kd: But it's a pretty compelling marker of just how shameful his administration's inaction has been.

we....told.....you.....so.....

And just where have these PEERs been for the last 5-1/2 years? Covering their asses and protecting their pensions, that's where.

Way too fucking little, way too fucking late.

yellow dog's right, of course. but better late than never, eh?

fighting to take back the country from the cult of republicanism, one step at a time.
.

It's probably timed to coincide with the supreme court case hearings:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/29/1463/3529

Gee, wonder if W has seen "An Inconvenient Truth".

"EPA’s scientists and engineers [must be able] to speak frankly and directly with Congress and the public regarding climate change, without fear of reprisal."

Hmmm. Not sure who exactly is getting punished for supporting global warming regulation -- it strikes me there is a difference between "reprisal" and "not being listened to" that many academics and scientists fail to keep clear.

My sense is that global warming skeptics face far more "reprisals" and outright shunning in the environmental community than the opposite.

'My sense is that global warming skeptics face far more "reprisals" and outright shunning in the environmental community than the opposite.'

Sorta in the same way as young-earth creationists have a hard time getting tenure as palaentologists.

Not sure who exactly is getting punished for supporting global warming regulation

You've not been following the James Hansen flap and related stories. Reprisals and censorship has been widespread:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/censorship-key-issue/

Hmmm. Not sure who exactly is getting punished for supporting global warming regulation -- it strikes me there is a difference between "reprisal" and "not being listened to" that many academics and scientists fail to keep clear.
Posted by: coyote

Can't say for sure, but I would think the SOP here was or is much like it was at NASA when they had that Young Republican college dropout censoring what the scientists were trying to report when it contradicted Creationist doctrine. That's a bit more aggressive than "not being listened to."

But just as this adminstration did with General Shinseki, they prefer to smother dissenting views. It's just doubleplus good.

The EPA has 10,000 scientists?

wow.

Anyone remember George Deutsch?

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

He was muzzling Hansen. And you got a strong sense from the reporting around this story that others were being muzzled as well.

This ran at Raw Story a couple months ago:

“They are afraid for their jobs if they say the wrong thing,” Cornehls said. “Young people from EPA say they are losing a lot of good young people because they don’t want to work under those conditions.”

“Experts interviewed by RAW STORY indicated a wide swath of damage done by the Bush Administration to EPA. Political appointees, low scientist morale, and misuse of science extend across all aspects of government research and policy. It’s an impact that is bound to outlive the administration and might not be corrected by future presidents, the experts said.

“People need to understand how driven this administration is,” Cornehls stated. “Decisions are made on a belief system rather than on good science.”

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bad_News_1010.html

Hopefully the Dems will show some spine and hold hearings on this stuff...

Gee, wonder if W has seen "An Inconvenient Truth".
Posted by: Robert on November 29, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

No, but I bet he's got a copy of Jesus Camp.

Way too fucking little, way too fucking late.

You're right, Yellow Dog, but what would a GOP Congress have done about the EPA scientist's protestations? Nothing, and Bush's minions in and out of the EPA would have made life miserable for those scientists.

Now that we have real oversight, their voices can be heard.

It looks like they saw that the first opportunity to be heard in six years is right now, due to the fact that there will be Democrats chairing congressional committees. Since 2001 there has been nowhere to go in the national government. I suspect that the true level of malignity in this Bush administration took a while to sink in, and even when it did, there was no Henry Waxman or the equivalent to go to for action.

This should be #1 on the agenda...the censorship and distortion of science to further special interests while endangering and ignoring serious risks to Americans.

Once you set the table with the corruption-of-science scandal, then folks will be a lot more primed and receptive to pursuing some of the other insidious scandals which have more potential for partisan emotionalism.

It looks like they saw that the first opportunity to be heard in six years is right now, due to the fact that there will be Democrats chairing congressional committees.

Thank you. Some of us have open sores from biting our tongues, waiting for the right time to speak, when speaking up would not do more harm than good.

Sometimes an effective reaction requires a catalyst, and Democratic oversight is like sucrase.

Like the war. Like gross violation of civil liberties and unlawful surveillance. Like the crackdown on whistleblowers. Overall, the denial of transparency and accountability for one reason and one reason only...because without it this corruption and these scandals can thrive, with it they suffocate and never get going.

Who you going to believe, Rove or 10,000 scientists? Hey, Rove looks at 48 polls a day, how could he be wrong?

Jimm -
Sorry, but I don't think the Dems (or anyone) can win this argument. The Corporate NewsMedia has already successfully framed the Global Warming issue (as well as the broader issue of the Authority of the Scientific Community) in the minds of the American public.

