Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTrick or Treat for Climate Change
Halloween is around the corner, and children will soon be dressing up and chanting “trick or treat,” their demand for candy backed up by the threat of a prank. Climate-change activists, from pranksters to presidents, are doing the same. This past Monday, the activist-artist group The Yes Men staged another of its hoaxes, with one member posing as an official from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, leading what appeared to be a legitimate press conference and stating the chamber’s complete reversal on its historically adamant opposition to climate-change legislation.
Meanwhile, in the Indian Ocean, the president of the Maldives held the world’s first underwater cabinet meeting, demonstrating that rising sea levels could very soon overwhelm his archipelago nation. With the Copenhagen climate conference less than 50 days away, people are stepping up the pressure.
The Yes Men stage elaborate hoaxes on global-trade organizations, multinational corporations and politicians. They satirically skewer corporate, free-trade, pro-business positions by acting as genuine, sincere spokespeople for these institutions, often offering apologies for past corporate crimes or promoting absurd products with remarkably straight faces at industry conferences.
In December 2004, on the 20th anniversary of the Bhopal, India, disaster in which a Union Carbide plant gas leak killed thousands of people, Andrew Bichlbaum of The Yes Men appeared on BBC News posing as a representative of Dow Chemical (which bought Union Carbide), claiming Dow would finally take full responsibility for the accident.
In 2007, Yes Men Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno addressed Canada’s largest oil conference, posing as executives of ExxonMobil and the National Petroleum Council. They announced a plan to convert the corpses of the expected millions of victims of climate change into a fuel they called “Vivoleum.” They were ejected, after which Bonanno told the press: “While ExxonMobil continues to post record profits, they use their money to persuade governments to do nothing about climate change. This is a crime against humanity.”
At this week’s faux press conference in Washington, D.C., Bichlbaum read from a statement: “We at the Chamber have tried to keep climate science from interfering with business. But without a stable climate, there will be no business.”
Fox Business News and other global news outlets carried the story of the chamber’s surprise support for climate-change legislation. During the press conference, an actual U.S. Chamber of Commerce employee entered, loudly declaring the event a fraud, but exposing himself to probing questions about the chamber’s position on climate change.
Several major corporations have quit the chamber because of its opposition to genuine climate-change legislation, including Apple, Exelon, PG&E and Levi Strauss & Co.
The U.S. chamber’s resistance to science-based climate policy is nothing new. Career public relations executive James Hoggan is the author of “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming.” Hoggan told me, “The PR stunt wasn’t pulled off by The Yes Men; the PR stunt is basically being pulled off by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and it’s been going on for decades.”
Hoggan’s book describes what he calls “a two-decade-long campaign by the energy industry in Canada and the United States, basically designed to confuse the public about climate change, and to give people the sense that there is a debate about the science of climate change.”
Oct. 24 is the global day of action organized by the group 350.org, which includes environmentalist Bill McKibben. Named after what scientists have identified as a sustainable target for carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, 350 parts per million (we are currently at 387 ppm), 350.org lists close to 4,000 events around the world on Oct. 24.
The goal is to pressure government representatives before their departure for the major United Nations climate summit that will be held in Copenhagen in December.
President Mohamed Nasheed of the Republic of Maldives is already taking action. Last week, he held an underwater cabinet meeting, donning scuba gear and literally meeting in 20 feet of water in the world’s lowest-lying country. They signed an “SOS from the frontline” declaration, reading, in part, “If we can’t save the Maldives today, you can’t save the rest of the world tomorrow.” He will carry the declaration to Copenhagen.
U.S. government leadership will be critical to clinching a substantive deal in Copenhagen, but the Senate has not finalized any climate legislation, which essentially ties the hands of U.S. negotiators. Oil, gas and coal interests are spending $300,000 a day lobbying the government. The moment of climate-change truth is upon us, and the professional deniers are up to their old tricks.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
101 Comments so far
Show AllIt always seems to me like an easy argument to settle. We have 2 choices, and we are betting our future on which one to choose.
choice 1: climate change is upon us, we can reverse it if we do certain things- reduce our use of fossil fuels, drive smart cars, ride bikes, stop working so hard, shorten the work day and week. Essentially we lead much simpler lives.
choice 2: we insist there is no problem, keep on the way we have been with our hummers and our suvs, produce and consume like crazy.
Now which is the smart bet? if we bet choice 2, and lose, the world ends catastrophically.
if we bet choice 1 and lose, nothing much is really lost. We have been living simply for 20, 30 years and then we find out we were wrong. so what? we are still alive, the planet is still alive. the air is cleaner, some of the fish and animals are back.
this is why those even handed "debates" lie they have on cnn are so pathetically stupid. or suicidal.
betting on that number 2 horse is a sucker's bet. nobody in their right mind would do it. as the yes men point out, you will not even be able to continue doing business after the planet is killed. not even the oil business.
I think you make a huge assumption with scenario #1: there is no certainty that what's been set in motion is reversible. The experts are now saying things are happening faster than computer models suggest. Can you reverse a tsunami, an avalanche or a volcanic eruption? When these events are triggered they happen and so I see no reason to believe that this wouldn't also be true on a larger scale. A wise course of action now is to get prepared for disaster, especially if you live along the water. I think it's good advice for anyone, though.
It's reversible, because the basic conditions (distance from the sun, planetary composition and age, etc) still exist. Whether it's reversible in time to save high-order life from extinction is still an open question.
Spending our time and energy preparing for the worst might not make sense, since the worst is likely to be not merely flooding and similar, but such a change in temperature and atmospheric conditions as to kill every mammal, bird, and fish. Much, much better to die trying to *stop* the changes than hope to accommodate and survive them. How could we ever accommodate 130F temperatures, or an atmosphere where half the oxygen content has been replaced by methane?
Thank you abuelo;Horse number 1 started at the gate and horse number 2 is at the finish line.Winners?None;as I stated about the middle of this discussion there is no more time to change and if they are talking about 2020 or 2050 that is maybe politically doable but is practically way to far out.The feeling I have inside is how bad and how soon.Tony
Carter had the country's "oh shit" moment in the late 70's and we've been running away from it ever since. That's been our national characteristic. We could have had better MPGs for our cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks otherwise.
45 years ago, I heard something I've never forgotten. It was a story about the daily existence of a cocaine addict. I wouldn't call it a 'life', really.
