The liberal blogosphere is starting to burn up with news that Dick Cheney’s office worked to suppress some testimony to Congress about the effects of climate change (see for example, oh, here and here).
Now, I don’t want to downplay the importance of this. The villainy of the Vice President’s Office is legendary at this point, and it’s easy to say ho-hum to Yet Another White House Attempt to Destroy ScienceTM.
But the thing is, we already knew about this. The White House has been trying to downplay global warming effects for years. I wrote about this extensively last October, for example. The offices at the White House redacted major portions of a speech to be given to the Senate by the head of the Centers for Disease Control, sections that outlined how global warming will increase the spread and rate of diseases.
So it’s no surprise that Cheney would continue this criminal activity.
What does surprise me is that no one is asking why. I simply don’t get this. This Administration, as evil as it is, has been consistent in its championing of corporation over citizen. But in this case it doesn’t make sense. If global warming is real — and it is — then this is an opportunity for corporations to make scads of money! There will be all sorts of new industries cropping up to deal with the changes in our environment, and to deal with perhaps trying to slow those changes. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that many billions of dollars can be made this way.
Yet time and again we see the Bush Administration suppressing reality, and telling people to move along, there’s nothing to see here. Even Big Oil should be able to see that eventually they’ll have to turn to new industries to make money. I guess having record profits — and not having to worry about oil-spill induced ecological disasters — is enough of an incentive to turn a blind eye to anything more than a few months down the road.
Maybe it’s just that once you’ve stepped of the road of reality, anything is possible and nothing makes sense, so internal logic is optional. But whether you’re liberal or conservative, hippie or neocon, and whether or not you support this Administration, it seems that their actions are counter-intuitive to their own interests.
We stepped through the looking glass years ago, but every now and again it pays to turn around and see just how far we’ve gone.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
An opportunity for corporations to make scads of money, sure.
Will it necessarily be the currently entrenched corporations that line the pockets of our current administration? Not necessarily.
There is a risk for them that it will not be and its a lot easier to try to make huge profits from the status quo than to provide real long term leadership.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I would think that the reason to hide it for money still works. If you are getting paid by groups that cause green house gases then it is in their interest to pay you not to change things. While the people who have the opportunity to make tons of money don’t have as much as the current groups like the oil companies. With less money you get less effective lobbiests and or bribes. It is likely just a case of short sighted politicians who have deep pockets. I think if you gave them a million dollars at the cost of huge problems a decade or more down the road they would only see the money.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I know the Insurance Industry has been pressing very hard to get people to move on Global Warming. They hate the unknown, and the various weather effects that have, are, and will occur are throwing their projections right out the window (they look at the past to try to set insurance rates for the future, now that’s a very hard thing to do).
I also agree that there seem to be many members of this Administration that are just completely out of touch with reality. Fossil fuels are a finite resource to begin with - eventually we’re going to need to find something else, and better to do it sooner, rather than later.
If not, I can only imagine the wars that are going to break out over the last of the oil fields - us, China, Russia, India, Europe, etc.
Regardless, Global Warming is an issue we should be dealing with now (heck, we should have dealt with it 20 year ago) because waiting is only going to make whatever transition is necessary worse (something that could make the Great Depression look like a slight blip in the economy).
July 10th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
There will be all sorts of new industries cropping up to deal with the changes in our environment, and to deal with perhaps trying to slow those changes. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that many billions of dollars can be made this way.
You’re not thinking like a paranoid plutocrat. These people fear change; just look at how the music, movie, and television industries have consistently ignored the promise of the information age and instead tried, again and again, to stuff the genie back into the bottle.
Scott is right to point out that the people who profit from preventing or adapting to global warming may not be the same crew who got rich from causing it. Today iTunes sells more music than Wal-Mart– but the recording industry gets a smaller slice of the pie and the traditional brick-and-mortar retailers get nothing at all.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“Enemy of reality”? I heard that’s his wife’s pet name for him.
But yeah, the whole situation is mind-boggling.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Everything I come across the “entrenched corporations” meme, be it in Heinlein’s story about a hyper-efficient solar panel or some interview or a conversation on the street, I want to cringe. Those who typically get labeled as “entrenched corporations” aren’t, and they’d be just has happy to sell you an alternative to the energy sources we have now. The nasty, inconvenient truth is that the “entrenched” way of doing things also happens to be the most cost effective.
As a case in point, most people have forgotten – if they ever knew – that ten years ago power companies quietly positioned themselves to enter the natural gas and propane market. The reason was a GE fuel cell that could produce 5 KW from these sources, and it looked like it could do so competitive with grid power. It was thought that there would be units up to 35 KW in size. It never came about, not because of “entrenched corporations” suppressed it, but because the price of natural gas and propane went up past the point where it was more cost effective than grid power.
In the same way, the inconvenient truth is alternative fuels don’t pack the same energy as petrochemicals and have their own set of issues. “Popular Mechanics” had a very good article in 2006, which can be read at
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html?page=1
Since then, the drawbacks of ethanol has become an issue, and note even with gasoline over $4.00 a gallon, there doesn’t seem to be cheaper alternatives fuels around. If they were, I guarantee that “big oil” would sell them at their stations with a great big smile on their face.
That hasn’t happened. There’s entrepreneurs in the alternative fuels business, and one day some of these technologies might become cost effective. But right now they aren’t.
That’s the brass tacks. There’s things we could do in the electricity sector, but it sets the environmentalists teeth on edge.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I agree, they could make tons of money in emerging markets that will slow or help to reverse global warming, but the problem is they can’t make that money right now. Most business people’s thinking is concerned with what they can make this quarter, not what their children can make years down the road. They are not going to put up large amounts of resources and capital for research and development and put all the hard work in only to delay the gratification of more wealth. Unfortunatley as many postives that the free market economy has there are just as many negatives, the major one being greed.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
>> If global warming is real — and it is
Global warming being real I don’t think is the question. What is the question is whether it is caused by us mere humans.
I have yet to see anything definitive that supports that global warming is man made. How long has climate data been recorded? How do we know it isn’t a normal natural cycle and we (humans) simply haven’t been recording climate data long enough to see the cycle?
July 10th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
The science is setteled?
Edward Teller does not think so…
http://www.petitionproject.org/
July 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“Not cost effective” today - yes. But, there will come a point down the road that the amount of petrochemicals we can pull out of the ground won’t have a prayer at meeting the demand.
Shouldn’t it make sense to be spending the money on R&D to make sure we have a viable alternative market-ready? I mean, if we end up having to switch from an oil-based economy to something else (hydrogen, ethanol, etc) it will take potentially decades to have the infrastructure in place to support it.
The longer we wait, potentially several things are going to bite us:
1) True shortages of petrochemical supplies - leading to $10, 15, maybe $20+ dollar per gallon gasoline.
2) Major issues around Global Warming - major disasters, rising sea levels, massive climate fluctuations, leading to flooding, multi-year or multi-decade droughts, etc.
3) Global economic collapse, either proceeded or followed by major conflicts over the remaining supplies of oil.
Although this seems like a far-fetched scenario, it is a definite possibility. And if we have the means to avoid it, shouldn’t we try to take it?
July 10th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080710/sc_afp/warmingantarcticaice
July 10th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Wow, that petition project has me totally convinced. An unconfirmed list of 30,000 people with college degrees that disagree. It looks like 10% of them are even in a somewhat related field.
I’ve got a BS in Computer Science, I think I might start a petition declaring that spider monkeys don’t mate. The S stands for science, which means I’m fully qualified to make statements about biology.
“So-called ‘global warming’ is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!”
-Chip Giller
July 10th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Michael P.
“I have yet to see anything definitive that supports that global warming is man made. How long has climate data been recorded? How do we know it isn’t a normal natural cycle and we (humans) simply haven’t been recording climate data long enough to see the cycle?”
We have several hundred thousand years worth of temperature (as oxygen isotope measurements) and atmospheric concentration data from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets! Check out: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040611080100.htm
It is definately human caused. I hate Wiki but check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Sad but true.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Our climate records go back hundreds of thousands of years. And this warming is extremely rapid in that time period.
What exactly would you consider “definitive”? We know the vast majority of the increase in greenhouse gasses are the responsibility of humans thanks to measuring their isotope ratios. We can tell the warming is being causes by greenhouse gasses thanks to stratospheric cooling (which was actually predicted by climate models prior to being measured). We can tell it isn’t the sun because there hasn’t been a net increase in solar output over the necessary time period. We know it isn’t due to a lack of aerosols because we can measure that as well.
The climate doesn’t just change, there has to be a reason for the change. An increase in average global temperatures means an increase in the total energy on Earth. Considering that Earth-based energy sinks and sources (like plants and volcanoes, respectively) are negligible, then the increase in global temperatures must either be the result of an increase in the energy arriving or a decrease in the energy leaving. We know there is no additional energy arriving, therefore it must be energy leaving. We also know it is there is less energy leaving thanks, again, to stratospheric cooling. And we know that the greenhouses gasses that we are pumping into the atmosphere should produce a decrease in the amount of energy leaving just like what we see. I’m not sure how something could be more straightforward than that.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I’m sure Edward Teller would love to use hydrogen bombs to reduce global warming.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I can’t believe that some minority still believe that global warning is a hoax or they are not sure if its man made…. My god…
From what I understand these are manly red neck, the same people that say the gone does not kill people…
Scientist have been living in Antarctica and Arctic for so long and digging so deep into the ice cap, witch its like a time capsule
for weather. They collected 1000 and 1000 of years of weather data and can confirm that this global warming is way to fast to be natural.
They can prove that in recent earth history (approx a 1 0000 years) natural cycle of global warming may take 100 and 1000 of years.
right now it took 25 years of global warming to melt a big part of the arctic and another 5 to 10 is needed to melt the rest.
(25 years ago scientist predicted that result for 100 to 150 years). its going so fast right now that everybody should be the #1 concern of
industrial country.
In 50 years pollutions will be the #1 killer in the world… Wow and then what? Just because company want to make profit when all the customer will be dead
or the crops turn into send what will they say now!!!
July 10th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Maybe not hydrogen bombs, but nuclear (fission) power can reduce global warming. Safe, reliable, established, clean technology. But the magical thinkers have turned it into the bogeyman. Which suits the coal industry just fine.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Which doesn’t address the question of whether Teller is right or wrong, or if the Kyoto accords is based on Bad Science. Nor does it answer the question of how to reduce CO2.
To be blunt, some of what environmentalists want done ignores reality. Wind energy? That’s great if you’re where the winds blows all the time and isn’t too light or too hard. Solar energy? That’s great, too, if you’re where cloudy days are at a minimum. But like hydroelectric power, they doesn’t work everywhere. And how do you store that energy for when the wind doesn’t blow and for night? How are you going to get it from where the wind blows to where it doesn’t?
Saying we need to reduce CO2 is all well and good. What’s needed is *how* and a realization that this will mean methods that environmentalists have traditionally opposed.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Some very true comments; plus, the Republican Party is very, very status quo and not just in terms of money but power, position and image (the Democrats too, of course, but anti-progression is a hallmark of the Reaganite Republican). You can’t screw up if there was never-anything-wrong-in-the-first-place, and this makes people happy. People would much rather side with the person saying “nothing’s wrong on home soil, if anything’s wrong is the fault of the foreigners” than the person who says “we’re facing problems that we must invest in fiscally, emotionally and realistically”. One problem with the status quo mind set is that it’s anti-progess and that eventually comes full circle. But I disagree that no one’s asking why, Phil. The problem is whether the press listens to those asking.
It’s true that alternative fuel sources are not cost-effective, but these sources are still in the infancy of their development. Recall a certain blunder that cost us 3 trillion and imagine if just a portion of that had spent on the future instead of the past. Euro countries and the US need a giant, well-funded think tank; the issue remains too compartmentalized.
@The Captain Says:
“but the problem is they can’t make that money right now.”
True, and that’s American thinking. We’re extremely short-termed thinkers compared to other cultures.
@# Michael Parmeley Says:
I have yet to see anything definitive that supports that global warming is man made. How long has climate data been recorded? How do we know it isn’t a normal natural cycle and we (humans) simply haven’t been recording climate data long enough to see the cycle?
If it’s real, then the carbon gasses are a cause right? You understand that the atmosphere is a closed-system and extremely thin, right? Now consider that there are millions of machines in use daily that create these same gasses. How long does it take to change the atmosphere in a closed-system given the capabilities to do it? It would make more sense to say the outside proof is to prove the opposite from what you’re suggesting. Now add in the data from glacial studies, which show this is not natural. The fact that it’’s never happened before (sudden glacial melting), in a planet that, left on its own, is slowly becoming more stable should point to certain hypothetical conclusions. Data then backs those conclusions. Repeatedly. Ask yourself this: if it were anthropogenic, what would the signs be? Which data do you need and how much data (if any) would convince you?
@Lawrence
The global economic collapse has started. It’s going to be a big topic shortly. The US, with it’s massive debt will feel it more sharply. Look no further than the changes that have occurred in the last year in your personal household.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Did anyone see a few weeks ago (June 25th) on The Daily Show when Jon Stewart talked about the EPA’s greenhouse gas report to the President. And how they emailed it to the White House, and the White House didn’t open the email, and told the EPA they wouldn’t open the email. The EPA the caved, and rewrote the report to the WH’s liking.
That’s the criminal government we have.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Good point about corporate involvement. Maybe T. Boone Pickens can get the administration’s attention.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
As a chemist (M. Sc. in Organic Chemistry not climate science but I think I can have an opinion) the catastrophic outcome predicted by the AGW crowd has always had my skeptic alarm going. I wouldn’t even begin to try and convince the true believers but for the skeptical types, how does a trace gas going from 0.028% to 0.038% (or even double that for that matter) have such a dramatic and always catastrophic effect on something as complex as the atmosphere? Does CO2 cause warming or is the correlation backwards?
July 10th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
GW is a fundy. That much is pretty clear. Is Cheney one? I don’t know. But I do know a number of fundies from the deep south who are in the oil industry including a one petrologist who thinks the end of the world is near, that oil is not a product of decaying extinct plants, but rather a geological process of the Earth itself.
So, if the second coming is about to happen and the Earth produces oil naturally and we are running out slowly…. Why not exploit as much of it as you can to live as well as possible until Jesus returns. So what if it runs out in the meantime.
Oh, and Jesus says nothing about global warming, so it doesn’t exist.
“Clear enough for ‘ya there, son?” he
July 10th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
The answer to Phil’s question is simple. The right wing (especially, but not exclusively, old Cold Warriors and disciples of Ayn Rand), have a quasi-religious devotion to the notion that Capitalism = The Best of all Possible Worlds. To them, manic development and treadmill consumerism /cannot/ have had disastrous results. Why, that would mean the end of everything Right and Good and American!
Fortunately, as the evidence mounts higher, some of them are beginning to remember the famous (and, in fact, mythical) Chinese definition of “crisis”: “danger” + “opportunity”. Soon they’ll be claiming they knew about Global Warming all along.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Jeffersonian:
These technologies, like nuclear fusion, have been “just around the corner” for decades. The excuse until recently was that conventional energy just wasn’t high enough. You had the Greenies saying that if they’d just tax conventional fuels enough, then alternative fuels would become competitive. We’ve had high gas prices ever since Katrina hit and, oddly enough, alternative fuels are still “just the around the corner.”
We’ve subsidized wind power. I don’t know about solar. We’ve subsidized ethanol. Some of these have been subsidized since the 1970s. And we’re supposed to believe these things are sill in their infancy? A mighty long childhood, it seems.
Sorry: if CO2 is a problem now, there are ways to reduce it now through existing technology. But nuclear power gives the greenies hives, and they don’t even like fusion much (get a gander at this on the Sierra Club site.:
http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/nuc-power.asp
scroll down to Fusion Reactors).
Feh. If all we need to do is throw money at alternative technology to make it happen, here’s a suggestion. Instead of funding organizations that spend money on lawsuits, investe it in alternative fuels companies. If the latter pays off, then the investors will be rich. If not, then at least it’ll be cheaper to build sources that we know won’t produce CO2 to generate power, just from not having to deal with lawsuits at every turn.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
[…] 2008 · No Comments Bad Astronomy has an excellent post on Dick Cheney and global warming: Dick Cheney, enemy of reality. Which brings me to the advertisements currently being run by Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens, who […]
July 10th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Protectionism is about preserving the profits of existing companies. The new emerging market of alternative fuels is wide open, meaning, uncertain. Uncertainty is the enemy of investors, it scares them. So Bush & Co are trying to hold the status quo as long as possible before the inevitable shift is made.
Look at the information revolution. It made billionaires! But many of those billionaires are liberals, and even atheists (go Richard Branson!). So if the government gets behind a push for new technologies, that means the old ones will be put out too pasture. Gas refineries, tanker fleets (even the one named after ‘Condie’) , perhaps even pipelines, will need to be decommissioned. And the environmental clean up and disposal of all the waste from those decommissioning will be very very expensive.
So even though its evil, it makes perfect sense. They need to hold up the system as long as they can to milk the most profit from their existing infrastructure.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Yet Another White House Attempt to Destroy Science = YA-WHADS.
Hey I was in the Air Force, where EVERYTHING is acronymned (and or numbered).
KC, of course wind energy and solar energy are not the complete solution. BUT, would it be worthwhile to put enough solar cells in Arizona and New Mexico to provide power to most of the rest of the US for 45% of the time? (1/2 day, 1/2 night, about 5% cloudy in those states)
Would it be worthwhile to place enough windmills in Montana, the Dakotas and Wyoming to provide power to the rest of the US for ~ 40% of the time? (If you’ve never been to those states, the wind blows most of the time - it comes off the Rockies, and doesn’t stop until it gets to Minnesota).
We are already at a situation in which much of the power generated by a power plant is not used locally, but sold, sometimes hundreds of miles from where it was produced, the transmission lines are already there, connection would be a relatively simple matter compared to building a nuclear power plant, for example.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
The rest of the U.S.? How are you going to get around line-losses? There’s a reason we don’t have cross-country transmission lines. When we have room-temperature superconductors then we can talk about running transmission lines from the Rockies to New York City. And you might be surprised where wind power’s possible and where it isn’t. Here a map:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp
Now, factor in actually building something to work in some of these environments and how to get the power where it’s needed. And you still have the issue of energy storage. Right now the best way is to use it to pump water from a lower reservoir to a higher one, which limits it to hydroelectric area, and even then the overall efficiency isn’t all that hot.
That’s the reality, and all the wishful thinking in the world’s not going to change it.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Jeffersonian: “Ask yourself this: if it were anthropogenic, what would the signs be? Which data do you need and how much data (if any) would convince you?”
That’s a great question. I would like to see a detectable anthropogenic signal in the lower troposphere. We have almost 30 years of reliable satellite data that is not compromised like the surface data. We should be able to to see accelerated warming by now that is outside the normal variability of the atmosphere. I don’t see anything that is outside the normal variability of the oceans and the atmosphere.
The current debate has become too politicized. It shouldn’t be a right/left issue but it has become that way because of the wide reaching implications to everyones lives if the focus continues to be on carbon dioxide. If we shift the focus back to real problems like pollution and air quality then we can start to make improvements. We have the technological ability now to remove compounds that lead to air pollution from most conventional fuels. Alternate energy source should researched on their own merit. I think the ITER project is fascinating.
(Btw, I am not trolling on your site Phil. I took 1 astrophysics course in university, I am a science geek and I really like your discussions of current physics and astronomy research.)
July 10th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
No one is asking why for two reasons:
1. The press is deeply committed to the idea that there are two sides to every story. Unfortunately, they fail to recognize that in matters of fact, at least one side has to be wrong.
2. To the scientifically illiterate, science is just somebody’s opinion. The White House has every right, in their view, to promote its opinion and suppress opposing opinions. Evidence doesn’t matter. Let’s have a debate!
July 10th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Blaidd Drwg: “KC, of course wind energy and solar energy are not the complete solution. BUT, would it be worthwhile to put enough solar cells in Arizona and New Mexico to provide power to most of the rest of the US for 45% of the time?”
We should just do everything in our power to produce energy from whatever means we can with reasonable environmental regulations, but the government shouldn’t pay through all of it with subsidies (our money) and screw up the economy.
Tax credits for various industries and activities I would support totally though.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-complexity.html
July 10th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Not even Minnesota can stop it.
Robbie - Did you even rad what you wrote about Tax Credits? What is the difference between a subsidy and a credit? If you have ever done a balance sheet, you know that a reduction in income is not different from an increase in expense. The net effect on equity is still the same.
Tax credits are handy for depletion losses which produce little if any gain. Grants for projects which produce the desired result are more effective. And hey, they employ people.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Obviously Big Oil does realize this as evidenced by Shell Oil teaming up with that other magazine’s blogosphere to create a blog about alternative energy.
http://scienceblogs.com/energy/
As for why the Cheney administration would oppose this, I think it just comes to a conditioned priority shift. Global Warming denialism has long been the rationalization for policies whose real reason was corporate profits. But what has happened is that the rationalization has become the reason. When you repeat a rationalization often enough, you begin to believe not only that it’s true, but that it’s the reason. Then, when the rationalization comes up against the actual reason, the rationalization ends up winning.
Why haven’t the Big Oil CEO’s smacked him down? I can only imagine that within these companies there is still a huge culture of denialism due to the same effect I described above.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Darn! I forgot to close the italics tag in “that other magazine’s blogosphere” Sorry!
July 10th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Phil said:
“I’m sure Edward Teller would love to use hydrogen bombs to reduce global warming.”
Around ten years ago I read a comment by someone who was at a meeting that Teller was also at. His comment about Teller at the meeting was, “If you’ve got a problem, Eddie has a bomb.”
George
July 10th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Well I slightly miss remembered the quote about Teller. It was 15 years ago. Where I read the remark about Teller was in Bob Park’s “What’s New” weekly “letter”. Phil may know about Bob Park and maybe a few others reading Phil’s blog will also know of Bob. (Randi sometimes references Bob!)
But anyway here is the reference to Teller (not by someone at a meeting):
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN93/wn050793.html
By the way, somewhat germane to Phil’s topic is Bob’s take on McCain’s better battery prize idea.
1. THE PRIZE: WILL $300 MILLION BUY A BETTER BATTERY?
I don’t think that Bob is impressed by McCain’s idea.
You should really check out www.bobpark.org
George
July 10th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Mike Haubrich, FCD: “Robbie - Did you even rad what you wrote about Tax Credits? What is the difference between a subsidy and a credit?”
You’re right, it is the same on the government’s balance sheet, but it’s not the same to the American people. You see, a tax credit is when a company or whoever pays the taxes, then the government decides that a portion of that income wasn’t taxable and refunds the taxes taken from that portion of income. A subsidy means the government pays the money to a company out of its funds. A tax credit is money refunded to the company, subsidies come from everyone.
I forgot to mention that I would favor universal tax and budget cuts, that would of course be the best thing.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
@ Robbie: Let me see if I get this straight, if the government mails them a check, then it is different than if the government mails them a check? If the government gives me a $100 check, it means I am $100 richer and the government is $100 poorer. It doesn’t make any difference what label is stamped on the check. When the company sends in its taxes, those taxes become part of the government’s funds. Then the government sends them money out of its funds. It is all coming out of the same body of money.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
That’s what I said. Think of it this way: If I overpay my taxes and get a refund do you feel that you’re paying me for that refund? I wouldn’t feel that way if you got a refund. If the government, however, sends you a welfare check, then I would feel as if I was contributing to that money you received.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:09 am
GAAAAA!
I keep reading nay-sayers writing that wind, solar, whatever power will never meet all of the world’s energy demand.
So what? All of the wind, solar, whatever, energy sources in existence provide only a tiny fraction of the energy used. That sounds depressing, but even one or two percent reduction in fossil fuel use is HUGE! If we can reduce fossil fuel use by ten, twenty, thirty percent in the next decade, our grandchildren might have a world to inherit. Saying that something won’t completely solve the problem; therefore it is useless, is folly.
Wind only works some of the time? It greatly reduces FF use during that time, therefor it is priceless (literally - what price the future of Earth?).
If the glorious day ever comes when fossil fuel plants are idle during any time of night or day, then we can start to consider efficiency. Until then, every Watt-hour produced by wind, solar, whatever, is a Watt-hour NOT produced by oil or coal.
Develop every source of non-fossil energy possible and tie them all into the grid. It doesn’t fix the problem completely? Well, do it anyway.
If you want quick results, throw the Republicans in power in jail for treason and then increase the required fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles sold in the US by a few mpg each year (and immediately throw away those idiotic exemptions for “light trucks”-aka SUVs). That one action will reduce fossil fuel use enormously.
By the way, are you angry about the high price of gasoline? Thank an SUV owner. The huge fleet of US SUVs sucking down fuel at an unprecedented rate is causing a huge increase in demand. Basic economics: increased demand = increased price. Thank you SO much, 12 mpg HumVee owner!
As for safety, SUV occupants are about as likely to die or be maimed as occupants of autos per mile driven because of the much greater likelihood of SUVs rolling 0ver and over during a crash (very bad news for the occupants). SUVs ARE NOT safer than cars. That is a lie promulgated by the auto industry (they reap higher profit from the sale of an SUV than from a car).
July 11th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Do you know how much surface area you need to power the world with solar and existing technology?
About the size of Austria. (Austria? Ya know, “Old Europe”?)
http://www.desertec.org/
It’s not like this isn’t researched for decades in the U.S., too:
http://www.nrel.gov/
It’s just that nobody seems to care… Two years ago, a group of three from our 20-party block of flats suggested installing a solar-thermal add-on for heating/warm water, and the other owners were like “…but this might take a whole week to install, and all the dirt and noise during that time…”
Argh!
July 11th, 2008 at 1:43 am
I am getting tired of people requiring evidence that global warming is human-made before they act. Whether there is any evidence or not is irrelevant, because the consequences of ignoring it are so dire that we should act as if it is.
“There’s no evidence of any such thing as a big bad wolf, so I’ll build my house out of straw…”
Wake up!
July 11th, 2008 at 1:57 am
The problem is not that these people don’t see the opportunity for money making. The problem is that they see global warming as another environmentalist-extremist scare that will be another nothing event when it comes down to it. They see global warming as an attempt by left wing politicians to put in place regulation and taxes.
These people still tend to believe that Rachel Carson killed millions by banning DDT, that CFC don’t have any effect on the ozone layer, etc.
They get their info from people who will confirm what they believe and any other info is disregarded as propaganda from the liberals.
It’s sad and scary.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Lots of interesting comments. I mentioned before the model Germany is trying by controlling the price of electricity that consumers are allowed to sell electricity back to the power grid. It has made a huge difference during daytime useage when factories and businesses need power the most. There is no stipulation on how this power is produced as long as it is renewable. We have to start being more imaginative when it comes to solutions and nothing stirs the imagination of enterprenures like profit. Lets look at tidal power as well as wind along the coastlines. Wind and solar power inland. Nuclear power where nothing else is practical and to fill in during the brown times.
In northern Canada the financial impact of global warming is already being felt. Two years in a row the ice roads have not been able to be built. Without these the northern settlements have to fly in all their supplies at enormous costs. The permafrost is melting for the first time in human memory. This has resulted in huge tracks of forest falling over and buildings and roads sinking into the ground. To make matters worse as the permafrost melts it allows the release of methane, a much worse greenhouse gas.
I also invite anyone to fly over British Columbia and see the hundreds of thousand of acres of dead trees killed by the pine beetle. The traditional control for this insect is sub zero winter temperatures killing off its larva. It has now been too warm to do this for too many years in a row. There is no record of there being such a die off since the last ice age.
The climate scientists may end up to have underestimated the time when the tipping point of run away warming will arrive. Can we afford to take the chance.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:57 am
You can sell power back to the grid in the U.S., too. The idea caught on in the 1970s as a way of encouraging alternative power. To date it’s been limited to co-generation at large companies (some companies in the U.S. generate their own power by burning waste material from production), people who’ve put their money where their mouth is and invested in alternate power themselves, and a feel-good program in some California city where they put solar cells on the roof. The problem remains cost of power generated by alternate means.
Cost effectiveness. That’s the brass tacks of the matter. Someone has to pay for these grand designs. If it’s individuals and private companies, then it has to at least break-even or show an economic benefit. If it’s government, then anything over break-even costs is subsidized by taxes, which ultimately come from individuals, which means they have less money to spend on other things. It all ultimately comes out of our pockets.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:16 am
KC - what happens if we ever get to the point where things are so bad that nothing we do to fix it is “cost-effective?”
Eventually, we will reach that tipping point, where less oil is coming out of the ground (and in the ground) than what we need. What happens then?
You don’t think governments will be trying to get their hands on whatever reserves are left - if only to keep their militaries running? I’d like to think we’re smarter than that, but by the way things are going - no one seems to have a plan for what to do when the oil runs out.
It won’t be like turning off one spigot & turning on another - the entire world’s economy is based on easy access to oil & other petro-chemicals. Changing to an alternative energy economy will take decades - and people better hope that the oil lasts long enough to get us there without doing irrepairable damage to the environment.
If not, I can definitely see countries like Russia & China having having little or no restrain in finding or seizing the resources they need to keep themselves going. And we’ll probably be doing the same thing….and it really won’t be pretty.
Look beyond tomorrow & really think about what kind of future we’re going to have - scares the crap out of me (not today, not tomorrow, but twenty to thirty years from now when my kids have to deal with it).
July 11th, 2008 at 6:28 am
I thought that this was a science oriented web site not the Catholic (AGW) Church persecuting Galileo (science). Looks can sure be deceiving!
July 11th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Has anyone actually checked to see if the deleted portions of the CDC data were valid?
In other words, was the data that was deleted accurate? Or was it questionable and deleting it was actually the right thing to do?
Or is everyone here so knee-jerk in their reactions that they failed to think?
