Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Slaughter in Connecticut: 20 Children, 6 Adults Dead in Kindergarten Massacre
- How the Mighty (Mississippi) Has Fallen: Historic Drought Plagues US
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Wealthiest Kissed, Weakest Kicked: Obama's Ugly 'New Deal' Offers to Cut Social Security
- Remember All the Children, Mr. President
- Save the Children: Tears and Tragedy in Connecticut
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democrats Roll Out Climate Change Big Guns, Republicans Remain Immune
Climate hearing appears to fail to sway Republicans before Thursday's vote on curbing Obama's green ambitions
Democrats have attempted to get Republicans to confront the science on climate change, in an effort to halt moves to block regulation of greenhouse gas pollution. But it's not clear that the appeal to reason worked.
California Democrat Henry Waxman described the Republican's bill as 'breathtakingly irresponsible'. (Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images) In an increasingly contentious hearing, Republicans insisted that science on climate change was "not settled" or accused world-recognised experts who had been called to testify of holding "elitist and arrogant views".
"They literally just try to make somebody out to be a flat earther if they disagree in a scientific way," complained Louisiana Republican Steve Scalise.
Democrats had pushed for Tuesday's hearings in the hopes that testimony from climate scientists might give Republicans second thoughts in their moves to strip the Obama adminsitration of its powers to act on climate change.
Republicans are set to move as early as Thursday to vote on the bill that would achieve this. It would permanently block the Environmental Protection Agency from reducing greenhouse gas emissions from factories and would block any further reductions of car exhaust emissions after 2016.
Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who wrote the separate 2009 climate bill, called the new bill "breathtakingly irresponsible".
"If my doctor told me I had cancer, I wouldn't scour the country to find someone to tell me that I don't need to worry about it," Henry Waxman, told the hearing of the energy and commerce committee.
"Most of us don't substitute our own judgment for that of experts when it comes to medicine, nuclear engineering, building bridges or designing computer security."
Waxman appealed to the Republican leadership of the committee to delay the bill and take a closer look at the science. Ed Whitfield, the Kentucky Republican chairing the hearing, refused. "On this side of the aisle, we feel the EPA is forcing Congress to act quickly," he said.
Tuesday's hearing heard from four recognised climate scientists as well as three well-known climate sceptics.
The scientists came armed with the latest evidence on how climate change was raising the dangers of flooding in Europe and wildfires in the US.
Knute Nadelhoffer, a University of Michigan professor, noted that Lake Superior had already warmed by 4.5F since 1979, and that similar trends were visible in smaller lakes.
Witnesses invited by Republicans tried to compare their cause to that of famous dissenters – such as Galileo – who were eventually proved right.
But that rationale brought ridicule from Richard Somerville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography who noted that Einstein had almost immediately been accepted by his peers.
But environmental organisations – and even some Democrats at the hearings on Tuesday – despaired that such a hearing on climate science had to take place at all. Or that it would have any effect on current thinking in the Republican party.
The majority of Republicans in Congress now deny the existence of man-made climate change, or oppose reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report by the Center for American Progress.
And even at Tuesday's hearings, Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican, insisted his schoolboy textbooks had contained chapters on global cooling. When Somerville testified global cooling was a myth debunked long ago, Griffith said: "I was there."
Jay Inslee, a Washington Democrat, lamented on Tuesday that even if Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were testifying, Republicans would still not accept the science until Antarctica had melted.
Inslee, who had a three-feet stack of scientific books on his deck, complained: "The media report on science like a divorce trial – he said, she said." Claims from climate deniers – none of which have support in peer-reviewed scientific journals – should not get equal time, he said.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
96 Comments so far
Show AllBeyond the climate issue lies something even more important: How does the US electoral system manage to put people in power who are utterly lacking in intelligence, knowledge of vast areas of learning, and in critical thinking ability? We will never make any progress in this country until that problem is fixed.
Answer: Media, the new god.
"Corporate-controlled" media- the god of the last several decades.
Typical of the kind of news you should expect from ABC - the Always Be Conservative network. This will only get worse. I am ashamed that so many of my fellow citizens would have voted for these right-wing No Nothings and taken the easy way out instead trying to learn the truth. As Naomi Klein said the other day global warming is not about facts with these people, it is an identity issue. If you are Republican then you are expected to be against the belief in global warming. Remember that their great hero, Reagan, once said that trees created more pollution than cars.
"Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." - Schiller
Anyone who voted for the corporate duopoly is tainted and culpable. Obama's energy bill is narrowly focused on coal and nuclear with nothing but a few crumbs to advance sustainable energy and which completely voids any monetary penalties against polluters.
