Gore Goes Hollywood

posted by David Corn on 04/27/2006 @ 6:32pm

I first posted this at www.davidcorn.com....

Al Gore for President?

Not really. But l recently attended a screening of his new film, An Inconvenient Truth. And as the film ran, I--and probably many in the crowd--couldn't stop thinking this one thought: why wasn't he like this in 2000? The documentary follows Gore as he travels the world giving a slide show on the reality and perilous consequences of global warming, and much of the film shows him presenting his laptop show-and-tell to what seems to be a hand-picked crowd in a space-age auditorium. On the screen, he comes across as passionate, smart, committed, self-deprecating, and funny--all in the right balance. But when the film shows Gore delivering the slide show to real audiences, he does seem a slight bit pedantic. It's a distinction the movie does not emphasize--but a telling one. This guy had the potential to be a decent leader, but when it counted he could not pull it together. And this film is a painful reminder.

That is not the point of this engaging documentary. It is meant to be a wake-up call. And it does sound one damn big alarm bell. Halfway into it, my gut was clenched, as I despaired about the future of our beautiful blue and white orb. Professor Gore presents a tutorial that overwhelms with facts and graphics, including graphs, satellite imagery of the Earth, video footage from Antarctica, and fancy computer stimulations (such as a harrowing one showing how much of Beijing, New York City, Holland, and San Francisco would be flooded by rising sea levels). Gore makes the point over and over--and it does bear repeating--that there is no longer any debate over the science: global warming is happening, its causes are predominantly human-linked, and the results will be awful. Take that, Michael Crichton. And while Gore's spiffy presentation--which includes a cartoon from Matt Groening's Futurama (an animated Fox show that one of his daughters worked on)--is full of bad news, he does list all the first-steps that could be taken to lower global warming emissions quickly, if there were the political will to do so.

That political will does not yet exist--particularly within the current administration and Congress, as Gore notes (with various jabs) in the film. And Gore is honest about the overall failure of the political system to deal with this issue--and his own failure. He talks about his efforts within Congress over many years to turn global warming into a compelling legislative matter. "I feel as if I have failed to get this message across," he says, explaining that he thought the story was so "compelling" that Congress would have to act. But it hasn't. And he knows why: if a politician acknowledges the full ramifications of global warming then he or she has a "moral imperative" to address it. And that's the tough part: telling Americans they have to change their energy-gorging ways. So they duck the issue. (One nifty graphic in the film shows that the United States is now responsible for about a quarter of all the global warming gasses being spewed into the atmosphere. Another chart noted that mileage standards for cars are much higher in China than the United States.)

After the film was over, Gore spoke to the crowd and took questions. He was much better than his performances in the 2000 presidential debates but not as engaging as he was in the film. One lesson: we all can use a good director. But the question I wanted to ask--alas, I was not called on--was this: why didn't you give this slide show during the 2000 campaign? I'm not suggeting that a doomy hi-tech, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it presentation would have won him the election (though showing the computer stimulation depicting the bottom fifth of Florida state being subsumed by the sea might have helped him in that swing state). But at least it would have allowed Gore to show off his best side. I haven't read Joe Klein's new book, Politics Lost, but I'm told the section on Gore notes that at one point Gore's aides, concerned about the authenticity gap issue, asked him what he really cared about and what he really wanted to talk about on the campaign trail. Global warming, he replied. His aides then proceeded to undermine his big global warming speech, making sure it did not receive much media attention. And Gore never broke loose from such restraints.

The point of my question was not to get Gore to admit he let Democrats--and himself--down (even if he did win a majority of the popular vote and lost the election due to a lousy Supreme Court decision). I wanted him to reflect on why--now that he is free from electoral politics (or so it seems)--he is able to fiercely throw himself into this crusade. What does that say about the political system's apparent inability to handle such a grave threat and to accommodate a concerned crusader taking on a large and difficult challenge? In other words, can Gore convincingly say that we are not doomed by the limits of our political system (which, perhaps, mirror the limits of human nature--or, at least, American human nature)? These issues did not come up in the Q&A. But Gore did quip, "I don't claim expertise in politics." No comment.

The movie is strong and well-composed by director Davis Guggenheim. It is indeed, as the promo says, the most frightening film you'll ever see, and it is cause-y. The team behind it--including Laurie David and Hollywood producer Lawrence Bender--do not hide their agenda: to scare folks into action. Will they succeed? I don't know how much success one ex-pol with a slideshow can have. But it certainly cannot hurt if his message is echoed in theaters across the country. (It starts arriving in theaters on May 24.) And since this is a campaign, not merely a movie, Gore, Guggenheim and the producers want you to visit the film's website. In the meantime, anyone who watches this no-happy-ending flick will have to hope that addressing Gore's "inconvenient truth" is not a Mission Impossible.

Comments (214)

  1. It's a sad fact that most Democrats cower to the right or to the center when forced to state what they believe. Then, when the lights have dimmed, the crowds have dispersed, they find their strength once more.

    Very inspiring. Really. What would be nice is to view this new movie with a compilation of footage from the 2000 campaign. Might just be enough to have Gore institutionalized.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/27/2006 @ 6:59pm

  2. what are freiheits scientific credentials

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 8:13pm

  3. well, according to prognostications we will all see what happens if we live long enough. from all i have seen, the rate of advancing temperature increase coincides suspiciously with widespread industrialization.

    the idea that several billion wickedly clever and gluttonous shaved apes spewing their waste into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate has no effect on global climate seems pollyanish at best, self servingly evil at worst, for those who have the most to lose in the short term from the measures we need to implement in order to counteract this threat.

    i just hope when it finally becomes undeniable (if it ever will for those who feel they can insulate themselves as a result of their wealth, from this global disaster), we will be able to do something about it. we might not...

    so enjoy your summer...take a trip to disney world, buy that suv you've always wanted, vote for republican ceo government, play a video game, spend money on crap, trivialize your brain with american idol! eat drink and be merry for tomorrow...how does that go?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 8:18pm

  4. what are freiheits scientific credentials

    Posted by WILL C. 04/27/2006 @ 8:13pm

    . . . started life as a lab experiment, didn't he?

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/27/2006 @ 8:20pm

  5. Al Gore had baggage- he appeared a lot more often in the news media with Hollywood movie stars than everyday Americans, for one thing. Making global warming the centerpiece of his Presidential campaign would have been a non-starter and still is, if not more so.

    Posted by fromredbird at 04/27/2006 @ 8:32pm

  6. i always remember the onlineargument i had with one wingnut over this. first he cites charts and tables that he claimed refute the human connection to global warming. they all showed a significant increase directly correlative to massive wordwide industrialization. funny how one can refute one's own argument when one is ignorant.

    then i started digging into the website he had cited. it claimed that its debuning was supported by over 20,000 scientists many with advanced degrees. har har har! MANY? like what? two dozen? ADVANCED DEGREES? like in what? business administration? political SCIENCE? har har. what a bunch of bullshit. and sure enough, when i finally found who was sponsoring it, guess what? BIG MONEY OIL!!!! such is the nature of the support group for the vast majority of the scientists who don't believe human activity is part and parcel of the ACCELERATED global warming of the past century or so. they did have a bunch of pics of one science phd scientist who was the front man for the group. wonder how many oil company stock options that guy is getting for whoring himself out? maybe he and his descendents are on the list of those who will sipping martinis in well guarded mountain bubble cities while the rest of us are dying...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 8:34pm

  7. all bubbles... break

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 8:37pm

  8. Oh, and your last paragraph shows nothing but contempt for americans. My family loves disneyland and we all enjoy American Idol together. Does that make us bad people in your world?

    I think the laws of supply and demand will save the earth long before Columbus Ohio is ocean front.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/27/2006 @ 8:37pm | ignore this person

    ok - i am convinced you are a decent and good person. my reference to disney world was somewhat sarcastic in that it may wll be under water, as well as the fact that it represents something of our country's nero-like, fiddling-as-rome-burns, mentality. i'll not even comment on the moral/ethical fiber of its corporate ownership. who cares about that anyway? as for the american idol thing...well...good for you. i had a dream the other night i had sex with paula abdul. holding up nicely for her age... so, god for you guys...

    supply and demand without some kind of concerted action and awareness? not so sure about that one. the "law" is often subverted by those who possess the capability to manipulate. the free market mantra grows tiresome with its overuse and over citing...it has failed in the past when the market mechanisms fail to be truly free and are over influenced by a few powerful players.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 8:49pm

  9. I think the laws of supply and demand will save the earth long before Columbus Ohio is ocean front.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/27/2006 @ 8:37pm

    http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/KOSU

    approx elevation of columbus ohio... 900 ft (249 meters)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

    If all glaciers and ice caps melt, the projected rise in sea-level will be around 0.5 m. If the melting includes the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (both of which contain ice above sea level), then the rise is a more drastic 68.8 m. (249 ft) [3]

    so there you have it. If all the ice in the earths melted, columbus ohio would still be approx 651 ft above sea level.

    that would be one long drop off the diving board

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 8:55pm

  10. now there might be a supply of diving boards, but maybe not much demand

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 8:55pm

  11. see: enron, world com, tyco...

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 9:00pm

  12. i'll stick with the mainstream of scientific understanding. none of us will ever make progress as a group if we continue to toss aside the world's scientific communities when they are the only viable tool we have to understand the climate change problem

    You'll do well to remember that many of history's greatest scientists were great precisely because they broke from the mainstream. Copernicus, Semmelweiss, Pasteur, Jenner all broke from the "consensus." As they say, consensus is invoked when the science is not solid enough. But there really isn't as much consensus as the left would have us believe. Not from the Canadian scientists who have asked their PM to reconsider Kyoto, not the Russian scientists who believe the earth will be in a cooling phase within twenty years, and not the 2660 American climatologists, geophysicists, physicists, and oceanographers who signed the petition calling into question the basic science behind global warming.

    Posted by usc1 at 04/27/2006 @ 9:01pm

  13. oh my!!! did i show contempt for americans?!?!?!? how dare i?!?!? the gall!!!

    please, americans, forgive me for not telling you you are the most wonderful group of people god's ever less green earth ever spewed forth! i am so sorry for not buying into your trivialized idiocy, which, since you participate in and support it, MUST BE WONDERFUL! you americans NEVER do anything less than gawdawsome. you are absolutely above reproach and everyone in the world who does not want to be a pop-culturally lobotmized, consumerist, vain, greedy, shallow, ignorant, arrogant, glutton just like you is bad and anti-american.

    litmus test for "real uhmuruhkuns"...loves disney world and watches american idol...

    thats just wonderful...sorry, please dont gitmo me, my gububbament...i hate unamericans...i'm a gud flag wavin GOD fearin, disny wurld luvin, amerucin idul wurhippin patriot!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 9:01pm

  14. litmus test for "real uhmuruhkuns"

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 04/27/2006 @ 9:01pm

    Ibble

    my brain interpreted this as " real ubermunchkins"

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    (it's been a long week)

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 9:05pm

  15. freiheit: (n). 1. real ubermunchkin who started life as a lab experiment (see: beastiality)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 9:07pm

  16. from all i have seen, the rate of advancing temperature increase coincides suspiciously with widespread industrialization.

    Not so fast. You've not heard the curious facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation? And that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate? That for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)?. And, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

    Posted by usc1 at 04/27/2006 @ 9:09pm

  17. But hey, most leftists think anyone not just like them is a fool. It's part of their diversity celebration!

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/27/2006 @ 9:05pm

    but we're not just like us... the definition of diversity

    (he must have bought into len mosses conservatives are liberals hypothesis)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 9:09pm

  18. see ya

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 9:12pm

  19. oh goatless wonder

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 9:12pm

  20. Man, this defensiveness around shitty pop culture is just one more thing that drives me nuts about the right. Granted, we all like pop culture and its escapism, but very damn little of it is important art. Just because people buy it doesn't mean it's good. It just means they buy it. It doesn't mean anything else in terms of actual innovation or expression. I mean get real. I like Batman comic books, but do I think the writing found in them is as good as what you'll find in Raymond Chandler? And yet you can be very sure there are a hell of a lot more Batman comic books sold in this country every year then editions of Chandler's classic detective fiction.

    As usual, the right confuses units sold, and popularity, with quality. As a result, when they see a hard critique of American Idol, or Disney's output, many of them call it "contempt for America". And it sure as hell isn't. It's just the important realization that, for example, either Sherman Alexie is making more solid contributions to Native American Literature then the writer who wrote the screen play to Pocahantas, or he isn't. And if you think the latter is the case, it is you who has contempt for American people and culture, not the critic.

    Posted by Mikeyeshu at 04/27/2006 @ 9:14pm

  21. The fascinating thing is that they continue to uphold this drivel on the one hand, and then on the other, decry the fall of academic standards in public schools. And it is the right who favors commercialization and the dumbing down of the academic enivironment through their adulation for mediocre popular culture like Disney and American Idol. No matter how much lipstick you put on them pigs, they still gonna be pigs.