It was pointed out that every day, the cocaine addict was compelled to find a way to evade the law and steal money to buy more cocaine for another high. The next day, and the day after that and the day after that, the same story repeated itself. The addict kept doing the same old thing over and over again while expecting different results. This cocaine addicts' hopeless existence would end in prison or death. Or, the addicted individual could experience a complete change of mind and recovery from the addiction. In this case, the addict could discover an authentic, contributory and meaningful life.
The cocaine addict's tragic story is the story of all addiction: To cocaine, food, pills, cars, alcohol, fossil fuels, sex, money, power, status quo, cell phones, speed, gambling, computers, texting, bullshitting--to whatever the addiction is. Some addictions are mental. Some are both mental and physical. The repetitive thinking and conduct are the same theme. "Just keep doing what you're doing to keep getting what you're getting." This is also the story of a type of madness or mental illness. Essentially, it is the story of a type of automaton with no awareness about what he or she is doing, or how his/her addicted behaviors affect or harm others or, in the case of climate action solutions, the environment. It's an existence devoid of respect, including self-respect. An unaware human being--and that could be any of us--could be addicted to nearly anything. The addict is driven by repetitive, compulsive thinking and behaving and drive for 'more'. The high the addict shoots for becomes another low. There is no lasting happiness to it.
Addictions are about habits. We are creatures of habit and we all have habits. There are good habits and bad habits. It is very possible to outgrow and break bad habits--if the individual is sincere and decides to. The individual can choose to substitute a wholesome habit for an unwholesome one. Unfortunately, if the addicted individual remains in denial of his/her own choices, the addiction could continue until death or prison. The imprisoned or dead addict might have had the brains, talent and potential to invent the AIDS vaccine. Not if he's dead he doesn't.
What hit me the hardest about the cocaine addict's story--and still does to this day--was its punch line at the end which was this: "Can you imagine what that individual could accomplish if he put all those brains and talents to good use?"
That quote applies to any of us.
Too much of what I read here on Comment is Free is the core plaint of addicts.
The true addict says 'I am an addict.' with all the misery that entails and takes another shot and becomes HIMSELF-----well at least for a while.
And America replies, YOU GOT DRUGS? WE GOT JESUS!
America must either sadly fail and go away, or do something about it. Whichever, just do it TODAY.
I am afraid it will do neither. It will continue to feed in suits of body armour, toting guns while hooked to life support machines and screaming Die! Die! killing in remote with its now well known manic braved depraved grin and whimpering, I am dying! I am dying?
It is a tragedy. It is not admirable. It is repulsive, low-life rubbish.
Do something about it? The first step is to look in to the mirror tell the fellow there 'You are not special.'
Then the American Way instantly shows as the absurd dust it is, revealing in its place one we all love and who can love all in return.
Magic?
No. Just simple.
Wrote this awhile back and I was adicted to booze and cigs.Been dry f0r 20 and no cigs for 12.It is all a "choice";hard sometimes but a choice and a no choice is still a choice and he could have been a Jesus or a Buddha.Tony
CHANCE, CHOICE AND THANKSGIVING
Is this the year that we have the chance to make the choice of giving and humbly accepting what thanks might be forthcoming and hold ever dear?
Gather family, gather friends, take a chance, make a choice to explore and per chance to heal a hurt or renew what may have lapsed.
Sustain ever the thanks to a creator for giving you life on this planet; Whether by a God, by what ever name, or slalomed in from the outer reaches of space.
Is it by choice or by chance that one doth come to be a member of the thinking (there could be controversy here) portion of living creatures found here?
Share what you can even if it is but a smile for that can truly give others a chance and certainly a choice for a thanksgiving that, in times past, lasted.
Congrats on the 20 years. I hope you have done meaningful work with those 20 years of sobriety. There is much to be said about right livelihood.
Addiction is a natural byproduct of a corporate fascist society filled with alienated and disconnected people. Suffering is the normal state of affairs. This is as it should be as we have become a nation that exports suffering as no other in the history of planet. Give thanks to that and realize what you and I have become.
Thank you Lefty;Am a lefty physically and mentally and the journey before the cold turkey was like in a room darkly but I consider it part and parcel of my "growing up" so there are no regrets.What would I have been without the addictions;who knows?What I do know is that this Tony at 73 has and still does meaningful things for others and always,every day,give thanks.Tony
>>"Can you imagine what that individual could accomplish if he put all those brains and talents to good use?"
Sure. He could have invented more carbon producing machines to destroy the planet. He could have sat in a cubicle all day increasing the bottom line of said machine corporation. He could have stood on the plant floor pounding out more cold steel thing-a-ma-jigs to help assemble said machines. Addiction might be God's way of slowing us down. Maybe an addict can take pride in not contributing to this death spiral we are now in. As for compulsive drives, what are the GDP numbers today?
Instead of attacking Wall Street corporations and banks, wouldn't it be more productive to bring back the 90% tax? That tax worked very well, keeping the greedheads in check. But as long as they can buy our government, they won't let the people reinstate it. A national referendum could do it. And a ban on lobbying could too. Otherwise we can bitch and moan here all day.
Sure, let's tax the wealthy.
Mightn't we have to attack Wall Street corporations and banks to get that done, though?
Wouldn't that be waging war on pieces of paper?
Folks, lets cut to the chase. Just follow the $$$ as that path will always lead you to the truth. Who has the most to gain by denying climate change? Of course, industrial selfishness has the most to gain. Who has the most to lose by accepting the premise that they are the problem? Another no-brainer; Industrial selfishness. The nilistic corporations have always worshiped at the altar of the almighty $.
Doug:
You're quite humorous. Reminds me of the grasshopper playing the fiddle, while the ant gets ready for winter. Hey Doug guess what? There is no more debate. Global warming is here, it's now, and we're causing it little one. Geesh. What does it take for you to get this?
I sympathize with environmentalists but only so far. Reading this article and other similar articles sometimes drives me angry. I have three questions to ask these people and the commenters:
Where are the green jobs that we were promised?
Why aren't carbon neutral/negative replacements being made affordable for everyone?
Why do global warming talkers scoff at my dad who lost his environmentally friendly small farm to a polluting CAFO?
>>Where are the green jobs that we were promised?
Corporate fascists are preventing any meaningful conversion.
>>Why aren't carbon neutral/negative replacements being made affordable for everyone?
Corporate fascists are preventing their introduction.
>>Why do global warming talkers scoff at my dad who lost his environmentally friendly small farm to a polluting CAFO?
Corporate fascists see real money in agriculture. I doubt any global warming talkers scoff at that and I'm not sure why they would scoff at your dad. I am personally outraged by big AG and feel badly for your father.
Lefty, let me clarify on the scoffing part. I asked a few environmentalists who were concerned about global warming on why there was no discussion of the change in farming methods that also contributed to global warming and they acted as if one didn't have to do with the other. If there are more people concerned about global warming who also realize that killing small farms for CAFOs is a major factor, then kudos to them and I hope they bring this up. Thanks.
Thanks for your answers. I think more people need to find ways to take control of the corporations they work for and customers need to be alerted to the good vs bad corporations to put them on ice.
You should read some of Joel Salatin's stuff. He says his farming methods can soak up all the post-industrial carbon in the atmosphere if applied to all farms in America, or something like that. His "beyond organic" multispecies permaculture is definitely a good thing.
Interesting article asserting Obama is developing an enemy list: while the article notes this list is driven to attack the right, one wonders (by the recent attacks on leftist progressives like Hedges) if Obama has a bigger design to include the authentic left?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091021/pl_nm/us_washington_summit_politics_enemies
Climate change? What happened to global warming? I guess the fact the the Earth has been cooling for the last 8 years requires a quick propaganda modification. What is it about this climate change, that is not global warming, that will produce catastrophes that are identical to those previously attributed to warming?
Goodman bemoans her opponents', "giv(ing) people the sense that there is a debate about the science of climate change.”
If there is actually no debate, Amy, why do you have to write columns attacking the other side? Are you really suggesting that "the debate about the science of climate change" is closed? Does man now know everything there is to know about our climate and what affects its changes? Or is it just that, once the "progressive" side has settled on a course of action, the debate is closed?
What about the 31,000 scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition ridiculing the notion that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic climate change? Do you just wipe them from existence with a silly column?
This hoax is growing old. People are awakening to the fact that it is just the latest attempt of the Progressive project to transfer wealth and power from the creators to the leeches and parasites of the Left. And, in Goodman's case, to make little people with meaningless lives feel that they are important by saving the very planet from the ravages of evil mankind.
This Chicken Little crap would be funny if it weren't so damned vicious and dangerous.
I'm not a scientist but if I read that glaciers and sea ice are melting faster than usual so that they will be able to run ships thru the north from the Atlantic to the Pacific and that the cod around Newfoundland are disappearing and not all to overfishing?Using a little logic here with just one point and that is the current that runs from the glaciers and sea ice around the Arctic Sea down to around the Equator.the current picks up cold water upnorth and when it turns around down south it brings warmer water and as I;m sure you know that is what controls most of the weather from the east.No glaciers or ice what is going to cool the water for its journey south?Dont forget the closer you get to the Equator the more direct and hotter the sun is.The cod is a cold water fish and the theory is that they have not addapted to the warmer water.You can believe what you want but these facts you can go and see if you are so inclined.The currents around Africa and other places are what is making their weather so violent and unpredictable.The die is cast from my persective.Tony
This is in response to Doug Wakeman October 21st, 2009 11:00 am, which is followed by many exchanges that degenerate into frenzied personal attacks.
I'm sympathetic to the first three paragraphs of Wakeman's post, and have suffered severe attacks for saying similar things on CD. So at first I thought Wakeman might provide some cover; but his later posts, if anything, damage my cause (if it could be so characterized).
I've found the most value in the continuing CD threads on this subject comes from the links some of the most inflamed protagonists give. For example, one writer referred me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg, and suggested that settles the matter. I don't think it does, but it's very interesting and easy to understand. Recently another writer mentioned http://www.realclimate.org/, which has some rational discussion of the issues and isn't that easy to understand.
My argument after studying all these sources (admittedly, not as deeply as I would if I had the time), remains this: the relentless increases in GHG's, especially CO2, haven't prevented downturns in temperature since 1998 or an increase in the extent of arctic sea ice since 2007. To me, this establishes that anthropogenic drivers of warming are propelling the world more slowly toward catastrophic global warming than the "sky is falling" people claim. I say more slowly; not that GW or AGW are hoaxes, as the conservatives proclaim even more stridently than the warmists here on CD hawk their viewpoint.
Goodman is simply wrong to decry efforts to give people "the sense that there is a debate about the science of climate change." There is, as Wakeman says, plenty of real controversy about warming. The real controversy centers on the significance and accuracy of the evidence. Controversy about the motives/financial backing/ideology of protagonists for one side or the other is counterproductive. RealClimate leaves this to other people, although not hiding where its sympathies lie. I suggest we would all be better off to follow RealClimate in that, instead of wallowing in the muck of motives, prejudices, shills, trolls, leeches, parasites, socialists, etc.
The idea that there is no controversy about climate change has a downside. If people assume the science is settled, funding needed for better analysis and more accurate data might be diverted into a frantic campaign to stop the growth in GHG's. That would be a tragedy.
Manning,
The main venues where there is a debate about global warming are mass media and internet blogs, like this one. I don’t think there is any real debate among scientists if the warming is real or not, or if it’s man-made. The only debates the scientists are having are concerned with details, like when, where, how much it’s going to warm, and what the exact consequences will be.
I don’t know why you consider it unimportant who funds the GW research. Would you trust tobacco companies’ research on the safety of smoking? Would you believe it if they said smoking is totally harmless? There is a reason why there are INDEPENDENT agencies that certify that products meet a certain standard whatever that standard is. Why would you trust research on global warming funded by the oil industry?
Here is one more link for you and Doug Wakeman that may be worth taking a look at: www.exxonsecrets.org Make sure you click on “map Exxon’s network.”
I challenge you to find any study that claims that there is no anthropogenic global warming, that is independent and in no way tied to the oil industry money.
“My argument after studying all these sources (admittedly, not as deeply as I would if I had the time), remains this: the relentless increases in GHG's, especially CO2, haven't prevented downturns in temperature since 1998 or an increase in the extent of arctic sea ice since 2007. “ - You don’t mean to seriously suggest that you think that greenhouse gasses are the only factor responsible for warming/cooling of the planet?
“. . . funding needed for better analysis and more accurate data might be diverted into a frantic campaign to stop the growth in GHG's” There is plenty of money being spent on climate science, not only in the US, and not only by the government. See here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?ref=us
Bea October 22nd, 2009 12:28 am -- Thanks for the reply. I'll address you statements as written:
"The main venues where there is a debate about global warming are mass media and internet blogs, like this one."
