Scientific American has a dilemma (Extra!, 2/11): It takes advertising from oil companies whose profits depend on denying the most important scientific fact of our era, the reality of human-caused climate change. The magazine would lose its whole brand identity if it pretended global warming wasn’t happening, but there are things short of that that will make its fossil-fuel-selling advertisers a little happier.
Such as running blog posts like “It’s Not About Tar Sands—It’s About Us,” by Melissa C. Lott and Scott McNally (5/23/12). Lott and McNally—both of whom have worked for the energy industry when they aren’t science blogging—dispute the idea that people concerned with climate change ought to discourage Canada from extracting and burning its tar sands, because:
Stopping Canada from producing tar sands will not curb the world’s oil demand, reduce fossil fuel consumption or significantly reduce our total greenhouse gas footprint. In truth, if President Obama were to convince Canada to stop producing their own resources, as Hansen suggests, this would not discourage Americans from driving their SUVs to the mall.
If we want to reduce fossil fuel consumption, we have to reduce demand.
Oh, come on. Surely folks from the business world have heard about supply and demand? The Canadian tar sands account for about 12 percent of proven global oil reserves—more than enough to have a major impact on world oil prices, which is the surest way to affect demand.
But not only don’t Lott and McNally want to restrict the supply of oil to reduce demand, they don’t think it’s a good idea to reduce demand by taxing it, either.
Taxing oil producers, and then distributing those tax revenues to oil consumers makes little sense in the context of our nation’s energy markets. Here’s why:
If you impose a tax on an energy company, instead of becoming less profitable by absorbing the tax, the energy companies will pass on the expense to the consumer…. So ultimately, energy will be more expensive, and the consumer will pay more. From an environmental perspective, this is good, because incentivizing consumers to use less can lead to demand reductions. But, giving those taxes back to the consumer nullifies the incentive.
You really have to wonder if they’re trying hard not to understand the proposal they’re criticizing. As they quote, the suggestion is that a tax on carbon be returned to the public “on a per-capita basis”—meaning that people who use less carbon than average would get a bonus, and people who use more would face a penalty. Where’s the incentive nullification in that?
Sloganeering for the energy interests that have employed them, Lott and McNally conclude: “A tax that would punish producers and reward consumers is not going to help.” Writing like this is only going to help Scientific American assure its oil industry advertisers that it sometimes has their back.
Reducing demand would be a major help in reducing climate change. However we are working on the oil side of the equation.
What we need to do is make it extremely easy and even financially necessary to live within walking distance to our jobs. Next we need to bring all the necessities into our villages like doctors grocery stores recreation then connect these villages with light rail. People are out on the road because what they need and want is too far away to walk to. And they will drive to it no matter what the price of fuel except the increasing under class who cannot afford a vehicle or probably any luxury, there condition caused by higher prices.
The SA duplicity does indeed smell to high heaven, but, for vastly different reasons, I don’t think a carbon consumption tax is a solution, even with the usage adjustment.
I can afford to drive my ancient Tercel relatively sparingly – about 6000 miles a year currently, and significantly less for many years prior. So I’d make out well under this scheme.
But many folks just can’t cut back much, due to the lack of decent public transit and long commutes. They shouldn’t be punished for public policy failures.
Taxation should be progressive, and this really doesn’t cut the mustard on that count, does it?
The only just way to kick this addiction is to create *publicly owned* renewable energy sources, prosecute and fine the living hell out of the assassins of our environment, and develop efficient alternative means of transportation.
The clock’s ticking.
It’s time to piss …
Or get flushed down the pot.
Doug says “The only just way”…. Reflex: unlikely, needs to be defended.
Good article, noting that money can pervert (even the fondly remembered) Scientific American magazine, and, by extension, other scientific Americans, and further, other Americans.
Something is.
So, Martin, why is it unlikely … and what’s your prescription?
The best idea out there (HR3242) is a “carbon fee and rebate”. ALL of the fees collected on Carbon ($15/ton to start) by the Fed are returned to the taxpayer to “pay” for higher energy. The market would shift towards renewables, reducing emissions. It is of no overall cost to the consumer, and CO2 is reduced.
Also, if Scientific American (like CNN) is ‘beholden’ to Big Oil and Coal so that there is no balance in reporting, they are DONE in my view. Ethically, spiritually, professionally. Perhaps they can “rise above” almighty dollar. Otherwise, may they rot slowly.
Do people STILL read Scientific American for science news? I gave up on that one years ago as it is a “gee-wiz” publication for people who know little of science. The same could be said of getting your history lessons from The History Channel.
That said, does it surprise anyone that there are shills blogging for the hydrocarbon industries in such a publication?
Should we focus on what WE can do to reduce global warming? We will grow old and die waiting for politicians to act.
I drive a Prius, buy only energy efficient appliances, use compact fluorescent bulbs, low flow showerheads, wash clothes in cold water, dry clothes outdoors or in the basement, am surrounded by trees which absorb carbon dioxide, try to drive less and more efficiently, turn off lights and TV when out of the room, keep the A/C at about 79 degrees (and I know for some that would be tough). Believe me, I don’t have the answers but this is what I try to do to help on an individual level.
The government should wind down dependence on coal–the MAIN source of carbon dioxide out of all the fossil fuels, and focus on renewables. It’s amazing that we can spend trillions on war but can’t spend billions to address global warming.
Just wanted to add that I’ve graduated to a few LED lights for those lights that are used a lot. Yes, they are more expensive but last a long time and are very energy efficient.
Elaine, you are correct that if we wait for this current batch of corporatized politicians (Democrats and Republicans) to do what we know are the responsible actions towards global warming/climate change, nothing meaningful will happen. But we must ask ourselves as to why we, as the electorate, keep selecting the same types of representatives over and over and over again, yet somehow, expect different results. Seems to be a bit of collective insanity on our part. Most voters are too timid to vote for third party candidates, believing the lie that it is a wasted vote or a spoiler vote. If enough voters chose third party candidates, change will happen.