    Posted by Mikeyeshu at 04/27/2006 @ 9:18pm

  22. Posted by USC1 04/27/2006 @ 9:01pm | ignore this person

    well, perhaps your right. but the assumption by right wing crowd that everyone is a greedy as they are, that the scientists who are saying that global warming IS influenced by human activity must be doing so for their own financial gain, is indicative of the assumptions and mindset originating from the right. the rights incapacity to find human motive for anything in anything other than personal profit (again a projection of their own mentality) is their biggest flaw in terms of understanding reality.

    so what large monied interest is behind these conventional lefty scientists? are they getting together and conniving some scheme to scare us all, elect a bunch of greeny leftists, and make a bunch of money over the whole thing? is that it? i've talked to some morons who actually believe such a thing. what large monied interst might have a stake in debunking such research out there? gee, i cant think of a one...

    but then scientists always get into the "science business" to make tons of money - just like business, thats what science is all about, isnt it? those scientists who "claim" to be in it for knowledge are just a bunch of hypocrites. everybody has the same motivation as the ayn rand economic nihilists, because the ayn rand economic nihilists, having no empathy, are incapable of concieving any mentality other than their own. thus those who claim to not share their mentality and motivation are either hypocrites, insane, or stupid. sheesh! go figure!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 9:18pm

  23. excuse my tenor, USC, i have been rather busy lately and a bit stretched. please hit me with some url's supporting your points. your last post was lucid and indicative of good critical thinking/reasoning. sorry if i gave the impression of rudeness...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 9:26pm

  24. Frei, USC, etc.

    As an organic geochemist I can assure that the scope of disruption that humanity has had on the global carbon cycle over the past two centuries does indeed rival "the forces of nature". While NOT a climatologist, I do have a pretty firm grasp on geochemical cycling and in fact had to recently answer some question regarding climate change on my doctoral prelims.

    In the period from 1800 to 1994 the oceans absorbed 118 million metric tons of anthropogenic carbon. That of course, is only a fraction of what was released over that time period. Now the oceans are fairly saturated, and the water is getting warmer which means they will be unable to hold more, but in fact less (as gas laws dictate that gas solubility is inversely proportional to temperature.) Look anywhere at the records of CO2, sea level, and global temperatures. Sure, there is cyclic varibility in solar luminosity and Earth's orbital dynamic. However, those sorts of thing are recorded in the geologic record and are accounted for in models. We do know why there were seas in the midwest at one point, why there were palms and ferns in what is now arctic real estate. We know a great deal of how the world works...but our knowledge is indeed limited.

    And even though some interactions are not completely understood, in science nothing is "completely" understood. That's how science works. As point of fact, global warming via CO2 from fossil fuels was first posited in 1856...the fact it has taken politicians 150 years to come to terms with the concept says volumes. The fact that others refuse to believe it at all....well, I'll let you extrapolate.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2006 @ 9:26pm

  25. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/27/2006 @ 9:26pm | ignore this person

    so, u lefty science tree hugger, fess up! whats the big lefty science tree hugger conspiracy up to now? whats in it for you? i bet you are just a front man for all those powerful lefty science tree hugger corporations sinisterly attempting to deny us reel amurucauns our god givin rite to our hummers! how much u stand to make off this, guy? HAH! the truth comes out!!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 9:35pm

  26. hows it going will? ;)

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 9:37pm

  27. IBble:

    I wouldn't go that far. But in "government research" there is intense pressure to conform to the prevailing paradigm of global warming (or of other topics of interest) if one wants to continue receiving funding.

    Posted by usc1 at 04/27/2006 @ 9:37pm

  28. Posted by USC1 04/27/2006 @ 9:37pm

    true, although i find it telling how those involved in federal government agencies whose research opposed neocon ideology were censored and shunted aside...thus an intense pressure to conform to the self serving ideology of ceo politicians and ideologues...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 9:47pm

  29. Al Gore in a movie...gotta be a wooden comedy. He always sounds like an idiot.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/27/2006 @ 9:50pm

  30. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/27/2006 @ 9:50pm |

    although i dislike the "attack ad hominum", i must admit he has always sounded to me like the reverend lovejoy character from the simpsons...bush is his very own cartoon character...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 9:53pm

  31. hows it going will? ;)

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 04/27/2006 @ 9:37pm

    it's going great ibble.

    how bout yourself?

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 9:54pm

  32. Posted by WILL C. 04/27/2006 @ 9:54pm

    fine now. got busy, stretched to the limit, and had to take a break. nice to be back. started working out again. good for the mind...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 10:00pm

  33. i bet you are just a front man for all those powerful lefty science tree hugger corporations sinisterly attempting to deny us reel amurucauns our god givin rite to our hummers! how much u stand to make off this, guy? HAH! the truth comes out!!!!

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 04/27/2006 @ 9:35pm

    With bio diesel in the tank a hummer is a green vehicle. The hamsters have been very succesful at twisting the argument into an attack by the great liberal center of America on your Ford F350.

    yet instead of being patriots and giving their fuel dollars to American farmers they would rather give those dollars to arab sheiks. And to our farmers...

    they give welfare disguised as farm aid.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 10:05pm

  34. started working out again. good for the mind...

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 04/27/2006 @ 10:00pm

    good to hear that. As soon as it warms up enough for me to wear shorts to work, I'll be hitting the gym again myself.

    there's a fight coming

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 10:07pm

  35. Posted by WILL C. 04/27/2006 @ 10:07pm |

    yeah - there is a fight coming. gotta get ready for it. do some aerobic stuff first - gets the brain juices flowing, gets the energy up for strength training, muscle toning. that makes you look good and feel more confident, which always helps in a personal argument. silly but true. paula thought i was looking prety buff in my dream...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 10:14pm

  36. i prefer thepower of anaerobics. They get your heart pumping just as fast but but also add muscle mass.

    and force equals mass times aceleration.

    or in election terms, it equals the speed at which a majority of americans can get to the polls to vote these chumps into the dudty pages of history.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 10:20pm

  37. dusty

    not as ol gee dubya would say... dudty

    Posted by Will C. at 04/27/2006 @ 10:21pm

  38. LofC:

    The problem is that we are trying to predict the future and the only way to do that is with models. The important question is: Can these models be validated by observations and measurements? And certain models show that the climate right now should be warming at about the rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade. But that's not what the observations show. So until the observations and the models agree, or until one or the other is resolved, it's very difficult to believe in the predictive power of the current models.

    Posted by usc1 at 04/27/2006 @ 10:35pm

  39. do what works for you...lol

    and by the end of this summer i hope to have my website, virtualdemocracy.com, up and running. ultimately we need to work toward some serious structural changes that will break the two party/corporate sponsor lock on the system...long term grass roots stuff...

    but my ambien is starting to really kick in now (hope i don't try to find shortest route to all night wendy's) so good nite and hope to talk mor lattejio/

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2006 @ 10:37pm

  40. USC

    But with the grand majority of models showing positive forcing (warming), we are still talking about degrees of agreement and not discord of concept. Also, the precautionary principle when applied to a situation of dire consequence should always lead to the "conservative" outcome...the one that encompasses the least risk to human life. Instead we choose the option of most immediate convenience and/or economic gain.

    Ibble

    The only trick about tree-hugging is that the knothole has to be in the right place...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2006 @ 11:41pm

  41. "Oh, and before those who haven't ignored me decide to jump all over me, yes, climate change is real. Blaming it on man is where we take sides beyond rational debate.

    Yeah, better to blame it on all them flatulent bovines!

    -"The only trick about tree-hugging is that the knothole has to be in the right place..."

    Haw! outstanding!

    Posted by nyknicks12 at 04/28/2006 @ 12:21am

  42. Well, global warming seems to be one of the few topics that inspires me to post here now and again. I really just can't stand the bias and/or ignorance from the posters who argue against global warming or against its connection to humans. LEFTOFCENTER and others here have tried to inform on the basics of the science, though the nitty-gritty of the science is mostly ignored by those who argue against warming.

    So why is it that non-scientists feel qualified to spout half-arguments as support for a scientific point of view? Real science ain't simple and just can't be oversimplified no matter how comforting and believable the simple logic may be. No one should begin to argue the scientific merits unless they want to talk about the "hockey stick" graphs and associated nuances of how measurements are acquired and analyzed. If you don't want to learn about this stuff, then your only logical choice is to defer to the scientific consensus as summarized by the IPCC. The experts agree that it's highly likely that humans are causing warming and that the associated risks to the planet in the relatively near future are severe. In the last couple of years, ocean data have added overwhelming evidence to support this consensus.

    The science about climate change is inherently not political... the socioeconomic implications are on the other hand political. The two should not be confused. If you want an apolitical discussion of the science from scientists, go to [realclimate.org]. What you'll find is that the politicization of this issue (in terms of the misinformation) comes from primarily from the RIGHT, not the LEFT. I was going to address unfounded claims by FREI and USC earlier in this thread, but I'm out of steam... I feel better now.

    Posted by wkseattle at 04/28/2006 @ 03:18am

  43. To support my claim about politicization from the deniers of warming, look no further than here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/a-correction-with- repercussions/#more-265

    The link describes a mistake published in SCIENCE. It seems that the mistaken SCIENCE article, which challenged some of the work at the heart of the argument supporting the impact of humans on climate, was based on faulty work. Moreover, the mistake was not retracted or corrected in SCIENCE, but admitted in a less prominent journal.

    Contrary to the conservative arguments, as the politics are removed from the global warming issue, the consensus grows stronger. The science is clear.

    Posted by wkseattle at 04/28/2006 @ 03:44am

  44. LofC

    I wouldn't call changing current policy to one that would cost our economy trillions of dollars and millions of jobs based upon an unproven theory "conservative." I'd call it aggressive. (Let me state again that I'm not refuting "global warming", but the degree of anthropogenic global warming.

    Posted by usc1 at 04/28/2006 @ 06:45am

  45. USC

    See WKSEATTLE's last paragraph above...it is the socio/econo/political argument to ignore science. Not that it does not have merit....sure economic impacts are real. However, ignoring the facts (well...perhaps not actually ignoring, perhaps the denying the need to act?) for decades means that the socioeconomic impacts when they ARE upon us will be much worse. Typical western mindset of shifting the responsibility to the future. A "Why do today what we can put off until tomorrow?" We could have been doing small corrections across many years, but we reach a point where no small shift will have an effect...then only leaps will work. Leaps that we do not have the fortitude to make, regardless of the consequence.

    After all, these argument will fall really flat in like fifty years when Houston is underwater. Think THAT might have some negative economic impact? When you cut off your nose to spite your face, don't be surprised when your glasses fall off.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/28/2006 @ 07:58am

  46. Some of us clearly think that we should be able inherit this planet without paying anything.

    Sound familiar?

    Posted by drhammer at 04/28/2006 @ 08:10am

  47. "After all, these argument will fall really flat in like fifty years when Houston is underwater"

    What will be said if Houston is high and dry? Npothing, probably..

    or better yet,

    The dems take power again and enact kyoto, ban Suvs, taxes increase and we go green, but,... India, China, and the rest of the developing world crank out more green house gases, burn more fossil fuels than ever, buyh their own SUVs and catch up with the US in economic and industrial out put...but have no EPA, tell the ALGORE UN commitee of Save the Earth Now, to shove it up his green little butt and pollute more than they do now...and if you are correct, that the US is the big polluter and is melting the world.....Houston sinks due to the increase from the rest of the world...what is your response? Ah, invade?

    It seems to me that the rest of the world will treat the US,the UN and its demands much like Saddams Iraq and Iran today, with a yawn and backing from the peace loving peoples of China and Russia...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/28/2006 @ 08:14am

  48. LOC:

    My most recent post was mainly to take issue with the use of the word "conservative." Minor point.

    But (touching on debate from DC's last thread with this also), as you stated, economic impacts are real. If we started using alternative energy decades ago, the costs to the individual would have been comparatively much higher than gas. (many tried alternative sources in the 70s and 80s, but the cost and inefficiency made it much less than optimal) Who knows what kind of "economic trauma" that would have inflicted on Americans over the last thirty years. Would that "trauma" have been worth it?

    After all, these argument will fall really flat in like fifty years when Houston is underwater.

    This is unfortunate scare-mongering.

    And We are not in "disaster mode" at this time. We still aren't quite to '70s levels in cost of gas. In addition, the market is doing what it's supposed to do in that Americans think gas/oil prices are too high and are now demanding we develop our alternative sources. Since the difference in cost/efficiency between nonrenewable and renewable sources are decreasing, this is now a much more feasible option. (I firmly believe that the American consumer will force this issue and we will have efficient, affordable alternative sources sooner than most people expect. But then, I'm an optimist.)

    Posted by usc1 at 04/28/2006 @ 09:19am

  49. Sorry if last post was a bit "choppy." At work now and typing on the fly.

    Posted by usc1 at 04/28/2006 @ 09:20am

  50. I wouldn't call changing current policy to one that would cost our economy trillions of dollars and millions of jobs based upon an unproven theory "conservative." I'd call it aggressive.

    Posted by USC1 04/28/2006 @ 06:45am

    Yet you did just that with your pro war stance and your support for laissez (corporate wel)-faire capitalism...

    two policies that cost trillions of dollars and millions of jobs

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 09:37am

  51. USC

    re: stylistics...de nada...am at office myself

    re: decades ago aspect...the base technology for the regenerative braking hybrid vehicle was invented in the 1970's. We see it in production what....35 years later. Why? Not because it was that un-economical, but because oil and auto giants weren't feeling the squeeze, the "need" to go forth with innovation. Of sure, we always see the "car of the future" crap-ola at big car shows and then at the dealerships its same-old, same-old.