Science is full of debate. New scientific research or data immediately draws responses from scientists challenging the claimed results and discussing implications.
"I don’t think there is any real debate among scientists if the warming is real or not, or if it’s man-made."
I think scientists are far from being in agreement about the extent to which the observed warming in the last, say, 100 years results from anthropogenic drivers. No one seems to doubt that more CO2 adds to warming; but how much warming CO2 causes isn't settled. There is also debate concerning how much of the increase in CO2 comes from warming oceans and other natural changes, as opposed to human activities.
"The only debates the scientists are having are concerned with details, like when, where, how much it’s going to warm, and what the exact consequences will be."
These are the crucial issues, not details. To people who are all wrapped up in ideological battles, name-calling, etc., they may seem like details.
"I don’t know why you consider it unimportant who funds the GW research."
What those of you fascinated with this non-scientific matter should do is document how much of the research is paid for by what corporate interests you believe are trying to establish whatever it is you think they're trying to establish. I'm don't think it's reasonable to think that anyone who disagrees with you about warming is wrong and worse, being deceptive, simply because they get money from corporations.
I also think, due to the concerns widely held by people like you, that the ethical standards for scientists in the climate change field should be tightened, with full disclosures required whenever someone enters the arena claiming to have done scientific work on warming. Plus, I believe it wouldn't be unreasonable to require all persons claiming scientific credentials to disclose what their funding sources were when they previously presented allegedly scientific results.
I've made this proposal before, but (surprise!) no one seems to pay any attention.
"I challenge you to find any study that claims that there is no anthropogenic global warming, that is independent and in no way tied to the oil industry money."
I don't know of any study claiming there is NO anthropogenic warming. That's the claim of conservatives like Wakeman, usually based on studies that seem to minimize the effects of CO2 or other GHG's.
"You don’t mean to seriously suggest that you think that greenhouse gasses are the only factor responsible for warming/cooling of the planet?"
The drivers for warming and cooling have been discussed at length. Some are gases; some are particulate pollution; some are heat sources (urban heat islands, volcanoes, increased solar radiation); some are ocean "oscillations." I know this as well as you do.
"There is plenty of money being spent on climate science, not only in the US, and not only by the government."
I'll check your cite. But my argument is pretty logical: If there are no scientific issues about warming, then further study is a waste of time and money, and scientists should be engaged only in trying to slow or reverse the warming.
If I’m on a flight from LA to New York and I know that the plane will crash, it’s an irrelevant detail if it happens at 7.45, or 7.47 - three hours and twenty minutes into the flight, or three hours and twenty two minutes. Similarly, it is an irrelevant detail if the Earth warms 8 degrees, or 10 degrees by 2092, or 2100 - either way it’s cooked.
It’s not clear to me if you have misconstrued the first part of my post. I don’t mean to imply that scientists have lively debates on the internet and in the media. As far as I know, scientists are pretty much done debating. It’s the journalists, paid industry shills, and laymen like you and me who are still “debating.” The global warming “controversy” is fueled by the oil industry - again, for details you can go to www.exxonsecrets.org
Obviously, you are very trusting if you think that it’s unlikely that research funded by the oil industry, whose very existence (not to mention profits) might depend on its outcome, won’t be biased. Most people are not as trusting as you. I’m afraid I am going to agree with Upton Sinclair, who famously said that "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." I find it hard to dismiss as mere coincidence that the research sponsored by the oil industry always minimizes the role of greenhouse gasses in global warming, and rejects dire predictions if we don’t stop releasing them. Likewise, I find it hard to believe that organizations and individuals that accept money from the oil industry will be objective in regards to GW. You can call it cynical, or you can call it realistic.
“What those of you fascinated with this non-scientific matter should do is document how much of the research is paid for by what corporate interests you believe are trying to establish whatever it is you think they're trying to establish.” - See, Greenpeace is one step ahead of you - www.exxonsecrets.org, - and if you paid more attention to the answers to your questions, maybe you wouldn’t have as many - I already mentioned “Exxon’s secrets” in my previous post.
Bea October 23rd, 2009 12:52 am -- I bookmarked your "Exxon secrets" link after scanning it. The legal system in the U.S. depends on considering arguments on both sides of an issue raised by contending parties, without disregarding the contentions of one side just because of possible motivations to lie or self-deceive. For judges and juries to refuse to consider what a party in court says makes it impossible for that system to work. I think it should be the same with regard to climate change. When I hear people, like you and Al Gore, say the debate is over, that to me means their minds are closed.
One only need study the IPCC reports carefully to see why I'm a bit skeptical. The IPCC states the matter in probabilities reminiscent of day to day weather forecasts. One would have to skip the qualifiers and provisos to feel any alarm at the IPCC's projections, or predictions. The MSM and people like Al Gore skip the qualifiers and provisos. As an analogy, when the meteorologists say there's a 10% chance of a hurricane striking the area in which I live, I don't get excited. But many people do. They rush out and buy plywood, they evacuate, stock up on gasoline and flashlights, etc. I, on the other hand, keep an eye on the radar and other real time data. So far that's worked out just fine, for me. And yes, had I lived in New Orleans, I would have been out of there, but not any sooner than necessary.
My response to people who aren't sure about CO2 global warming is to point out that there are many other benefits to moving to a renewable energy company. The fuels that emit carbon also emit many other, more directly harmful pollutants, the methods by which they are extracted are devastating and basically have eternal contamination consequences, and they are so concentrated that they lead to control by a tyranny, and of course wars over them.
Replacing our fossil fuel system of energy with a renewable energy infrastructure could also single-handedly eliminate the re(de?)pression we're in, and give more power (literally) to individual citizens and local communities, as opposed to the largest multinational corporations in the world.
So, even if AGW isn't what it's made out to be, although I believe it is (I'm no scientist, so I must rely on what they say), many of the steps that must be taken to solve the problem will benefit us in countless ways, and that should be reason enough to support much of the agenda that goes along with it.
P.S.- screw carbon trading. I wouldn't trust Wall Street to handle my two minimum credit card payments right now.
Manning,
What makes you think that I, or Al Gore for that matter, haven't looked at both sides of the issue?
Be as skeptical as you want. It's a good quality, even if you seem to apply it selectively (by your own admission, you are not skeptical of industry-funded research, for example). By all means, look at both sides of the issue. But when you finally reach your conclusions, does it mean that "your mind is closed"?