This article is more Green washing. To suggest that the Dem party is an entity who is our personal savior and protecting our interests and Mother Earth is laughable and misleading. Nothing could be farther from the truth as evidenced by the Obama
Admin's many corporate sellouts, to wit,
*Unlimited carte blanch drilling on the Eastern Seaboard, and deep water drilling
*Unlimited mountain top removal permits to assuage the coal industry
*A fantasy called "clean coal'
*Attacking Govt whistleblowers who told us the use dispersants were one molecule away from anti freeze.
*Greenpeace surveyed the BP spill noting that all the submerged oil in the Gulf extends for hundreds of thousands of miles making the bottom of the Gulf a "moonscape."
*No penalties for polluters. No cap and trade which is only a shell game to appease big business.
*Taking the Grey wolf off the endangered species list to accommodate corporate ranching.
The Dems are only engaged in a public relations campaign which rightfully hits the Republicans and identifies their intractability on the issue. But the Dems have absolutely no resolve to fight back when they controlled both houses of Congress and The Presidency: they avoided passing an enlightened energy bill out of fear of being cast by the right as 'extremist' thus in reality the Dems are every bit as intractable as the Republicans simply because they don't have/and have never had the RESOLVE to act.
This narrative hopes to create a backlash so to empower the Dem party back to a majority; where they then can back peddle and DO NOTHING MEANINGFUL on behalf of the Earth; then, of course, the pendulum swings back again as we leap frog from election to election while nothing ever gets done to address the problems.
This type of non sense is a marketing game, to create various illusions for the herd with its intent to insure power and nothing more.
To argue otherwise, denies the corruption in both parties.
Nuclear energy funded by taxpayers but then turned over to be run for profit and void of legislation in case of an accident for personal injury arises.
Moreover, Nuclear plants are always built in areas near the most vulnerable populations to avoid court fights or on lakes or rivers which have been documented in destroying water safety.
Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush ------ fill in the blank for the same dysfunction.
In a general way you are right, but by generalizing you discount some Democrats who are adamantly opposed to playing games with this doom to be. They need support.
Would somebody explain to me how the Republicans, who control only one house of Congress and do not control the presidency, can stop EPA action based on previously passed legislation. Do we think the Senate will go along with this B.S.? Is the Administration so scared of the barbarians that they will go along too?
It must have felt a lot like this in the last 50 years or so of the Roman Empire too, when the whole structure was crumbling because of selfishness and incompetence, except that the Romans didn't take the whole earth down with them.
"How does the US electoral system manage to put people in power who are utterly lacking in intelligence, knowledge of vast areas of learning, and in critical thinking ability?"
Perhaps the answer is that these elected officials are representative of the electorate. But even those voters with a decent education are not immune from this kind of lunacy.
Over the years, I have known a civil engineer and a physician who were creationists; a geologist who is a numerologist; a chemist who believes in ghosts; and a mechanical engineer who is a climate denier.
Based on my interactions with these people I feel certain that they all are voting for tea party candidates.
That's an awful lot of "tainted culpable" people. Name calling like that is surely the way to make them see they made a mistake and prevent them from doing the same next chance they get.
Your sign on name suits your point of view.:)
Other countries would not elect the clowns that act on our behalf in Congress. Climate deniers, Creationists, those opposed to family planning, Evangelicals convinced the rapture is at hand, those who "know" austerity will cure the economic ills of the country--it is like a freak show at a circus. We elect them because--I believe--Americans do not see the value of learning outside of assimilating the skills needed to earn a living. It's OK to go into engineering, medicine, or business--but why would anyone learn history or literature? The immigrants who came here did not respect that kind of learning. Perhaps they connected it with class resentments they carried with them from the Old World. In effect, the American people do not care for thinking. They esteem hard work, individualism, entrepreneurship, perseverance, but they do not value critical thinking, knowledge, inquiry. Thus you have Wisconsin voters choosing Ron Johnson over Feingold and Scott Brown over his opponent. You can blame it on the public schools (as some do at this site)--but I think it has more to do with values that have stood for centuries.
The whole culture is based on myth.
I think it is more accurate to note the rise of anti-intellectualism (a long term thread in our history) came from opposition to elites and being denies a liberal education. Knowing they were being denied. What they were given were public schools designed to train workers and trade schools. Access, even in my college years was limited with the elite schools being not open to me. Still though, and you can look at Obama's program, the mode is to shuffle people off to community colleges to train them - Train.
My immigrant ancestors were very much about honoring literature and history. So in my experience, what you say does not ring true.