    As to general trends of alternative energies...they have NEVER gotten the same tax breaks as oil, thus have never been allowed "on the field" for the same reasons as above I suspect. It has only been since big oil has bought into alternative energy that it has advanced at all. So no real basis for your statement.

    ...as to "scare-mongering"..well, it worked for Dubya. Maybe the left needs to try it because apparently it works. As to technological optimism...to a degree (as a scientist) I buy it, but I also realize there are real limits to potential of technology. For instance, the ability to feed humanity, while it has increased some over time, has an absolute thermodynamic limit - the # of watts/sq m of arable land is the "ultimate" rule....there are bounds.

    JM

    So you argument is that if we do the right thing...and other nations do the wrong thing, that we should not care and do the wrong thing too? Is that your argument...that enough wrongs make a "Right-winger"? Sorry...ain't buying it. Besides...ever hear of "lead by example." If we are indeed "leader of the free world" (which, I feel is somewhat doubtful taking all things into consideration...) then maybe WE should take the LEAD?

    After all...we have ~5% of the world populations and consume 25% of the worlds energy output. So sure, other nations eye us a bit enviously, a bit bitterly, and don't listen to us. Its "Do as I say, not as I do..."

    Come back with a rational argument next time, and thanks for playing...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/28/2006 @ 09:48am

  52. The dems take power again and enact kyoto, ban Suvs, taxes increase and we go green, but,... India, China, and the rest of the developing world crank out more green house gases, burn more fossil fuels than ever, buyh their own SUVs and catch up with the US in economic and industrial out put...but have no EPA, tell the ALGORE UN commitee of Save the Earth Now, to shove it up his green little butt and pollute more than they do now...and if you are correct, that the US is the big polluter and is melting the world.....Houston sinks due to the increase from the rest of the world...what is your response? Ah, invade?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/28/2006 @ 08:14am

    My response. We are their biggest market. To service our needs they will retool their factories and build the products that we use in our country. The spin off of that is that they will also sell those same products to their own people who will gladly buy them to be cool like us, and as more and more alternative energy engines move people around the planet, greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere will stabilise and then slowly start that long trend downward.

    but please feel free to invade some piss ant country that can't fight back. But this time... your ass is in the hummv.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 09:49am

  53. What also about the ground-breaking "Hydrogen on the fly" technology developed by some Russian scientists back in 2005....then it drops of the radar. Quashed technology? Google OM Energy

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/28/2006 @ 09:52am

  54. To all of you who continue to pander or believe the notion that there is no scientific link to human fossil fuel use and global warming:

    1. Global CO2 levels are rising and are roughly 50% higher than pre-industrial revolution levels. No scientific study disputes this.

    2. By analysis of ice-cores, tree rings and fossils, it has been established that global temperatures rise and fall with atmospheric CO2 levels and have done so for millenia. No scientific study disputes this.

    3. Atmospheric CO2 is composed of a nearly fixed ratio of two carbon isotopes. All living things are composed of carbon in this ratio of isotopes. Upon death, respiration stops and the exchange of carbon in the body (plant or animal) ceases. The less stable carbon isotope in the dead plant or animal spontaneously decays at a fixed known rate. Fossil fuels derive from plants and animals that died millions of years ago and ALL of the carbon has decayed to the carbon-12 isotope. Consequently, the burning of fossil fuels generates CO2 that contains ONLY this carbon-12 isotope. If the human burning of fossil fuels is significantly increasing global CO2 levels, we would observe an increase in carbon-12 in the atmospheric CO2 compared to the carbon-13 isotope.

    4. We have been recording that global atmospheric CO2 concentrations are becoming more enriched in the carbon-12 isotope since the late 1980s. This is not speculation, it is undeniable, reproducible hard data. We have known this for nearly 20 years.

    Posted by bjkron at 04/28/2006 @ 10:07am

  55. Shouldn't we be trying to reduce noxious emissions regardless of global warming? Can anyone argue for petroleum unless one is heavily invested in Exxon/Mobil?

    As I was watching the Bush and Snow show earlier this week I couldn't help thinking that as horrible as things are, Bush still has a chance to carve out a positive place in history. Over two and a half years left. What to do? What to do?

    How about using this time to do a massive push--in the name of national security, if that's what it takes--to ween us off the petroleum teat. Begin with major jacking-ups of the gas mileage requirements, eliminate any subsidies/tax breaks for the oil industry and couple that with a withdrawal of military investment in the Middle East, and use those funds in their entirety toward a push for more efficient non-petroleum energy solutions.

    I know the Bushes are bad about the "vision thing," but if Bush still has any political capital remaining, it is his rather gloppy past in the oil industry. If he were to declare that by 20-- the United States would be independent of imported petroleum without destroying our own environment to make up the difference, we might actually see a united, political push to get to work.

    Or perhaps I'm just dreaming.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/28/2006 @ 10:14am

  56. FREIHEIT

    Nothing gets in the way of their fantasy.

    Posted by CPT at 04/28/2006 @ 10:27am

  57. My God, the conservative posters really sound like such a bunch of defeatists.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 10:46am

  58. Just how does believing in the human influence on global warming equate with 9/11 conspiracies?

    I'm not talking about trashing the global economy, just making minor changes to our lifestyle that can prevent (or soften) a climatic change that will itself trash the global economy.

    I'm not saying we have to quit driving cars or even SUVs. But what the hell is wrong with increasing fuel-efficiency standards? It will save you money if your SUV has a 5-10mpg improvement in mileage. The only thing that seems to influence your decision is money, so look at it from the viewpoint of your own personal benefit. Give a tax-break to people who buy fuel efficient vehicles, another tax break for those who don't put a lot of miles on their car, cut the goddamned oil subsidies right now. If they are making record profits, they no longer need federal subsidies (which is a socialist, command-economy program if there ever was one). Re-invest half of those recovered subsidies into alternative energy R&D (solar, wind and fuel cells to start with) which will generate jobs like the Silicon Valley boom of the 80s and revamp the public transportation system so that fewer people will have to drive and they will have to drive less, resulting in increased tax breaks for the working classes.

    Or you can bury your head in the sand and grab your ankles. The oil companies will provide the necessary petroleum jelly.

    Posted by bjkron at 04/28/2006 @ 10:53am

  59. Where is it written that preserving the planet has to destroy the economy? On corporate websites? What big business, faced with the prospect of humanitarian or environmental regulation, has not cried that they would be driven out of business? Who are the real scaremongers?

    Meanwhile, as we occupy ourselves with all this debate and denial, BushCo loots the treasury anyway.

    Wake the fuck up, America.

    Posted by drhammer at 04/28/2006 @ 11:09am

  60. Basically, the conservative posters attack doing anything regarding global warming mainly because they claim the science predicts an uncertain future if we keep on going the way we are. Putting aside the validity of the science supporting global warming theory for a moment, which I will leave to others, those same conservative posters submit that taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions would enevitably "trash the economy." Maybe it is just me, but that seems to be predicting an uncertain future as well - and is way out of line with what people who support global warming theory advocate.

    So, what to do? What to do?

    Well, for one thing supporters of global warming theory are not generally calling for the drastic changes in the immediate term that many conservatives seem to always assume. It's not like they are calling for a ban on all SUV's within six months, or a reduction to zero of all carbon emissions within a year. I think many who want to do something about global warming have solutions with the economic realities in mind. Generally, they offer a measured approach - which is certainly better than no approach at all - what we have gotten from previous administrations.

    Conservatives today seem to want to do nothing about it - because it would be "too hard" or "the market will do it."

    I am not a scientist and rely on the scientists to explain things to me, but one thing I think we can all agree on is that CO2 emissions in the amount we have seen in the last century cannot be a GOOD thing. So, seeking to reduce those, and eventually eliminate them, IS a good thing to move towards.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 11:09am

  61. Freiheit -

    Hi. Where will the innovators come from? I am pessimistic that they will come from the major energy corporations and public companies who, more and more in this day and age, are driven by making their quarter and meeting Wall St. expectations, which are in so many cases ridiculous. The current market culture that seems so hell-bent on short term results does not seem well-suited to give rise to these long-term innovators.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 11:15am

  62. TJ & BJ

    Have tried reason and science....look at Frei's retort 10:19AM. Apparently the only way to teach a pig to fly is to toss it off the roof...but then it doesn't fly very long.

    Notice Frei's "Those who respect and understand the reality of monetary influence on individuals will successfully steer society in the correct direction." which presumes altruism of those steering with cash. Dunno if I can swallow that without voluminous regurgitation.

    Hman also makes a slaient point in noting, science aside, we know at a gut level spewing crap into the air CANNOT be a good thing. Thus attempting to reverse that we know to be "not good", is by definition "good."

    It seems though, the only answer the right-wing has is the economy is this omniscient, self-correcting, benevolent enitity that "won't let us down." Which is funny in that is seems almost like the qualities of "Gaia" as espoused by the hard-core tree-huggers....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/28/2006 @ 11:43am

  63. Freiheit - I see what you are saying, but I think the situation with the climate/atmosphere is a bit different than your PC example. If the PC was never invented, we would all get by on our typewriters, file cabinets, photo albums, and stereos. If the automobile was never invented, we'd still be all taking trains and riding coaches on the ground. Now, if we do not reduce CO2 emissions and global warming theory proves correct, what happens?

    Yes, innovation does happen because of the market, but only when their is a public demand for that innovation. the only thing I would agree with you on is that there does not appear to be a current public demand for alternatives. But, in your scenario, there would be once the climate sitaution really became apparant, right? The problem, however, is that it might be too late to do anything about it.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 11:43am

  64. The changes in lifestyle you propose are perfectly reasonable and will be driven by economic forces.

    To say "the only thing that influences your decision is money" however is pompous and elitist. Those who respect and understand the reality of monetary influence on individuals will successfully steer society in the correct direction.

    Shame the left has a hard time understanding that.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/28/2006 @ 11:13am

    "Economic forces" are still just us, aren't they? Those of us are aware of the impact that money has on decisions. We cannot go through a day without being slapped in the face with advertising. Politicians are are an unpredictable group--agreed. But the time is ripe, with people across the country in a tizzy about the price of gasoline, for a response that isn't insulting (free gas with donation to the political action committee of your choice, perhaps?). A plan. A longterm goal. It can be simple and realistic. It can include baby steps for those who demand complexity.

    It's advertising that is king among your economic forces. And nothing is more visible, albeit painful, than re-election advertising. If we allow the market, and by this I assume you would mean the manufacturers--you know, the ones stuck with a lot of low-mileage vehicles in their lot, determine our energy future, we can guarantee ourselves only one thing. That is, we will be very late in seeing any changes made to our structure of using energy.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/28/2006 @ 11:53am

  65. And we do understand that global warming is a global problem. Heck, it says so right in the term. But who do we want to be: the ones who refrain from joining a modest attempt to address a serious scientific problem, or the one who is leading the way, profitting from our vision, dragging the rest of the world in our direction?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/28/2006 @ 11:56am

  66. Freiheit:

    To say "the only thing that influences your decision is money" however is pompous and elitist. Those who respect and understand the reality of monetary influence on individuals will successfully steer society in the correct direction. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/28/2006 @ 11:13am | ignore this person

    You were the one to use the economy (i.e. money) as an argument in a debate about meterological change. This is a scientific subject matter and your post had no science within it, just economic scaremongering about trashing the global economy. How am I to assume that you care about anything other than money when that is your only argument?

    Posted by bjkron at 04/28/2006 @ 11:58am

  67. Frei

    re: mandates: What is "reasonable" though?...it smacks of value judgments by definition. How about we start by mandating that smoking is abolished?

    Quitting isn't hard actually....I quit in 92 after smoking pretty regular for like 15? years. We reinforce the thought that it is hard by telling people it is...then we forget we are vertebrates. Got spine?

    I do though agree that clean air, water is worth the effort...and that the war on terror is unreasonable. (That is what your last sentence infers, yes?)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/28/2006 @ 12:01pm

  68. Besides new solutions to environmental & energy problems should actually be GOOD for the economy in that is creates new industry. (If they were on a level field with the "status quo" industries.) What the right is scared to death of is that it disrupts the plodding of the status quo.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/28/2006 @ 12:03pm

  69. In my view....most of the addiction talk is crap. People have free will...whether they use it is personal choice, by and large....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/28/2006 @ 12:08pm

  70. If gas hits $5 a gallon, I think the first thing will be a demand for the government to somehow fix it and make gas cheaper - then we will hear more about drilling Alaska or maybe even invading another oil-producing country - or giving consumers a $100 dollar rebate!

    I love that last solution - yes, we are addicted to oil - so you know what, here's $100 for you so you can keep sucking it down without putting as much of a dent in your wallet.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 12:08pm

  71. Denny does his part:

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060427/480/dcpm10904272019

    Posted by drhammer at 04/28/2006 @ 12:13pm

  72. What the right objects to is the politicization of the environmental movement.

    Shame you can't see that.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/28/2006 @ 12:10am

    Kind like what Denny did in the link DRHAMMER provided, huh? ;)

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 12:15pm

  73. I think it shows an example of the "politicization of the environmental movement."

    No?

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 12:18pm

  74. No.

    Posted by drhammer at 04/28/2006 @ 12:19pm

  75. Maybe GW will adopt a spotted owl.

    But, just don't keep its cage anywhere near Dick Dead-Eye Cheney.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 12:20pm

  76. By the way, the "No" is for Freiheit.

    (I don't feel particularly compelled to answer to him for my contributions.)