In court, if you have two witnesses, and each of them gives you a different account of a situation they witnessed, how do you decide which one is telling the truth? If you have no way of verifying their stories, I guess it's only logical to look both at their judgement and credibility. If two groups of scientists look at the same data, but arrive at diametrically different conclusions, don't you think it's fair to look at their judgement, credibility, credentials, possible external influences, etc.?
Here is what the 2007 IPCC report says about global warming and its causes:
- "warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
- "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"
"Very likely" is defined as meaning that the likelihood is over 90%.
If you consider that IPCC reports are prepared by thousands of scientists from almost 200 countries, it is remarkable that such a large group can reach a consensus like that. Note that the "scientific certainty" is defined as "being 95% sure that cause and effect have been correctly identified."
Oh, and 10 % is not the same as 90%. You may want to re-read that IPCC report.
Bea October 23rd, 2009 9:14 pm -- 91% (over 90%) likelihood of "most [51%?] of the observed increased in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century" resulting from increases in GHG's means about 46% of the observed increase is asserted to be anthropogenic. Admittedly, global temperatures may go up in the coming years. But it seems obvious that natural cooling drivers negated whatever warming anthropogenically created GHG's caused since 1998, even though, I'm certain you'll agree, GHG's contributed by human activity have increased since the IPCC report.
My argument is that GHG's are helping warm the planet, but in my opinion (admittedly I'm not a scientist, but some scientists agree with me) catastrophic warming, such as would result in complete melting of at least one of the polar ice caps, is not as close as people seem to think.
However, I do note that Barrow, Alaska is again having a much warmer fall than the 30 year average. There was even a television clip recently in which a Barrow resident noted that the sea there used to be frozen by this time of year, but not now. Things like this cause me to think that more emphasis on scientific study is needed than would be possible if world governments required a crash effort to drastically reduce GHG's. That would divert resources from study to suppressing GHG's, which as some have noted would totally change our way of life in the next 20 or so years -- much more, I would say, than would global warming.
Very clever, manning. Very clever.
Very creative math. Looks like the kind of math that the oil industry would be happy to sponsor.
"It seems obvious that natural cooling drivers negated whatever warming anthropogenically created GHG's caused since 1998". Never mind that history didn't start in 1998, never mind that 1998 was enhanced by ElNino, never mind that the last decade was the hottest in recorded history, never mind that 2007 tied with 1998, never mind that the last year was the 10th warmest year on record, never mind that the temperatures are measured globally and not in front of your house, and never mind that precautionary principle makes sense if you don't have another planet to move to.
You know, manning - don't worry about diverting funds, and crap like that. It's exceedingly clear that nothing will be done about global warming, until the oil industry squeezes the last penny out of oil. You can be happy that you did your part and helped. Keep up the good work, manning, until the caps melt. You are making a difference.
Oh, and just so that you know - you are not preventing the total abandonment of civilization today or tomorrow. What you and other willfully ignorant and short-sighted people like you are doing, is preventing investment in clean energy technology, and preventing conservation, which even a minor tax on energy would encourage, and which make sense for a number of reasons other than global warming anyway.
Bea October 26th, 2009 9:16 am -- I really don't enjoy upsetting you, but facts are facts. Right now, if you examine the trends shown at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg, we're at a point that could be the early part of a trend like the one that started around 1940. At that time, CO2 stopped rising for a couple of years (I don't know why), but sunspot activity was increasing. Yet the global temperature went down for about 20 years.
I don't think many people are ready to undertake the drastic changes and costs that the anti-warming program you favor would entail. So you're in for a disappointing time. On the other hand, anti-pollution and energy conservation measures will proceed because the problems addressed by those measures are clear and obvious to everyone. So you may get half a loaf while we await more definitive word concerning warming.
By the way, I heard it was 2005, not 2007, that tied with 1998.
Facts are facts, manning. You post a link to a chart that is supposed to prove exactly what? That temperatures might go down, because it happened once before? On basis of what?
How come you are not arguing that sunspots do not affect temperature on Earth, or else affect it negatively, i.e. decrease it, which is one conclusion I could draw from your post and the chart, if I didn’t know better?
You say that it’s been cooling since 1998, but then you say 2005 was as warm as 1998. Which is it? Cooling? Warming? The same?
If you want to challenge the theory of global warming, by all means do so. But make sure you know what you are talking about. Be skeptical, but be informed. Educate yourself and make sure you know more than everybody else. Who knows, one day they might give you a Nobel Prize if you manage to prove that global warming is a hoax, or else, it’s a good thing, or whatever it is that you are trying to say.
You seem to make a lot of assumptions. How do you know what solutions I propose? I don’t know of any environmentalists that say that we should unplug everything today. Why make it look like a choice between two extremes - do nothing vs. give up civilization?
You can continue these conversations online, with you bringing up some obscure graph or study, and other people debunking it or not. If this is what rocks your boat, all I can say is: have fun. I think, given what’s at stake, it’s irresponsible, but whatever. If on the other hand you are trying to learn, then here is another good place to start:
http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/nasa-hansen-2007-second-warmest-year-ever-warmest-year-likely-by
-2010/
About that tie (not that it makes any difference):
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/res
earch/news/20080116/
Bea October 26th, 2009 3:23 pm -- Your first link, dated December 11, 2007, has this: "Through the first 11 months, 2007 is the second warmest year in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis." Not mentioned is 1998, which usually is identified as the warmest in modern times, globally (1934 was the warmest in the U.S.).
The source (Climate Progress) goes on to say that "barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years." Apparently 2008 and 2009 didn't make it, so we've got one year to go -- and there's been no major volcanic eruption. File that comment away until the end of 2010 and then let's see how good the prediction was.
I believe my statements have been consistently that global temperature appears to have leveled off. Again, look at the curve in the chart I cited, as well as the one I've listed below.
I think there's disagreement among scientists concerning the rankings of recent years. Jeff Masters of the Weather Underground pointed out in I believe 2008 that 2005 was arguably warmer than 1998. However, he admitted that the other years since 1998, including 2006, 2007, and 2008, were cooler than 2005 and 1998.
On the other hand, check out the chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png, which indicates that 2007 was equal to 1998, but 2005 was warmer than both. This, if valid, makes my claim that temperatures have leveled off less credible, although the leveling is still shown on the chart, because of the large drop in 2008.