Worthwhile change comes from us electing reps who will steer government in the correct direction to bring the positive change we need. Attempting to do it individually through our own actions is good, but not enough people will do it to make the global change we need so quickly now. Through government mandate it can happen, and happen quickly enough to possibly save the habitat our civilization depends on for it’s survival.
Crama, I hear you about a third party. My concern is that the present Republican Party has absolutely gone off a cliff. I think the House is made up of people who believe the nonsense they spew. When the House refused to lift the debt ceiling, that did it for me. Raising the debt ceiling didn’t create new debt. It raised the ceiling to pay for existing debt. It really put this whole economy at risk but they were willing to do it because they are ideologically extreme. They are “at war” with everybody: with seniors (Medicare), with voters (voter suppression regs), with unions (smash them), with the environment (weaken the E.P.A.), with women (birth control), with students (interest on loans), with science (global warming deniers) and on and on. The only ones with whom they’re not at war are big corporations, the uber rich, and the Tea Party.
Global warming is an extremely serious issue and the fall-out is happening faster than anticipated. The International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is now predicting that by the end of the century, sea levels will rise about 3 meters or 9 feet! The Antarctic ice is melting from below due to ocean warming. Seas will become more acidified, impacting sea life. Thousands of species wiped out. Already the polar bear, Emperor penquin, Arctic fox, Beluga whales, salmon, koala bear, and certain corals are at risk. Bizarre weather events will be the norm.
This planet has been very hospitable to the human species and with both hands, we are destroying it. Does anybody have a Planet B we can escape to?
Went back and reread the article and my response makes it sound as though I favor reducing demand by reducing consumption only. Many Americans won’t reduce their consumption, however, especially if the supply is there.
“It’s Not About the Tar Sands–It’s About Us.” Not exactly. It’s about the tar sands, too–the world’s dirtiest fuel. The production and refinement of this product creates more carbon pollution than conventional sources. The production also uses vast amounts of water which are already being gobbled up in fracking. As some observe, “It’s game over for the climate if the Keystone XL pipeline is approved.”
So…do we want to put our money into fossil fuels, a significant source of CO2, or do we want to put it into public transportation infrastructure, plug-in hybrids perhaps fueled by solar power, better fuel economy standards , better education of the public as to how to reduce their carbon footprint and why it’s important (see above,) and then create a monetary incentive for people when they reduce their carbon footprint?
I’m surprised “Scientific American” would run the Tar Sands article, but I’m not surprised they would run ads from oil companies. Good publications do run ads we from groups/organizations/companies we don’t like. Who can forget “The Nation” running phone sex classifieds and full-page ads by right wing Zionist organizations? “Utne Reader” has consistently run Amazon.com ads in their publications when we know Amazon business hurts independent bookstores. It goes both ways, Jim.
I have no problem running ads we may disagree with. But I agree it shouldn’t affect/influence editorial content.
I agree, as well, that it should not influence content. This article continues to push us in the direction of dependence on fossil fuels as the predominant energy source. Not a word about the risk to the environment, to public health, or to an economy that continues to be dependent on fossil fuels.
I will try to reason again but i know it is useless. There is no man made global warming !! There is climate change, there is always climate change !!! What are all the factors. Just to many natural factors to list, maybe some even man made but it takes time to figure it out and mostly we know after the fact what causes these things. Carbon credits are a pyramid scheme made up by Al Gore and others to get rich !! If you think the governments are not going to keep most or all of that money you are very naive.. I don’t trust the government,big oil nor the environmental movement ( global warming cause) If you do — there is no use reasoning with you anyway and i am afraid a lot of you are beyond reason !
Let me try one more time as well. Global warming is clearly a change in one direction–from cooler to warmer. The evidence indicates that it is due in large part to human activity.
Elaine the way this works was outlined beautifully by Obamas defrocked green energy czar.He writes that the left must first “create” a danger .Then use that idea to subsidize the scientific community through funding to study and empower that danger.Next they must declare the science closed, and use well meaning people to carry the ball(you).They then will move on taxation to control industry to help prevent the “danger”.In this way the government will gain control.He stated the best way forward is climate change and the green movement.In the future even taxing carbon emissions.Elaine you have been hoodwinked.His aim was to create a socialist society.
Everything you are doing for you, and your world is admirable.I would never interfere with that.The problem with libs is that they want to force everyone to live and believe as they do.Some of the contributors are actually saying we should just accept a smaller less America ,instead of a bigger and better one.That is the disconnect with who we are.(That is why we have a president who has no understanding of our exceptionalism.Who is always apologizing for us.) Some on this sight almost sound like they want the old horse and buggy back.The core problem is you have no faith.No faith that technology can use any natural resource in an efficient clean way.If you hate the technology then move to fix it.Not scrap it.We have found that we live on an ocean of energy.And less than 8% has even been explored.The left wants us not to use it because in effect we are to stupid to do so.Jesus if you lot were around with the Wright brothers I think you just might of talked them out of it.
As far as the debt ceiling what do you not understand?You think raising it allows the government to pay for it?With what?No…… it allows the government to print, and borrow money to pay for their unfettered spending.On a small scale i remember Christy in N Jersey talking about what he meant to accomplish.Cut spending.Cut taxation.You know the routine.Libs say NO NO it wont work.The sky will fall.Their usual nonsense.Take a look at what has happened there.Learn something
When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academies of Science, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (to name a few), tell me that human activity (burning of fossil fuels, deforestation) is largely responsible for global warming, based on the extensive research they have done, I listen. When right-wing think tanks and acolytes of the tea party movement tell me they’re not, I believe the former. The former has credibility; the latter does not.
Rising sea levels, warming ocean temperatures, loss of habitat, glacial retreat, increased acidification of the oceans are all measurable.The evidence is there. Nobody is “creating” a danger.