    Posted by drhammer at 04/28/2006 @ 12:22pm

  77. Hey all,

    Regardless of whether there is a scientific consensus on global warming (I personally think there is such a consensus), can't you agree that we shouldn't wait for our global icecaps to melt before we take action? Even if there is not consensus, a great majority of scientists agree that CO2 emissions cause global warming. Everyone agrees that global warming could have dire consequences, costing trillions to reverse and killing many.

    Isn't it desirable to take the simple steps necessary to limit global warming? For instance, we could increase the fuel efficiency of all vehicles dramatically. The technology is there, yet we have not seen fit to push for it.

    The "market" is no excuse to abandon foresight! Don't you agree?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 04/28/2006 @ 12:41pm

  78. C'mon Freheit - I don't imagine Dr. Hammer was crafting a 2006 campaign ad for the voters.

    But, the voters WILL be aware that the poor suffering of the major oil companies resulted in ... poof! ...

    record profits.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 12:42pm

  79. No Nattie, we will all be saved when the Bill Gates of the energy market emerges just ion the nick of time. And after that, a genius of the marketplace will invent a way to refreeze the icecap.

    It's all good.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 12:46pm

  80. Global warming is a bad thing and most people would like to stop it. What we need is for a President to declare a "War" on Global warming.

    After such a declaration the President will then be able to usurp the power of Congress and the judicial branch but we won't mind since it will all be done in an effort to save us!

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/28/2006 @ 1:05pm

  81. Freiheit,

    How dare you say the Bush "War" on Terror has not been successful!

    Without such a "war" how would Bush not already be in jail? FISA Laws broken and continue to be broken. Torture Laws over written with "nah nah nah nah nah" signing statements and NIE's "declassified" for political gain while CIA spook's are outed.

    If that kind of political coup d'etat is not a success then whose side are you on anyway?

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/28/2006 @ 1:16pm

  82. Nattie/BJ:

    No one disputes there is an association between CO2 and temperature. But which is the cause and which is the effect? Studies have shown that temperature changes occurred before the increase in CO2. That means that something changed the temperature, but not the CO2. Then as climate warmed, more CO2 was released into the atmosphere--600 years later in one report.

    Posted by usc1 at 04/28/2006 @ 1:18pm

  83. Freiheit - I was only joking with Nattie regarding singular reliance on market forces of supply and demand. I do not have contempt for corporations or Bill Gates. I only used that to play off your PC example (I know Gates didn't invent it). I DO believe that innovations can take place. I am just not as confident as you are that we can wait until pure market forces demand it. The whole problem in my mind with your argument is that with so many historical innovations, we could afford to wait until there was true market demand. With global warming we are talking about potentially irreversible consequences without the innovation, not whether or not I can fit 500 CDs into my mp3 player instead of loading them into my stereo.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 1:36pm

  84. "So you argument is that if we do the right thing...and other nations do the wrong thing, that we should not care and do the wrong thing too? Is that your argument..."

    No, never has been, but to think the rest of the world will follow us is folly. China will never follows us, especially if they manage to surpass us in mfging and fossil fuels use. We will be percieved as in decline, and they will be correct to a degree.

    Al Gore lost me and millions with his book,,,he inspires no one ...My point is if you cut us off and ignore the Chinese and Indians and 3rd world with exceptions, then all you are doing is changing the source and not the manner. In the mean time you are hurting our productions by artificial means and not letting the market help.

    AlGore tried to "invest" in a hybred cars with government dollars when he was the besdt vice prsident in history,, and what do we have as a result? Any Gore mobile on the road ?Millions down the drain. Gore is a loser to his very core and only inspires the far left.

    As price for gas rises, pressure build to find another answer, and it will come when the supply runs out or price is too high..then an Edison will come out of the great American factory of invention out of neccesseity, and we will move in that direction...and nothing will come out of tax the shit out of the oil companies except high prices and less supply. Government can not solve this problem and neither will stopping our industry with kyoto type "deals", without treating every country the same and get them on the same page.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/28/2006 @ 1:46pm

  85. As we approach $ 5.00 a gallon, usage will drop and prices may actually fall for awhile..but the days of cheap gas are gone forever..why no complaint about the 60 plus cents a gallon tax and only for the 9 cents the evil oil companies stole. I am always amazed by the lack of real help, like give up the tax in order to drop the price 5 times lower as opposed to focusing oil profits...before some loony toone comes up with the"Are you defending the oil companys" nonsense, no..but look at what could be a real influence on prices..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/28/2006 @ 1:52pm

  86. USC1, regarding your 1:18pm post on the acssociation of CO2 and climate change, here's a thorough discussion.

    CO2 in ice cores [realclimate.org]

    As discussed in the link, CO2 may not cause all warming, but the time lag does not necessarily suggest that most of the warming is NOT caused by CO2. It's a complex issue, but the scientific consensus is that CO2 does cause warming and that the anthropogenic release of CO2 is very significant.

    Posted by wkseattle at 04/28/2006 @ 1:55pm

  87. Maasch -

    People probably are not bitching too much about gas taxes in this country because they are among the lowest in the industrialized world.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 2:07pm

  88. LL:

    1. Do you have any actual science to back up your hyposthesis? It is not "just as valid" if you have nothing to support it.

    2. I read your NASA article. Appears to be an entirely separate issue and something humans have no control over. But, its irrelevant to the issue of global warming which is something we DO have some amount of control over.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 2:17pm

  89. Hman,

    "People probably are not bitching too much about gas taxes in this country because they are among the lowest in the industrialized world."

    That makes no sense....so what, it is my wallet that needs the break, I don't care if the Europeans pay $ 10 a gal. Irrelevant..

    I say the public here should be aware of their own expenses. They look at the pennies and miss the dollars...as the left wants them to do, focus on Bush and oil companys and NOT do the math.

    Posted by john maasch at 04/28/2006 @ 2:19pm

  90. Maasch,

    One of the contributers to the current "high" price of gasoline is a war that we as a nation elected to have.

    The French are also paying $75/barrel for oil today even though they wanted no part of a war.

    By rights, the US Government should be subsidizing the elevated oil costs for all the nations that are being forced to pay more because of the follies of the USA.

    And you might think that this is a ridiculous notion but I can assure you that if another country had started an illegal war and it cost the USA.....we'd be seeking retribution (and rightly so).

    Secondly, you propose to lower the gas tax.....yeah that's the ticket. In effect, pass on even more of a tax burden to future generations since our generation is clearly unwilling to sacrifice to pay for a war we chose why shouldn't we also make future generations pay for our oil too?

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/28/2006 @ 2:21pm

  91. To all Bush supporters:

    Apparently, the petrol companies believe they eserve the record profits they're raking in (Chevron up 49% 1st quarter to 4 billion, and the Bush camorra is reluctant to tax these outlandish amounts of money. According to them, they need this money to reinvest in good works for the American public and consumers in general, though no one seems to be able to give examples of all the good deeds these monsters are performing. Surely they're not investing in research into alternate energy sources such as hydro, electro or solarpower. (And anyone who believes they are is a retard.) Why no proof or examples of the great benefits being engendered by those huge profits in so few hands? And how long until Cheveron names another tanker after Condi?

    Posted by chimichenga at 04/28/2006 @ 2:36pm

  92. LL,

    An avalanche is a natural occurence, but a blast of dynamite will precipitate one. To deny that man is hastening a new hot phase on earth is as dumb as you claiming to be a servant of God.

    Posted by chimichenga at 04/28/2006 @ 2:38pm

  93. LL:

    Of course natural forces are a cause. I never said that they did not. You were the one who said "Of far more consequence than any man-made contributions ..." I said, the article had nothing to do with the issue of manmade emissions. But, again, what does that have to do with addressing the manmade ones? The article you posted did not mention anything about global warming or the effect of CO2 emissions.

    And its funny the credibility you hoist immediately on one scientific study, while calling others regarding global warming "extremist."

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 2:39pm

  94. LL:

    I guess you can cherry-pick your science like the best of them.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 2:40pm

  95. That's voodoo math Freiheit. You are weighing Exxon's bottm line profit against the government's top line sales, if you will. You'd have to add up what Exxon spends in costs, expenses and marketing as well to have a useful comparisom to the government figures.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 2:45pm

  96. The networks hyperventilated about ExxonMobil's $8.4 billion first quarter profits and ABC chose not to report that government taxes far exceed oil company earnings – for a $3 gallon of gas, 46 cents goes to the taxman and 28 cents to Exxon. While Exxon made $8.4 billion this first quarter and the networks screamed greed, the federal government took $7 billion from Exxon at the same time plus another $7.6 billion in excise taxes.

    Yep, politicians will fix this profit crisis.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/28/2006 @ 2:39pm | ignore this person

    Government of, by and for the people. Why do conservatives get so upset when "the government" collects tax money? Because it takes money from the corporations and redistributes it to the people whose blood, sweat and tears allow the corporations to exist and prosper in the first place.

    Posted by bjkron at 04/28/2006 @ 2:51pm

  97. Gas taxation is much too low.

    The more government raised from gas taxation the less they would need to raise from income.

    Had gas taxes been much higher for years we'd be less dependent on gas today than we are.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/28/2006 @ 2:57pm

  98. "that if we just tackle the manmade contributions with massive government controls and mandates that any global warming or cooling issues are then resolved."

    LL: who exactly has been saying THAT? Stop trying to falsely attribute arguments to the other side of your position.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 3:00pm

  99. The Army, the Reserves most of the airforce and the Marines should be disbanded. The Navy and National Guard should remain.

    You want to fight a war?.... if you think we need to fight someplace / sometime ask me if I don't mind paying through higher taxes and if I don't mind being conscripted.

    Having an army is asking for a psychotic like Bush to use it!

    I grew up WITHOUT any toy soldiers.....I never got into any toy wars!!!!

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/28/2006 @ 3:14pm

  100. Zero,

    Add to your wonderful list how your tax dollars were used to fly Cheney down to Texas (in Airforce II) so he could take a $2,000 political contributer quail hunting (at our expense) and then shoot him in the face. Us tax payers even paid for the bird shot!

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/28/2006 @ 3:33pm

  101. Zero,

    I think that a future President needs to declare "War" on taxes.

    That way he / she will be able to break laws and usurp the powers of the other branches of government but he / she will "protect" us from the evil taxes.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/28/2006 @ 3:39pm

  102. LV,

    If any tax money was spent on those misadventures I'm utterly outraged. I demand a huge standing Army to combat such injustice and I want a President to declare "War" on such abuses so that he can secretly wire tap and other American's to stop the disgusting problem!

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/28/2006 @ 3:51pm

  103. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 3:43pm: Now we have some insight into your psche. Mommy never let you be a real boy.

    I suppose that your Mommy let you be a real boy. And the result is a scared, tax-cheating preacher man who loves to kill brown people.

    Somebody should have done you a favor and put you into the military so you could learn some respect for country, honor, duty, and our wonderful military history that has produced so many great Americans.

    Great Americans like the LoveShack, a scared, tax-cheating preacher man who loves to kill brown people.

    There is a reason that Americans have generally always elected presidents who have also done military service. It is proof of service to country. Only 11 presidents did not serve

    More neo-con math: "generally always" = 3/4 of the time.

    Perhaps if we elected fewer presidents from the military, our country would get itself into fewer wars. (Which, I am sure, you would see as an undesirable result, given the Glory of War and all.)

    and none since Truman except for Clinton the draft dodger.

    Very clever Love. Always get in the little cut at Clinton to remind people how bad things were in the 90s. Hell, back then we were keeping the people's money in some leftist thing called a "surplus" and we weren't killing brown people on a daily basis. You've got me with that Clinton thing. I give up. Things are clearly so much better now.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 4:03pm

  104. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 3:46pm: Missing from your list was the tax money used to support the adulterous affairs of FDR, John and Bobby Kennedy, and of course Bill Clinton.

    Not to mention the current prostitution habits of those family values Republicans.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 4:04pm

  105. LL

    Your NASA article was about sunspot cycles (~11 years cycles)and NOT luminosity variation which is more along the lines of a 11,000 year cycle. There is an article in Nature (vintage 1988) that suggst some relation between the long term cycle and the shorter susnpots cycle, but the relation is at best unclear. Thus the info is NOT applicable to the CO2 scenario.

    Also, I fail to see how Clinton getting his "willie waxed" was a taxpayer expense? Unless you are assuming Monica (BJ) Lewinsky had no other duites other than waxing Slick's "willie". Not the case with Deadeye Dick....

    ALL

    re: the defense of Big Oil profits....realize that those profits do not include the "overhead". Expenditures, like the massive salaries of the $100K+/day CEO types. Spare me such crap, please....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/28/2006 @ 4:05pm

  106. LL:

    I can only speak for myself, but I never said or meant that ALL environmental problems associated with global warming (including those that are not manmade) would be solved by addressing human causes.

    So you think the marketplace is best suited to solve the potential crisis. Well, I disagree. Did the market strengthen the levees to protect New Orleans?