Until Joe Sixpack's children burst into flame on the way to the school bus, Joe Sixpack will continue to be convinced that Al Gore, and 10,000 climate scientists are all flakes, and everything they hear on FoxNews comes from God.

There are better issues for Dems to focus on, because it's entirely believable that with Delay indicted, Abramoff, Ney, and Cunningham behind bars, that this "Republican Culture of Corruption" is more than a simple "Criminalization of Politics" - these are simple facts that can't be disputed. Either Joe Sixpack believes that it's wrong for corporate lobbyists and special interests to bribe congressmen, or he thinks it's A-OK and an acceptable way for our government's business to be conducted. Usually, only those who have their face buried in the trough believe that. Even FoxNews can't sugarcoat that.

It's just the union reps. Not very many EPA employees actively participate or even donate to the unions for that matter. Significant, but not serious.

10,000 union reps signed the petition?

There has been a frenzy of scientists signing various statements lately. Union of Concerned Scientists has had one up for a while, and the most recent I have become aware of and added my signature to is at Defend Science.

How shocking to find environmentalists calling for funding global climate change work. I'm sure we'll next see a dramatic letter from 10,000 business leaders saying what is really needed is corporate tax relief.

On the other hand, it is ironic that Zachary would choose to cite this on one of the few liberal blogs to acknowledge Bush's actual actions to improve the environment.

As for "censorship of agency scientists and other specialists on topics of climate change and the effects of air pollution" unless PEER smuggled their petition out of the gulag on scraps of paper, it is a self-evidently preposterous claim. Or did everyone here rush out and google "global warming" to find out what they were talking about?

I'm sure we'll next see a dramatic letter from 10,000 business leaders saying what is really needed is corporate tax relief.
Posted by: Hacksaw on November 29, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Beats the crap out of 10,000 Defense Industry Financiers and Executives (you know, like Halliburton execs, or Carlyle Group board members?) warning of Iraqi WMD programs.

Just give me one little hint about where this Bram asshole lives [an IP address would be a start], and I would be more than happy to fly there and pound his sickening, pimpled face flat. Please...

I just wish his parents would install a net nanny or pay some attention to the little brat.

Shut down the EPA and give me my tax dollars back. These idiot "scientists" are effectively refusing to do the job competently, as instructed by managemnet. They should be canned. No other employer on earth would put up with this kind of insubordination. And, as someone pointed out, they're just advocating "action on global warming" to line their pockets at the taxpayers' expense. The EPA is a bad agancy doing a bad job.

Hacksaw on November 29, 2006 at 5:54 PM:

..it is ironic that Zachary would choose to cite this on one of the few liberal blogs to acknowledge Bush's actual actions to improve the environment.

Such as? Clearing brush and stocking a pond to catch a fish don't quite count, so please cite. I'm curious.

No other employer on earth would put up with this kind of insubordination.

Yeah who do these scientists think they work for, the American people? How dare they tell the truth.

Their job isn't to find and report the truth, their job is to report what their Republican masters want them to report.

What do they think this is the freakin Enlightenment? They should get with the times and go Feudal like their Republican masters want them to.

While global warming should be a concern for us all, what isn't debatable is the toxic effects of heavy metals.

I'm afraid we are being side-tracked in our quest for a cleaner environment by focusing on CO2.
Mercury affects us now, dioxins screw our hormonal systems, and volatile vapors destroy nerve cells.

Isn't it ironic that solutions to the CO2 debate (wind, solar) also reduce toxic loading of the air?

The global warming debate deflects our attention from immediate poisons. Poisons that alter brain chemistry, hormonal systems, and destroy immune systems.

I realize that we are altering our climate with green-house gases, but I am far more concerned about the junk our bodies have to filter.

I am also convined that environmental toxins create behavioral changes in humans. Ever wonder why our kids are being more and more medicated?

Our atmosphere maybe adjusting itself to rising temperatures, but what about human systems? Don't we all pay a price for brain altering toxins?

My sense is that global warming skeptics face far more "reprisals" and outright shunning in the environmental community than the opposite.

Yes, that's probably true. Of course, scientists tend to reward people who are correct, and those that are wrong get dumped.

Plus, if you're a fucking moron, you also don't get far in the science community.

And that's your basic global warming skeptics. They are fucking morons who are wrong.

So, next question.

They are fucking morons who are wrong.

I'm glad somebody said that. Thank you.

It is all a conspiracy of the Bush administration to screw up the county and the world as much as they possibly can in 8 years. They work, night and day, thinking of other ways to ruin the planet, poison your air and water, and kill innocent people around the globe while the companies they truly secretly and not so secretly represent rake in the profits.