July 11th, 2008 at 6:56 am
I’ll preface this by stating up front that I am not a climate scientist (does not seem to be a problem for a former VP) – nor have I ever received funding for either “Big Oil” nor “Big Green” as The Heinz Foundation has recently endowed Dr Hansen. I am an engineer and had a modicum of scientific training. I will also state that as a rule I’m in favor of emissions reductions and minimizing one’s impact on the world.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to join the side that says to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) crowd – your claim that mankind’s CO2 output is responsible for catastrophic global warming is interesting; please provide proof – hint; correlation is not causation.
For those who say the Artic will be ice free, please let me be the first to inform you the Artic Sea Ice has indeed returned, (see for example “Extreme Sea Ice Month in the Bering Sea” http://www.uaf.edu/accap/awch/event_details/2008_03j.htm) and a little more diligence on the NOAA site will show you the satellite animation loop – there are better ones over at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ I’d also like to point out that last summer’s wailing that the artic sea ice was at it lowest since records were kept –umm, that all of 26 years now, the Northwest Passage has been navigated at various times in the past century including Roald Amundsen 1905 and (there must have been a bunch of us evil SUV driving white males back in the 1800’s) again in 1940-42. While the current ‘new’ ice does not have the same properties of ‘old’ ice it would appear that there might perhaps be some natural (as in not man made) force or forces driving the Artic Ice
While on the subject to f CO2 I’d also like to take this opportunity to point out that Al Gore’s graph of CO2 vs temperature was of such low resolution that it appears that CO2 drove temperature, more recent higher resolution ice core samples have reveled that CO2 lags temperature and that in the past atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been orders of magnitude higher that today’s. Also, one little factoid, the heat trapping properties of CO2 are inversely proportional. The ability of CO2 to retain heat decreases as concentration increases. And besides, CO2 is plant food - indeed many greenhouse growers artificially increase the CO2 in their greenhouses to over 1000PPM!
As for evidence of AGW or even warming for the last 10 years- please provide;
The land based measurements are extremely suspect and given the ongoing work of volunteers over at http://surfacestations.org/ documenting the weather stations shows more situation bias and urban heat island effect, not accounting for stations placed above incinerators and BBQ’s or the astounding number of them at sewage treatment facilities – which have been “corrected” (downward each time) several times now in order to show that its warmer now than in the past, in fact NASA had to quietly retract the “hottest year” on record last year from 1998 to 1934 and that 4 of the ten warmest years were in the ‘30’s? Now, we’re only talking a 10th of a degree or two but still only 1998, 1999 and 2006 are left on the top ten.
The satellite record – even “corrected” shows a warming of 0.14 degrees C for last 30 years - hardly catastrophic and well within the normal range of variability
And did you hear about the ARGOS results back in March? No? Wonder why? – For those who may not know, the ARGOS program started with a fleet of 3000 HiTech buoys that float along at average depth of 6000’ constantly monitoring temperature, salinity and current speed, every 10 days or so they float back to the surface and transmit their readings to satellites, after 5 years of measurements they record that “there has been a very slight cooling” over the buoys’ five years of observation, but that drop was “not anything really significant.” (Dr. Josh Willis NASA JPL)
An observation; what monumental hubris is it to think that mankind can somehow arbitrarily decide on what the earth’s ideal temperature should be let alone that we have the ability to affect it, and what is the ideal temp? Warmer like the medieval warm period or the Roman warm period – or locked in an ice age? and who decides? Eco & Green ‘leaders’ who think the carrying capacity of earth is only a few million human beings? (fine, you first)
And lastly (for now) – consensus is not science, when the arguments are not about measurements (not models that do not match the world around us) when blatant statements such as “the science is settled” or loaded terms like “Contrarian” “Deniers” “Big Oil” and ad homimen attacks on those who don’t bow to the cult of AGW then its not science.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:21 am
@ Mike Torr
I agree. The who, or what is to blame doesn’t matter. Although with the way the human race has exploited the earth’s natural resources it would seem strange to me if we have had no effect. Let’s not wait until the problem slaps us round the face. The earth may well survive but it will probably be without us. To paraphrase George Carlin - The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. We’re going away folks!
July 11th, 2008 at 8:54 am
There is a test to see if your views are religious/faith based or science/fact based.
What single piece of information would cause you to change your mind?
If the answer is none, your views are religious/faith based and you are locked into your dogma.
The significant thing about science is that one little fact, just one, can invalidate an entire theory. See plate tectonics in the 1950’s.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Lawrence said:
Uh, the price of oil goes way up. Like right now.
Yes, there is more oil, but much of it is only extractable at higher prices, like oil shale.
It is much easier to achieve a 30% reduction in petroleum use through more efficiency in transportation and alternate energy sources than to increase production
July 11th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Well,
I am a scientist. I make my living off of sea level changes in the sub surface. They are numerous. All of them occurred with out any human interference. Also, we have been in a global warming period since the last ice age, (not that long ago man was present.)
Furthermore, where is the evidence that CO2 is a green house gas? Mars is covered with it yet no Global warming. Venus? No magnetic field, yet a thick atmosphere. Don’t the same folks say Mars lost its atmosphere because the sun blew it away after Mars magnetic field died?
The only evidence to say that CO2 is a green house gas are atmospheric measurements made from ice bubbles trapped in the ice during past ice/warm ages. Is that evidence that CO2 is the culprit? Not hardly.
So please show me some evidence, not a melting piece of ice please, that says CO2 is the cause. This is suposed to be a science site, not a Bush/Cheney derangement site.
Rusty
July 11th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I think the reason is that current and established industries do not want global warming to be accepted, at least not for the longest possible time. True that solar panel companies and wind turbine manufacturers are poised to make a killing, but good ol’ oil companies want to get their claws on that nice Alaskan and deep water oil, and I’m guessing all polluting industries want to delay the time they have to pay a carbon tax or a cap and trade system for as long as possible.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Santiago,
And why are humans the ones causing this? Did you even read my post? You just skip all the facts and move on to your proposed policies, which very closely mirror the socialists wants and needs. Are you a socialist?
July 11th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Phil,
What, exactly, is criminal about this activity?
July 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am
@ Just concern Says
“From what I understand these are manly red neck, the same people that say the gone does not kill people…”
It’s time to play “Name that Logicial Fallacy!”
Signed,
Just another pro-sciense, manly red-neck with a gun…
July 11th, 2008 at 10:56 am
@ Stu: Did you read my first post? Please do. If you want more detail, every single one of your points, and many more, are addressed here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Some specific example:
The urban heat island effect: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/224634/48
Satellite recordings: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/223318/86
Natural cycles: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335
CO2 Lagging: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
@ Rusty: The evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas comes from its emissions and absorption spectra. These are well-defined physical properties that have been measured with an extremely high degree of accuracy. These spectra can be measured in the lab as well as being detected by looking at the light passing through our atmosphere.
Mars is covered with an extremely thin and tenuous layer of CO2, and yes Mars does have a greenhouse effect (it is no where near as strong do to the much thinner atmosphere, but it does have it). Mars lost its atmosphere for a variety of reasons, including much lower gravity, a lack of volcanic activity, and perhaps other effects I am not aware of. Mars is tiny. Venus is much closer to Earth’s size, and so its stronger gravity allows it to keep its atmosphere more effectively. It also had active tectonic activity more recently than Mars did.
As for past changes, as I said earlier things do not change for no reason. Something must be causing the current climate change. The question has been looked at thoroughly and the answer is, in this case, it is mostly humans responsible. Just saying “the climate changed in the past” is to miss the big question: why? Why did the climate change in the past, and why is it changing now? If Newton stopped at “well, objects have always fallen to the ground so I don’t need to look into it any further” then he would have gotten nowhere. Science progresses because scientists ask questions like “why” and “how” and “in what way is this event different than what I have seen in the past”.