In the early years of the twentieth century fewer than 25 percent of Americans completed high school. Seventy-five percent went off to work. The kind of high school education offered to those who stayed on tended to be heavily weighted with Latin, classical English literature, and history and government courses that emphasized rote learning. School was definitely about setting up class barriers--separating those that could conjugate amo, amas, amat--from the unwashed rest. Workers do not forget these things--they are defining experiences in life. I cannot speak for Europeans and their feelings about higher education, but I do see how education became elitist in this country. I do speak as an insider as I taught in junior high for thirty-one years (though that does not necessarily mean I am right!)
Just to add an interesting note relative to the "anti-scientific" culture of the US, a few years ago my sister from San Diego was visiting me here in the Czech Republic, and it happened that parliamentary elections were being held in the country at the time, both for "senators" and "representatives" (that is, their rough equivalent here in the Czech language).
One of the local candidates for senator or representative of one of the major parties -- I cannot remember which -- had a campaign poster visible all around Prague. Now, get this: In the list of his qualifications for the position, "scientist" was displayed prominently on the billboard!
After I had translated the text of the political advertisement to her, my sister remarked that back in the US, if you stated that you were a "scientist", people would ask why you weren't back at work in your laboratory in your white lab coat, and why you should even be thinking of running for public office to begin with!
In other words, being able to claim that you are a scientist is considered an "asset" here in the Czech Republic, but back in the US any such admission would be a political liability! If anything, it would generally be fatal to the career of a federal senator or representative, and certainly to a presidential candidate: I may be wrong, but can anyone list any US senators or representatives who are or have been scientists? I can't think of any offhand!!
Peace
Another possibility is: They know what they are doing and would even deny the science if Antarctica DID melt and sea levels DID rise! They are pillaging for profit. They stick to their agenda because they want to gain total control for the corporations....More money for them. They want global dominance of whatever resources and slaves are left over after the big crash.
They know exactly what they are doing and it is working out splendidly for them.
They are lying murderous thieves.
"Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents, American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses, American Universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces -- garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish ignorant citizens, your gonna get selfish ignorant leaders. And term limits ain't gonna do ya any good... your just gonna end up with a brand new bunch of selfish ignorant Americans.
So maybe, maybe... maybe it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe there is something else that sucks around here. Like, the public. Ya, the public sucks. There is a nice campaign slogan for somebody: The public sucks, fuck hope. Fuck hope. Because if it is really just the fault of these politicians, where are all of the other bright people of conscience? Where are all of the bright, honest, intelligent Americans ready to step in and save the nation and lead the way? We don't have people like that in this country. Everybody is at the mall, scratching his ass, picking his nose and taking his credit card out of his fanny pack and buying a pair of sneakers with lights in them.
So, I have solved this little political dilemma for myself in a very simple way: On election day, I stay home. I don't vote. Fuck em! Fuck em! Two reasons, two reasons I don't vote. First of all, it's meaningless. This country was bought, sold and paid for a long time ago. The shit that they shuffle around every four years... (air stroking my penis) ... doesn't mean of fucking thing. And secondly, if you vote... you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around, I know, they say, "Well, if you don't vote you have no right to complain." But, where is the logic in that?
If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people and they get into office and screw everything up... well you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem. You voted them in ! YOU have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain as loud as I want about the mess YOU created that I had nothing to do with.
So, I know that a little later on you're gonna have one of those really swell presidential elections that you all like so much. You'll enjoy yourself and you will have some fun. I'm sure as soon as the election is over your country will improve immediately. As for me, I will be home that day doing essentially the same thing as you. The only difference is: when I get through masturbating... I'm gonna have a little something to show for it, folks."
Yours truly,
George Carlin
---------------------------------------------------------------
George was right. If we ever want to make any progress we will need to address the systematic issues that produces the garbage in, garbage out. Real power lies in the economic system. Until we challenge and focus on fixing this fact... nothing will change -- at least not fast enough to stop the complete destruction of our biosphere.
Democratize the economy!
No doubt, the cream does not rise to the top in the u.s. government, but I plan on voting for Bradley Manning for president. It won't save the planet, but I'll know I'm voting for someone with a conscience.
RE: "How does the US electoral system manage to put people in power who are utterly lacking in intelligence, knowledge of vast areas of learning, and in critical thinking ability?"
The US electoral system is working as it was designed to work, and is working very well. Our electoral system, or any other part of our political system, was designed to serve the interests of rich people: the ruling class. This has been true from the very beginning.
The only thing "new" is that you are beginning to lose your illusions.