What the EPA folks should worry about are the "Scientist Re-education Camps" that they are building in West Texas for all the global-warming whackjobs. Their only hope of escape - Democrats take over the White House.....

*tongue firmly in cheek*

You can't put the technology/energy genie back in the bottle folks. Ted Kaczynski and the Neo-Luddites are wrong. Find economic solutions that make sense and do not require strict regulation of our daily lives by Big Brother and you will find the answer to the problem.

Find economic solutions that make sense and do not require strict regulation of our daily lives by Big Brother and you will find the answer to the problem.
Posted by: Spock on November 29, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

. . . or to put it another way

Let me do whatever I want, even if it means the demise of our planet's ability to sustain life.

Because the Free Market said so.

Been reading a bit too much goth/sci-fi there IRCPJ....

Given your reply, you seem to presume any changes to the environment are irreversible and will cause "the demise of our planet's ability to sustain life.".....that technology and innovation cannot find creative solutions to these problems.

And yes, I absolutely want as little intervention in my life as is reasonable from the government. It is not logical to think that a government agency can make better decisions for my welfare than I can.

Government agencies fund research, and research answers vital questions (like how much mercury exposure is safe) that individuals can not answer for themselves.

It is not logical to think that a government agency can make better decisions for my welfare than I can.
Posted by: Spock

From your post, it also does not appear to be logical to conclude that you have the faculties to think beyond your own needs or wants and consider the greater good.

Ironic given your handle.

Spock Amok would be more apt.

Much more apt GR.

Perhaps he could brush up some appropriate reading too. Garret Hardin's essay on the Tragedy of the Commons might be a good start. Spock certainly seems to be one of the selfish users of common resources that Hardin was trying grapple with.

Bearded Spock I think would be more appropriate. Somebody from the "Mirror, Mirror" universe.

Cyntax-

On the contrary, I do have the faculties to think beyond my own needs and consider the greater good. I do it for a living. I have no faith that government always knows what is better for me than I do. It is illogical to always look beyond one's own understanding and assume that a government agency run by people with less education than I have know what is better for me. I am as willing to make sacrifices when I am convinced they are necessary - Not when a government agency is convinced it is necessary.

Selfish user of common resources? How rude of me to breathe so often or take a drink of water without asking Big Brother if that is ok.

Given your reply, you seem to presume any changes to the environment are irreversible and will cause "the demise of our planet's ability to sustain life.".....that technology and innovation cannot find creative solutions to these problems. Posted by: Spock on November 29, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Not with short-term PROFIT as the sole motive. No.
But I think that it's easily possible that Technology and Innovation can find creative solutions to these problems. Just not as some magical outcome as written in the scripture of the Cult of the Invisible Hand.

It is not logical to think that a government agency can make better decisions for my welfare than I can.

You build your own highways then, do you?

It's not about making decisions. Nature has made the decision for you.

In Montana, if you don't chop enough firewood to last through the winter, you will fucking freeze to death. That's nature.

In ancient Babylon, the cradle of human civilization, people originally got together to control floodwaters for their mutual benefit. Individual farmers could not accomplish this task on their own, no matter how much they wanted to increase their crop yields.

This is the root of the entire reason why human civilization exists. To fight that - is to desire to revert to barbarism and anarchy, to live at the mercy of the law of the jungle, of natural forces, like floods, winters, and the invisible hand of the free market.

It's about acting in our collective best interest. Believe it or not, there ARE survival scenarios that are no-win situations for single rugged individuals. Climate change is the granddaddy of those scenarios.

My fondest wish is that it were possible to take the neo-anarchist libertarians, and put them on an island somewhere where they can choose to freely fight for their own survival in the jungle, and let the rest of us work together to survive. Of course, eventually, we'd have to nuke them, because they would likely try to ruin the rest of the planet by burning all the petrochemicals they could find, for entertainment.

small el libertarians are a good thing. Big el Libertarians are a social cancer.

Geology;
I *do* get that distinction, and I generally agree, and I meant to use big-el.

裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电

"How rude of me to breathe so often or take a drink of water without asking Big Brother if that is ok."

Spock, none of us want a world in which we have to ask Big Brother when we can breathe (clean) air or drink (clean) water. All we want is a world where Big Brother stops the people who taint our air and pollute our waters because they're putting profit margin and self-interest above long-term effects on the big picture. It doesn't seem an unreasonable expectation.

(And if you didn't catch this, pretty much the entire scientific community puts greenhouse gas emissions right up there with dirty air and water on the Things Humans Can't Live With Forever list. Our planet can absorb a lot of our abuse, but not an infinite amount.)

Sounds like 10,000 government employees that aren't loyal to America. They have no right to sit in their fancy cubicles and undermine the president. We're at war and such acts should be rewarded with a pink slip.