To give an example, you see a small speck of light in the sky. Well, you see specks of light all the time, so why should you look any further? Well, if you had looked further you would see that the speck has a slightly different color. It’s movement is different than that of other specks of light. The movement is cyclical, but with a different cycle than the other specks. If you had used the same logic you are now applying to climate change, you would have missed the discovery of planets because you stopped looking when you noticed a few things are the same, and never bothered to look at what might be different.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:10 am
As a rational overseas (Aussie) observer of US
politics who has been looking on with horror, fury and despair ever since the election of “Dubya” George the lesser can I just ask :
Why the blazes would anyone in the USA even consider voting for the “Retardican” Republican party - one that is so clearly both criminally deranged and utterly counter-productive? Really why?
Surely, surely, you “Americans” * cannot be so downright stupid as to think any thing good about Cheney or the party he runs by pulling Bush II’s strings??
Surely, surely to all that’s precious you now have more sanity and knowledge than to contemplate attacking yet another innocent nation (Ie. Iran.) based on propaganda BS - or letting Israel attack them.
Why for Pete’s sake hasn’t Bush been impeached yet and deservedly charged with war crimes?
How can it possibly be that the Neo-cons with their WMD and “War-of-Terror” lies and the utterly catastrophic Bush-Cheney presidency which has brought such disaster and damage and disgrace to your country are being allowed to get away unchallenged and unpunished with these sort of war crimes, betrayals of all that best about the USA and such appalling atrocities and hypocrisies?
Don’t get me wrong - I love the USA & I’m proud to be a member of a rational secular Western civilisation. Among my heroes are Isaac Asimov and Martin Luther King, I think the Apollo missions were thebet thing vere achived by Humanity & I’d far, far rather see the US not China or, Allah forbid, the Taliban running the world …
But honestly I look at the state of US politics and I dread the thought of the future. At least until Obama is safely Presidnet and preferably Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld & co are on trial for war crimes over their illegal attack on Iraq. Because the world needs to see justice done & we need to learn from the mistakes of the past and avoid repeating them.
Which in this case specifically means the USA accepting the right of other nations (eg. Iran, Iraq, Palestine) to be also treated fairly and left the heck alone rather than being menaced by a rogue superpower turned global village standover thug!
Sorry about the rant but .. sheesh .. I feel so strongly that we - the whole Western civilisation - are headed so close to the precipice that we’re balancing with one leg and both arms wind-milling over the abyss and I cannot believe the Republicans haven’t been brought fully to account for actions and policies that can only be termed utterly stupid and evil.
—–
* “Anericans” actuallly includes Canadians, Mexicans, Peruvians etc .. as has occassionally been pointed out here before by others the USA really mis-appropriates this word which correctly applies to all living in the North, South and Central American landmass.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:19 am
@ Rusty Wilson : “Are you a socialist?”
Maybe you ought to do us and more especially yourself a favour and educate yourself on what this word actually means and why it is not regarded with the ignorant loathing you displayed in most European democracies.
Here’s a hint - a socialist is NOT a Communist or Leninist / Stalinist / Trotskyite any more than a “conservative” or right winger is automatically a Nazi or Fascist.
Try reading John Steinbeck’s novel ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ and really thinking about what some of the stuff there means.
Senator McCarthy - not to mention the Puritans and, yes, Cheney and his puppet Bush - have an aweful lot to answer for.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I just cannot believe Americans supposedly so free, democratic, liberty-loving, ethical and outspoken are so tolerant and so blindly unquestioning of such appallingly horrendous leaders as Dick Cheney, Bush, Fife, the Neo-con Israeli lobby.
If the USA was really the place its ideals and finest principles say it was such “leaders” would never have been elected and if elected would have been well nigh lynched ages ago.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Horrified, the basic problem I have with your ranting is that the Demorats aren’t any better than the Republicans. The Demorats have a working majority in both Houses of Congress and yet they haven’t done one thing to rein in the Bush administration. That makes them just as bad, if not worse, since they have the power to change things and aren’t doing it.
In short, you are way off base in assuming that the Republicans bear the sole responsibility for the crap sandwich we have in the USA.
As for this:
“Which in this case specifically means the USA accepting the right of other nations (eg. Iran, Iraq, Palestine) to be also treated fairly and left the heck alone rather than being menaced by a rogue superpower turned global village standover thug! ”
I would merely note that Australia exists today solely because someone kept Japan from winning. Should the USA have left Japan alone?
July 11th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
The idea that green technology is going to create billions in new jobs is an example of the Broken Window fallacy. It *might* but only by diverting other resources. We’ve heard the same thing for years about recycling — that it creates all these great jobs. But your friend Penn ripped that to pieces on his TV show.
While I’m disgusted by the perversion of science, the idea that forcefully shifting the economy to so-called green industries is good for business is unsupported by fact
July 11th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“Horrified, the basic problem I have with your ranting is that the Demorats aren’t any better than the Republicans. The Demorats have a working majority in both Houses of Congress and yet they haven’t done one thing to rein in the Bush administration. That makes them just as bad, if not worse, since they have the power to change things and aren’t doing it.”
True, but if we’d had a Republican majority in Congress I can guarantee we’d be at war with Iran already. Bush has never given a damn about the law or the Constitution, but I think even he is smart enough to know that he can’t get us into Iran without Congress agreeing on a declaration of war.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I would note however that there’s one thing that could get the generals “good targets” (I’m sure they’re running out in Iraq and they must be just as disappointed as they said they were when they ran out of targets in Afghanistan.
If there were a major terrorist attack blamed on Iran Congress would be firing the nukes before you could say “black op.”
It could come down to nukes of course because there’s no way we can conceivably execute a successful ground war against an advanced military such as Iran’s, particularly with 2 other wars still going on.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Black Cat - please provide a bit more current rebuttals - everything I mentioned has happened since those 2 to three year old posts and please site original sources whenever possible - Gristmill is somewhat less authoritative than the “Wacki Wiki”
July 11th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Wow. Editing a speech is now “criminal”?
While I don’t agree with what happened, using hyperbole to “sell it” isn’t doing any wonders for your own credibility.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
(The evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas comes from its emissions and absorption spectra. These are well-defined physical properties that have been measured with an extremely high degree of accuracy. These spectra can be measured in the lab as well as being detected by looking at the light passing through our atmosphere)
So you have data that show CO2 absorbs heat and then fails to reemit it? No you don’t. A more logical explanation is that our oceans absorb less CO2 when they are warm than cold. Most of this argument claim from the analysis of air bubbles in ice. The rest is oh, stuff is melting. Just like in the sixties it was oh stuff is freezing. Everyone knows water vapor is a real green house gas. Should we get rid of it?
(Mars is covered with an extremely thin and tenuous layer of CO2, and yes Mars does have a greenhouse effect (it is no where near as strong do to the much thinner atmosphere, but it does have it).
Yet, the mount of CO2 there is similar to the total amount here. Humm It is warming, just like the rest of the solar system is at present. Venus has no magnetic field so why hasn’t its atmosphere blown away? Are you saying it is Gravity that retains an atmosphere? Then where is the moons atmosphere? And, Mars should have more. No, Mars did not have a lack of volcanic activity.
Of course you are more than likely on the right track when you talk about probable recent activity on Venus as an explanation, but then that would be why it is a green house, not CO2.
(As for past changes, as I said earlier things do not change for no reason. Something must be causing the current climate change.) We call it the Sun. Climate change is the norm on this planet. So is very bad weather. We are very fortunate to have this warm time. I follow and map past climate change every day. There is NOTHING unusual about it.