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 4:10pm

  107. LL:

    Taxpayer money did not support Clinton's affair, just the stupid investigation that followed.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 4:11pm

  108. LL:

    I guess if you include in your definition of "serving," being a drunk in the Texas Air National Guard and failing to report, your list is correct.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 4:14pm

  109. Posted by HMAN23 04/28/2006 @ 4:14pm: I guess if you include in your definition of "serving," being a drunk in the Texas Air National Guard and failing to report

    Failing to report is typically called desertion.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 4:19pm

  110. So how much did that BJ cost us taxpayers, LL? 10 minutes worth of Clinton's salary - maybe what - $10?

    AND he was multi-tasking.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 4:30pm

  111. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 4:20pm: is the idiot trying to change the topic to bill clinton again?

    No. To the Idiot Party, Bill Clinton is always the topic. In fact, I have in my hand a copy of the Official Talking Points of the Idiot Party. It states that there are only three valid answers to any question:

    1) Bill Clinton

    2) 9/11

    3) You should be very afraid, because we are protecting you.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 4:30pm

  112. so it really wasn't all too much of a waste.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 4:31pm

  113. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 4:35pm: What happened in NO was not the result of the failure of the market or even government to prepare.

    It was, actually, a victory for the market and for the Federal government. For it showed that we are winning the War against Hurricans and the Hurricans are desparate. Katrina was the desparate act of an enemy that knows it is defeated. And so, the enemy lashed out in desperation with Katrina. But Katrina only showed that we are winning. Soon, the Hurricans will be no more.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 4:41pm

  114. LOVE LIBERTY,

    I am seldom here on this page these days and when I am, I admit I am more inclined to spray graffiti over the well-scripted, memorized retorts here placed by you Tories full of pretentious bullshit and black sorcery you pass off as wisdom and intelligence here, as trying to engage you in a civil conversation would mean first admitting that you weren't a scoundrel and an asshole to boot. I'm resigned to think you're just another privileged caucasian who mistakes his priveleges for God-given rights, granted by a rascist and corporate god who wears a ten gallon hat and hides his gun inside his bible.

    Of course you're here day after day defending your consumption habits and everything you stand for, never failing to justify the sacrifices made or injustices committed in the name of your way of life so long as you can go on spouting the drivel leave all over these pages while boasting of your great deeds in a land far removed from reality, where even a glance in the mirror is too much to cope with. Your cheap shots about Clinton and other democrats are classic, surely they are the words of a snake who has avoided any and all real toil and service, things you apparently respect so much yet haven't the balls to undertake in the flesh. Clinton dodged? And what did Cheney and Bush do? These two blood brothers haven't done shit for their country besides put more and more of it over a barrel while bogging it down in an unlawful massacre while burying the respect this country enjoyed before they made their incursion into the White House.

    LL, you are the biggest fuckpuppet on this blog and I know you're full of shit about your background and just as mendacious and cruel as your masters. You beat your chest and echo the calls for war, but make no sacrifice. You speak of love and the Word of God, yet come here to belittle people with an ostentatious and wily wit that is a total waste and an insult to people with real morals and ambitions towards change and justice. You claim to work for good, yet plaster your excuses for some of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century here on a regular basis. In your wildest and most guilt-inspired fantasies you actually strive to better the wretched of the earth, but in reality you trample them and everything they stand for every time you open your mouth. Deep inside you know you are a fraud, as are most men, but your effort to contradict the obvious is deserving of an award, for that is where you sweat the most - in trying to portray yourself as everything you're not. You sir, are a wasted talent, a poltroon, a debauched bathtub king. That you have good company up there is a testament to the insanity that reins in the world. Cheers for deviltry!

    Posted by chimichenga at 04/28/2006 @ 4:52pm

  115. Gore should move to the Northwest and become a totem pole. He's wooden and he'd enjoy nature.

    Posted by woodyee at 04/28/2006 @ 4:54pm

  116. Now we have some insight into your psche. Mommy never let you be a real boy.

    You show yourself way out of the mainstream on your military views.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 3:43pm | ignore this person

    And once again Leave Liberty, We both have some insight into YOUR psche and you show yourself to be way out of the mainstream on your Christian views.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/28/2006 @ 5:07pm

  117. reminder: the outcome of 00' was not a reflection of gore's efforts in presenting himself...

    Posted by daniel_ny at 04/28/2006 @ 5:10pm

  118. LL

    OK...there is room for debate. Never said there wasn't. Does this mean that it makes sense to ignore what we know to be true...that CO2 is a greenhous gas and that we have significantly increased its concentration? I should think a sane person would say "No!" Or do we wait until we find out differently...for good, or for ill?

    That is NOT a rational decision.

    Interesting non-argument in the paper though. Note that Fig 4 touts the covariance, and reflects to Fig 3 in comparison. However, Fig 3 starts in 1958, just before the temp curve in Fig 4 rises from the little ice age of 1958-60. It is a stilted statement that is not supported by the data. You would have to examine CO2 over the same period. However if we look at the longer record of CO2 HERE we see a similar degree of covariance between the 160,000 year temperature/CO2 record.

    While your point opens honest debate, it is a point only and does not discount the weight of previous evidence.

    You may also find this interesting Paleo which indicates that perhaps human influence on climate is older than anyone thought possible.... (another debatable point?)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/28/2006 @ 5:11pm

  119. Apples and oranges? In both situations we are talking about envirnomental disasters which scientists forecast.

    The scientific consensus predicted what a hurricane like Katrina would do to the existing levees. Sure, the government did not provide for stronger levees to thwart a potential environmental disaster, but "the market" did not do ANYTHING about it, did not even take a step.

    So, when faced with a potential environmental disaster that is global warming, why would anyone think that the market will eventually provide a solution in time? Sure, it might, but only if public demand makes it profitable in time to avert a crisis. Similar to the government being responsible for protecting NO via levees, isn't the government also responsble to step up on global warming rather than solely relying on the private sector?

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 5:13pm

  120. Another thing LL, the market will "correct" poor product performance, but that is reactive. With global warming we need to be proactive and not wait for market corrections - it will be too late and potentially irreversible.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 5:17pm

  121. Posted by HMAN23 04/28/2006 @ 5:13pm: but "the market" did not do ANYTHING about it, did not even take a step

    The markets are all-knowing. If the markets did not do anything about it, doing nothing was the best solution. Perhaps the markets were telling us that we have too many cities...

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 5:19pm

  122. We could accomplish much more in terms of accelerating technological advances in alternative energy resources by looking for our common agreement instead of seeking paths to hostility.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person

    Agreed.

    Enviro extremists need to agree to come to the table on a recognition that 1)man is not the sole contributor to global warming or cooling 2)governments are not always the best mechanism for solutions 3) changes do affect quality of life issues and should be considered 4)the market is already moving to provide real solutions independent of government requirements and 5) political philosophy does not mean someone hates or is indifferent to quality of life in terms of nonmaterial issues.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person

    Oops, so much for that agreement. Calling those with concern for the environment "Enviro extremists" squarely falls into the category of "seeking paths to hostility".

    That said, I think everyone can agree to your 5 points with some minor qualifications: 1) man isn't the sole contributor to global climatic changes BUT there is no doubt whasoever that he IS contributing now, 2) governments are not always the best mechanism for solutions but sometimes they can be and the failures of past attempts by government doesn't negate our responsibility to try to get them to act in our best interests now, 3)changes do affect quality of life issues and should be considered especially catastrophic global climatic changes, 4)the market is already moving to provide real solutions independent of government requirements and in just as many cases as not, BECUASE of govenment requirements and 5) political philosophy does not mean someone hates or is indifferent to quality of life in terms of nonmaterial issues except when such policial philosophy does, in fact, lead one to indiffernce to quality of life in terms of nonmaterial issues.

    There, you see? We can reach common agreement.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/28/2006 @ 5:27pm

  123. LL,

    What is the different between money coming from consumers and private investors and money coming from the government? The market is about the flow of money, and if reduced tax breaks on the petroleum industry are turned over to investment in new energy R&D, I think we will see some innovation on that front.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/28/2006 @ 5:30pm

  124. We know you don't like government funding, but it has an impact.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/28/2006 @ 5:31pm

  125. I have not said that these are not relevant factors. Our disagreement is on the solutions. I want the primary role to be the market including giving people more options in the market without government constraints

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 5:27pm | ignore this person

    I am old enough to remember these exact arguments being made when the subject was the government mandating of seat belts in cars, the removal of lead from gasoline, the implementation of safety technology like padded dashboards and bumper systems, etc. Market forces would NEVER have resulted in the implementation of ANY of those things...it took government mandates. And we are ALL better off for them.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/28/2006 @ 5:35pm

  126. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 5:27pm: I wish those on the left would actually let that fact register. It would really help the national dialogue.

    Perhaps those on the Left have no interest in dialogue with a scared, tax-cheating preacher man who likes to murder brown people.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 5:40pm

  127. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 5:38pm: Most conservatives agree we have witnessed a cycle of global warming over the past 20-30 years or even more.

    Actually, most conservatives have spent the last 20 years denying the existence of global warming, you scared, tax-cheating, preacher-man who loves to kill brown people.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 5:41pm

  128. WK:

    The link you reference agrees with what I was saying about CO2. There is an association, but we have yet to prove how much CO2 affects climate. The author's statements are filled with "coulds" and "mights." In other words, we don't know.

    And that is the crux of the debate. If you believe the global warming "alarmists", we need to decrease our CO2 output. As such, We are being asked through the Kyoto protocol to decrease fossil fuel use by 1/3. Yet models clearly show that if Kyoto was observed to a letter by all countries, then by the year 2050, we will have decreased the calculated temperature increase by (drumroll) 0.05 degrees. That's barely measurable.

    In other words, with Kyoto, we are being asked to pay a very heavy premium as an insurance policy against very minimal risk.

    Posted by usc1 at 04/28/2006 @ 5:41pm

  129. Have a good weekend everyone - don't spend your nifty $100 gas rebate all in one place!

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/28/2006 @ 5:43pm

  130. you who repeat mindlessly the "market is the answer to everything, government is always innefective" have niether sense of perspective, noe anything resembling unbiased perspective. while a powerful force, the "market" is not infallible, not capable of reacting effectively to every situation, and not inviolable. government has show itself effective, not only in our own country, but in many others, throughout the world in many areas. classic hyperbole of the ideologue, incapable of viewing the world through anything but ideological lenses. and economics is, as any economist worth his or her salt will tell you, an inexact science at best. sometimes, such as in 1929, the market fails miserably. in such circumstances the government intervenes to the best of its ability. sometimes government stifles economic growth and need to be reigned in. but the propaganda that government cannot act as a positive catalyst without screwing everything up is as much ideological claptrap as is the idea that the government can do everything. and the suggestion that any who reccomend using the government to encourage wise action on the part of the private sector are pollyanish ignoramuses is unfounded, unfair, and an indication of arrogant, biased, ignorance itself.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2006 @ 5:48pm

  131. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 5:46pm: have not purchased a hybrid because my truck is paid for and I will need it for my ministry and hauling to and from my mini ranch regardless of gas prices.

    Now Love, you told us that gas prices weren't a concern because you write off your gas and we all pay for it. Don't you remember you scared, tax-cheating, preacher man who loves to murder brown people?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 5:53pm

  132. Sorry LL, "explaining" your definition of "enviro whacko" does virtually nothing to advance your stated goal of "looking for our common agreement instead of seeking paths to hostility". In fact, much of your "definition" accomplishes the exact opposite.

    Where we "could" perhaps find agreement is in the following:

    1) All available science says that the collective activities of man are having a major NEGATIVE impact on the Earth. We are poisoning it, stripping it, killing off vast quantaties of biodiverse LIFE. And now, we are dumping so much JUNK into our atmosphere, that we are precipitating global climatic changes that can have (and are now having) catastrophic effects.

    2) Waiting to determine whether the effect will be warming or colling, higher sea levels or another ice age, would be a REALLY stupid idea when, either way, the solution is to stop dumping JUNK into our atmosphere.

    3) While the bible says that God gave man dominion over the earth, he (or she... ;-) ...) quite obviously did with the expectation that we would be good stewards. Killing LIFE is NOT good stewardship. Therefore, we have an obligation to be wise in what we do with the ONLY Earth that God has given us.

    4) We have several mechanisms for implementing change. Government is one, market forces are another. They are NOT mutually exclusive and it is NOT wise to weigh one against the other and select only the "best" to use. The wise course of action is to use EVERY means at our disposal to solve our problems.

    5) Changes in our economy and lifestyle ARE required. Changing nothing results in SOLVING nothing.

    Have we reached common agreement?

    Posted by Lillian at 04/28/2006 @ 6:06pm

  133. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 6:00pm: I think our bloated bureaucracy actually stymies change because it is like a huge ship that requires a tremendous turning circle to reverse it's route. Smaller government should effect more rapid change as circumstances dictate.

    That must be why you are such a strong support of our bloated military, which is so oversized that it can misplace a few trillion dollars and not even notice it. Semper Fi, you scared little tax-cheating preacher man who loves to kill brown people.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 6:06pm

  134. I can't believe I'm trying to find common agreement with Leave Liberty! Heaven help me!

    Posted by Lillian at 04/28/2006 @ 6:13pm

  135. Posted by LILLIAN 04/28/2006 @ 6:13pm

    its worth a try from time to time. besides, we should show kindness, compassion, and magnanimity to those whose wicked masters are about to be defeated.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/28/2006 @ 6:16pm

  136. Posted by LILLIAN 04/28/2006 @ 6:13pm

    Don't worry, Lillian. Everyone goes through it. Eventually, however, one realizes that he is just a scared little tax-cheating preacher man who loves to kill brown people. But, its educational to have made the effort.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 6:17pm

  137. On the topic of what's wrong with us lefties, LL indicates that we "See government as the most efficient and desired path for implementing change."