I'll bet there are some young republicans that can do their jobs three times as fast.

Sounds like 10,000 government employees that aren't loyal to America - errr I mean Republic paymaster like me.

They have no right to sit in their fancy cubicles and undermine the president - Karl Rove.

We're at war and such acts should be rewarded with a pink slip - like the one I'm wearing now, soft-silky and constructed from 100% trilobal nylon -well I am thinking about Turdblossom.

I'll bet there are some young republicans that can do their jobs three times as fast - and after all I can't get a real job so why should they?

万维网酒店联盟,是一个专门为您提供酒店资讯的网站，是一个可以轻松实现酒店预定 酒店预订的平台.

ircpj -

If you read my second reply, you will see that I am willing to allow Big Brother convince me when I should sacrifice some of my personal freedom for the greater good. It hardly seems unreasonable for me to believe that a government needs to provide some proof to me of the need - and then provide to me some proof that their measures will actually *work*.

Communism is supposed to work for the "common best interest". Except for one small fact - IT DOESNT WORK. Why not? I mean, really, it does sound good. But it doesnt work on a practical level - because it never takes into account the fact that the very nature of people is to think of themselves *first*. Bitch all you want about that fact. 6000 years of recorded history show this to be the nature of humanity at a fundamental level. For periods of time, many folks can completely surrender what they want for the good of those around them. But not forever (unless they die for the cause as part of this surrender).

Markets do a great job at handling individual needs and wants - because in a free world, goods and services end up costing what people are willing to pay. Government *is* needed to prevent market excesses and abuses, and to provide services for the common good that have too little monetary value, provide for a common defense, and regulate trade. But all government is not benevolent. I have experienced what it is to be at the mercy of the government and I have no desire to *ever* repeat that experience.

Thorby - I have said this repeatedly: I want to breathe clean air, drink clean water and live in a habitable biosphere. Give me solutions to the problem that don't put us back to an agrarian society under martial law.

We now see the Repukeliscum "hands off" policy advocated by morons like Spock in action. To whit: The auto industry.

The Bush Moronministration decided NOT to raise CAFE standards. After all, we don't want to force industries to standards.

Whoops, reality intervened. Petroleum, being finite, is costing more and more.

Result of the Moron-Spock-Bush hands off policy: US auto industry is going down the tubes.

Had we raised CAFE standards and put SUVs on the CAFE, we would have forced the auto industry to keep up with reality, and the US auto industry would not be going into the scrap heap.

Repukeliscum-Spock policies have led to the DESTRUCTION of the US auto industry.

Communism is supposed to work for the "common best interest".

What I want to know is, at what time did those EPA scientists stop their associations with the Communist Party?

POed Lib-

Strange how you, as a presumed liberal, want to *force* people and organizations to do things your way. Not very democratic of you.

Well if we get a bunch of people together, we can *all* force people to stop polluting the atmosphere. It's called passing laws.

And while we're quibbling about the sanctity of deck chairs on the Titanic, Australia is facing it's worst drought in at least 1000 years:

CANBERRA, Australia - The drought gripping Australia could be the worst in 1,000 years, government officials said, as Australia started to draw up emergency plans to secure long-term water supplies to towns and cities.

The drought affecting more than half of Australia’s farmlands, already lasting more than five years, had previously been regarded as the worst in a century.

The average inflow of water into the Murray River, which flows through three states, is 11,000 gigaliters a year. In the past five months it has received less than 600 gigaliters. One gigaliter is one billion liters.

Green groups have warned that towns and cities along the river system could run out of water if the drought goes into another year.

“What we’re seeing with this drought is a frightening glimpse of the future with global warming,” the leader of the South Australian state government Mike Rann told reporters.

The Ozzies better start modding their dunebuggies, things are looking pretty grim.

I find it strange that Spock is essentially backing up his arguments with black/white arguments. "communisim doesn't work" "Free market is the only thing that works"

Sorry, the world doens't work like that. Yes, you know this, but you seem so rooted in your ideology that you aren't allowing for realistic solutions that would certainly be effective to even touch the hollowed grounds of your position (extreme analysis for an extreme position was neccessary ...sorry).

Spock the entire problem is that there is a huge disconnect between individuals and the long term effects of their actions. Sure they may know what the "right" thing to do is, but unless there is immediate and direct effects to their actions... most people will not act. The free market will never solve it until it is economically beneficial (true free markets also lack the ability to confront long-term indirect effects of actions).