As for the debt ceiling, spin your unfettered spending argument on George Bush who engaged us in two unpaid for wars on a credit card, while reducing tax revenues with tax breaks primarily favoring the rich. Then he took another credit card to enact an unpaid for Medicare Part D presciption program. Then came a near crash of the economy and the loss of millions of job and with it, tax revenue.
If you don’t want to pay the bills that are now due, that makes the U.S. the deadbeat country of the world. It will (and has) resulted in a downgrading of our credit worthiness. Who wants to do business with a country that reneges on their debt? Who wants to do business with even an ordinary friend who borrows money from you, it’s loaned in good faith, and then tells you he’s not paying it back?
Where does the money come from? Where does the money come from to keep these tax breaks going that benefit the very people who don’t need them? Where does the money come from to continue oil subsidies while oil companies post the biggest profits on Earth (as well as other corporate subsidies and loopholes which rob us of revenue)? Where does the money come from to continue the carried interest loophole for hedge fund managers who make millions? Where would the money come from to intervene in Syria (as Romney and McCain want us to do)? Where does the money come from when corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes? Where does the money come from to continue to allow tax breaks for companies that outsource American jobs as a majority of Republicans voted to do?
Seems if Congress, particularly Republicans, were really worried about debt, they’d address some of the reasons for it instead of fighting (and voting) to keep the status quo of the above. Seems their plan of attack to reduce spending is to strip virtually everything from ordinary Americans to keep the 1% happy and that’s the real tragedy, that people like yourself don’t realize how used and manipulated you really are, but accuse others of being hoodwinked instead.
David wrote: I will try to reason again but i know it is useless. There is no man made global warming !! There is climate change, there is always climate change !!! …
_________________________________________________
Ah yes. Multiple exclamation points: the hallmark of reasoning.
Instead of the word reason, I think you meant to write: ” I will try unsupported assertions and appeals to emotion… “
A carbon tax on fuels, including carbon emitted in the production of fuels, is a way of limiting externalities, those costs pushed onto the public, most often without public knowledge or consent.
Since the greater environmental costs, in terms of carbon dioxide emitted in the production of oil from tar sands, will be imposed on the public in the service of private profit, a greater penalty should be imposed to moderate this profit incentive. And since the costs of carbon emissions will be imposed on a public largely unaware of the source of these costs, carbon tax revenues could be distributed so as to effect carbon emission limiting market behavior.
I remain skeptical of market based solutions in light of the ability of markets to be manipulated without accountability in this era of market lawlessness implemented as a legitimate expression of free market ideology.
The history of, and public acceptance of limiting profits in the public interest is broadly applicable. I don’t hear complaints that Lake Erie no longer catches fire, or complaints that profits have been adversely affected by the denial of Lake Erie’s use as a flammable-waste disposal dump.
Scientific American has taken a noticeably more pro-corporate orientation in the past decade or more. I am a long term subscriber and find in some of its writing overt accommodations to its corporate advertiser’s interests. I find, for example, S.A. columnist Michael Shermer’s expression of his faith in the scientific basis of market ideology and its elevation of stature, in his estimation, to a level comparable with Darwin’s theory of evolution to be very inappropriate coming from a self-proclaimed skeptic.
All things being equal there is some validity to market theory. But, alas, all things are not equal.
Glenn: I agree with much of what you say but there is no “free market.” The market is dominated by a group of multinational corporations whose job it is to maximize their own profit and get as much money out of the U.S. consumer.
For example, products are dumped all over the U.S., each and every day. Yet the Congress just voted to prohibit the re-importation of drugs from Canada. Re-importation refers to the practice of importing back into the U.S. the drugs that were made in the U.S. and exported for sale to another country, such as Canada, where they are then priced cheaper (in Canada). Suddenly, “safety” becomes an issue.
Where is the concern for safety when 20% of finished drugs are made in China? Or when 40% of active ingredients in drugs are manufactured in China or India and I believe that in 15 years or less, 80% of drugs will be manufactured abroad. Ahh…safety is not so much of an issue then.
This is a controlled, not-so-free market,– open when it suits multinationals and maximizing of their profits and closed when it doesn’t. Let Shermer stop elevating the markets and see them for what they are.
Elaine you name a group of reputable scientific groups then compare it to the words of as you say ……..right wing think tanks, and the tea party.This is the old canard that all the science is on the left ,while all the hyperbole,superstition etc. is on the right.Classic.Elaine the science is not closed by any means.And there are ideas galore about what is causing it, and what can be done about it-if anything.At most there is a general consensus that on the whole the world is once again going through a short term warming period.It is also proposed that man made conditions are contributing to that change.It is also believed that in the past when this happened many many many times before ….that man probably had little effect.Some scientists believe we are reaching the end of the warming period ,and will soon slip into a longer cooling period.To even for one minute believe we should hand over power to the government of our economy for our own good… is liberal madness.
Your idea that high taxation will do much good ,let alone solve the problems we are dealing with- is throwing a handful of sand into the ocean to stop the waves.Clinton last week said to Obama that he could tax him at 100% and it still would not even balance the yearly budget.Thankyou Bill….Could not of said it better myself.Do you know if Obama got his entire tax wish list(and yours)it would pay for little more than food stamps!When we get in in November we will turn off the tap.Cut taxes.Recreate wealth ,and allow the economy to recreate jobs.You will see every economic inticator go through the roof.The misery index will drop.You of course will bleat in time and honestly can go pound sand.If we fail we will deserve to be thrown out on our butts.Just as you now deserve to be.You should be honest and admit you very much deserve that.
By the way….ever wonder why Obama kept the Bush tax cuts in place even with a super majority?Think about it
ps .read Lord Monckton battles global mad men in San Diego.All the left can do is personally attack him as he again and again shreds the hoax.His offer made in testimony before congress stands .To al gore or any group of so called experts……..Anytime ,anywhere he will debate you.