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/28/2006 @ 5:38pm

    You are of course wrong here. It should not be either, but it cannot be neutered. And you of course recognize this, but don't want to toss it out for fear of appeasing us crazies. Why should the citizens of this country let those with money determine the most important directions for our country (you may insert a joke hear about the current state of graft in Congress)? While we can dicker and dither about the specific roles of the government, it has to be part of the equation when dealing with something as serious as energy and the environment.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/28/2006 @ 6:35pm

  138. Free,

    "One of the contributers to the current "high" price of gasoline is a war that we as a nation elected to have. "

    This is lunacy, even Marx couldn't come to this conclusion ...

    WORLD DEMAND AND SHORTAGE OF REFINING CAPACITY..

    The other half of the lunatics claim we went there for oil...

    OR,

    " Semper Fi, you scared little tax-cheating preacher man who loves to kill brown people."

    You need to change your medication....the current drugs you are taking have turned on you..seek help before we see you on TV with the swat teams cornering you..

    Posted by john maasch at 04/28/2006 @ 6:49pm

  139. "One of the contributers to the current "high" price of gasoline is a war that we as a nation elected to have. "

    This is lunacy, even Marx couldn't come to this conclusion ...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/28/2006 @ 6:49pm | ignore this person

    "The Iranian situation obviously causes markets to--creates angst in the marketplace, and the result of which is higher prices," said Al Hubbard, Bush's director of the National Economic Council, on April 25.

    Huh, so it wasn't Marx, it was Al Hubbard, Bush's director of the National Economic Council.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/28/2006 @ 8:12pm

  140. The average car and truck on the road today gets only twenty-one miles to the gallon. In 1987, the average was twenty-two. We've been going backwards. And in last year's energy bill, Bush, the Republicans, and many Democrats, too, blocked an amendment to boost fuel efficiency standards.

    Oh look, there's an elephant in the living room!

    Posted by Lillian at 04/28/2006 @ 8:16pm

  141. Lillian:

    As I stated earlier (to someone else), even if we (and all other countries) followed Kyoto to the letter, we would decrease the calculated temperature increase by a whopping 0.05 degrees C. That's miniscule. The fact is, there is still plenty of debate over how much humans affect global climate.

    Posted by usc1 at 04/28/2006 @ 8:27pm

  142. The Sierra Club says "The biggest single step we can take toward saving money at the gas pump, curbing global warming, and cutting America's oil dependence is to make our cars, trucks, and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gas. We already have the technology to make all new cars, SUVs, and other light trucks average forty miles per gallon within the next ten years This would save more oil than the United States currently imports from the entire Persian Gulf and could ever get out of the Arctic Refuge, combined."

    Huh, so the government "could" solve some serious problems with a simple mandate to raise the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks sold in the US. But Leave Liberty, Maasch, et al have been saying that government mandates just won't work. Could it be that they were just (gasp) wrong!

    Posted by Lillian at 04/28/2006 @ 8:28pm

  143. Sorry. Supposed to say "0.05 degrees C by 2050."

    USC1 regrets the error.

    Posted by usc1 at 04/28/2006 @ 8:29pm

  144. Posted by USC1 04/28/2006 @ 8:27pm | ignore this person

    Really USC? And what science would that number be based on? It wouldn't be the same science everyone here has been saying is so inexact, would it?

    And, pshh, if that's all we could accomplish, why bother? Is that what you're saying?

    Posted by Lillian at 04/28/2006 @ 8:32pm

  145. According to the published reports of the United Nations Science Advisory Group.

    Posted by usc1 at 04/28/2006 @ 9:14pm

  146. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/28/2006 @ 6:49pm: The other half of the lunatics claim we went there for oil...

    Whereas the real reason was... Oh right. Nobody knows.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 9:22pm

  147. Posted by USC1 04/28/2006 @ 9:14pm: According to the published reports of the United Nations Science Advisory Group.

    You got a link for that, Trojan Man?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 9:23pm

  148. Interesting isn't it.

    the do nothing hamsters fight tooth and claw to do... a... nothing about global warming even though they have stated numerous times they provide bold leadership and that they won't leave gathering threats to the country for future presidents or generations.

    yet here they are faced with the gathering threat to the ecosystems of the world and they do... nothing.

    the funny thing (and the irony) is that when faced with the threat of nothing... they invaded Iraq. But when faced with the threat of global warming they do absolutely nothing.

    maybe we should change tactics and insist that global warming is really nothing.

    that'll light a fire under their butts

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 9:30pm

  149. Ah the smell of smoking hamster butts...

    it smells like................

    smoking hamster butts

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 9:30pm

  150. Al Gore, by your own admission, travels frequently around the world. What methods, one wonders, gets him from here to there. No doubt, they contribute greatly to, er, global warming. It kind of reminds me of when good ol' Al strongly opposed school vouchers, all the while his own precious offspring attended the most elite private schools available.

    That's okay though. It's important to raise another generation of liberal hypochrites whose money exempts them from the policies they advocate. Real consequences are for the working classes, I suppose. Al Gore, Laurie David, George Clooney et al, jet around the world in their self importance, constantly invoking some poor schmuck who gets his kid to school and soccer in his Ford Explorer.

    Global warming may be true. After all science never makes a mistake, like when they warned us of all of the dire consequences of the impending Y2K disaster. Oh wait, that never happened. Of cource scientests would never keep a myth like Nuclear Winter going because they liked the policy consequences, even though they had proven it false. Oh wait, that did happen.

    Everything human is flawed, and that includes science. An intelligent mind is sceptical of science and religion. But true or false, people like you and Al Gore will still be living your elite, pampered lives, long after you've thrown thousands, and perhaps millions, out of their jobs, so we can't keep polluting your air.

    Posted by moliver5 at 04/28/2006 @ 10:07pm

  151. Wow,

    LL was relatively civil today. Actual, kinda-sorta discourse. Sure, we didn't solve world hunger, nor anything else for that matter....but we actually kinda discussed things like rational human beings. It might be snowing in Hell...but that's their environmental problem....

    Moliver & USC....I believe we can do the right thing and still have a better economy. You don't & I cannot fathom why. New technology means new job growth. Entire new sectors of the economy perhaps....don't be afraid of change. It is the only certainty after all.

    JM Sorry, but anyone who DOESN'T think that oil is a large (if not primary part) of the whole Iraq thing is just plain foolish, or naive, or both. If nothing else, the FOIA docs (maps of Iraq oil field with wells and names of developers) from Dick's "secret" energy talks ought to be a clue.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/28/2006 @ 10:17pm

  152. Al Gore, by your own admission, travels frequently around the world. What methods, one wonders, gets him from here to there. No doubt, they contribute greatly to, er, global warming. It kind of reminds me of when good ol' Al strongly opposed school vouchers, all the while his own precious offspring attended the most elite private schools available.

    Posted by MOLIVER5 04/28/2006 @ 10:07pm

    and while sending his children to the most elite private schools available, Al payed his local property taxes and thereby continued to financially support his local public school system.

    something which vouchers are designed to get your average cheep skate hamster... out of.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 10:17pm

  153. and combating global warming doesn't equate to eleiminating internal combustion and turbine engines.

    It does however mean we fuel them with something renewable

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 10:20pm

  154. Oh God, if you exist, please tell us what on your green earth prevents some from trying to do their level best to protect this paradise you have created.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/28/2006 @ 10:32pm

  155. that's our job

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 10:33pm

  156. and the children of God actually do it

    Posted by Will C. at 04/28/2006 @ 10:34pm

  157. Posted by MOLIVER5 04/28/2006 @ 10:07pm

    An amazing contortion of logic, even for a whackjob Decider-ist. Let me see if I understand. We shouldn't do anything about Global Warming because Al Gore flies too much. A breathtaking leap of genius, mo'liver.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 10:41pm

  158. Oh and Mo', your boy, the Decider, has really been a boon to the working class, hasn't he. I mean he saw that there was a lack of working class jobs, and he did something about it. He created 150,000 good working-class jobs in Iraq. And he's working on creatin' some more in Iran. I mean what more could a working class boy want than to be cannon fodder for a megalomaniac who talks to God.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 10:47pm

  159. Orwell and Will, nice replies to Moliver (what's a mo liver?). I was still stuck on trying to figure when I became elite and pampered.

    But true or false, people like you and Al Gore will still be living your elite, pampered lives, long after you've thrown thousands, and perhaps millions, out of their jobs, so we can't keep polluting your air.

    Posted by MOLIVER5 04/28/2006 @ 10:07pm | ignore this person

    I was also having some trouble with this gem...

    After all science never makes a mistake, like when they warned us of all of the dire consequences of the impending Y2K disaster. Oh wait, that never happened.

    Darn right that never happened. Mainly because my fellow IT professionals and I worked our rear ends off for the 2 stinking years leading up 2000 to make SURE it didn't happen.

    Or how about this pearl...

    Of cource scientests would never keep a myth like Nuclear Winter going because they liked the policy consequences, even though they had proven it false.

    Wow, and they accuse us of wearing the tin foil hats! Now the scientists are conspiring to keep the truth from us all because...because...well because! They just like the "policy consequences". Whew! Darn scientists!

    Posted by Lillian at 04/28/2006 @ 11:20pm

  160. Posted by LILLIAN 04/28/2006 @ 11:20pm: what's a mo liver?

    mo'liver, mo'liver, mo'liver. Its slang for a lapdog obedient brainless suckup who jumps to the front of the line and shouts "More liver please SIR", when the Decider informs him that all good American God-Fearing Patriots eat their liver.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/28/2006 @ 11:40pm

  161. USC

    I can appreciate the debate about the impact of the Kyoto treaty and other socioeconomic issues. My point was to address the science. What I read from the referenced article was that the time lag between CO2 and warming is not directly pertinent to the discussion of whether human activity is a cause of the climate change. As such, I was refuting your initial claim that this time lag shows how uncertain all of the climate science really is.

    It seems that your primary argument is that predicting the future requires models and these models themselves have uncertainties... therefore how certain can we really be? This is essentially Crichton's argument in State of Fear. While it's true that we don't know everything about the earth's climate over the last 5000 years, the models should not be dismissed so quickly. If you read the scientific literature carefully, you'll find that the biggest uncertainty is in how much CO2 will be produced in the coming years, not how well the model captures the physics. Over the years, the models have been demonstrated to capture the physics quite accurately. And these models suggest that with current trends in CO2 emissions, humans may in fact severely impact the climate.

    Although climate science is not directly my field, I can take a stab at explaining the 0.05degC impact of Kyoto you quoted. One possibility is that everyone assumes different levels of emissions over the next 50 years. These varying assumptions can lead to many different results, though that does not reflect weaknesses in the physical model, as I said above. Secondly, the biggest impact in warming over the next 50 years is already in the pipeline and will happen even if there are NO further emissions. This pipeline refers to the fact the ocean (a HUGE heat sink) has been storing energy during our warming trend in recent decades. That is why the recent ocean temperature data are the final linchpin in the scientific story that links human activity and warming. There are other factors that impact climate, but human activity cannot be discounted. I was scientifically skeptical 10 yrs ago, but the science is solid now.

    As for socioeconomic policy, that's where the debate should begin. Personally, I see the situation as analogous to buying insurance. You buy insurance to protect against catastrophic events. Based on the range of model assumptions and predictions, I think we (as a nation and the largest energy user) need to look for insurance here against the possibility of catastrophic climate change. As the lone superpower, this is an issue where we should be leading the international community instread of playing "chicken" with other industrial powers.

    Posted by wkseattle at 04/29/2006 @ 12:06am

  162. Maasch:

    "WORLD DEMAND AND SHORTAGE OF REFINING CAPACITY"

    Last November, oil was $55/B. Yesterday: $75.32/B. A 37% increase. Please tell me that "WORLD DEMAND" shot up 37% in 5 months. Try 1.5%. "Refining capacity"? What does that have to do with anything? Email Valero.....which just reported a very handsome quarterly...about lack of production. Refining production ran about 85% of capacity for years. It is now around 90% and there is still room for more.

    What's my point? Our shopping basket is running thin. We're running out of "friendlies" to sell us their oil. Think Chavez! Think Iran (we haven't bought in that market directly for years...but we have lots of Iranian oil imports through 3rd parties). Think of India and China making deals with the Sudan, Venezuela, Canada, Russia,Nigeria,Gabon, Khazakhistan, Iran and even...oh no...the House of Saud. All big players.

    We have a nasty trade deal with Canada. We've been screwing them for years on softwood lumber. Well, guess what? Canada may hold more reserves in their tar sands than even Saudi Arabia. Guess who is paying for a 36" pipeline to pump the stuff from Alberta to the west coast. It ain't us.

    Oh, BTW, how's that oil production ramping up in Mesopotamia? Secure supply for the long term...ya think?

    We're flat out of friends out there Maasch and you tell us it's not political? Nothing to do with Bush? Think hard.

    Posted by doumer at 04/29/2006 @ 02:05am

  163. "But true or false, people like you and Al Gore will still be living your elite, pampered lives, long after you've thrown thousands, and perhaps millions, out of their jobs, so we can't keep polluting your air."