(The question has been looked at thoroughly and the answer is, in this case, it is mostly humans responsible) No it has not and no we are not. It has been ramroded by a bunch of political hacks that own the carbon trading Scheme. It was taken from the Enron collapse by ya’lls hero Al Gore. The data comes from Climate scientists? Are they even scientists? This is a fairly new field. Who employs them? Oh yea, climate change folks employ them to document climate change. We used to call them Weather men. Of course they still can not predict the weather more than five days in advance but hey, let’s junk our economy on what they think.
(Just saying “the climate changed in the past” is to miss the big question: why?) Uhhh the Sun dos not put out a constant energy source? Why dose the Sun have to be constant in this? Newton, you bring Newton in to this? He would laugh at your so called evidence.( Science progresses because scientists ask questions like “why” and “how” and “in what way is this event different than what I have seen in the past”.) You should try this approach your self instead of pointing to melting things.
(To give an example…bla bla bla.) You missed the part where I informed you that I am a scientist? Or was it the part where I said I study these past changes on a daily bases? So let’s not waste space explaining the scientific method over and over.
Horrorified,
(Why for Pete’s sake hasn’t Bush been impeached yet and deservedly charged with war crimes?) Because congress overwhelmingly voted for this action?
(the utterly catastrophic Bush-Cheney presidency) Was it Dick Cheney, Bush, Fife, the Neo-con Israeli lobby record spending on education that upset you? The record spending on Medicare? The record spending on Aids? The support for campaign finance reform? The attempt at giving a path to citizenship to the illegal Mexican aliens? The historic unmatched successes are fighting forces had?
(Maybe you ought to do us and more especially yourself a favour and educate yourself on what this word actually means and why it is not regarded with the ignorant loathing you displayed in most European democracies.) I displayed ignorant loathing in most European Democracies? So you are not going to tell me if you are a socialist? Is that what you mean? By the way Nazi or Fascist are left wingers not right. That is why it was the nation socialist party.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party Also Fascism was a leftist collective. But thanks for you empty hints. They really show case your lack of understanding on the subject.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Editing a speech to reflect your own biased political views is not criminal.
But cherrypicking the intelligence information to lead a nation into a war certainly is, and is exactly what happened in 2003.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
@ Stu: If you tell me exactly what points were not dealt with, then I’ll find rebuttals for them. But the facts don’t change just because they are from a year or two ago. And you haven’t addressed my points in my first post.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Oh, and as for the reliability, he posts sources for his claims so if you want to verify anything he says it is not difficult.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I was using the word “criminal” colloquially. I could have used the word evil, or treacherous, or stupid, or vile, or loathesome, or negligent, or awful, or unamerican. Would those suit you better?
July 11th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I suppose you weren’t paying attention when SecDef Gates and Admiral Mullen, the people in charge of the military, said that Iran was pretty much out of the question. It’s not like these people spend their days looking for things to blow up.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
That is not at all how the greenhouse effects works. The energy is absorbed and then re-emitted, but because it is re-emitted in all directions some of the energy that would escape into space doesn’t. Do some reading on blackbody radiation, this is stuff that has been well-studied for around a century and a half.
The difference between water and CO2 is how long it lasts in the atmosphere. If there is excess water in the atmosphere it leaves within hours or days in the form of rain, snow, or some other precipitation. CO2, however, can stay up there for decades. That means water vapor is largely driven by local conditions, temperature, available supplies, air pressure. If you start pumping extra water vapor out it will quickly fall back to the ground. CO2, however, doesn’t do this.
It doesn’t matter how much CO2 there is, if there isn’t enough of an atmosphere the planet will get cold because it lowers the total heat capacity.
No, it isn’t. Phil has already dealt with this on his blog, do a search for it.
Now you are getting it.
The moon is about half the size of Mars, so its atmosphere is far thinner still.
And what do you base this conclusion on?
There is a fair amount of active volcanic activity on Venus right now, unlike Mars.
That would be great, except it definitely isn’t the sun. We have been measuring solar output and there has been no overall change over the period the Earth has been warming. There are cycles that go up and down, but the warming has continued over several cycles.
Wow, the amount of misinformation in this paragraph is astounding. First, yes climate scientists are scientists. It is not that new of a field. The greenhouse effect was first discovered in the mid-1800’s. They are not employed by “climate change folks”, they are generally employed by Universities and funded by the federal government. They are not weather men, climatology and meteorology are two separate fields. And predicting short-term local weather events is completely different than predicting long-term global climate events.
To give an example, you have a pot of boiling water. Can you tell me the exact location, time, and size of the next bubble? Of course not. But can you tell me whether the water level will go up or down? I would be worried if you couldn’t. That is because predicting short-term local events can be much more difficult than predicting long-term global trends.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Hmmm.. Cheney wanted to delete testimony that “consequences of climate change on public health?”
Phil, are you really serious? I mean have you actually thought through what you are saying? What exactly would be the purpose of testimony that climate change (presumably a really significant change) affects public health? How is this any different than claiming bad weather is not very good for people? If begs the question; “So….?”
The only answer to that is “we can do something about it!” If that wasn’t the case, bringing it up is pointless, no? But that, too, begs the question: “What makes you think we can change the weather?” IOW: it’s really about AGW.
Phil, you are supposed to be scientist. Are you acting like one? You also claim to be a skeptic but have you really looked at the evidence for/against AGW? Bet you haven’t. If you have you should be able to produce a list of that evidence. If you are truly a skeptic, you should be able list both the pro and con sides to show how you arrived at your conclusion. Wouldn’t that be the SCIENTIFIC way?
Or are you like those who respond, “It’s a no-brainer!” along will all that no-braining implies?
Perhaps it’s an astronomer thing. You appear to be following the footsteps of the astronomer, Dr. Any-Way-the Wind-Blows Hansen. He went from Global Cooling (caused by humans) to Global Warming (caused by humans). OK, every scientist can make a mistake. He let the evidence convince him. Strangely though the cause part never really changed for him. This is a SCIENTIST?
(http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=275267681833290)
I’ll tell you what’s criminal. Telling people to be skeptics; telling them to question with a critical mind; then showing them what really counts is belief in authority. IOW: the only separation between a TRUE Believer in Science and those ANTI-Science Fundamentalists is the actual belief and which authority? That is really your message? Your actions and tone say it is.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. The debate is over! No need to actually THINK anymore. Unless, of course, you happen to be a BRAINER instead of a NO-BRAINER.
Take a hint from Penn Jillette. At least he has the guts to say “I don’t know” on the subject instead of throwing tantrums (surprisingly) and calling real skeptics “criminals” and “deniers.”
So, I challenge you to actually produce that list of pro/con evidence and explain your reasoning. Not that I actually expect you to do so. Don’t blame you. I know what you’re afraid of.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Ian, of course I’m acting like a scientist. The point here is that the Bush Administration has a long, long history of suppressing science, and of twisting the facts to make things look rosy. In this case, Cheney is trying to suppress consequences of global warming so that it appears to be less serious than it really is. How hard is that to see?
You’d lose your bet, by the way. Did you bother to search this blog and see my posting history about GW? I’ve read quite a bit about it. I have linked to copious studies, mistakes on both sides (though the deniers make a lot more).
And may I say, calling Cheney a skeptic is the most ludicrous thing I have heard in days… and in my line of business that’s saying quite a bit. Nice work.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I’m not sure if you’re responding to my post but yes, thanks, they would. It wasn’t apparent to me that you were using it colloquially. Accusations of “criminal activity” to me need to be backed up by evidence/proof in the post, whereas the adjectives you list above imply an opinion/value judgement, which I can decide for myself.