If you think what I am saying is totally wacko, see Charles A. Beard’s “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States” (1913). The Founding Fathers designed the government to serve the interests of their class (rich white men) and to prevent "the mob" (their word for democracy) from ever gaining traction. And, they did a pretty good job.
Yup, the electoral college is a perfect example of the "respect" they had for the average voters will.
Great quote from Two Americas:
"The lever in the voting booth is not how we control those in power, it is how those in power control us."
The public has been politically dumbed down for a long time, that's how. The electoral college should have been constitutionally amended years ago. The Two Party System is a fraud to stage fake conflicts that hides the fact that they're all in cahoots. But, to quote another of my heros, Gore Vidal, the American people aren't stupid, they're ignorant. The difference is that stupid people are stupid and will stay that way no matter what's done to try to smarten them up. Ignorant people can be educated.
We haven't succeeded so far, but keep on postin'! People may actually be slowly getting it.
Well you could see it that way and ignore history. The last 100 years has been progress to enhance democracy in this country. Women's sufferage, Voting rights act, direct election of senators, etc. What has happened is things have gone too far for the mandarins and all of this is about getting control back. It began in earnest in 1980 when buying people off was not working so well. Note all the new bills to undermine every women's issue, right to work laws and even a bill to curtail child labor laws. It is a full court press to go back to 1892 (Homestead days).
To discount the 100 years of progress through struggle and blood of those who came before is pretty sad.
Well said. I believe you are right. From the "mandarin" point of view things have gotten completely out of hand. That is why one of their chief propagandists, Rush Limbaugh, has stated that their objective is to destroy everything that FDR ever achieved. I imagine that would also include LBJ's "Great Society" programs as well.
The peasants have gotten too uppity and expect too much. These ruling class elitists will do whatever they can to destroy the middle class and turn back the clock to the 19th century when people knew their place and God was a Republican who loved Wall Street.
RE: Well you could see it that way and ignore history. The last 100 years has been progress to enhance democracy in this country. Women's sufferage, Voting rights act, direct election of senators, etc.
None of these things you list were achieved by electoral politics. They were achieve via the efforts of mass movements. You are just repeating Liberal mythology and ignoring the real history of the struggle of working men and women.
The US public votes them into office. The same public that is steeped in ignorance and which allows itself to be lead around by the nose, just as would cattle. Only on occasion does it display willfulness by braying like an ass.
If Democrats (Jimmy Carter and post-politics Al Gore possibly excepted) had ever been terribly serious about doing something about climate change, we wouldn't be having this debate now. As it stands, the only American politicians who ever did anything of significance in terms of environmental protection are . . . Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. That's just how bad American politicians have been on the environment.
Hey Drosera, you wonder ' How does the US electoral system manage to put people in power who are utterly lacking in intelligence, knowledge of vast areas of learning, and in critical thinking ability?' It seems very simple to me....most americans have been dumbed down from serious attacks of psychological warfare, of which approximately 200 books have been authored about, and these people, lacking in intelligence, knowledge and vast areas of learning and critical thinking are voting in these corrupt, not stupid, politicians! In my view, it is critical that Americans become aware and familiar with these psy-ops that are being conducting on them and then protect themselves from this constant bombardment. For example, one of the key weapons for delivering these psychological war attacts is through the mass media, Fox, CNN etc, and these 'propaganda' machines need to be boycotted. Turn off your TV and read something intelligent! I don't suspect this is going to reach general awareness anytime soon, most unfortunately!
The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
H. L. Mencken on elections
Baltimore Evening Sun, 26 July 1920
Wow, what a great quote! I think I'd come across the last few sentences before, but I can't remember seeing this extended version. Thanks.
It seems much more apropos to Reagan, or Dubya, than Obama. But I think Mencken is approximating the appalling realization that Amerika's pathological, surrealistic political culture and process guarantees that to win the Oval Office Throne, one must be, or become, an opportunistic, predatory, amoral, narcissistic Hollow (Wo)Man-- a personification of the lowest common denominator of the electorate.
Hail, Democracy!
This sounds a lot like the President that they have in the film "Idiocracy".
This seems a good place to cross-post the following.
=A fire broke out backstage in a theater. The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that's just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from wits who think its a joke.
Soren Kierkegaard, Denmark, 1813 - 1855.=
Trylon
Recent reports show that students in America are doing poorly in the sciences compared to other nations. Is there any wonder why?
Remember the days of Mao when scientists, teachers, and any educated people were persecuted as elitists. Kids were instructed to verbally and physically abuse their teachers. Same thing starting to happen here today.
You're speaking of the "Cultural Revolution," or Mao's last gasp. Many were more than persecuted, many were actually killed.