So Spock, if you personlly recognize the need for change and don't need the government to "tell" you. What are you doing to reduce your so-called "carbon footprint"? I went pure biodiesel 3.5 years ago and reduced my direct petroleum consumption by about 92%...almost overnight, and yes, with a minor economic detriment to myself. I know BioDiesel isn't *the* solution, just one facet. It is, however, individually empowering because I'm sick and tired of governement not doing its job. Mandates *are* neccessary... in case you haven't checked lately this is not a governement "by the people, for the people."

Screw the immediate economics of what needs to be done. Something drastic needs to be done NOW in order to mitigate the effects. The solution will be multi-faceted and should be coordinated. Your faux Randian outrage of governmental coordination and incentive that would benefit us all is really kind of silly.

Actions based on economic benefit are soon going to be proven to be Nature's cat toys.

Sorry for the rant, I just get sick and tired of the faux idealistic arguments put forth without nary a nod facts on the ground.

One last thing Spock.

Proof of my argument? There is *still* the perception that this "global warming thing" is still up for debate.

The scientific community, as a whole, moved from that debate long ago. It is now about "how bad" and "mitigation"

Tell me how many everyday 'Murikuns know that. By the time they accept something needs to be done, its going to be too late. If we don't solve it now, Mother Nature will solve it for us in a very grand and very unpleasant manner.

Acting as a collective group for most effective response shouldn't get your "communist threat" panties in a twist.

Simp -

Nary a fact? OK - let's take a look historically at Communism. Has that system of totalitarian/government control actually functioned well as compared to Democracies?

Eco-Fascists do say "screw the economics - do what needs to be done" - as if by magic people will surrender their free will. You cannot force the whole world to do what you want. The only *realistic and practical* solutions include convincing people that it truly is in their best interests. I get sick and tired of the faux idealistic arguments put forth without considering any practicality of the notion.

Btw...I never said Free Markets are the only thing that works. I do believe there is a role for government. Convenient of you to ignore that.

"actions based on economic benefit are soon going to be proven to be Nature's Cat Toys"........ So you don't believe people, as a whole, act on behalf of their own best interests? You don't believe that the majority of people can make intelligent choices for both long and short term?

Heil Simp!

Whatever.........

Simp -

Oh, to answer your other question, I drive a scooter to work to minimize petrol usage. I have solar panels on my roof with the aim to eventually get off the grid.

Spock out

Well first let me say congratulations on your energy use efforts.

I was going to spend some time rebutting (especially seeing has how you mis-interepreted several of my points), but once you pulling out fascism and Nazi references simply relegated yourself to irrelevancy.

have a nice day.

Hmm. Spock claims to be "logical", but interestingly, he only seems comfortable having an ideological conversation.

As for the details of this thread --which involve questions of the duty of government scientists to report the truth, and what, if anything, constitutes the common good-- Spock is curiously unreflective. Instead he picks a fight, calling people communists, eco-fascists, etc. and then "beams up" to his awesome solar-powered pad.

I can understand Spock's issues with Big Brother.
I just wish he'd understand why I like having Big Brother around, so Uncle Chester with his profit-driven cost externalizations can't keep touching me in ways I don't like, and making me eat vaseline.

Of course for a majority of people to make intelligent choices for both the long and short term, they need ... (wait for it!)
Perfect Information. (Duhn Duhn duhnnnnnnn)
Which Uncle Chester spends a great deal of time and money making sure is unavailable or sufficiently distorted as to be useless(ex. see American Petroleum Institute - search "climate change").
In fact, sometimes Uncle Chester hides the information with the help of Big Brother! (I think there's a reach-around thing going on there.)

Scooter? Solar panels! Yay! You winned! Now you are protected from all the adverse impacts of climate change, like increased incidences of wildfires, drought, flooding, and cost fluctuations in basic necessities. Oh, and wars caused by resource conflicts.
Bummer for your next-door neighbors though. Survival of the fittest, I guess. Just be nice, and don't snicker at them when you're out getting the mail at the same time.

JJ-

Picks a fight? I respond to attacks on my position. Sounds like defending myself to me...

I didnt call anyone a communist. I mearly pointed out that governments based on the premise that all folks will work for the common good with shared resources have not yet succeeded for practical reasons.

I did imply that Simp wants to force alot of people to do things that they have not been convinced is in their best interest - for the "good of all". Certainly there are things in this world where governments can be certain that the steps they are taking are for the common good. ( like building highways, providing security for your country, etc...) I believe some steps toward decreasing global emmissions of greenhouse gases should be taken. But the devil is in the details. HOW do we do this? Some simply say - this is an emergency - screw the details - fix this regardless of cost right now. Stop the further production of petrol using vehicles, scrap the existing ones, etc. Others, like myself, see a problem, but do not believe that the world has the political will or need to take drastic steps when it is not clear how much has to be done and how quickly it needs to be done.