Clearly, the results for 2009 will be crucial, as will 2010. I think scientists are keeping a close watch on this and when the results are in, it will be big news, both in the scientific literature and the MSM.
If the matter was as clear-cut as you indicate, scientists wouldn't be anxiously awaiting the results for 2009. Or am I wrong? Are scientists not paying much attention to the global temperatures for 2009, because they already know we're in big trouble regardless of what happened in 2009? (I don't think so.)
Sure debate exists, though little of it exists in vetted technical journals. Some people still think the Sun revolves around the Earth. The "no debate" rhetoric is unfortunate.
Still, I have to suspect the "Oregon Petition" must have found their "31,000 scientists" somewhere near the NATIONAL ENQUIRER's experts.
The world's still warming. 1998 was not "the hottest year," as some have claimed. The poles are lurching through their cycles towards ice-free summers, and "global warming" remains even if people don't always use the same term every day.
But Doug, I suspect more people here would feel that a debate exists if we saw some reasonable argument between the ad hominems.
"the latest attempt of the Progressive project to transfer wealth and power from the creators to the leeches and parasites of the Left." –(Doug Wakeman)
–Damn, I only wish this were true. But as all 'progressive' projects they do not go far enough. And there lies the larger problem. What you state is indeed the problem because it is not the stated goal from the onset; the lack of an a priori programmatic political agenda stymies the anti-capitalist project from becoming severe enough, or radical enough to deal appropriately with prideful fascists such as yourself and the anti-human institutions they shill for.
Transferring the "wealth" would be an admirable, albeit merely a 'short term goal.' But the real project is not to effect a 'polite' transfer or to merely effect some modest social goals, while leaving capitalist hegemony intact. The larger necessity is to totally expropriate, nationalize and de-privatize control of said resources from corporate fascist control in their entirety.
And in the efflorescence of this process-destroy the putative "creators" of said wealth. They would no longer exist. In short, a world of 'accountability' and consequences for crimes. Practitioners of corporate fascism would no longer have to be 'negotiated' with incrementally. The system would no longer allow them political franchise. No, I'm not talking about YOUR rights in a 'Democracy' here. You would have no RIGHTS.
Indeed a world where right wing fascists who make sneering, malevolent statements about "little people with meaningless lives" no longer have the opportunities to think that way. Or say ridiculously stupid, nonsensical things about climate change only to goad and bait. As one forward looking thinker has famously said about HIS project, a similar fate would be in store for your wretched ilk, albeit with a slight modification in terms:
"Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy."
–(Mao Tse-Tung). An exigent little quote providing fodder for thought.
Terror as a condition of freedom? Terror as an emanation of virtue? Yes, only reversed and used against the practitioners of capitalist and corporate terror. As with many things, like for example imperialist wars, the time is long past when humanity can ill afford to let them continue by coddling their perpetrators. The same goes for obstructionist climate change deniers.
That is not an extremist position, but a 'baseline' politics predicated on 'common sense.'
The facts on climate change are not in dispute. Attacks on the facts, such as the one I am replying to here, have other agendas, based on spite and general hatred of the left. They have no intentions of collaborating positively on issues which should be 'common' cause among all political persuasions. Instead they are sordid, hateful provocations of a fascist mindset.
–(Jill Bains)
Here is some more information about the Oregon Petition:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medici
ne#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition
(Sorry - I had to break up that link, or it wouldn't show.)
(scroll down to "Case Study: The Oregon Petition")
Until not long ago, it was possible to sign it over the internet, and if you added a PhD after your name that would automatically qualify you to be counted as a scientist. Of course. That, and it was possible to sign it as many times as you wanted. They changed it, because there were too many "Donald Duck, PhD" signatures, I guess.
From SourceWatch: "When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names. The current web page of the petition itself states "31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs."
Thank you Bea. I'll look into the Oregon Petition further to determine whether it is worthwhile citing.
Doug Wakeman and Sioux Rose -You are welcome.
Doug - I’m glad you are willing to consider evidence that might upset your view a bit. Good for you. As to the questions that you ask in your first post, it seems to me that you might find some answers in Hogan’s book which Amy Goodman mentions here. I admit I haven’t read it, I think I know enough about the subject, but it sounds interesting. See also my reply to manning.
Bea October 22nd, 2009 12:25 am -- See my reply to your reply.
Sioux Rose
BEA: Thank you for supplying this data. I figured IF the right could come up with 31,000 scientists THAT stupid, then "The Brownie Effect," as in "You're doing a heckuva job" would qualify as the new Peter Principle, signifying an entire battery of credentialed personnel who were as clueless, as they were callous to the death of the vast webs of life around us (not to mention required by us).
No hoax here Wankerman. There is damage all over the planet from global warming. Not predicted, TODAY. Once again, you don't have to debate the facts, you just have to pretend there is a debate. Just because the fossil fuel industry can only garner/buy support of 31,000 scientists, I should be impressed.
Go back to the World Nut Daily hole you came from. Your schtick doesn't play here.
I have the courage to use my real name and your intelligent response is to twist it. What's your name pal?
And don't tell me where to read and post you arrogant little prick.
I can tell you anything I want you twisted right wing cockroach. Go kick your dog or drive around in your pick-up truck. Like I said, beat it clown.
Sioux Rose
I think we've got another Shawn Berry trip here, the same one or two using a variety of screen names to produce their verbal phlegm on this board. Kleenex, anyone?
If you ever need a bedwetting astro-zombie loser, Sioux Rose would make 1st place. LOL !
More lies and bs with no proof or evidence to back it up as usual. Give it up already. You can't keep accusing others of being the same person with multiple screen names just because they don't agree with you. I'm blessed not to be a black magic bullshitter.
Sioux Rose is a sore loser. If she were my wife, I would have beaten the hell out of her and buried her into the ground for acting like this. I nearly ended up killing my last ex-wife for sounding like her. Women !
Knock off your name calling and violent threat bs. You're acting just as bad as Sioux Rose !
To be honest with you Rose, this is about the most troll-free site I've ever frequented. I know I shouldn't feed them but I can't help myself sometimes. Hope you are well today!
She's feeling fine already. All she needs is another EGG PIE slapped in her face.
Another childish post from another kiddie eh? Is this how you all act on this site?
Sioux Rose
Hi LEFTY, yeah, these trolls are such bottom-feeders that it makes one realize how low some department will go to seek out "hired help." Wasn't the military taking crack heads, too?
I sense a level of mental instability that transcends crack. It also appears my comment about trolls was premature.