    Posted by MOLIVER5 04/28/2006 @ 10:07pm

    What is so hard about this? Thousands or millions thrown out of their jobs? By whom? Outsourcers perhaps? Hell, that's happening anyway. Do you even have a clue what Kyoto is all about? If not, perhaps it may behoove you to do some research.

    The biggest polluter, other than combustion engines, is industry. The technology has been developed and is used in many countries. Scrubbers are intstalled in emmission systems to remove pollutants. Most countries provide subsidies to companies to assist in capitalization. Costs are amoritized over years and act further as a healthy tax deduction. Why does this throw 'thousands or millions" out of work? Furthermore, the techs who design, manufacure and install these safeguards now become "new" employment.

    It's really not that hard Mollivers. Read and come back to chat if you wish.

    Posted by doumer at 04/29/2006 @ 02:30am

  164. American car manufacturers are simply responding to demand. European cars return on average 30% better fuel consumption, there are less cars per family and the cars on the whole are used less often. These same cars are mostly available in America so why isn't the driving public buying them?

    Even when their owners accept the science, I doubt that too many Hummers or Lincoln Navigators will be traded in for a Prius or a Smart car. When one is weaned in a culture of entitlement to gluttony, breaking the habit is hard. The culture of entitlement has to be changed first.

    I'm afraid it will require the strength of persuasion that can be wrought only by rising sea levels, increasingly violent storms, amplified droughts, floods and suffocating heatwaves to convince enough of the American electorate that they better amend their ways (and their voting pattern) although I expect by then it'll be beyond the point of no return - at least for climate change.

    Gore is doing nothing more than echoing the best science and scientific minds available, such as those in the IPCC. Nonetheless, in the current climate of mass denial in America even this much takes courage and commitment.

    The role of the politician should be to represent the people, not misrepresent the science. By electing to place the interests of corporate america over and above those of the common american Bush is behaving criminally irresponsibly. The same misguided loyalty masquerading as patriotism is exhibited by a number of right wing sycophants on this blog on a daily basis.

    Read Lovelock's new book, 'The Revenge of Gaia' to get a glimpse of how bad we've made things and how much worse it's going to get. Grim reading indeed.

    Posted by inveresk at 04/29/2006 @ 03:11am

  165. ALL

    This is absolutely great......I'm the Decider

    Definitely in the LMAO category

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/29/2006 @ 10:32am

  166. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/29/2006 @ 11:00am

    The issue is not whether or not "market forces will resolve issues related to gasoline supply and demand". The issue is whether or not market forces will resolve issues related to the long-term destruction of the planet caused by pollutants.

    In general, market forces are VERY BAD at resolving long-term issues, as most people make purchasing decisions based on short-term factors. This is particularly true when long-term predictions are dismissed as "bad science" or even "simple politics".

    Market forces will NOT solve long-term problems caused by pollution. They haven't to date and there is NO reason to believe that they will start now.

    Hell, 1/4 of the country apparently believes that we don't need to even worry about the long-term as the End Times are near and a select few will soon be whisked off to heaven, where they can watch the poor souls who remain on Earth burn for eternity.

    Ignorance, thy name is FREIHEIT.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/29/2006 @ 11:28am

  167. Ignorance = Denial of supply and demand due to lack of understanding, experience and education.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/29/2006 @ 11:00am

    Ignorence = allowing the invisible hand of the market to sweep us back the the same crisis we faced in the 1970's

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 11:36am

  168. but he agrees you may be right too

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 11:44am

  169. that your ignorant

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 11:45am

  170. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/29/2006 @ 11:41am

    Great. Ignorant and proud of it.

    That would explain how you come to so many ignorant conclusions. Garbage in / Garbage out.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/29/2006 @ 11:54am

  171. Frei

    You sound as if you beleive that economics and the holy "supply and demand" scenario are separate entities...which they are decidedly not. In large part, the latter drives the former. To pretend otherwise is naive at best. regarding energy (as now Dubya has had a "conserative" change of heart, in that after 5+ years he actually embraces energy conservation.) But in the recent past this was very different. Dubya's "energy consumptive" comments on the economy (We need an energy bill that encourages consumtion) Sept 02 address, Cheney too Energy and the both of them Dynamic Duo

    If you really believe tha a POTUS immersed in old oil to his armpits, and the former CEO of the world's lagest oil outfitter (and still pulling beaucoup Ducats from stock) don't have a personal interest in the direction that the economy heads , then you are blissful at best...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/29/2006 @ 11:58am

  172. Doumer

    The wing-nut admin pisses on everyones' shoes and wonder why they aren't making friends...I suppose they figure that the warm feet makes for goodwill?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/29/2006 @ 12:01pm

  173. It is human nature to ignore the unpleasant and attach to and wallow in that which it considers good and pleasant. That is why we label everything good or bad (Nature has no such distinction) so that we can justify ignoring that which we'd rather not think about. That is why Buddhism states that to avoid the suffering of life, we must accept and find useful the "bad" as well as the "Good". The first step is to stop labeling everything, and just see it for what it is.

    Human nature being what it is, it will take many more efforts like this film and many dedicated promoters to keep repeating the message and additional evidence to get anybody to start paying attention. Another aspect of Buddhism, Karma, indicates that if we don't wake up and pay attention, like Aesop's grasshopper, we will keep singing and dancing, and while we starve or drown, we will wonder what happened! And we will cry, "But we don't deserve this, we are good people>"

    Rev. Suirin Witham; Zen Buddhist Temple of Chicago

    Posted by Suirin at 04/29/2006 @ 12:14pm

  174. The problem with stating boldly, as Freiheit and others repeatedly do, that supply and demand will solve or even prevent problems, is that it has never ever happened. In what land at what time did a governing power simply allow "the market" to do its magic? Those in charge will always tinker, meddle, profit, and corrupt the system. Now, this speaks to the conservative obsession of getting the government out of the system. But since the government will never do this, the best we can hope for is a transparent government designed to balance the interests of the corporations with the needs of the citizens.

    This has always been a fun thing for me because it puts conservatives, in spite of all their blather, on the side of the dreamers--shooting for an impossible ideal. And even if they approached their ideal, what then? Financial chaos, rampant corruption throughout all sectors of the economy, and true class warfare.

    By the way, I may not have the understanding or experience as Freiheit might define them, but I've got the educational props: a degree consisting of 12 courses full of drivel, a diploma on my wall that screams at me, "You could have actually completed a useful major, such as Anthropology or Philosphy, rather than waste your time on an Econ degree."

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/29/2006 @ 12:18pm

  175. By the way, DOUMER, great posts last night.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/29/2006 @ 12:19pm

  176. Thanks, Frei. You're an interesting feller. I enjoy the thought of a bicycling, free-marketing, dude who is actually curious about the world rather than willing to reshape it in his own mind. One correction though: I think I started posting here last June or July. ;-)

    What do you mean by "development"? Are you referring to invention, production, marketing, or what specifically? Is the answer: the ready supply of people willing to work long, hard, boring, assembly line jobs for little pay? Probably not...

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/29/2006 @ 12:38pm

  177. What was one main contributor to the development of the automobile?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/29/2006 @ 12:25am

    I'll give you three:

    Issac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Nicolaus Otto

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 1:15pm

  178. Will Gore Do Enough to Encourage Strong Action on Global Warming? While I am deeply concerned with global warming and applaud Gore's efforts to bring attention to the matter, I worry that the solutions he will suggest will be too "market friendly" and inadequately address the need to take substantive actions. Note that his producer Laurie David is a board member of NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), a group which greenwashed NAFTA and California's utility deregulation in a scheme which both opened up the electricity market to Enron and its ilk and gave massive bailouts (a couple hundred billion or more) to the nuclear electric utilities for their stranded costs associated with construction of nuclear power plants. NRDC's role in these matters has received scathing attention in past issues of The Nation. Gore seems to be advocating an emissions trading agenda to address global warming, the very type of market-friendly approach which diminished enthusiasm for him in the past amongst many grassroots global warming activists and was viewed as loophole of the Kyoto Treaty. This market approach has had serious problems in diminishing air pollution in Los Angeles and other areas, and there is cause for concern that it will inadequately address global warming. For more info about criticism of the market approach to global warming, see http://www.carbontradewatch.org/ Regards, bernardo w. issel -- nonprofitwatch.org

    Posted by romfried at 04/29/2006 @ 1:17pm

  179. Aware of possibly being ignorant because I'm human.

    Really a shame you can't comprehend that in yourself.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 04/29/2006 @ 12:31am

    but there's no "possibility" at all, demonstrating yet again that you are unaware of the certainty that we are all ignorant about something.

    you... are just plain Schtoopid

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 1:21pm

  180. Maybe I've skipped over something in earlier posts that I should have read more carefully, but I don't remember people denying that supply and demand impact our economy and our lives. Just that it often fails in certain important ways to serve consumers' interests. If we want to stick to the car industry, we could look at the decisions that were made on fuel.

    At the early stages of this century before the explosion of the market for cars, it was unclear if gasoline, electricity, or steam was going to be energy supply for cars of the future. Manufacturers of electric and steam-powered cars made critical decisions--based on supply and demand--that ultimately caused their demise. By refusing to go into mass production and restricting their advertising, they limited the supply of their cars so they could select just the "right" consumer. Meanwhile the gas boys went whole hog. You can use this as an illustration of how supply and demand impacted the entire industry. Cars boomed, oil boomed, and it was off to the races.

    In a similar way we could have followed Diesel's dream, one shared by Ford, of diesel-based engines running on biodiesel (peanut oil and the like). Good for the farmers. Not so good for the petroleum industry, which was poised to explode and had the funds to get the ear and other more sensitive parts of those representing the auto industry.

    And here we are today, hooked on oil, devoting ridiculous sums of dollars not just for the purchase of it but for ensuring the supply of it (how are government dollars for military support factored into the price we pay at the pump?), and we are hurting the environment--to whatever degree everyone wants to believe, high or low, we's hurtin' it. What would have happened if an entity had been overseeing the car industry a century ago and asked broad questions about the future? Maybe we end up where we are...maybe not. But have we ended up with the best alternative as a result of supply and demand? I think it's debatable. And again, it was not merely supply and demand that shaped the industry, but supply, demand, innovation, and coercion. If the peanut industry had the big boys that oil industry had, perhaps Jimmy Carter would be our Bill Gates.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/29/2006 @ 1:24pm

  181. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 04/29/2006 @ 1:24pm

    a hummer burning bio diesel is a green vehicle.

    and the dollars going to the American farmer producing the fuel are dyed to the bone red white and blue

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 2:00pm

  182. if it wasn't transformed into hamsterland, the heartland farmer might actuallly be a bit angry that the evangelic conservative movement was sealing his birthright

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 2:02pm

  183. correction... stealing

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 2:03pm

  184. but then I guess beating it over the head with a wooden club is also accurate

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 2:04pm

  185. kept reading hoping all this intelligence, passion and exchange of ideas would lead to something other than intellectual constipation. We don't have to be right, just heading in the right direction and quickly. Please focus on what we can agree upon in this particular debate and what we can agree upon needs to be done NOW to make things better in a big way. Thank you kaycelou

    Posted by kaycelou at 04/29/2006 @ 2:07pm

  186. It is an election year, KAYCELOU, and even the densest of our representatives should be able to tie national security issues such as energy to our misadventures in Iraq. Okay, they can't actually do that. But if we write it down for them in small words, and let them know that there are other sources of money beyond drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or ANWR, eg. a renaissance of eco-friendly energy innovations, we might just pique their interests and get them to act.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/29/2006 @ 2:12pm

  187. osted by KAYCELOU 04/29/2006 @ 2:07pm |

    there is no agreement with some posters here. just none, no way, not going to happen. nice sentimeny, though...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2006 @ 2:14pm

  188. or...sentimenT...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2006 @ 2:14pm

  189. come on gang...you can do better than that. focus. what in particular is going on in Congress or at the State level that we should focus our attention on to help in this debate. kaycelou

    Posted by kaycelou at 04/29/2006 @ 2:22pm

  190. Posted by KAYCELOU 04/29/2006 @ 2:22pm

    short term? get dems elected to be majority party in congress. longer term? nominate someone who is RELLY electable and not a TOTAL sellout. long term? ammend the constitution to A) end corrupting campaign financing, B) assure that no one can get elected without a majority of votes (not plurality). these two measures are aimed at cleaning up the system and making it easier to break the 2 party lock on our system. i would also look at the establishment of a truly professional, non commercial, scientific, non governmental, non profit, apoliticized news service that serious voters can rely upon for crucial information needed to make informed voting choices.

    hows that?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2006 @ 2:31pm

  191. Frei

    You ignore the fact that there was a real competitor to the early automobile, which had it been allowed to flourish, might have made a much different, less oil-dependent reality. That was the early surface light rail systems. Electric trams were actually quite standard in many major metro areas of the day...but the fledgling auto industry saw the writing on the walls and bought and dismantled them (no anti-trust laws back in the "good old days"). As a result, the only real competition to the auto was quashed except for three cities, only 1 of which still uses the trams to any large scale...San Francisco.

    Oh, yes...I know the claims of "El-ways" and "subways" will be shouted as showing light rail has limits...but remember, these are "add-ons" to the auto-centric design of our cities. There is no city which kept electric rail in its primary design. San Fran is the closest to a "slightly less autocentric" design - but even that is pale to what might have developed. Perhaps, with these energy deficient days a-coming, we need to re-examine the base level concept of transportation, urban infrastructures,and the extant reality....and go an entirely new direction rather than starting wars to maintain the status quo...