PPS How is that” closed science” of embryonic stem cell research going?Michael J Fox its leading spokesmen now says it has failed.As we said it would!!!See you are welcome to believe as you do.To live your life accordingly.To create companies that set the standards you believe in.To sell whatever snake oil you want.It is a free country.When you mean to control people- and force then to buy your swill,that is where it must end.
Look at those “reputable scientific groups again.” There are no “ideas galore” about what is causing global warming. The issue is settled. These “reputable scientific groups” tell us that global warming is caused in large part by human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas which puts CO2 in the atmosphere. It isn’t “proposed.” It’s known. It’s a settled issue for everyone but the Tea Party, global warmer deniers, and the fossil fuel industry which refuses to accept scientific conclusions from “reputable scientific groups.” The “end of the warming period?” Are you kidding me? At the rate that CO2 is being emitted, there is no end in sight of which I’m aware. I only wish there were.
High taxation? Do you know that in 2009 the U.S. ranked 26th out of 28 OECD countries in total federal, state, and local taxes as a percentage of GDP? For some, especially corporations and the uber rich, it hasn’t been this good since the Guilded Age. Do you also deny the trillions of dollars that the Bush tax cuts have cost this economy and that it is very much a part of the reason for our present deficit? Will you also deny that wars cost money–and we were in two of them– and that Willard is quite anxious to engage us in Syria? So much for concern about debt and spending.
I don’t know what you mean about the “closed science” of embryonic stem research, except that Bush limited federal support for stem cell research and to the number of labs that could fund research. We were too busy fighting wars and bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East instead.
Lord Monckton? He will shred the “hoax” of global warming perpetrated by “reputable science groups?” Will he look at the rapidity of the melting of glaciers going on right now, just about everywhere, and deny what his lying eyes tell him?
I urge all those who want to be educated as to what is going on today to deliberately mislead people–yes deliberately make it seem as though the science is unsettled and that more research is needed with regard to global warming and human activity to go on-line and read: A Response to Climate Change Denial by Richard Somerville (a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography UC, San Diego).
It’s an easy one page read.
http://sio.ucsd.edu/Announcements/Somerville_denialists/
Elaine i think your argument about our place in the taxation scale is about the best joke I have heard in years.That figure you sighted excludes the fact that we are taxed on everything that moves or doesn’t move.And even saying we are 26th is a joke because I want to be dead last.As far as corporate we are the worst off.Again we should be the best.That is what equals real growth not redistribution.
Global warming is a closed science huh.Wanna bet?I read today that only 19% say they are liberals today.Well to that sect yes the science and their minds are closed.To a good portion of the rest of us….not so much.All the arguments in the scripps institute findings you sighted have been attacked.I do love when they make pronouncements like”learn what science has discovered and accept it”.Lets use that one with abortion and what science has “discovered” about when human life (a baby) begins.I also love that anyone who disagrees with your “findings” are called deniers.The way libs begin and end their sentences are so revealing of their true nature…But back to the global warming hoax, and the socialist movement here and abroad, and the fiscal pedefiles(see how I just did that)who want to tell us all how to live……. I just think Lord M slams the hoaxers with style ,humor,and panache.So I still recommend all to be educated and not be misled to listen to his speeches on the subject as another side of the coin.You would say DONT LISTEN TO HIM.He is derailing us from our agenda.I say always listen to both sides.By the way …Do you have any idea what percentage of the funding to the Scripps institute toward their research on man made global warming has come from Lord obama these last 4 years?Look into that and be surprised.Im not
Research has recently found that glaciers retreated up to 1943 ,then grew- up until the 70s- then began to retreat again.Strangely they believe the massive cooling was due to human sulfur dioxide pollution that ended in the 70s.Today the ten year icelandic studies now say the retreat is not as much as we thought.This past winter was so cold in some areas that we made up for 16 years of melt.And so it goes…….
Michael e: How does your comment above relate to Richard Somerville’s thorough refutation of global warming denialists? “As far as corporate we are the worst off.” “I read today that only 19% say they are liberals today.” “The way libs begin and end their sentences are (sic) so revealing of their true nature…” What are you talking about?
I want to stick to the main point at hand. For years, the tobacco industry did exactly what the fossil fuel industry is doing today–confuse, distort, sow doubt, discredit–in an attempt to refute the evidence that smoking caused a myriad of health problems.
The vast consensus of scientists tell us that the earth is warming and the evidence is all around us. It is measurable. It is observable. Do you have eyes to see? They have ruled out other reasons that the fossil fuel industry and other climate deniers have given to explain global warming and have identified human activity–mainly the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas)– although other things such as deforestation play a part, too—as the reason for this warming that is actually accelerating faster than predicted.
So if you refuse to accept the conclusions of the U.S. National Academies of Science, of Scripps, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, of the National Aeronatics and Space Administration as well as other organizations and the thousands of scientists worldwide who have tested, measured, and repeated their findings over and over, then there is no point in getting involved in another circular argument with you. Believe Lord M, instead, and industry shills who want to keep us wedded to the fossil fuel industry because when we dig deep enough, we find it’s all about the money.
“This past winter was so cold”……..Scientists study global trends and the trends are not good.
This reminds me of evolution and those who still refuse to accept evolution because it’s only a “theory” and do not or will not understand that scientists use the word “theory” in a different way. Try walking off the edge of a cliff to test the “theory” of gravity because it’s only a theory.
Now I understand the impossible situation that confronts Obama in the House.
michael e wrote: I just think Lord M slams the hoaxers with style ,humor,and panache.
_________________________________________
Well, he certainly doesn’t do it with well-tested science and sound logic, that’s for sure. But if you’re the kind of person who’s gonna take a smooth-talking pitch on matters of complex scientific phenomena, then have it. I guess.
Come to think of it, that guy who sold me a used car is pretty funny and has great style and panache. I think I’ll go ask him which expirimental treatment holds the most promise for treating non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
John Monckton has been asked twice to testify as an expert before congress.The third time he was blocked by the super majority who admitted freely that he “hurt” their cause.By the way this was unprecedented.He is far from a gad about lout.The liar Al Gore has refused to debate him.And for damn good reason.Monckton would smoke him.By the way Monkton takes on all comers.Bring on the experts he cackles.Seldom do they step up to the plate .Secure in their elite stance,safe among academia.Shut behind the science is closed door.