Anyone who doubts that the culture war-obsessed Christian right wingers would enthusiastically jump at the chance for that kind of pogrom . . . well, they'd be more optimistic than I am (of course, everyone is more optimistic than I am).
There are culture-war obsessed people on the right and on the left in this country, and the plutocrats are loving it. After all, they developed and encouraged the culture wars, and the corporate media, which they control, feverishly keeps pouring fuel onto those fires.
Have been a subscriber and reader of "The Skeptical Inquirer" for most of its existance, the bi-monthly publication of The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, formerly known as The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP.) If there is any organization more deeply concerned about rational skepticism and critcal thinking I'm not aware of it. The climate change debate has not been neglected there, and the contributors, directors, and fellows of that organization (many women hold those positions) are in agreement that the science of AGW has met the rigours of rational skepticism, and the deniers are either disingenuous, dishonest, or paid mouthpieces of fossil fuel industries. CSI does not merely speculate but compiles facts, dissects reports, and exposes errors in critical thinking.
The rational skeptics are not on the side of the deniers.
One minor correction. The story refers to climate change "skeptics". There are no climate change skeptics. A skeptic is one who waits for the evidence to come in before reaching a decision. What we have are climate change denialists -- totally unwilling to be swayed by any amount of evidence, adept in the practice of ad hominem attack, well funded by special interests (the power structure from the past), who cut their teeth denying that smoking causes cancer and have now found a new client with deep pockets and a complete disregard for humanity.
Taking your point a bit further, late last year I came across a posting (on some site, whose title escapes me now) which said that the debate about climate change is not between those who claim it is happening and those who deny it is happening. The debate is between those who claim the result will be a disaster and those who claim it will be a catastrophe.
That reminds me of the lady that my dad talked about. In any discussion or argument where she was coming out on the short end, she would say, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."
rjmart01 -- An excellent distinction.
Their thinking is very similar to those who deny biological evolution, the age of the cosmos, etc. And often it is exactly the same people--particularly in the U.S.
Let's face facts. The US has been behaving like an ignorant bully for much of its history. Our ethos is now dominated by ignorance, imperialism, corporatism, and militarism, and we're not very far at all from fascism. If the Republicans sweep the next national election, all of these proclivities will simply get worse.
Jim shea
If the Republicans sweep the next national election, all of these proclivities will simply get worse...
Or perhaps not.
The election of Obama has been an utter catastrophe for the rational left. All would-be allies fell in line behind him. Formerly vibrant organizations like United for Peace and Justice completely folded under Obamoid donor refusal to fund any criticism of his administration.
The socialist left would have made far more progress if McCain had been enected.
"The election of Obama..."
It is true and it was by design.
Towards the end of the cheney travesty,
god/media spoke of the imminent demise of the republican party.
When Obama shot up through the charts,
god said it was a grassroots phenomena.
Hope and Change
Then Obama the democrat was appointed, I mean elected.
The republicans quickly took charge.
No change, at least not for the better, and
god said the tea party was the populous movement.
Hope was dashed.
The left had all the wind from their sails stolen.
Here we be, as god says the citizenry has shifted its loyalties to the right.
It is all a ruse.
RE: The socialist left would have made far more progress if McCain had been elected.
The following by Naomi Klein may support your conclusion:
Naomi Klein today on DN!
NK: "...when bad things are happening, it’s helpful to have a bad guy. And Scott Walker is a good bad guy. And he has galvanized progressives. And people have, you know, an enemy to organize around and to point out these disparities. It hasn’t happened at the federal level, despite the fact that Obama is also involved in attacking labor rights with his pushing of charter schools and draconian budget cuts. He’s not a good bad guy for progressives. So, we’re still in a situation where OBAMA IS GETTING AWAY WITH, IN MY OPINION, SHOCK DOCTRINE-STYLE TACTICS, BECAUSE PEOPLE DON’T – STILL DON’T WANT TO BELIEVE THAT OBAMA IS DOING IT, TOO [emphasis mine].
So, when you have an easy bad guy, a Republican governor who’s obviously trying to be the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, you can mobilize the left. But it won’t just work if we are only going after the Republicans and if this is fought along just partisan lines, as opposed to being fought based on principle. No matter who is doing it, we need to be mobilizing, if it’s Obama, if it’s Scott Walker."
Uplifting illusion is dearer to us then a host of truths-----Pushkin
If you're going to quote it twice, at least get it right: Uplifting illusion is dearer to us *than* a host of truths.
Uplifting illusion is dearer to us then a host of truths-----Pushkin
You can say that again! You can say that again!