Why, thanks for calling Rose out on her mental instability. Oh and I didn't know she was a troll but that's your call. She's welcome to grow up anytime she's done with her psycho rantings.
That tone, that syntax, hey, I think I know you! Aren't you the fat little NAMBLA fella' who hangs around down at the 7-Eleven trying to buy Slurpies for little boys?
Speaking of NAMBLA, don't you have an appointment in the airport restroom with your boss?
Yeah, parasites like Dick Cheney and little Georgie Jr. tells me a lot, along with their marching band. Hi ho, hi ho, off to work we go...
Cheney! Bush! You forgot "Haliburton!" Ha ha! Talk about someone whose "entire vocabulary comes either at the promptings of his handlers or is punctuated by a tendency of self-pity and injured ego dramatics." Ha ha!
What about the column and the notion that the debate is closed, genius? When presented with a point-counterpoint, you resort to mindless chants from 4-year-old bumper stickers.
Dick Cheney is Haliburton; explain why Haliburton got the richest no bid contracts in Iraq genius? What don't you understand about any of this?
Closed debate? Get a grip little one, no one is keeping you from parroting your own galactic stupidity on this forum.
Ahh, I knew you would get Haliburton in there. Why are you diverting a column and a posting about "climate change" to worn out slogans from the previous administration? "Iraq!" "No bid contracts!" Why can no one here address my points, but only make fun of my name and rant about Bush? I thought this was an intellectual site.
Doug Wakeman October 21st, 2009 11:34 am -- Some of your comments suggest that from the outset, you considered this a free-fire zone, not "an intellectual site."
Nonetheless, I would appreciate a response to my post from a few minutes ago.
Man, you are going around in circles. It was you who raised the issue of Haliburton. I responded directly to your rebuttal.
If you cannot deal with it now, what can I tell you?
I don't participate on this forum to hold anyone's hand for them. With regards your assertion about Mak[ing] fun of [your] name" I would suggest you direct the comment to the person who did so: I made no such assertion.
With regards to using your real name, I respect you for it. I use to use my real name on this forum and got banned for doing so.
Fair enough. I think I'm done here.....for now.
http://dougwakeman.com/
Wow, a 9-12er and a truther all in one. I'm impressed.
Wah wah wah. He calls people on the left leeches and parasites and then whines when someone calls him a wanker. This is laughable. Somebody get out the world's smallest violin!
Sioux Rose
LEFTY: It is the troll's favored tactic. See the discussion board from the Naomi Klein article posted last Friday. The same imbecile (under a different screen name, but it sure sounds JUST like that one to me!) posted 55 comments! Then accused others, including myself, of dominating the board. I had about 14.
I am not Shawn Berry and I don't post under other names. SB said repeatedly that he is a blue collared progressive. I am a conservative. I know that "progressive" is just the latest newspeak for commie. He dislikes Rush Limbaugh. I am a big fan of Rush. He is a Naderite. I despise Ralph Nader. It was not me on the Naomi Klein column, Sioux Rose.
Sioux Rose
DOUG: I think you people come with scripts. You define yourself by age, your so-called political allegiance, which family member beat up, divorced, or harmed another; what city you live in, and then go on to dominate the threads. I haven't figured out how many of you exist, but in spite of your good cop/bad cop best efforts, you all sound alike. Robots. And another DEAD giveaway is you always cross-reference one another in your comments, sometimes throwing me or another commenter in to give your sense of belonging to the forum some credibility, I guess. I know Homeland Security has a budget tantamount to an embarassment of riches, so I would assume you geniuses are on their payroll.
Oh, and if Shawn is progressive, then I AM the Pope!
Sioux Rose says:
"And another DEAD giveaway is you always cross-reference one another in your comments, sometimes throwing me or another commenter in to give your sense of belonging to the forum some credibility,"
And this is the same Sioux Rose that does the same on her posts. Archives don't lie. Be honest and stop being hypocritical. You don't own this forum.
"I know Homeland Security has a budget tantamount to an embarassment of riches, so I would assume you geniuses are on their payroll."
You sound just like the "birther" or "9/11 truther" idiots who have no basis for their lying.
"Oh, and if Shawn is progressive, then I AM the Pope!"
If Sioux Rose is really progressive, then I AM the son of Jesus Christ ! Two can play at that game.
Sioux Rose does this to people she hates. Lying and name calling is her hobby. She couldn't prove that any of us were the same.
I may not be a rightwing jerk like you but at least you made yourself clear. I believe in pushing the Democratic Party to the left while you want the Republicans to come back. I am a fan of Nader's ideas but I didn't vote for him so that the Republican Party could screw this country up for another 4 years. Nader already gave the election to Bush in 2000 by running as a Green Party guy instead of running as a Democrat and knocking Gore out in the primaries. What has 8 years of Bush/Cheney done that you can be proud of?
If you need the Republicans to return to power, Rose will help you out. HA !
Sioux Rose
Given that the WEB = virtual reality, I can't spray pesticide to get rid of you, as I would any other buzzing gnat.
On a different matter, you say "the Republican return to power," if you actually read, or were capable of learning from this forum it might occur to you that NO significant changes of policy have been executed, that even when Clinton was head of state, the deregulation of the FCC, the "end of welfare as we know it" (except to the MIC and big corporations, particularly those too big to fail), NAFTA, and the evisceration (look it up in the dictionary) of the Glass-Steagall Act all took place. This is why Michael Moore referred to Clinton as "The best REPUBLICAN president we ever had." So, election and the two-party system represent a very expensive costume ball, a "masque," and BOTH parties with RARE exceptions serve the SAME masters. If you had the intelligence to pay attention, the evidence remains in plain sight. Nice try, troll, calling what I see what it IS, is neither lying, nor name calling. Usually I compliment people in the forum for their intelligence. In your case, that of course is impossible to do.
Your name calling and your lust for violence takes away whatever credibility you had. Any objective and independent reader can see that.
I already understand that Clinton didn't do much. The problem started out with the Republicans in Congress forcing him to go center. The Democrats may have made dumb decisions in the past but they're the only thing left for getting this country to go left. Third parties can't win, lack the resources, funding, and appeal, and they're ready to accept the spoiler role. Only a fool would try an untested third party that has no chance of winning rather than attempt to move the Democratic Party to the left. You're a rich celebrity as you posted in another post so you wouldn't understand. Why don't you give all of your money to your favorite third party and see how far you can go or would you rather sit here and act childish all day every day?