While I am in a critical mood;)…I think your posts on subjects such as this would be much more interesting and beneficial if you used more specifics in these posts, such as - pick something that was edited out of the testimony and give your reasons why you think it shouldn’t have been edited, or reasons why you believe the administration shouldn’t be be able to edit administation officials’ testimony before congress, or some historical context/previous examples. To me, you usually come across as ranting in these types of (political) posts, which don’t do much for me. If you would like to persuade me to your point of view (maybe you don’t, and that’s fine), then make a well-reasoned, logical argument, with facts to back it up. My 2 cents.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Sorry about the double post. It looked like my original just disappeared.
@Phil, “In this case, Cheney is trying to suppress consequences of global warming so that it appears to be less serious than it really is. How hard is that to see?”
Umm.. But then why isn’t the Global Warming causing health problems not just a pointless report? Are you even aware that while you keep saying Global Warming you must really be thinking Anthropomorphic Global Warming?
“You’d lose your bet, by the way. Did you bother to search this blog and see my posting history about GW?”
Well, yes I have. When it comes to GW, it all looks pretty much like this current blog post. Show me where you actually made a rational discussion of the AGW argument by actually examining the evidence without resorting to name calling.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Rusty Wilson: I find it amusing that someone on a primarily astronomy blog is claiming that we don’t understand the radiative properties of our atmosphere…
July 11th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Of course, what the BA conveniently fails to mention is that this kind of shaping of congressional testimony is SOP under all administrations. You wouldn’t learn that from the links to the hard left websites that the BA provides, but the article in the New York Times (not exactly in the tank for the current Vice President) says this:
Marc Morano, a spokesman for James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and the ranking minority member on the Senate environment committee, also said the criticism was unjustified.
“All administrations edit testimony before it is submitted to Congress,” he said, describing incidents during the Clinton administration involving Roy W. Spencer, a NASA scientist at the time who questioned the dangers of human-caused warming. Mr. Spencer said his superiors told him not to express his views about the dangers of global warming in testimony.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/washington/09enviro.html
Will the BA characterize attempts to shape Spenser’s testimony as criminal?
I’m not sure about that, but I AM sure of this: Linking to articles which lead with the line “I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that Dick Cheney is trying to destroy the world” doesn’t do wonders for the BA’s credibility.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Mike K, I didn’t conveniently leave anything off. Nice try at a conspiracy theory though! It may not have occurred to you that I never heard of that issue. I haven’t I’ll look into it.
Howwver, I see right away a big difference between these two scenarios: Cheney was trying to downplay the dangers of problems caused by global warming, while Clinton — if that report is accurate — was trying to keep someone from downplaying them. We know global warmign is real, and we know it can cause all sorts of very big problems.
Given that, which is the better course of action?
That does not absolve this (alleged) behavior by Clinton, since we do want skepticism to be aired. But you seem to forget that Cheney and Bush have a history of stomping science and reality to death at practically every turn.
And incidentally, if you invoke Inhofe in this, you are opening a can of worms you do not want. Inhofe calls global warming a hoax, and is on an antiscience tirade. He is one of the worst of the worst in Congress.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
BobKC, in the earlier post about Bush science suppression that I linked to in this post, I showed exactly what was edited out of the report in question, and why it was so outrageous.
July 12th, 2008 at 3:42 am
“I suppose you weren’t paying attention when SecDef Gates and Admiral Mullen, the people in charge of the military, said that Iran was pretty much out of the question. It’s not like these people spend their days looking for things to blow up.”
I was referring to the infamous quote, where:
“Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld suggested bombing targets in Iraq following September 11 and when he was told, well, the enemy is in Afghanistan, that’s where the Taliban and al Qaeda are, Rumsfeld, according to Clarke, said but there are no good targets in Afghanistan, there are lots of good targets in Iraq.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Phil Plait: “Howwver, I see right away a big difference between these two scenarios: Cheney was trying to downplay the dangers of problems caused by global warming, while Clinton — if that report is accurate — was trying to keep someone from downplaying them. We know global warmign is real, and we know it can cause all sorts of very big problems.”
This is exact same sort of reasons people use when suggesting you follow the words of the Bible in order to avoid going to Hell.
“We know the Bible is true so you shouldn’t say it’s not since the Bible says not to.”
And who the hell is this “we” you speak of? Clearly not everyone thinks man causes global warming, and not all or most of them are politicians.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Robbie– read what I wrote again. I said global warming is real. I didn’t say anything about the cause. What we’re talking about here are the effects.
And the “we” I’m talking about refers to the overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet who study such things.
The difference between your analogy of the Bible and the science of global warming is one of faith versus evidence. We have evidence — lots and lots of it — that the Earth is warming. The Bible must be taken on faith, despite the lack of evidence supporting many of the stories in it. So your analogy is flawed…
…as well as ironic, given that the arch-conservative wing of the Republican party tends to be the one denying GW, and also the one that has been courting the uber-religious folks as well.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Since when did the debate become about whether global warming is real or not? Maybe it’s just me, but the people that I hear talking about global warming strictly talk about whether it’s human caused or not. Perhaps I just ignore the rest and don’t remember them. Assuming there are people that flatly deny climate change no matter the cause, then I am stunned.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:32 am
If someone doesn’t accept that at least to a significant extent global warming is caused by humans, then they don’t accept the findings of the IPCC, or statements by the AGU, or the Joint Statement by the Science Academies of the G8+5, to name a few. In that case, I’d like to know precisely what the objections to these reports and statements are. Anyone who says “I haven’t seen the evidence … ” should be simply directed to look at the evidence.
Cheney is obviously playing for Big Oil, and Big Oil is painfully aware that they have little time to make profits before their industry seriously goes south, as oil becomes prohibitively expensive. So they try to make as much as they can for as long as they can. I don’t think it’s more complicated than that.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
[…] by the CDC in congressional hearings last fall. Cheney’s people specifically asked for the removal of data in congressional testimony which proves the negative health consequences for human beings as a result of climate change. At […]
July 14th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
@ Alfreda Louro
http://hallolinden-db.de/files/2008.07.12_Gray_Spinning_the_Climate.pdf
and:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
July 17th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Alfredo Louro: “If someone doesn’t accept that at least to a significant extent global warming is caused by humans, then they don’t accept the findings of the IPCC …”
The IPCC charter is to provide policy information for politicians. It is hardly a place for vetting science. Most of the 2500 reviewers were not scientists and from examining responses to comments of those reviewers its hard not to get over the feeling that the “findings” were preordained.
Maybe Cheney didn’t accept the findings of the IPCC ( like some of these folks: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm ) and in light of unproven AGW push was worried about the impact of an agency declaring (uncontrollable) weather causes problems? If it is indeed uncontrollable, then it’s not much different than saying the lunar phases create mental health problems. Even if true, it’s pointless since nothing can be done about it.
It’s hard to believe that Phil really doesn’t know the distinction between GW and AGW. I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t think GW is real. Yet, Phil keeps throwing up the strawman of non-believers in GW. I’m beginning to think Phil is not very careful in his beliefs. He doesn’t seem to be alone however. There seems to be a big media push to deliberately confuse the two issues.
In light of that confusion and the ensuing politics, a government agency declaring health problems from GW without making a clear distinction between GW and AGW is acting somewhat irresponsibly and I applaud Cheney for requesting they tone it down.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
[…] Dick Cheney’s office worked to suppress some testimony to Congress about the effects of climate ch…. (And the American people rise up as one and say: “No biggie.”) […]
July 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Here’s my 2 cents for what its worth. Anyone seen the T. Boone Pickens TV ad about Global warming? Good grief, the oil magnate is inspiring me to write him in for president. We all already know who we can nominate for the first 2 men to go to Mars, its time to move on and start working on a solution.