Elaine their is no doubt the consensus(That is not science by the way)is that man may be having an effect of some sort on global weather among the old boys club of funded research scientists.And your right about the smoking connection.For years scientists were payed to do research…to be wrong,-by saying no harm no foul.And you are right again….it IS all about the money.Obamas defrocked energy czar said as much.”When you control industry, and healthcare you control the country’.But lets say you are 100% right.And we who doubt your motives and research proticol are wrong.What would you have us do?Certainly China ,Russia and India and all the emerging countries would throw us half a peace sign.Should we conquer them ,to force them into joining us in saving the world?What is your plan?If it is education and asking each person to try to do better,all power to you.If you want to give tax breaks to industry for joining your party I say go for it.If you mean to force people by limiting choice(light bulbs) ,and punitively tax to force your way(coal),and create a descent in this great country unilaterally due to your theories, you are going to run aground.And hasn’t that been the liberal mantra all along?”We shall tell you how to live”We shall tell you what to believe”.You bring up evolution knowing full well those who do not buy it are faith based or simply do not accept 100% what is in effect a very good,very smart,most likely, yet unproven theory,(of natural selection and evolution).But i tell you this….I may think scientologists are nuts.But let the government step in to force them to change- and Im on their side.As a man of science i am fascinated by those fossils that show little to no change in certain plants,animals,fish,and small organisms over 100s of millions of years.It simply does not fit into my understanding of evolution.I have asked the question of one of the worlds leading experts.His answer was in effect “we do not know why they never changed”.I am very interested in some new studies ready soon for release.Stay tuned.
By the way have you not read the reports on how the US is doing a fantastic job of cutting carbon emissions.That is the beauty of technology.You can use all you want AND be clean.Again not in the liberal play book.
John Q….Liberals often frame their sentences in a way that throws scorn upon anyone who is adversarial to their beliefs.Very condescending.
It was reported that only 19% are what we would call hard core libs.They are far more radical than their Dem counterparts.Often on this sight one is speaking to that 19%.
Corporate taxes are not competitive within the worlds framework.We are I would argue thee most taxed in the world .I was answering Elaine saying we are 26th.
@michael e: Monckton was asked to testify before Congress? So were Fred Rogers and Frank Zappa. I wouldn’t take their word about climate science, either. Both were imminently qualified entertainers and smart men, but that doesn’t make them experts in everything. Monckton’s degree and career is in journalism. Between Monckton and the 99% of climate scientists telling me something, well… I’ll take the climate scientists and give points.
And the reason they don’t debate him? The same reason that Albert Pujols ain’t playing beer-league slow-pitch softball in his spare time. They keep it to the peer-reviewed journals and conferences where it belongs.
Michael e refuses to acknowledge that this issue of global warming and man’s role in it is a settled issue. It is no longer up for debate. Scientists studied all the other reasons given for global warming–it’s caused by the sun, it’s natural, etc.–and after researching all of them, discarded them.
The research that is done has to be duplicated all over the world by other scientists, with the same results. That’s the way real research works. Everything must be REPEATABLE, with the same results from all scientists, everywhere, worldwide, who are doing real research.
Are you saying the consensus of scientists –and there IS a scientific consenses here, despite your refusal to recognize it—is engaged in a vast, worldwide conspiracy to falsify data to get the results they want? Do you hear yourself? You are no scientist, Michael e.
In the U.S., corporate taxes, on paper, are among the highest but when you factor in subsidies, tax breaks, loopholes, they are among the lowest compared to other developed nations. Most got rid of their loopholes. We expanded them. In fact, some pay no taxes at all.
Elaine your voice is getting more and more shrill as you yell at the top of your lungs that before we even begin this discussion we must first all agree that the science is closed.Well many people obviously don’t agree.That is why you are yelling louder and louder trying to get your point across.And as more and more people see the failings in the closed science argument- you assign names like “deniers” upon them.As if they are a bit daft under it all.Well we poor fools who have a doctorate before our name will muddle on I suppose,while you will believe as you believe.I doubt any cooling in our weather would change you for a moment.Im sure eastern Europe will be glad to know you predict wonderfully warm weather this coming year.But that is short term isn’t it.And everyone knows we can’t predict that with any real certainty.Only long term…..Over the next 100 years or so…right?Do you know that the farmers almanac has beaten the ten year predictions by double dig over the powers that be?Last year was as brutal as anything seen in 100 years in eastern Europe.Glad to see it will soon be so lovely there.But moving along……I asked you what you would want us to do about it.Even presupposing you are 100% correct.What is your plan?Obama just got his Jobs numbers.Beyond dismal.What will you do that will not impact us in a negative way?
Keep arguing against the facts, Michael e. Perhaps I’m witnessing a change in allele frequencies.
BTW, in what subject do you hold a doctorate?
http://www.noaa.gov/extreme2011/factoids.html
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA), National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Royal Society of the UK ( RS), American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Meteorologist Society (AMS), American Institute of Physics (AIP), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), American Meteorologist Society (AMS), Canadian Meterologist & Oceanographic Society (CMOS) are just some of the organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming.
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and that human activity (CO2 emissions) is a primary cause.
If you are still determined to argue about it, Michael e, submit your comments to them for peer review.
Thank goodness there are all these right-wing trolls here to educate us clueless left-wingers about the wonders of their gospel of Ayn Rand and her disciples, the “magic” of free markets and the wisdom of destroying any shred of humanity in business or politics. Unless you consider survival of the fittest a kind of humanism, which some people do, mainly those on the Right with lots of money.
Corporations are people, and people are just … well, they exist. To serve the corporations in achieving ever-more profits, preferably by increasing unemployment to drive down wages, so long as they don’t work too hard and cause their own unemployment (of course!).
Technology will solve all problems, starting with automated voting machines. Paper ballots are superfluous when there is a computer somewhere to tabulate the political consensus of the people. (Of course, me being a B.A in Comp. Sci. with 30 years of experience would hardly know a damn thing about what sort of undermining of democracy could result from concealing the ballots from plain sight by storing whatever might be stored in computer memory.) So, please, fellow Lefties, let’s not be old-fashioned luddites insisting on transparency and other measures to ensure democracy. We need to get over it and move on. Computers are our friends!!!
As to all this talk of global warming, the truth is, according to well-funded think tanks receiving their money from large corporations and wealthy individuals, there is no such thing. So please stop talking about it. In fact, just mentioning global warming gives many on the Right severe apoplexy. Just stop talking about it and lay low. (If you like keeping your job, that is. I mean, not like they are threatening us or anything, right?)
And, please, please, please, stop voting for those awful, Left-wing, socialist Democrats. You know the ones I mean, the ones who are NOT receiving funding from any Wall Street banks or oil companies. The Left-wing Democrats, the ones who are not folding to the demands of our ever more powerful right wing Republicans.
The Democrats, unlike their Republican counterparts, do not support corporations, capitalism, and competition, as is seen in their unwillingness to vote for extending tax cuts to the wealthy, in their promotion of social welfare such as when Bill Clinton threw the axe on most welfare programs, and other measures they have taken over the years to support socialist, totalitarian, feelgood public policies. And watch out for that goody-goody Obama, who has now exceeded even Bush 43 in human rights violations (think drones…)
Government is not intended to help the people according to these people. In fact, it is not there to help anyone, even though they are quite content to have our public taxes pay for bank bailouts, auto company bailouts, airline bailouts, and most other bailouts. No, government is not there to help anyone. Except them. But, ideally, there would be no government at all. Or it would be small enough to drown in a bathtub just large enough to continue bailing out the greatest successes of our ever-consolidating free market. Wonderful how that works, isn’t it?
You lazy Lefites need to go out and get a job. Oh, you have a masters or a PhD? No problem, McDonalds is ALWAYS hiring, so there is no need to be blubbering about a lack of opportunity in this here great country of ours. Anyone can become a millionaire (just not everyone. But ANYONE can become one, OK?). And just think how good McDonalds will look on your resume in the future when employers are deciding which candidates have the most recent and relevant experience!!!
No there is no global warming. So just get this and those other ideas out of your heads!!! Listen to these pearls of wisdom for they know well what they know… As to the poster who inquired if there is another planet for us, remember their words of wisdom that usually begin with a phrase like “in a perfect world…” They have a perfect world set aside just for us. Thank you, righties.
michael e wrote: Elaine your voice is getting more and more shrill as you yell at the top of your lungs that before we even begin this discussion…
_________________________________________
You do realize that nobody here is actually speaking, right?
John of course it was simply figurative.
Elaine…MD.
Elaine You can argue all day if there is global warming.Then the second argument is,is it man made.Third is, if it is….(and this would be the first time in over hundreds of millions of years that nature plays no roll)what do you mean to do about it?I can tell you smoking hurts people the world over.If you tell me you mean to end smoking tomorrow -we enter a whole other discussion.WHAT WOULD YOU DO ABOUT IT even if God himself told you you were right?We know Gore was a fool and a fool.We know important data was faked.We know the whole man made global warming crowd has taken blow after blow that has hurt their cause.We know studies go on.But right now….WHAT WOULD YOU DO ABOUT IT?What can we as a country afford to do about it?
@michael e: I don’t believe you were just using flowery language. No, you were trying to adopt a victim posture and denigrate your opponent. You’re trying to come accross as if your righteous voice is being shouted down– you wanna be the victim. You’re also calling Elaine shrill and shrieking before any discussion can begin– you wanna denigrate your opponent.
Michael e: Once again, I will repeat: if you have valid evidence to support your model that man does not play a major role in CO2 emissions–that there’s another primary reason–submit it to anyone of the reputable institutions that study global warming, listed above. I predict that you or other like-minded individuals will not attempt this because your arguments cannot withstand review. They will not chance their model to the status of a falsifiable idea, unless, of course, your/their ideas are absolutely infallible and are, therefore, beyond science.
Let’s be fair. If you don’t tell climate professionals how to do their job, they won’t tell you how to do yours.
As to what to do about it: there’s plenty of information out there to tell us what to do. Research it.
John Elaine is not my opponent.She is my fellow American trying to find a way forward for our people in the best way possible.We simply have different views on how to do that.
Elaine data is flowing in from all over the globe.We are in the midst of scientific investigation to explain the changes we are seeing in our weather.And yes- if we play a roll.Why did eastern Europe have the coldest winter on record and the eastern US a very mild one.Why did glaciers retreat only to refreeze at an astounding rate this past winter in certain places we are watching closely?I have zero problem with all that.Where you and I disconnect is you believe the science is closed, and it is time to hand over everything to the government so that they may set things right.At that my eyes explode blood.Remember Reagan’s famous quip “the most frightening words you will ever hear are-we are here from the government, and we are here to help”?That is about how I feel.And nothing Obama and Gore have proposed in this matter is anything but horrifying to me. That is why I ask you clearly and concisely WHAT YOU THINK WE SHOULD DO ABOUT IT.I have sent endless argument and data on these sights to contradict the standard framed argument on this matter.So you disagree.Fine.Now tell me if you win this debate where you see it going?
Once again, the issue of global warming and man’s significant role in it is CLOSED. It is settled. Man is playing a significant role in the warming of the earth. Scientists look at global trends, not isolated weather patterns. Climatologists all over the world examined all other explanations for global warming–the very ones you mention– and concluded that human activity plays a major role in global warming. Scientists do not pick only the facts that support one hypothesis. They look at all the facts. Scientists gather information from observation and experiment, and formulate hypotheses. They then modify or reject the hypotheses as the evidence dictates. That’s the way science works. And this data must be repeatable over and over by all scientists, worldwide, studying this issue, with all coming to the same conclusions.
Again….if you disagree, submit your findings to reputable scientific organizations instead of going onto FAIR to argue them.
(See website above: Jim Naureckas.) Read it over and over.
Do not ask me to research all the things we as individuals can do to reduce our carbon footprint or what government policy as a whole can do. If you take the time, it is there for you to read. First you need to accept that we are a major part of the problem which you refuse to do.
michael e wrote: Elaine is not my opponent. She is my fellow American trying to find a way forward for our people in the best way possible.
___________________________________________
Yep. Your fellow American who is “getting more and more shrill as [she] yells at the top of her lungs trying to get her point across.” Your fellow American who you accuse of “assign[ing] names like ‘deniers’ upon them.As if they are a bit daft under it all.” Yeah…
Sorry, but I have trouble believing that you were simply using flowery language and I have trouble believing that you see Elaine as anything other than an opponent in this debate.
But this is all beside the point to the issue at hand, so carry on.
Hi, John. As I reread what had been written, I will use Richard Somerville’s phrase “solid, settled science”(relating to global warming and man’s role in it) in deference to that philosophy of science that believes scientists can speak only in terms of degrees of confidence. Scientists have a high degree of confidence in anthropogenic global warming, just as they have a high degree of confidence in evolution (which is supported by an overwhelming mass of evidence).
Elaine we have all heard Monkton and the rest of those who believe in the global warming hoax trash from end to end the prevailing evidence.He testified 2x before congress and believe me trashing it is the right term(watch his latest speech,and track his facts).You need not tell me how the scientific [process works.I have seen volumes of” settled science “go right down the tubes in medicine.We learn we grow.Those who believe any science is settled are those who have given up questioning.Al Gore and i quote…. told the people in a certain beach front community that they would be under water in a few short years due to rising water due to man made global warming.That was his statement.His total absolute belief in what was coming.Something you would of backed him up in 100%.Something you would of been angered as I scoffed at the notion.We would of been diametrically opposed.He first declared the science closed at that speech.He ended up buying a house there for several million.And by the way the water has RECEDED there.Now if on that bases.If on that evidence- the government would have moved to control half the total economy….wouldn’t we look stupid?Thank GOD people scoffed.And continue to scoff.I ask you again WHAT DO YOU MEAN TO DO ABOUT YOUR BELIEF IN MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING?Do you mean to take control as Obamas defrocked green zsar said you would?Following blindly people like Al Gore oh ye genius of carbon taxes and taxes on cow farts.We find George Bush gets an A+ on his house while Gore gets an F.How do you not see how you are being played?Al gore was heading to be the first green billionaire.Tell us if we gave you a wish list and on that list we agreed that the sky is falling and man is to blame and we give you libs the absolute power to save us all from ourselves……What is the plan?Come on tell me a good horror story.I need a good scare.The road to hell is paved with liberal good intentions.You do zero research on how government funding works on peer group reviews and studies.You give short shift to any organization ,study,or man who goes against the template.Elaine the science may or may not be closed.Your mind is…. on this subject.So from that perspective I ask you as you need no more information to make your decision.What would you do to this country and its economy if you had the power to force your way as Obama almost did within his super majority.As a conservative it would be helpful to hear that from you.We conservatives may sometimes loose our way in what we are fighting for.But it is empowering to hear what it is we are fighting against.
As I have said, in vain, websites are loaded with what we can do to reduce our own carbon footprint. Research them. As I mentioned above, I gave a list of things I personally do. The government needs to invest in clean energy as well, as China is doing right now, having poured, and continuing to pour billions into clean energy technologies of the future.
I am not the one who said that anthropogenic global warming is a solid, settled science. This is what every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean or atmosphere has said. I repeat what they have studied and reported to us. Go after them with all your supporting data to show it’s all a grand conspiracy.
You see, the problem with tea party people like yourself, is that you prefer to go onto sites that are read by lay people, like FAIR. You will not confront scientists, at these institutions, with your own data because it will not withstand peer review. If it did withstand such review, their own reasoning and evidence would be modified. Scientists are not close minded at all. Quite the contrary.
Tell them that global warming is a hoax, that what they see before their eyes (melting glaciers, rising sea levels) are optical illsions. Tell them that what they have measured, studied, and observed are part of a global conspiracy. Tell them it’s all a huge web of deception and lies. Be sure to enumerate your examples of settled science that has gone right down the tubes. Then submit your evidence and facts to refute it all and support your accusations.
The problem is that global warming deniers like yourself will not submit valid evidence to any one of dozens of reputable science journals or organizations for review. You prefer, instead, to hit the news media forum or to go onto blogs like FAIR, to mock, denigrate and name call anyone who disagrees. It’s much safer here and you can get away with it.
So, in conclusion, submit your evidence to the places I’ve mentioned. Bust this web of deception perpetrated by all these reputable organizations. We await their review.
Well Elaine I would not call myself a denier.I do believe in this case the system was rigged.Including peer group reviews and investments into gov sponsored studies.It is a snowball that ran down hill and now must be brought back a ways.,The phenomenon is all too familiar in med science.I am most distressed when on of the top men last week said “it may in fact get colder as we move forward.That too is man made”It seems no matter what happens- the fact that climate changes are now wholly our responsibility.More importantly that allows gov to funnel money into “green tech”.So far an almost complete failure due to gov moving outside market forces.Also have you not seen that this country is doing a fantastic job of cutting our carbon emissions already?China not so much.Or for that matter 90% of those who signed the H protocol.Load some tax breaks in there and you will get what you want anyway.There is my economic idea on the matter.Speaking of that how bout Clinton saying yesterday we are in a recession and should EXTEND all tax breaks?But i digress.As far as giving evidence to the top scientific(sic) people for their review……..I have pointed out that Monkton has offered to debate them in a world forum anytime ,anywhere.They simply turn their noses up and state “you may be good enough as an expert witness for the United States Congress but we refuse to talk with you.THE SCIENCE IS CLOSED.There is your open discussion.Very suspect.All who bring up valid criticisms are met in the same manner.I have seen this thousands of times with big drug companies.Deal with id daily.The same goes for accepted treatments.Lastly the tea party deals with constitutional over reach.They have no platform per say on global warming
michael e: I have pointed out that Monkton has offered to debate them in a world forum anytime ,anywhere.They simply turn their noses up…
_____________________________________________
Yep. And, shockingly, Albert Pujols refused my invitation to play on my beer-league slow pitch softball team. Guess he’s scared he’ll get shown up.
Any clown who gets a congressional subpoena is good enough to testify before Congress. Monckton was called because some Congressmen like what he has to say, not because his body of work on climate science is well-regarded in the scientific community– it most certainly is not.
As I’ve said, we await published review of your findings. Perhaps we’ll read all about it in “Science” or “Scientific American.”
John he has been called 3x by congress and listed as an expert witness.You say that is shabby.We will agree to disagree.To say he is not qualified to discuss the pertinent data is to say Obama is not qualified to discuss anything except certain areas of the law in his job as president.Certainly that would extend to military and economic matters.This type of elitist ,snobbery ,and good old boy peer group nonsense would if fact disqualify Obama from making decisions on any of this.The left often uses this closed door approach to open discussions(sic).Certainly his body of work is not well regarded in that part of the scientific community selling global warming.As would be expected.Elaine acts as if the only people who believe it is a hoax is Rush Limbaugh …a mad scientist trained in Aruba,plus six guys waiting for a bus in Cleveland.You do see that there are a few more people than that dragging their heels with the lefts agenda on this i hope.You can’t believe this is a slam dunk.I was a Dem once- so i know the poison in the veins.You believe people are too stupid or hoodwinked to see the light right?That is why not everyone is onboard.
Nasa has just released data that announced that the world has NOT cooled in the last 15 years.They call this cycle 24.They say cycle 25 will be careening into a mini ice age,with temps cooling.Hope global warming can counter some of those effects …don’t you?
We still await published review of your findings in journals such as the above. Als0–cc to NASA.
@michael e: Monckton’s degrees are in journalism and classics. He has never conducted a single climate or other scientific study that I know of. He has never been employed as an applied or research scientist of any kind. His career has been in journalism, politics, and business. How exactly does he meet any reasonable criteria for being an expert on climate science? Being glib, humourous, and persuasive should not make up for a lack of technical scientific acumen.
About 99% of legitimate climate scientists– guys and girls who make a living day in and day out studying the climate– think human-driven climate change is happening and is an issue that needs to or will need to be addressed. Like I said before, when placing bets between the two, I’ll take the professional scientists and give points to the politician/journalist with the classics degree and a small business.
Politicians– like Monckton and the rest of Congress– can discuss climate change on whatever level they want and spin whatever facts they wanna spin however they wanna spin it. It’s not just a matter reserved for snobs, as you suggest I would have it. But you need to understand that the politicians are absolutely not the experts on the issue.
The answer john is simple.I practice medicine.I do not do the research that gives me the tools to do my job.I am the end result of years of research, and study by people better versed in that application..Similarily to Monkton and the understanding of climate research, president Obama is unable to explain anything militarily…or economically……or historically.He is educated in one thing….law.Would you say that leaves him unable to make any decisions on global warming?On the military?On anything outside of law?There is a simple right and wrong.Not right only if that is where your education background lies.
A scientist will dig into the side of a hill and study the soil deposits to garner information that at one time far below this glacier,during the iron age, was a copper mine use by our ancestors.Monkton takes that information and points out the simple fact that although the glacier has shrunk……in the past it was much smaller.Without any man made effects.He is like any of us taking the facts and pointing out obvious conclusions.He has made it a point to assimilate information on the subject and draw conclusions.The Congress thought him expert enough at this to call him before them 3 times.To say only the scientist who work in the field can interpret the scientific facts is nonsense.As far as what i believe….i believe the scientific research up till 2009 was very flawed in its application.It has gotten better and will continue to get better.There is good research that man will have effect on the weather.And even that that may result in warming.But if the world cools as Nasa is now reporting it will- according to their data.Well then it is a sticky wicket.Either there is a dependable model or there is not.As i say we go on.Far to early for us to give government the keys to yet another car.
@michael e: Your answer is indeed quite simple; it’s also way off-base. Taking your example of you practicing medicine as a result of all the research that’s gone before you: that certainly makes you qualified to practice medicine, but it doesn’t make you qualified to barge into a world-renowned endocrinologist’s lecture and take over. Sure, you can criticise that endocrinologist’s work and dispute his conclusions on any number of basis– and you may even be correct. But that doesn’t change the fact that he’s an expert in endocrinology and you’re not.
Look at it this way… Remember that trial about teaching intelligent design in that school district in PA several years ago? Well, the creationist side of the case called an expert witness: a biologist who taught at a university and published books and everything. Well the opposing counsel made him look pretty bad and pointed out a lot of flaws in his work. But that doesn’t mean that the scientist’s university fired him and hired the lawyer in his place, and the lawyer from then on got the biologist’s book royalties. The lawyer was just a lawyer and will never be scientist. Monckton is just a journalist and politician and will never be a scientist. And I see no reason why his opinion oughta be weighed so strongly against the vast majority of climate scientists who are far more qualified to talk about the climate.
Any politician or thier appointee or columnist or whatever is “qualified” to make a decision or talk or advocate about any issue they dang-well please. But that qualification comes from the fact that they were elected or appointed or hired or whatever– not necessarily because they have the underlying education and training. The Secretary of Defense is qualified to make decisions about fuel-use policy in helicopter operations in Afghanistan. That doesn’t mean he’s qualified to climb behind the controls of Chinook and fly it to Kandahar.