No offense Shawn but this sure looks a lot like you posting to your own sock puppet. While it might be fun, you really should do it elsewhere. You would fit in nicely at World Nut Daily or USA Today.
It's easy for you to imagine that I'm someone else's sock puppet than it is to prove it. My post proves that I'm not. Until it can be proven that I'm someone else's sock puppet, yours and Sioux Rose's claim remains a lie. Neither you nor Sioux Rose get it. I could easily call you and Sioux Rose sock puppets by your own definitions but since I can't prove it either, I won't. Relying on heresy is not proof. If you want to believe heresy without proof or evidence to back it up, what's to stop you from acting childish?
I didn't claim this guy was your sock puppet. I said it appears that way. If Wankerman isn't your puppet, I apologize. If he is, I am not condemning you or angry at you. I am just trying to point out that there are better venues for sock puppetry. Slate and MSN political groups have a lot of them. And for goodness sakes, stop defending yourself to Rose and other people. Be yourself, you're fine when you're not engaging yourself in these petty squabbles.
I don't know how you can judge my post as sounding like I was his sock puppet. All I did was just thank him for speaking out and I pointed out that yeah I disagree with his ideology and corrected him on the Nader part. I don't need you lecturing me about defending myself. I have every right to defend myself, guns or speechwise. I didn't want to jump in to this shit but SR gave me no choice. Go find one post where I actually went personally against her. I always point out what I don't like about someone's post. If you want to condone her violent threats against me even though I never meant ill of her personally, do it. But don't lecture me about it. She can sweet and all this and that with her astro mumbo jumbo that most people don't get any education in. Fine but when she goes hypocritical and threatens violence, I have every right to defend myself. I have no intention of threatening any violence against SR, never did, never will. But I will call her out on her posts even if her associates want to gang up on me and try to give me a living hell on it. She complains about dissent being silenced but when she is facing dissent, she won't debate it with civility. If I have to be banned for this, I'll accept their death sentence even if I don't agree with it. I don't see what is so difficult to understand. Rose is not the boss of this forum unless she can prove it. I'll leave it at that. I need some time to prepare discussing my experience as a repair man and a construction worker and why it makes me feel like repairing the system from within even if some people want to call it "maintaining the status quo". I don't expect anything in return but I think it's time someone here stood for crediting blue collared workers for going green in different ways.
Ho! Thanks for letting us know who you love and who you despise, Doug. Common Dreams commenters need an example of who their enemies are, and how they think. Most of them never listen to the ravings of Rush.
You're welcome George. You can also visit the American Thinker blog for more insight on your opponents.
Doug Wakeman October 21st, 2009 7:35 pm -- Aha! That's the one that banned me for trying to introduce some civility into it. But not before I learned exactly what "your opponents" think. I had fun there, but we really need to get to work on the science of this thing.
I get paid to *shudder*
Though only for two months and change longer.
>>Hoggan’s book describes what he calls “a two-decade-long campaign by the energy industry in Canada and the United States, basically designed to confuse the public about climate change, and to give people the sense that there is a debate about the science of climate change.”
This is key to understanding the current situation. The oil and coal companies don't have to debate the reality of global climate change, they just have to pretend there is a debate.
>>Oil, gas and coal interests are spending $300,000 a day lobbying the government.
And they are spending huge sums of money with advertising campaigns that tout "clean coal" and other such nonsense. We need to nationalize the energy industries in this country and start putting that $300,000 a day and all the profits they are making into building a truly green power grid. We are being slowly bled to death in this battle and enough is enough.
Prepare yourself Amy, the professional deniers are indeed up to their old tricks.
Denying that there is any argument or debate needed.
Denying that there is any question that Global Warming is masn made.
Denying that there are more scientists that do not go along with the "science" that "proves" their theories.
Denying its a theory and not the proven truth they pretend.
Denying the fact that no matter what we do unilaterally, it would have no effect.
Henry, what's your profession/trade? I know it can't be science, because no one trained in science need do more than look at the longitudinal data on surface temperature, ocean acidification, and oxygenation. It's unambiguous, and so are the implications.
It's worth noting that the real measure of someone's belief --whether he'll make a 'bar bet' for a substantial sum of money-- leaves the deniers with their trousers down around their ankles. At least two people, one a climate scientist and the other the journo George Monbiot, have tried to get up substantial ( ca. US$10K ) 'bar bets' with deniers. But the deniers all run away. Regardless of what they prostitute themselves to *claim*, the deniers know the truth and quite sensibly refuse to throw their money away by betting on their own lies.
I suppose the melting of the Arctic Ocean is just theory eh Henry? I suppose the common sense of not crapping in your own nest in order to keep it habitable is some sort of scientific concept that requires study. Keep crapping Henry. Your corporate fascist turd bombs are quite amusing.
Your
Better prepare yourself Amy for an array of backlash from the Obama bots who are back on CD with a vengeance to undermine the REAL left; their strategy is to perpetuate the fantasy of clean coal, advance nuclear power irrelevant of the fact that there is currently no solution to spent nuclear fuel storage (note John Kerry's new Bill); or that the storage of current spent fuel supplies often is stored in facilities in poor neighborhoods; or mountain top removal, species extinction (like the Grey wolf who was recently taken off endangered species list by Obama to satisfy corporate ranching); or oil exploration in pristine wilderness areas not only goes forward, but is enshrined in their legislative dogma forever.
We might ask ourselves why the advance of solutions is inimical to the environment and - concommitantly, why are these solutions hostile to the Obama Administration? Like you have noted in so many fine articles, it is because Obama is married to corporate hegemony destroying our planet.
For taking a principled stand, you will be called all kind of names (like Hedges and Jensen recently), accused of erecting walls, undermining Obama’s corporate driven agenda, but that agenda will be framed in such a way as to make Obama appear as our saviour who is working against those corporate forces, not for it; and – perhaps most importantly – daring to suggest these links are meaningful or truthful, you will be called a heretic by the status quo types who forever have a vested interest in destroying Mother Earth.
(Of course, their only concern for the planet is lip service, nothing more, they disguise their real agenda behind rhetoric while avoiding action at all costs!)
Thanks for your courage to report the REAL issues of importance to the authentic progressive community.
Trick or Treat, indeed!
If you need another conspiranoid, elohim is tops. LOL !
Sioux Rose
ELOHIM: Masterful job at connecting the dots. Well-said! Bravo.