As for the EPA scientists...........I do not think they do science or our country any good by ignoring the facts that they have found. But science is amazingly and sadly political - because if they want to keep their funding, they have to please the funders. One would hope that government could be different than that - but given the polarization of society on many scientific issues that touch on economic or ethical problems, it is no suprise that they are caught in the middle.

kenga-

Last time I checked we have droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, etc, regardless of climate change. We have had people fight over scare resources from the beginning of recorded history. And waves of wars, plagues and disasters have occurred during all periods of human history.

Hey, and the scooter is actually alot of fun to ride as long as weather cooperates. Try one rather than make fun of someone who is making some kind of effort to be economical and lower impact on the environment.

Your scooter and solar panels don't amount to a fart in the breeze, with respect to mitigating anthropogenic climate change or lower impact on the environment. All they do is save YOU some money. Fuck everybody else.
It's kinda like if you stop crapping in the well you drink out of. Not gonna do your kids much good avoiding e-coli and dysentery unless the neighbors stop too.
Scientific evidence exists that droughts, wildfires, hurricanes and floods are -worsening- as the climate is slowly and incrementally changing. The body of that evidence is increasing, as is evidence that weather patterns are changing.
Said changes leading to droughts where there used to be floods, and vice versa, wildfires where there used to be rainforests, etc.

I'm sure scooters are fun - I prefer being able to get the front wheel off the ground when I feel like it, so I ride a motorcycle. And have gotten hypothermia riding it - I guess definitions of cooperative weather differ. It only gets 45-50 mpg(at 75), but that's better than my 35 mpg diesel car. However, I choose to ALSO try to convince people that we're facing a bigger problem than has ever been faced by humanity before. And that collective action is the only thing that might be able to keep the worst-case projections from being the probable outcomes.

My point, Spock, is that just because you want the government to act doesn't put you in the same class as communists. There's a 5 way intersection near where I live has no signage. And this is a suburb of a major city so it's kind of incredible. I would like them to do something about that, but I'm not a Communist.

The frustration you hear with people here has to do with the fact that this issue is loaded with conflicts of interest. Our president is an oil patch man. His friends are oil patch men. I frankly didn't expect inspired leadership from him on this. But I also didn't expect him to censor scientists, to hire a 24 year old college dropout who's job it is to tell James Hansen what to say. To me, that sounds a lot closer to communism than some people who happen to be saying, "there ought to be a law."

I agree that we have to proceed deliberately. But to tell you the truth, I've seen a lot of irrational, well-financed market fundamentalism out there. Who's been the biggest road block to getting the truth out? I'm not talking about doing anything, I'm talking about the truth getting reported. The Competitive Enterprise Institute. The Heritage Foundation. Basically, free market libertarian think tanks who feed their slippery research & spin to people like Senator James Inhofe, and overworked reporters at downsized newspapers, & whoever else will take it.

So please excuse us if we sound a bit impatient with the libertarian point of view. I haven't seen much enlightenment in their self interested behavior. And I'm not going to hold my breath and wait for it either...

Spock - a quibble.
Science is utterly apolitical.
It's science FUNDING that is very thoroughly politicized.
Pop quiz:
Who has more money available to try to affect scientific funding?
a. Earth First
b. Exxon-Mobil, Inc.
That's not really a fair comparison, now that I look at it. Let's substitute:
a. The Sierra Club
Maybe
a. Greenpeace?
I think the Sierra Club probably has more pull in US government, so let's make it a cage match between the Sierra Club and Exxon-Mobil with the only permitted weapon being bags of money.
Who wins?

I didnt call anyone a communist. I mearly pointed out that governments based on the premise that all folks will work for the common good with shared resources have not yet succeeded for practical reasons.

Spock, you're attributing a point of view to your opponents that they don't hold. Your argumentation depends on setting your opponents up as straw-men who support central ministries of planning and will charge people for the use of clean air. If you are as educated as you claim, you should understand the general framework of the Tragedy of the Commons and you'd then be able to argue at a level above the simplistic, obstructionist tack that you seem to prefer to take.

Last time I checked we have droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, etc, regardless of climate change.

This kind of intentionally dishonest obfuscation about the problem is exactly the kind of bullshit that is a waste of everyone's time. You have no effing clue what you are talking about... at least in the context of the current conversation (wait.. you might, but then you are just an pinhead for intentionally making that pathetic argument).

because if they want to keep their funding, they have to please the funders.

Jeebus H. Please go look up the definitions of science, research, and the scientific method. Because anythign that you are implying is, in most cases not real science. Quit trying to lump psuedo, agenda-based "research" that has a pre-determined result as actual "science"

The only reason that a real scientist has to please their funders is if they are getting funding from private industry or NGO (and yes occasionally a political arm of government) that has its own agenda in funding a study.

My wife, an actual climate related research scientists gets funding based on sound and interesting proposals and stringent review process. The "results" are not intended to please NASA, the NSF, or NAS. They are intended to learn, discover, and expand our existing knowledge base.. and in some cases to get people like you to stfu.

kenga -

True - my scooter and solar panels are fart in the breeze. But I have made some effort.

As for your example of crapping in the well - I agree completely with you...which is why I oppose the Kyoto Accords. If China and India don't have to change their emmissions, then "the e.coli will still get in my well" to use your metaphor.

JJ -

I have conceded that the government does some things well. That doesn't make me or anyone a communist/totalitarian. What I don't want is a few people making decisions for my life that would cripple my ability to provide for my family. I have said repeatedly here that I am willing to sacrifice for the common good, if we are all sacrificing for it, AND if we understand why we are doing it. Then it is still a "level playing field". Is that so much to ask for? I think you would agree that it is not. And I agree that we are not going to make any progress on this issue with an oil man in the presidency.

As far as Libertarianism not providing very enlightened answers regarding this issue - well.....you are right. The answer from their perspective is mostly "future technology" will make this problem better - which I admit is difficult to swallow in the now. Particularly when you want a solution now, not in a nebulous future. Setting up a "Pollution/Greenhouse Gases" Market does make some sense to me however - giving monetary advantages to those who don't pollute and making polluters costs go up so they are incentivized to do better. I am not saying this is the whole solution, because it is clearly not. But even you would have to admit it would be a welcome step in the right direction.

Cyntax -

I think you are right about my arguments...though many have set me up as a straw-man as well, so I used the same tactics.

As for the Tragedy of the Commons - I am familiar with it from game theory. An interesting way to solve the problem, using the theories around the Tragedy of the Commons would simply to pay industries *not* to pollute. And pay industries that make cars to only make cars that don't pollute - and prevent future industries from entering this market (gasp! I suggested a restriction on the market). This would solve the problem over a period of years as old vehicles wore out and had to be replaced by the newer biosphere friendly cars.

Thoughts?

simp -

It is difficult to sift out "psuedo-science" (which I agree with your definition) from science anymore because EVERYONE gets funding from some source. Thus, it is hard to know if the scientist is showing you all the data...or just the data that will please his/her source of funding. I find this very frustrating as someone who's work depends on science in a very real way.

And being rude gets you nowhere, buddy.

It is difficult to sift out "psuedo-science" (which I agree with your definition) from science anymore because EVERYONE gets funding from some source.

It is easy. The hard part is getting the MSM to report it correctly and to disclose funding sources for every study cited. Even the front groups are easy to figure out with 5 minutes of searching. People are lazy and just love to latch on to "well this research says..."

Thus, it is hard to know if the scientist is showing you all the data...or just the data that will please his/her source of funding.

Peer review usually shakes this out. Reputations are everything in Academia. Withheld data is sniffed out pretty quickly in most cases. Again assuming we are talking about real science and the scientific method.

And being rude gets you nowhere, buddy.

Hmmmm, you. may. be. right:

Heil Simp!

and

Eco-Fascists do say "screw the economics - do what needs to be done"
(Which, btw, implied, but I didn't think I had to spell out that the economics are more quickly adaptable than the enviornmental changes. Economies will, by their nature adjust quickly to new markets created. Most of the doomed economic projections don't even attempt to account for the enormous economic potential of the new markets that will be created).

sorry hit post to soon..

Why have I been rude (other than the fact that you pulled at the lame Nazi reference)? Because I'm sick and tired of this same conversation that should have been settled 7 to 10 years ago. I have no more patience for this dumb as rocks debate. And I suspect that instead of making progress we'll be doing this over and over for the next 5 years...or until it really begins to affect countries and individuals economically to instigate some progressive action.

Spock,

I think those are some very reasonable suggestions that you've put forth, and if I've mischaracterized your positions upthread, I do apologize for that. I'm certainly not one to advocate belief in a benign and all knowing government agency that guides us from craddle to grave, nor would I want to live in such a world.

I think the government could enact the kind of changes you're talking about. In particular I think the mileage standards for cars need to be raised aggressively. Of course the automakers will complain (most likely the UAW will too) but sometimes industries are too focused on their short term gains even for their own good to say nothing of the common (less profit driven) good. After all didn't Detroit predict doom and gloom for their industry if seatbelt laws were enacted? Ann at this point I just find it emabrassing that our mileage standards are below China's; raising mileage standards would make US automakers more competetive not less.

