Contribute
Support Left in the West to continue our work:
Blog Ads

Syndication

RSS

Email Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Full Disclosure
Matt Singer works for Forward Montana. He also is a partner in DP Productions, a small, Montana-based T-Shirt company.


Search




Advanced Search


Bringing a knife to a gun fight

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:42:16 AM MDT


Paul Krugman, yesterday:

...if the consensus of the economic experts is grim, the consensus of the climate experts is utterly terrifying. At this point, the central forecast of leading climate models - not the worst-case scenario but the most likely outcome - is utter catastrophe, a rise in temperatures that will totally disrupt life as we know it, if we continue along our present path. How to head off that catastrophe should be the dominant policy issue of our time.

Sarah Palin, today:

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

...

A Kevin Drum reader:

Um, did Sarah Palin just write a whole editorial about cap and trade and not mention global warming once?

Worse, Kevin Drum friend, it appears Palin thinks cap-and-trade legislation's primary goal is about achieving energy independence...

Jay Stevens :: Bringing a knife to a gun fight
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I do hope you read Matt Taibbi's piece ... (0.00 / 0)
about c&t possibly being the next bubble for Wall Street. There's some nasty stuff in the bill,more deregulation. Here's Peter DeFazio:
They're already talking about - the guy who's head of Friends of the Earth got his economist somehow into a meeting of people on Wall Street - and they're talking about traunching them into junk carbon and good carbon and gourmet carbon, so they're going to traunch them, and then the bill says that if you are doing these exotic instruments on offsets, you have to buy insurance. That brings in the credit default swaps.

etc.

Caution,extreme caution, is the order of the day. Democrats are as capable of delivering for Goldman as Republicans. Maybe more so,as people are not so wary of them as they should be.  


Palin (0.00 / 0)
is essentially a moron...really.  And fortunately, with the exception of the major whacko's out there (about 15% of the population), Palin doesn't resonate in a positive way.

Why the media continues to pay attention to her is a mystery.  


Why? (0.00 / 0)
Sells advertising.

[ Parent ]
Most of these people do not write their own op-eds ... (0.00 / 0)
I doubt very much that Palin penned her own words. Someone is positioning her.  

[ Parent ]
and she's to (0.00 / 0)
stupid to know how inaccurate her "ghosted" op ed is...who are these republican "operatives" that seek these "empty vessels", fill them up, and sell them to the American public as legitimate Presidential candidates?

[ Parent ]
They have Democratic counterparts ... (0.00 / 0)
It's all a PR game.

[ Parent ]
Mark (0.00 / 0)
lets see...Mondale?  Clinton?  Gore?  Kerry? Obama?

Are you seriously suggesting that they are no different than Bush II and Palin???


[ Parent ]
?? (0.00 / 0)

Did any of you guys (other than Jay) read Krugmans OP-ed?

Krugman is right on the economy - as we are all seeing right now the Obama 'Hope & Change' economy is failing rapidly -

As far as the 'Cap & Trade' debate, Krugman is wrong.

Do me a favor, and google up these words:

GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS

and you will find literally hundreds of scientists and climatologists with good reputations saying that the notion of man-made global warming is overblown & politicized.

Hardly a consensus. Hardly bringing a knife to a gun fight.



Eric haven't we (0.00 / 0)
been down this road before? How about you post the name of a "scientist",  or climatologist,  that is not getting money from the coal/oil/gas industry that shares your view of this?


[ Parent ]
yes - (0.00 / 0)

Obviously you didn't take time to read the piece (I did)

and you obviously didn't google up those words either -

I'm not a scientist, I'm not a climatologist - and thus don't have a point of view to agree on -

I'm simply saying that if you actually research it, and avoid the global warming religion promoted by Al Gore, you will find that there is no scientific concensus.

So - once again - google up there words:

GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS

then actually do some reading -  


[ Parent ]
here's #3... (0.00 / 0)
Logical Science:

Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places.  This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2  Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3   The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change.  As you will notice,  the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming.  If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences.  For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science.  The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).  As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2.   An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied.  Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions.  It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics.  If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money).

That bit about referring to peer-reviewed scientific journals for the science on climate change is excellent advice.

A pundit, say, on Fox News claiming there's no consensus is  a poor point of reference.


[ Parent ]
er... (0.00 / 0)
...so I googled like you asked, and this is what I found:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements."

So...um...


[ Parent ]
here's #2 result... (0.00 / 0)
From "Science":

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

It just goes into more detail after that. It ends with this:

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.



[ Parent ]
thanks for the advice (0.00 / 0)
while it already reinforced my knowledge that the scientific community nearly wholly believes global temperatures are rising and that human activity is responsible, I found some great new links to refer folks to...

[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Would kind of likely reform would you support?
Baucus plan, with or without public option
Baucus plan, but only with public option
I don't support the Baucus plan, period

Results

Blog Roll
  • 4 & 20 Blackbirds
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • Cece-in-MT
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • David Sirota
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Granny Insanity
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Lamnidae
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana Netroots
  • Montana Politics
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Piece of Mind
  • Pragmatic Revolt
  • Prairie Mary
  • Rebels Are We
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox