The Heartland Institute is at it again. They are holding another climate advocacy meeting whose purpose is to push the ideas of their non-science free market conservative lobbying group. Their mission statement is to protect their corporate membership from any regulations that might be forthcoming to deal with the science of climate change. Just as they did, and continue to do, by denying that smoking causes cancer. And yes, one of the speakers is S. Fred Singer, the octogenarian who once pushed the idea that "smoking doesn't cause cancer, people who smoke cause cancer" (as well as that the ozone hole didn't exist and that a moon of Mars was hollow and made by ET).
So what "new science" will they offer? Well, none. In fact, the vast majority of speakers are not even scientists. They are Heartland Institute staff, other free market lobbyists, economists, conservative politicians, and other denialists who don't study climate science. Sure, there are the usual handful of skeptics (but not John Christy, who is trying to distance himself given that his own data shows the planet is warming). But who are the keynote speakers?
Harrison Schmitt: Former Apollo 17 astronaut and politician, now on the Board of Directors of the Heartland Institute. No climate research.
Steve McIntryre: Mining executive. No science training. No climate research.
Pat Michaels: Does some climate science. Most notable for telling the attendees at the earlier Heartland Institute climate meeting that "the earth is still warming, CO2 is the reason...so get over it."
George Allen: Politician, former Virginia Governor and Senator, now a free market lobbyist. No climate research.
James Inhofe: Republican politician and uber-denialist. No climate research.
Richard Lindzen: Climate scientist at MIT.
Jay Lehrer: Heartland Institute. No climate research.
Roy Spencer: Climate scientist at UAH (he works with Christy, and their data confirms earth is still warming)
Julian Morris: International Policy Network (UK based free market lobbying group). No climate research.
Lord Christopher Monckton: British peer, former conservative advisor, no science training at all. No climate research.
So, 10 keynote speakers, of which 7 have done zero climate research. One of the 3 scientists has told the attendees that global warming is real and humans are causing it. Another holds views contrary to the vast majority of all climate scientists. And the third not only holds views contrary to the vast majority of all climate scientists, he also believes that Intelligent Design is science.
The rest of the speakers follow the same trend - mostly non-science free marketeers, politicians, and lobbyists. Of course, they do have a few scientists who have actually studied climate science. Perhaps they will engage the denialists at their own conference.
Now if you were going to hold a conference about climate change, might you not want to feature more actual scientists? And why are there none of the vast majority of scientists who have concluded that global warming is real and human activity is the cause?
Perhaps because this is a lobbying meeting and not a science meeting.
Note that this article is now located in a group called "Exposing Climate
Denialism - A Guide to Tactics and Tall Tales," located at climatelies.gather.com.
Please join the group and set settings to receive new articles when they are posted. The group also includes an archive of past pasts.
For those interested in knowing the truth about climate change, please
check out my group The Truth About Global Warming at climatetruth.gather.com.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 184
Second question... can't the actual scientists get it together well enough to hold a conference and provide enough advance material to get some real press coverage... at least as much as these dolts will get?
Here's one coming up in Portland, OR in June. Not one free market sponsor in the bunch. Just sciency folks.
The converse, of course, is that on social sites like this one you have the problem of people who cannot, or do not want to, understand the science, and yet opining that the entire historical body of science is wrong. Like the ones who say the greenhouse effect doesn't actually exist because there isn't much CO2 in the atmosphere. So their lack of understanding is somehow projected onto the world's scientists who actually do the research.
But yes, it is the politicians and policy-makers in general that must enact legislation. All scientists can do is try to inform the discussion. That's hard to do when there are lobbyists like the Heartland Institute actively trying to disinform the public and the policy-makers.
Inhofe is a keynote speaker? Seriously.
Good.
What I question is why we do not concentrate on living in our existing footprint and letting the plants replenish as they always have.
I believe the goal of the energy bills everyone seems to hate without actually seeing is to reduce our carbon footprint. Our existing footprint is not sustainable. Even if we stopped spewing carbon into the air today the temperature would still continue to rise a bit because it hasn't caught up to the excess carbon we already put in the air.
Doesn't really make much difference what we do if the earth begins to regurgitate all the methane and sulphur and fill the atmosphere regardless. So there you have it. One way or the other we are powerless.
We're not powerless at all. On the contrary, we already have the technology we need to reduce our carbon footprint. We already know what to do. We just have to do it.
Nothing really to argue about except if we should help a few take everything from the masses on false pretext of changing the course of nature. This is a false pretense of our ability to effect the outcome of something WAY beyond our control.
Not sure what you're talking about here. We have changed the course of nature many times already. What we are trying to do is stop changing the normal course of nature. And I reiterate that it isn't beyond our control at all. In fact, other countries are already moving forward in changing to a renewable and sustainable based energy and economy. They will leave us behind while some people keep us from moving forward.
I guess people (scientists are people, too) can associate with any group they want. The problem is when they confuse their political ideology with science, and represent it as such. Of course, I know you know that.
"...can't the actual scientists get it together well enough to hold a conference and provide enough advance material to get some real press coverage... at least as much as these dolts will get?"
Response: "Scientists have conferences all the time, as you know. They tend to be science-oriented, which apparently doesn't sell too many newspapers."
My question is why you never hear anywhere in any media that all major scientific organizations endorse the IPCC Reports. Why?
Indeed, scientists can be associated with non-science organizations. And as you say, the problem only arises when they confuse the two. Heartland Institute claims it is trying to further the science, and yet all the sponsors of their conference are free market, libertarian lobbying groups. The focus is on policy advocacy, not science.
That's the problem. They should be honest about it. They have a right to advocate positions, but not to misrepresent the facts.
My question is why you never hear anywhere in any media that all major scientific organizations endorse the IPCC Reports. Why?
I ask myself the same question. It's probably a combination of the media being lazy and the media's tendency to want to be controversial so they attract viewers, which attracts advertising revenues. I guess having all the major scientific organizations endorse the IPCC reports isn't sexy enough for them.
He quacked up.
Sorry, too much CO2 on the brain I guess.
Or too little O2
Don't you agree?
As for "serious issues with the data," could you indicate which data you have studied and specify exactly what issues you have. Again a source link so I can figure out to what data you refer.
Can you also provide a link to where you saw the information about locking personal electrical outlets?
The electrical outlet was a patent taken by, get this, Fannie Mae or Freddie. Can't remember which. One of Glenn Beck's tipsters turned it in, and you can bet Fox checked it before it was broadcast (yesterday on his show).
The polar ice that is not floating stays in one place. The water that is under it moves. Ocean currents bring in warm water under the ice and melt the bottom.
Floating ice melts both top (from the warm air) and bottom (from the warmer water.
Inland ice melts at the bottom because of the pressure of the weight of ice on top of it.. Also, there are cracks in the glaciers and when the ice on top melts it runs down the cracks taking warm water to the bottom of the glacier where it melts the ice. This is one of the reasons that the glaciers move faster when they begin to melt.
Thus there are several reasons why the world's ice melts from the bottom up.
I realize the snowball effect of the melting ice, but still think it far from explains the scope of all the changes in the earth. Neither does the greenhouse effect. It is the bigger picture, not some microcosm.
If the bottom of the ice is melting then the water there must be warmer than the melting point for ice under those conditions. But the earth under that liquid water could be either warmer than the water, colder than the water, nor the same temperature.
Yes, magma does provide the heat to melt ice. But there are many active volcanoes which have permanent ice (year round, anyway) on their higher elevations. The rock provides quite a bit of insulation between the magma and the ice.
The warm water that melts the bottom of the ice is water on its way to somewhere else. It comes from the surface of the ice as in the glaciers or from the open ocean as in the shelf ice that is attached to land. In the case of icebergs, the ice itself is mobile as well.
There is no need at all to posit warming of the rock under the ice to explain why the ice is melting from the bottom.
In Iceland, magma does melt some ice.
There are lots of things involved when large amounts of ice melt on the earth. One of them is the greenhouse gasses present.
Saw a great graphic showing the long term temps that basically proves we have actually increased one of the longest warm periods of plenty, and are definitely overdue for an ice age. Thank God for CO2, or we could be starving by now. Too cold to grow all the food.
There are cracks in the ice. It is not continuous. It is broken. Have you ever watched shows about explorations in the polar regions? They have to worry about crevasses large enough to swallow those big snow cats, treads and all. If you pour water on a glacier, it runs downhill on the ice until it comes to one of those cracks and then goes down into the glacier. Since the glaciers are moving the stresses and strains of moving over the uneven terrain under the ice cracks the ice.
Of course there are many factors involved besides CO2. But the scale of the change in the CO2 is much greater than the scale of changes in the other factors. That's why the change in CO2 is so important.
Your argument that we are merely puny human beings and could not possibly have much of an affect. Well, that's what they said about over fishing in the ocean. "It's so big and there are so many fish, what does it matter how many we catch?" Well, it mattered. Where are the cod?
Your last paragraph shows that you are a skeptic for some of the data but not a skeptic for other parts of the data. I wonder why that is.
What may be normal on a geologic time scale, may be changing in a recent history scale! Funny how the scientists zoom out to say these earth changes are normal when it suits their purpose. These things are caused by us for their purpose as well.
You have to really watch to notice the shifts. By changing the context, limiting the periods represented, the whole message can be skewed. This is what the warming alarmists appear to be doing. Taking what appears aberrant and blaming us, for a recurring part that has happened before, but just not in our remembrance. So it appears to me, but I don't have the jingo'd models, you're right about that!
I was well taught in the ability to manipulate data to prove anything by filtering it properly, from economics to science. This is what is happening from our economics to science, and back, in a circle for profit. That is what I believe.
Given that, doesn't it make sense to reduce the greenhouse gasses to the extent we can?
Carbon Credit Trades? NO
none of that nonsense makes any sense at all.
It gets cold in the winter and we wear clothing to protect ourselves. It makes no sense to me to sit passively by and take whatever nature offers without trying to make things better for ourselves. Ignoring an impending global warming just because something of the sort happened hundreds of thousands of years ago seems pretty dumb to me.
Those all sound like good ideas to me. Let's do them. I'd rather spend our tax money on that than give it to the banks.
We are not fleas. We have minds and we produce pollution. We deforest huge areas. We do strongly affect our environment. We cannot shirk our responsibility for what we pollute. We have driven many species to extinction. Our actions have consequences and if we ignore that we don't deserve to survive as an economy, as a nation, nor as a species.
As our technology improves we affect our environment more and more but we also can the better protect that same environment. If we are too stupid to do that we deserve whatever nature has in store for us.
We can only follow your advice if we change the nature of our money. If you investigate what we are doing you will find the influence of people trying to get more money, no matter what that requires them to do, will undermine and subvert all attempts to reduce the greenhouse gasses. There is lots of money to be made by very powerful people in consuming fossil fuels. They will be able to resist any attempts to leave those fuels in the ground. Mere lying is only the "tip of the iceberg" in what is being done.
All of those are consistent with the bill you have called "cap and tax."
So given that the bill does what you say we should be doing, why are you against the bill?
I am opposed to a well laid plan to once again trade "paper" in the form of energy credits. This is the same worthless stuff of derivatives and would eventually collapse, after all the world's money is concentrated on those who set up the scheme. Fool me once........
Can you point out the relevant sections of the bill for me? Thanks.
Even one of the premier skeptics, Pat Michaels, has told the denialist convention to stop making up such ridiculous lies because it just isn't believable any more.
There are two main reasons why the IPCC reports generally underestimate the extent of the problem.
First, most people and the media just look at the summary report and not the three technical reports where all the data are discussed in detail. But the summary report is put together by representatives from all the countries, and as you might guess countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia that make their living off oil tend to want to water down the language. Because IPCC has a policy of 100% agreement on the language in the summary report - which they go through line-by-line - things that the scientists say are "very highly certain" get knocked down to "highly certain," and so on. Nothing every gets pushed up in certainty, not because the data don't support it, but because the political representatives on the summary report water it down. So the summary report is actually less severe than the data support.
Second, there are some climatological processes for which the data are still lacking or we don't completely understand. Things like how much methane will be released from melting permafrost, and how fast the speed up of glaciers will be once the meltwater gives them a hydroplaning slick underneath. Since we don't have the data to work these out, we tend to take conservative estimates. In some cases we actually won't include these processes in the analysis. But in virtually every case these processes, as we learn more about them, turn out to be worse than the estimates we made. In other words, it's getting worse, faster, than the 2007 IPCC report projected. Based on the new data since 2007, it is becoming more and more clear that we need to start doing something now, not later.
At least I think its 'happy Monday'
I'm stopping by to give you a view and a comment.
Hope you have a great week. That is the right spelling? Week? Not 'weak'.
Its Monday, and I'm just tired....Barely awake.
Mooch
And yes, it is great week (not weak). :)
"Free markets" require, of necessity, complete and accurate information. The longer they can keep that information pool to include mis-information, non-information and propaganda, the longer the markets will keep them alive. It will take a physical calamity before people wake up and smell the coffee. And since Katrina was not calamit enough, it looks like it will have to be something really major... or several somethings.
BTW, is it okay for Rex Tillerson and Tony Hayward to get even richer while oil gushes into the Gulf of Mexico, China passes us by in developing innovative new technologies, and the Saudi princes we send our oil dollars to fund terrorists who hate us?
There hasn't been any fraud by scientists. Perhaps you meant the fraud by the Heartland Institute, which is the subject of this post.
And why should anyone trust the "scientists" who lied?
No scientists lied. Again, it was the denialists that have been caught lying time after time after time.
I guess the UK House of Commons missed that memo. Phil Jones was cleared of scientific misconduct. So was Michael Mann. Nice talking point, though.
This link gives part of his testimony and then gives links to the entire testimony.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978253739
Yep, let's do that. Take Happer's word over all the rest of science.
Despite the fact that Happer has published one (1), yes one and only one, paper related to climate change, and gets funding from ExxonMobil and other industries that don't want any of the policy stuff that would be needed. The same Will Happer that supplements his lab work by shilling for the Heartland Institute and other climate denialist lobbying groups. The same Will Happer who teamed up with the infamous S. Fred Singer to claim that ozone depletion was not happening (it was). Singer, of course, was the "tobacco expert" before he was the "climate change expert" (though he has done zero research in either field).
Oh, btw, Happer is Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, which used to be a lobbying group pushing Reagan's "Star Wars" system that never got built after spending billions of dollars and now works for the oil and energy companies when it isn't following Heartland Institute around denying climate science. It's a conservative lobbying group.
And to make matters even worse, he seemed absolutely clueless in his testimony. Besides rattling off the standard talking points, he got basic facts wrong (or he was just lying outright). For example, he said that “We evolved as a species when CO2 concentrations were three or four times what they are nowâ€. Poppycock. You would have to go back hundreds of millions of years to find CO2 levels that high.
It's amazing that you are so willing to ignore or dismiss over 200 years of basic physics in favor of one guy paid by the denialist groups who is so stewed in talking points that he can't even get basic facts right.
Or perhaps he was just lying. Which is a federal offense to lie under oath to Congress.
Actually, Marilyn, are you admitting that Happer didn't even seem to know what he was talking about?
Did you see these?
Notice there are extensive discussions and links demonstrating exactly how the Heartland Institute and other denialists lied about, well, about everything. No bumper stickers or obnoxious comments, just facts.
You might want to read this too.
Why do you persist with this?
Why do I persist in presenting the facts and exposing the liars? Because I believe in honesty and abhor dishonesty. You should try it.
Are you being paid by Al Gore?
Are you being paid by the Heartland Institute? Or are you just a lackey who gobbles up every conspiracy theory that Fox News tosses out at you?
Glad to hear it. On what news sources do you rely for information about climate science?
I research.
Where?
And what you present as "fact" has been shown over and again to not be true.
Then present your facts. You can start by explaining why the denialist industry lied about this and this and this and this and this and all of these. And of course, don't forget this and this. Feel free to provide specific rebuttals proving your point, i.e., not some innuendo pulled off a blog.
But, as I've said before, you do have your worshipers who hang on your ever word.
So anyone who believes an accurate presentation of the facts, sans some conspiracy theory about a plot to have the UN take over the US, is a "worshiper?" Interesting concept.
What about those who drool over Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? Do they count as worshipers?
I guess they're not capable of doing their own research.
Actually, I've discovered many hard thinking people here on Gather. They go to multiple sources, use logic and intelligence to evaluate and assimilate the information, and form quite supportable logical positions.
And then there are those who cut-and-paste from blogs, insinuate without explaining anything, and in fact, not once ever provide a thoughtful analysis backing up their positions.
Still waiting for your specific rebuttals of the specific points I have made in any of my articles. I've linked my "Tricks and Tall Tales of Climate Denialists" posts. Feel free to disprove anything I've said. You know I also have my Truth About Global Warming series.
You see. I have provided very specific, very explicit documentation of the deceit of climate denialists. You have provided some bumper stickers, some denials, some out of context insinuations, and the testimony of a many who has done next to no actual climate research and can't even get fundamental facts right.
Emails were cherry-picked? Of course, Jack. Do we need to see every email? No. We needed to see the ones we did. They were telling. Then, we needed to hear from the scientists whose work was denied publishing by these crooked scientists because they didn't agree with global warming.
It's so sad that you've been hoodwinked by global warming alarmists, Jack.
No, you have attacked by innuendo and insinuation based on a lack of knowledge and cowardice.
Emails were cherry-picked? Of course, Jack. Do we need to see every email? No. We needed to see the ones we did.
No, we saw ALL the emails. All more than 1000 emails. Plus about 3000 other documents that were attached. But denialists don't want to talk about the 99% of the information. Why? Because 99% of the information definitively showed that climate scientists are hard working, honest people trying to do their research while being attacked dishonestly, harassed constantly, and defamed intentionally by profit-driven non-science free market lobbying groups, their front organizations, and the rabid and disinformed lackeys who would stop at nothing to destroy them. All because the denialists don't want to have to take responsibility for their actions.
The handful of those 1000 emails that had some frustrated reactions to that constant harassment were used in out of context, dishonest, and cowardly attacks by innuendo and insinuation to discredit honest people. Still, even more than 6 months later, even after a series of investigations forced upon the scientific and academic organizations involved, after all of those investigations have proven without a doubt that all the scientists acted properly and the denialist industry acted dishonestly and dishonorably, still, after all of the exonerations, the denialist industry and their lackeys continue to lie about the emails and defame the scientists.
Exposing Climate Denialism - A Guide to Tactics and Tall Tales
Depends on your motivation. :)
The dumbing down of America continues. Question is, how dumb can we really become?
It's a denial thing. Helps rationalize not having to take responsibility for what we do.
Here's a description.
There just seems to be more and more data on the effects of carbon dioxide emissions - if these people were even close to being scientists, they could take this resulting-type data and intelligently deduce that we had better change things quickly.
Heartland and its members don't want to change. They just want to be free from regulation. But still get their government subsidies and tax breaks and pay zero federal taxes, of course.
Actually, most organisms that need carbonate for their shells are at fairly shallow depths.
I have accepted that, but MUST point out, this happened in prehistory as well.
Did it? From excess CO2? And so why would we want to pump more CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans if we know it will dissolve shells, corals, etc.?
This to my point that we probably are in a cycle too big for us to effect very much.
Normal cycles happen on geologic time frames, like tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions of years. We are causing this to happen in mere decades.
Those time frames are really quesionable, especially with the magnetic shift. The time frames are not verifiable in short terms, either way. The earth records are not clear on short term changes, and some appear very abrupt. I think there are problems with both geologic dating and carbon dating. Lots of room for error, and lots of speculation from both camps, some assumptions from one side or the other being necessarily wrong, since both cannot be right. And the excess CO2 in previous cycles not being from fossil fuels, so from where? Ocean outgassing, due to natural changes. Reactivation of vents as plates shift, responding to magnetic change. Get the big picture for a true perspective. That's all I'm saying.
Of course no one said "let's pump as much CO2 as possible." They just say "CO2 is good for plants," while ignoring the physical properties of CO2 in the atmosphere that keep our planet the temperature it is, and the fact that adding all that CO2 into the atmosphere will disrupt that natural balance.
Those time frames are really quesionable, especially with the magnetic shift. etc etc etc.
All of these things have been investigated by scientists. And the data overwhelmingly demonstrate that human activity is causing the warming we are observing in a matter of decades what historically took thousands and millions of years.
And the excess CO2 in previous cycles not being from fossil fuels, so from where?
I can certainly address this in my Truth About Global Warming series, though the answer is pretty obvious. Changes on geological times scales in the past resulted in changes to our atmosphere, just as it resulted in glacial and inter-glacial periods, tectonic shifts, and lots of other facets of our earth history. But again, those were on geologic time frames. What is happening now is built on the same physics as controlled those processes, except this time human activity - primarily the increased emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - has made these things happen in a matter of decades rather than eons.
Which makes it pretty clera to me that these Heartland folks have as little interest in real free markets as they do in any real science.
So the question is, given that the Heartland Institute is doing what its mission mandates, i.e., protection its members from regulation, why don't they just be honest about it? Why not come out and say, "Hey, we don't want to be regulated! We don't want to have to trade carbon credits. We just want to be left alone to make our record annual profits and the American taxpayers should clean up our mess."
Why not be honest?
But no, they are not honest. Instead they fake graphs, cherry pick data, lie about what scientists say, and do everything they can think of, by hook or by crook, to confuse the situation enough to delay or stop completely any kind of policy.
People like you, who actually want to make a difference while helping people will be sadly dismayed if this pyramid scheme is employed. Those who market the credits will eat the profits and the new technologies will be harmed, not helped. You actually believe these monies will do anything but increase costs and fill preferred coffers? Look into it, you will be sadly surprised. Check out who the players are, how it was formed, and by who. Look at where they came from and make a logical deduction about how altruistic the motivation is. It's a joke!
But the real point is that cap-and-trade, carbon credits, moving to another planet, whatever, are all policy options. If you don't like the policy options then be honest and present your case for or against the policy options. Don't make up stuff about the science not being clear when it is overwhelmingly clear.
I might remind you that the Heartland Institute has been involved in the intentional deception campaigns of the tobacco industry and other industries, all of which denied the science that then turned out to be absolutely correct. So the Heartland Institute is directly responsible for the deaths of many people that they intentionally confused because they didn't want to take responsibility for their actions.
http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Orange-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Scandal-Obama-Gore-Goldman-Joyce-Foundation-CCX-partners-to-fleece-USA
Try pulling the exact part of the bill to which you object and presenting a case for why that part of the bill will cause you not to support the bill despite the fact that it includes all of the suggestions you included in your comment further above.
If you want to present a credible case, then do so with actual credible evidence, not Glenn Beck. It might make him cry.
But let me ask you this. Why on earth would you believe the ramblings of a self-professed entertainer who admits he doesn't believe anything he says, and not the entire history of science?
Char, you are citing a blog that shows a Glenn Beck video. Do you really think that Glenn Beck has "a full understanding" of anything? Every night he does another ridiculous conspiracy. And he himself has admitted that he doesn't believe one word of the crap he says, but does it for the millions of dollars he makes. HE said that.
Here's the quote, and the link to the Forbes article:
With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: "I could give a flying crap about the political process." Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. "We're an entertainment company," Beck says. He has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth.
You really have to watch this video.
First off, doesn't that sound a little childish to you?
Secondly, you erroneously assume I did not watch your link. Whether you do this intentionally or unintentionally I don't know. But frankly, I can't imagine how you could have come to that conclusion since I commented on the content of Beck's show. The issue is not that I didn't watch it (it both made me laugh at his buffoonery and cry that so many people take him seriously even though he himself does not), it is that I accepted it for what it was - a sideshow designed to make him money. If you want to present a case for some world government conspiracy then you have to start with a credible source, and maybe even some logic.
And those quotes above are Beck's quotes to Forbes magazine. Perhaps if people spent a little more time researching their sources they would have a better chance of filtering the crap from the reality.
That said, don't you think it rather odd that the same people that rattle off "you treat Al Gore as a God" are kowtowing at the feet of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, two politically oriented entertainers who routinely say things with no basis in reality. And isn't it amazing that some people don't see the irony of falsely accusing all scientists (including those born and dead before Gore even existed) are idolizing Al Gore (which they aren't) when their Gather icons that define them are of Glenn Beck?
So in that sense, I agree that the phrase "free market" is used quite carelessly by those who claim it.
Excellent point, David. "Free market" capitalism is a textbook theory that may work a bit in a very small environment, limited by geography and population. There is no example of it now in the capital markets, and certainly not because of any government intervention.
But it doesn’t mean that. Few leaders in business or government are willing to call our system for what it is. Just because they endlessly repeat the same fallacies doesn’t mean it becomes the truth.
Only when the general population is educated well in this area can they elect politicians with the integrity and guts to bring back a free market. The first step is correctly labeling our current economic system. You are right business and Republicans get a failing score at this, not just the Democrats.
You don't have a free market when a central bank is setting interest rates. That's been with us since 1913.
Maybe "we" didn't. But in Europe, it was called "serfdom". There is no possibility of a 100% free market. Corporations, without supervision, will invariably move toward fascism, oligopoly, corporatism - whatever you call it.
The question is not supervision vs. no supervision, but who will supervise.
There is no possibility of a 100% free market.
I have no idea if that's true, just because something has not been done before (that we can recall, at least), doesn't mean it's impossible in the future. I don't worry about getting 100% free markets, I would be pleased if we could get mostly free markets.
The question of supervision is, indeed, sticky. But name an institution, other than government, which is powerful enough to supervise. "Buyer beware" is not an answer.
UL and consumer reports are an example of a market demand for regulation.
Ha! Have you seen what has happened on Wall Street and with the housing market over the past six years?!? Wall STreet and many of the banks have been extremely profitable.
And, companies can make a huge profit, take that profit and cash out, all the while devastating consumers and the environment. Would you be so understanding of a company that poisoned your property, or your children, or caused cancer in your community, even in they were only profitable in the short-term?
Seriously. I am an entrepeneur, and I understand the value of keeping customers. But, the idea that a company cannot be wildly successful and profit, even by doing untold damage in to customers, is ludicrous. The basic question is, "Is money the only driving factor for success in a society?" I continuously get the feeling that that is the only thing the right holds as valuable - money. The environment can go to hell, children can die from lead in toys, entire mining communities can succomb to cancer, entire species can be fished or hunted or forced to extinction through taking of environment, but as long as someone makes a buck, who the hell cares?
Well, I am all for making a living, but I hold other things in this world above MONEY. I am starting to think that that is the one big difference between conservatives and liberals. Money is GOD to conservatives - and there is hell to pay if anyone tries to put anything above it.
Also, its a big mistake to equate carbon dioxide with pollution. CO2 is naturally buffered by the oceans and the by plantlife. In fact, CO2 is GOOD for plant life.
AGW crowd (your term) is every major scientific organization in the world. So you think someone/something else should speak for science?
"How much is enough?" Funny.... Lee Iococca asked that same question.
"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
His resulting loss of credibility was, fortunately, an eye-opening experience for him. He later cared a great deal about the world he was leaving his granddaughter.
To answer you, though, I'll quote William McDonough, who is an architect. "Less bad is no good." McDonough has a good way of doing things - for profit.
And I get so tired of the non-science, free market lobbying crowd making believe that a lobbying meeting is science.
I also get tired of repeatedly having to answer the same old talking points. Everything you (Stephen K) said in your comments is right out of the Heartland Institute's lobbying playbook (which they perfected as representatives of the tobacco "smoking doesn't cause cancer, people who smoke cause cancer" crowd).
Here you go. Try to come up with something 1) new, AND 2) scientific.
And of course Amory Lovins at RMI (which I see you linked in your comment below).
Lots of good work being done.
I FOUND THE LIST BY RANDOMLY PICKING A UNIVERSITY NAME, University of Wisconsin came out of the back room to volunteer, I googled, Climate Conference, University of Wisconsin.
FOR FUN, DO YOUR OWN SEARCH ON A DIFFERENT UNIVERISITY.
The 1970s "cooling," which the denialists love to bring up and misrepresent, was a debate between scientists over whether the cooling effect of aerosols would dominate over the warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. While there were a handful of papers suggesting cooling might win out, there were several dozens of papers that demonstrated the warming impacts. At the end of the 1970s there was a conference of experts who poured over the data and came to the conclusion that the warming effects of greenhouse gases would overwhelm the cooling effects of aerosols. Especially since we had to clean up the aerosol problems for other reasons (e.g., the ozone hole).
Why?
I see, it sounds like you are advocating pollution.
But keep in mind that different kinds of pollution have different effects. Aerosols and particulates tend to cool, but it is the carbon emissions that overwhelmingly dominate and these cause warming. The net effect is warming.
Not to mention that pollution generally is called pollution because it has other adverse effects on health, the environment, breathing, killing old people, etc.
Remember these emails:
• “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.”
• “There is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.”
• “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”
• I got a paper to review written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. (...) If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. . . . It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially, I now need a hard and, if required, extensive case for rejecting”
• “I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Alas...More Climate Denialist Trouble With the Truth - The Email Edition
Climate Denialists Still Lying About CRU Emails - The CRU Responds
Climate Scientist Phil Jones Exonerated of False Denialist "Climategate" Charges
More Climate Denialist Lies - The Fake "Trick" Graphs
Climate Denialists At it Again - Creating a Fake Quote to Misrepresent an Interview by Phil Jones
NASA Climate Scientist Andrew A. Lacis: "Human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact"
But wait - there's more!!
You really have to make at least a little effort to become knowledgeable. Otherwise you just look like a parrot. The Monty Python kind.
But time and time again it has been shown that the denialist industry, led by the Heartland Institute, has lied over and over.
Read the articles at the links.
In every single case I have shown how the denialists constructed their lies. Can you rebut any point in any article? No, you cannot. I have gone step by step to show how the denialists took information out of context, completely made up headlines to say exactly the opposite of what scientists said, and have cherry picked information expressly and intentionally to confuse the public.
The denialists lie, Marilyn. And this has been demonstrated over and over.
The climate scientists tell the truth, Marilyn. And this has been demonstrated over and over.
That's why the Heartland Institute climate conference is sponsored by themselves (a non-science free market lobbying organization famous for its campaign to say smoking doesn't cause cancer), along with 65 other organizations, every single one of which is a free market/libertarian or front group. Not one of them is a science group.
Here are the links, Marilyn. Feel free to try to rebut any specific point with factual evidence and logic.
Or you can continue to mindlessly mime the denialist talking points.
UAH Solar effect, and orbit changes http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/uah-msu.pdf
UAB Acidic ocean http://main.uab.edu/Sites/MediaRelations/articles/73195/
NPR interview with NASA and University Scientists on the Leaked E Mails. http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=120846593
Now, for those of you "scientists" who are taking sides, please keep this in mind the science is very complex, the data is not always crystal clear, and there is room for dispute, BUT, there is no doubt that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere IS happening, has been happening for a century, and the source of the Carbon dioxide is fossil hydrocarbon fuels. Coal, Crude Oil and Natural Gas are the main contributors.
There are alternatives, Solar, Wind (a solar subset) tidal motions, and biomass come to mind almost instantly.
If, however, the urge is undeniable, write the stupid stuff down, print it out and mail it to yourself. Then wait for it. When it comes... read it. Then burn it. That way, the only person who'll know how stupid it was will be you.
Why?
Guess how many are science organizations? Yep, 0, zero, zilch, nada, none
Guess how many are free market, libertarian and conservative organizations and their front groups? Yep, all 65, 100%, every last one of them.
Now ask yourself, if you were going to set up a conference to look at climate change, does it makes sense to have zero science organizations but 100% free market organizations as sponsors?
Nope.
Check out the two new groups if you're interested. Links at the bottom of the article. One for rebutting the denialists, the other for presenting the science.
There are ramification to the deceit and appeals to the emotions of people by free market lobbyists like the Heartland Institute. Their deceptions and deceits not only endanger the reputations of climate scientists, they also endanger their privacy, threaten their families, and even their lives. It only takes one crazy person to take the rhetoric to its fruition. By intentionally stoking the paranoias and fears of these people with falsehoods the Heartland Institute is complicit in whatever crimes they may commit.
Shoot first ask questions later May 22, 2010, 10:01pm EDT
Man made global warming to us is like what you guys would call the fairy tale of believing in God. Except Al Gore's the one you guys put your faith in...and Michael Moore.
Seriously.
Both dishonestly rail against that "socialist cap-and-trade" program despite the fact that cap-and-trade was a Republican idea (Democrats wanted a carbon tax).
If Romney were to get elected and Republicans were to capture the Senate as well as keep the House, it is highly likely that the EPA and other health and environmental agencies will have their funding decimated into oblivion.
Romney announced his energy policy today, which amounts to the exact same energy policy offered by Halliburton CEO-turned-US Vice President Dick Cheney, the same policy offered by Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich's lobbying organization, and the same policy that has kept us addicted to oil and fighting wars in the middle east over access to oil - Drill, Baby, Drill.
In other words, he ignores global warming completely. But hey, it's good for the mega-oil corporations that are funding his campaign.
From the article:
"Romney's energy policies are heavily tilted toward increased production of carbon-based resources, oil, gas and coal, that environmentalists blame for global warming. He is outlining the policy two days after going over some of the details with executives from the oil industry who contributed to his campaign at fund-raising events in Texas." [emphasis added]