Another way in which I think the government could be useful is by providing real tax incentives for companies to develop electric cars. Now obviously the electricity has to come from somewhere and that often means fossil fuels, but by moving away from internal combustion engines (at least for cars and trucks), we can pave the way for alternative energy sources that, while not viable for car engines, could be effective when used in large scale power plants.

One other opportunity that occurs to me is rail transportation. In terms of the supply chains that feed our economy, it seems that we have an over-dependence on trucks for moving our goods. I know that the company I work has realized some serious cost savings by moving away from trucks and into rail whenever possible. So could the government provide financial incentives for for speeding this process and making the trains cleaner?

I guess my view of the government in regards to cleaning up greenhouse gases is that it can often provide the impetus to get things rolling and general guidelines to encourage and reward responsible behaviour both at at corporate and personal level. I don't think the government can mandate a panacea for the problem.

Your thoughts?

Cyntax -

Excellent points. Since transportation is such a large chunk of the greenhouse gas issues (and air pollution in general) I would *love* to see it use a combination of incentives and penalties to get that industry off the oil tit. For such to be really useful, all countries who produce vehicles would have to do the same. Yes, the US could *lead the pack* but it would still be pissing in the wind if we don't back it up by cooperation from other transportation industries globally. Since the US cannot prevent other countries from entering the market of auto/truck manufacturing we would have to tariff the hell out of such vehicles as to make them unmarketable in this country. I vastly prefer economic incentives/disincentives vs laws preventing ownership. That way people still are allowed some choice in the matter, even if the choice is somewhat painful.

The Tragedy of the Commons does relate well to our biosphere in a very real way. Some theorists of the TofC would propose very autocratic ways of dealing with this issue which I cannot see as being realistic in this world - that is...unless such folk want GW Bush to try and conquer a few dozen more countries. As a conservative/Friedman-esque believer in market forces, I think using a combination of government/taxes and incentives much more palatable that simply dictating bans.

Simp -

I posted in haste and frustration. I apologize for the Heil Simp remark. It was uncalled for.

As for Eco-Fascism - if you read my posts above to Cyntax, I think we can use the government and market forces in tandem to help change this rather than simply create laws that force changes by dictate. Incentivize changes....as my father always said..."I may not be able to force you to clean your room, but I can make you *want to*." This can be done using a carrot/stick set of laws regarding pollution/greenhouse gases etc. Yes, there will be a few willing to subject themselves to "the stick". But they will be few enough as to be a non-issue to the biosphere.

Spock,

I'm glad we were able to engage in a substantive exchange of ideas; that's what I think this site is best used for and why I keep coming back.

You're right that we ultimately have to get buy in from other countries to make this work, but as you said we can lead the pack. And as the only superpower left, I think it's our responsibility to try and do so. Also, some of our good ole USofA know-how could really give our economy and our companies a leg up on this situation. No reason not to make some money at the same time that we're cleaning things up. Not to mention that if we've pioneered some the technologies and methodologies that should make it easier to pull other countries along (primarily China and India).

Anyway, good exchange and I look forward to discussing (and arguing) other ideas in the future with you.

I think folks are missing a few key points:

1. It was impossible to get anything done in the Senate EPW during James "climate change is the greatest hoax perpetrated on mankind" Inhoffe's rein. Barbara Boxer is a much friendlier chairperson to the environmental community.

2. Government scientists have been stifled repeatedly. See James Hansen from NASA and Jim Titus from EPA.

3. The petition was not signed by any EPA employees, but union leaders that represent env scientists, economists, and other specialists. There are approx. 10,000 staff in those classifications, most are not even members of the union.

w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 w6 w7 w8 w9 w10 w11 w12 w13 w14 w15 w16 w17 w18 w19 w20 w21 w22 w23 w24 w25 w26 w27 w28 w29 w30 w31 w32 w33 w34 w35 w36 w37 w38 w39 w40 w41 w42 w43 w44 w45 w46 w47 w48 w49 w50 w51 w52 w53 w54 w55 w56 w57 w58 w59 w60 w61 w62 w63 w64 w65 w66 w67 w68 w69 w70 w71 w72 w73 w74 w75 w76 w77 w78 w79 w80 w81 w82 w83 w84 w85 w86 w87 w88 w89 w90 w91 w92 w93 w94 w95 w96 w97 w98 w99 w100 w101 w102 w103 w104 w105 w106 w107 w108 w109 w110 w111 w112 w113 w114 w115 w116 w117 w118 w119 w120 w121 w122 w123 w124 w125 w126 w127 w128 w129 w130 w131 w132 w133 w134 w135 w136 w137 w138 w139 w140 w141 w142 w143 w144 w145 w146 w147 w148 w149 w150 w151 w152 w153 w154 w155 w156 w157 w158 w159 w160 w161 w162 w163 w164