    One other reason I have diverted this way is to exemplify the way greed plays into this less-than-benevolent supply/demand god Mammon the right worships so easily.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/29/2006 @ 2:37pm

  192. You can find much here [eere.energy.gov]

    The fed. govt. has in excruciatingly small ways tinkered with tax credits and actual expenditures for hybrid and bio-diesel technologies, but in amounts so small as to have little impact (hmm...wonder why?). There is at least a foundation for governmental activity but nothing has been built on top of it. Yet. Within the current system of incentives and laws are potential ways of expanding R&D investment in this area.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/29/2006 @ 2:43pm

  193. Ibble

    The only trick about tree-hugging is that the knothole has to be in the right place...

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/27/2006 @ 11:41pm |

    yeah...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2006 @ 3:43pm

  194. Frei

    We'll never know.....ultimately though, personal modes of transport in an urban core just don't make sense. They are a frivolous waste of space. Unless we limit urabn cores to electrics, light gas (like golf carts), or air powered [ http://theaircar.com/ ] If the core vehicles are ALL ultralight and only run like 25MPH the risk/hazard scenario is moot... We need to "think new"....cities as designed are almost medeival.

    As to the bikes...I say "Right On"...I commute 3-4 days/week during the "season" so its' like 100 miles/week. (Not bad for a middlin overweight 48 yr old)

    My Bike Have changed to clip-in pedals, new hi-density foam grips, and a comfier seat (I'll change back to the slimmer seat once I break my ass back in!)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/29/2006 @ 4:16pm

  195. Frei,

    re: urban cores. We may not WANT to, but I think ultimately it will happen thru sheer necessity. And best to you as well....and thanks. I do like my bike!

    In civil discourse we can agree to disagree. Too bad so many of all ilk do not act civil.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/29/2006 @ 5:48pm

  196. Posted by FREIHEIT 04/29/2006 @ 3:24pm

    As I said before, the issue is NOT whether or not supply and demand affects markets. Of course it does. No one denies it. It is whether such market forces are suitable for solving long term problems like global warming.

    Most consumers do not look twenty years into the future when making purchasing decisions. They use short-term criteria, like price and style. Hence, market forces will have difficulty correcting for long-term problems.

    Your automobile example actually makes this point. While we may have been better off in the long term had we chosen mass transit systems in the early 20th century, Americans were drawn to the short-term allure of the freedom represented by personal transportation. Short-term forces won.

    Can you point to an example in which market forces have solved long-term problems? That is, an example where markets choose long-term solutions over solutions that were more attractive in the short-term?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/29/2006 @ 6:33pm

  197. Orwell

    Good point, but to expand....some time back in an Env/Nat Res Econ course I pointed out to the Prof that this production function he was explaining was an invalid (well, undefined technically) function as it had natural capital in the denominator...thus as the natural resource in question goes to zero, the numerator goes towards infinity...infinity over zero is undefined.

    He just couldn't wrap his head around it....which points out that certain fundamental "acceptances" of economics are deeply flawed.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/29/2006 @ 7:08pm

  198. He just couldn't wrap his head around it....which points out that certain fundamental "acceptances" of economics are deeply flawed.

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/29/2006 @ 7:08pm

    so there I was sitting in a differential equations class one fine summer day a few years back, looking at the first order differential that is used to calculate interest. When I suddenly got this flash of incite that connected Newton's third law of motion, the law of conservation of mass and energy and the illusion of economic growth and realized that no growth is possible without a corresponding shrinkage in something else. And in this case I believe it to be either the size of the other guy's economy or an overall devaluation of the currency. Since all of the major economies seem to be growing at some rate, then the latter choice must play an important role in growth in this country.

    And our economy mirrors that hypothesis very nicely. As we plunge ourselves into debt, the interest is being paid for by more debt, an action which like printing money devalues the currency. Our debt is about two thirds the size of our economy and with its interest accruing at around six percent, we would have to see economic growth of around four percent just for the economy to have zero real growth. Anything less than four would be a real shrinking of the economy

    It's a weird game the powers that be are playing.

    and a lot of people are getting screwed by it

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 7:51pm

  199. but your're right, pop econ dosen't seem to be rooted in science, the physical laws of the universe...

    or reality

    Posted by Will C. at 04/29/2006 @ 7:55pm

  200. Scary in that it is the true "religion" of most of the right.....and not being connected to reality and all. Egads, think I'm gonna go pour me a drink!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/29/2006 @ 8:57pm

  201. Interesting discussion here..and very important to our longevity as a viable nation.

    A couple of points only.

    Someone mentioned earlier (Maasch?) that the market will undeniably step up and produce a magical elixir.

    Maasch, ever heard of Ballard? He came up with fuel cells in the early 1980's. 25 years ago! Ever heard of biomass co-generators, waste reators producing hydrogen? From waste treatment plants and food processing by-products? Of course you've now heard of bio-diesel from agricultural organics...right. Only because you heard squirellnuts-in-chief spew some more crap on Tuesday. Other than that, what do you personally know about any of this?

    Now, let's get on to your "market elixir" approach. Take a guess where 95% of innovation comes from. It's definitely not from R&D from the blue chips. The innovations arise from small micro-caps trading in the pinks...or not at all. There is no respect when you trade pink, VSX or even BB. Nine times out of ten, you patent something and hope like hell that a big boy buys you out. There are numerous obvious examples.

    Put aside fundamentals, a micro with an idea may accumulate a solid core of investors. When enough interest is generated and word gets out, market makers, shorters and other associated sharks work their frenzy and generally kill off any movement. If the core of investors is not shaken loose by that time, the share value will convince them to flee. Market makers DO NOT give a shit about fundamentals or inherent value. They do not give two shits about viability of innovation and betterment to society. They care about ONE thing only. Don't give that crap Maasch.

    I'll be brief but this is an excellent example. The afternoon after The Decider made his speech, a micro-cap specializing in plastic coatings for truck beds announced all over the boards that they were big into agricultural synthetic bio-deisel. They had no technology, no patents, no plants.......not even an office. Just a cell phone number and a hotmail account. Damn if that POS stock went from .03 to 1.30 in three hours. No...I did not participate.

    Again, what is my point? The market responds only when it is induced to do so by means of immediate gratification...not a momemt before.

    Innovations need a tweak and nudge, as well as financial support from out govt (although squirellnuts and his merry band of Deputized Deciders would not know what innovation means) Plain and simple. Market = quick sheckels...and nothing more.

    Let me know when you wake up.

    Posted by doumer at 04/30/2006 @ 02:04am

  202. Frei

    Doumer makes an excellent point....the market is easily manipulated. If all players were honest, if most intent was at least somewhat altruistic, then perhaps pure economics might function as intended. However, it's mathematical absurdities at its core, and greed in practice, coupled with intentional manipulation of perception re: goods and services, makes it a limping mass of busted crap.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/01/2006 @ 9:39pm

  203. hate to meet that in a dark alley!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/01/2006 @ 10:44pm

  204. you'd smell it coming

    Posted by Will C. at 05/01/2006 @ 10:53pm

  205. and hear the squishing sound as it limped

    Posted by Will C. at 05/01/2006 @ 10:54pm

  206. Yes, especially the incovenient truth that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/02/2006 @ 2:01pm

  207. From the American Geophysical Union website,

    http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/barron.html:

    In October 1994 climate researchers met at the Forum on Global Change Modeling to create a consensus document summarizing the debate on issues related to the use of climate models to influence policy. The charge to the Forum was to develop a brief statement on the credibility of projections of climate change provided by General Circulation Models...

    The three-part report identifies conclusions of which researchers are virtually certain and gives the rationale for the consensus, lists statements concerning results of climate models ordered by degree of certainty, and suggests opportunities for early progress in reducing uncertainties.

    Consensus Conclusions Participants agreed that the following conclusions are virtually certain. (emphasis mine)

    Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, which includes the wavelengths of radiation emitted by atmospheric gases and clouds and by the Earth's land and oceans. Laboratory experiments with greenhouse gases and spectrally resolved studies of radiation absorption and transmission in the atmosphere indicate that a number of gases present in the atmosphere are capable of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation. The most important of these so-called greenhouse gases is water vapor. Other important natural greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide.

    Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and chlorofluorocarbons - the greenhouse gases - have increased significantly above preindustrial levels, and the increase is due to anthropogenic activities.

    Carbon dioxide: The observed atmospheric concentration is 30% above preindustrial levels as determined from air trapped in ice cores and direct measurements, and the level continues to increase. The measured anthropogenic sources are significantly larger than the anthropogenic sinks. Fossil fuel consumption and land-use change contribute to increased concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Methane: The observed atmospheric concentration is more than 100% above preindustrial levels as determined from air trapped in ice cores, and the concentration has increased over recent decades. Estimated changes in anthropogenic sources are consistent with measured increases in atmospheric concentrations and are large compared to anthropogenic sinks or anthropogenically induced reductions in emissions.

    Nitrous oxide: The observed atmospheric concentration is about 10% above preindustrial levels as determined from air trapped in ice cores. Estimates of anthropogenic sources are consistent with measured increases in atmospheric concentrations; no anthropogenic sinks are recognized.

    Chlorofluorocarbons: Preindustrial concentrations were virtually zero. The observed increases in atmospheric concentrations are due solely to human activities. Anthropogenic sources are large, and natural removal processes for most CFCs have a time constant of about a century.

    Chemically active gases: The concentrations of CO, nitrogen oxides, and non-methane hydrocarbons are higher than pre-industrial values over large regions. These gases can, through a series of chemical interactions, induce changes in the lifetimes and concentrations of radiatively active gases, including ozone and methane.

    And the response of the political Right in this country to this and multiple other warnings? Denial, denial, denial. I am sick of it. You dumb fuckers are ruining the only planet we have, and refuse to heed the warnings and continue to fight against solving the problem. Fuck you all, you selfish planet destroyers.

    Yes, I have some strong feelings on this issue. It would be fine if you fucking idiots were only hurting yourselves, but you are screwing over everyone else at the same time as you lamely offer excuse after excuse to continue your selfish, hedonistic lifestyles.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 05/02/2006 @ 5:29pm

  208. ILP

    I have noticed many (hamsters and others included) who seem to ascribe to this decidely un-holstic perception that their actions only permeate their own reality. They seem to view the world as comprised of little unconnected "pockets." As you have put very bluntly, nothing could be further from the truth. But of course, many of them wouldn't know truth it bit them...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/02/2006 @ 5:53pm

  209. LOC, Sadly they may get to learn the hard way, and we won't enjoy our "I told you so's" if sea level rises 3 meters as predicted.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 05/02/2006 @ 6:18pm

  210. Like 9/11 itself, the Nation wants the people to forget. Terrified it will remind people of how the country felt at the time and how congressional democrats overwhelmingly supported action on Iraq.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 05/02/2006 @ 11:29am

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Freitheit your an idiot.

    Your frealess leader has cried wolf so many times in the last years. We're all numb to it.

    It's become an embarrasment

    Posted by Will C. at 05/03/2006 @ 12:38am

  211. correction.. fearless leader

    Posted by Will C. at 05/03/2006 @ 12:39am

  212. my prediction is that is United 93 causes any reaction in this country it will be to drag the hamster party down even further as people react with disgust that Ol Gee Dubya let ossama go to instead charge full speed at a windmill full of WMD

    (wait... you mean there was no WMD in the windmill)

    Posted by Will C. at 05/03/2006 @ 12:43am

  213. Global Warming by human activity is becoming less pooh poohed and accepted as factual enough to do something about it - even if only ranting and raving. I tried reading all posts before posting - just took too much time (while I also selected "ignore this person" on a few of the folks I just didn't want to waist time with).

    Our planet has undergone many changes in its 5 to 6 billion years of existence. It will undergo many more (human caused and others) and eventually, if not destroyed otherwise, be engulfed by our star not too long after Sun runs critically low on hydrogen. What really is sad about us humans is that we often let greed outweigh what better judgment we do have. We'll even rationalize ourselves into self-denial regarding better judgment when greed is involved.

    So, what will future generations think of us? Are we to collectively/effectively ignore our planet's changing climate and our continued use of nonrenewable resources? Are we supposed to ignore science (our best tool to understand our planet)? Are we to simply stick our heads into the sand?

    I'd like to see us grow up regarding all of this - evolve as citizens of Earth and not as members of some gang, corporation, political persuasion, religion, etc. When one learns a fair bit about astronomy one begins to appreciate just how fortunate (for life) our planet has been. This knowledge leads me to lean far into the sustainable living camp. I believe that even if we might remotely be a possible cause of global warming by our heavy use of nonrenewable energy resources (which our planet has taken millions of years to create) that we should definitely lessen and eventually eliminate our use of nonrenewables. This IS the right thing to do for our children, their children, etc., etc. To deny it is foolish - if not criminal.

    Posted by GoZags at 05/04/2006 @ 5:59pm

  214. Al Gore on the limits of executive power. Excellent speech from Jan 2006

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/05/2006 @ 10:08am

David Corn David Corn

Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.

In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.

Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

RNC's Steele Decides It Is O.K. to Play the Race Card | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols
12 Comments

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
33 Comments

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
47 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
32 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
60 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
56 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman