-tribe-bad:: grunt...grunt...

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    the jackdaw who's always crowing about "the Left politicizing everything" calls the study of human impact on climate change "Marxist theology".
    The theory of evoloution is no doubt disguised bolshevism and quantum physics just a ruse created by bomb-throwing anarchists (who just want to politicize everything).

    Well, it's the same (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 04:52:45 PM EST
    logic that tries to equate creationism with science. It follows for that to be justifiable then for them to be consistent the reverse must be also be true, i.e. science is on the same level as creationism - IOW - just an opinion. Otherwise everyone would end up confused by facts. And that would make 'creating their own reality' delusion.

    Hmmm, then they would have to look into mirrors instead of falling through them...

    This could be a problem. ;-)

    Parent

    Heading Home:Open Thread | 33 comments (33 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment