Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Physicist-retired's column >>

PHYSICIST-RETIRED

Articles Posted: 58  Links Seeded: 310
Member Since: 9/2008  Last Seen: 5/20/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

An Open Letter to the Heartland Institute

Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:44 PM EST
science, climate-change, global-warming, fossil-fuels, heartland-institute
By Physicist-retired
Advertise | AdChoices

Those who follow events in the climate change arena are by now quite familiar with the leak of internal Heartland Institute documents this week, and the ensuing firestorm.

This post will not revisit the contents of the leaked documents.  Links to them can be found in many, many places on the Internet, including here.

This post, instead, focuses on the urgent need for Conservatives to end the tactics of distortion, diversion, and defamation, and to begin to work with the science community and policy-makers to solve the biggest challenge we face - human-caused climate change.

I start with an open letter to the Heartland Institute, written and sent today by some of the world's most respected climate scientists.

                                                  An Open Letter to the Heartland Institute

"As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week.

However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.

We know what it feels like to have private information stolen and posted online via illegal hacking. It happened to climate researchers in 2009 and again in 2011. Personal emails were culled through and taken out of context before they were posted online. In 2009, the Heartland Institute was among the groups that spread false allegations about what these stolen emails said.

Despite multiple independent investigations, which demonstrated that allegations against scientists were false, the Heartland Institute continued to attack scientists based on the stolen emails. When more stolen emails were posted online in 2011, the Heartland Institute again pointed to their release and spread false claims about scientists.

So although we can agree that stealing documents and posting them online is not an acceptable practice, we would be remiss if we did not point out that the Heartland Institute has had no qualms about utilizing and distorting emails stolen from scientists.

We hope the Heartland Institute will heed its own advice to “think about what has happened” and recognize how its attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy. The Heartland Institute has chosen to undermine public understanding of basic scientific facts and personally attack climate researchers rather than engage in a civil debate about climate change policy options.

These are the facts: Climate change is occurring. Human activity is the primary cause of recent climate change. Climate change is already disrupting many human and natural systems. The more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions that go into the atmosphere, the more severe those disruptions will become. Major scientific assessments from the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, United States Global Change Research Program and other authoritative sources agree on these points.

What businesses, policymakers, advocacy groups and citizens choose to do in response to those facts should be informed by the science. But those decisions are also necessarily informed by economic, ethical, ideological, and other considerations. While the Heartland Institute is entitled to its views on policy, we object to its practice of spreading misinformation about climate research and personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals.

We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate. Refraining from misleading attacks on climate science and climate researchers would be a welcome first step toward having an honest, fact-based debate about the policy responses to climate change."

The letter is signed by the following:

  • Ray Bradley, PhD, Director of the Climate System Research Center, University of Massachusetts
  • David Karoly, PhD, ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia
  • Michael Mann, PhD, Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
  • Jonathan Overpeck, PhD, Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona
  • Ben Santer, PhD, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
  • Gavin Schmidt, PhD, Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
  • Kevin Trenberth, ScD, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Less than two months ago, Conservative columnist Peter Wehner wrote about the need for Conservatives to step up to the plate, admit that human-caused climate change was real, and add their voices to the development of real solutions - before it's too late. 

His articles on the topic, “Conservatives and Climate Change, Part I and Part II”, were published in the neo-conservative magazine Commentary.

Mr. Wehner has impeccable Conservative credentials, having served under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and most recently as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush. 

And Mr. Wehner wrote this:

“The world is getting warmer. The warming is almost certainly caused, at least in large part, by human activity. And rising temperatures could pose a future risk, though how significant of a risk is open to interpretation. . . This is not a liberal invention; it’s physics.

Conservatives should be part of that conversation. There’s an intellectually credible case to be made that it’s unwise to embrace massive, harmful changes to our economy in the face of significant uncertainties . . . [yet] to acknowledge global warming does not necessarily lead one to embrace Al Gore’s environmental agenda.

But rather than offer constructive ideas on how to deal with global warming, some conservatives simply deny global warming has occurred. Their concern is that admitting global warming is real opens the door to government restriction on liberty, so it’s simply better to keep the door bolted shut. . .

[Yet] the problem for those who deny global warming is empirical: Earth’s temperatures have increased and human activity has contributed to it. To deny this is to deny reality, to subordinate truth to ideology. And in the long run that can only damage conservatism.”

Mr. Wehner is not alone.  As I posted last July, a number of presentations at the Heartland Institutes's own annual convention last year faced the reality of human-caused climate change.

With calls from both the scientific community and a (growing) number of Conservatives, to put aside tactics meant to divert attention or undermine science, and to begin working to actually solve this problem, perhaps there's hope.

The ball is in Heartland's court.  Many of us will be watching.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Physicist-retired's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Climate Change - Human Caused, Climate Dynamics, Newsvine Science, Politics in USA, Save Environment Save Wildlife, Science And Technology, Skeptic Vine, World News 1
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (88)
Physicist-retired

It's time to end the vitriol and subterfuge, and work together to solve this now.

  • 27 votes
#1 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:47 PM EST
cjcold

I don't see Heritage coming around anytime soon. Wasn't their singular reason for existing in the first place to be the tip of the denier spear?

  • 11 votes
#1.1 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:37 PM EST
Zoolopolis

1% should know they'll be first to go when climate sh!t hits fan.

From Easter Island to French Revolution, first to go when environment collapses is aristocracy. People like someone to blame, and it's usually the ones in charge.

Don't see to many Mayan nobles around.

  • 11 votes
#1.2 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:59 PM EST
Castor Bridge

Never forget that CAGW is all about money and politics, not science. If they could prove that CO2 controls the climate by using science, they would. They can't so they don't. By the way, computer model simulations are not proof.

  • 1 vote
#1.3 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:50 PM EST
Physicist-retired

money and politics, not science

Link.

  • 7 votes
#1.4 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:52 PM EST
Castor Bridge

RP, thanks for proving my point. By the way, the Desmog blog is in Canada and the slander and liable laws are very different there. I'd say they will wind up making a sizable contribution to HI before the dust settles in the up coming law suits concerning the fake document. I hope that you aren't in Canada.

  • 1 vote
#1.5 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:56 PM EST
Jesse-Az

Physicist-retired,

You are being disingenuous by linking to an article whose focus is on the "Climate Memo" which has shown to be more than likely be fake. It is the document that Gleick even admits he did not receive from the Heartland Institute. Many pointed to Gleick as the true author of the memo before he came forward, noticing the similarity in writing to his Forbes articles and the memo using the term "anti-climate" which the HI institute would never refer to itself as.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/

So why are you prattling on about a memo whose strategy is most likely fake? Isn't that a little disingenuous if you want a real discussion?

  • 2 votes
#1.6 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:29 PM EST
Physicist-retired

The Increased Climate Project Fundraising material is reproduced in and confirmed by Heartland's own budget.

The "Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms" is also a Heartland budget item and has been confirmed independently by the author, Dr. David Wojick.

The Funding for Parallel Organizations; Funding for Selected Individuals Outside Heartland are both reproduced and confirmed in the Heartland budget.

And Anthony Watts has confirmed independently the payments in Expanded Climate Communications.

So while the actual source of the Strategy document is not yet known, it's contents are well-corroborated in documents that Heartland publicly admits are genuine.

I call for Heartland to end it's campaign of disinformation, and join other conservatives (like Peter Wehner ) in helping to craft real solutions to this problem. That's what my article is about, Jesse.

  • 9 votes
#1.7 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:57 PM EST
renee219-2390107

I call for Heartland to end it's campaign of disinformation, and join other conservatives (like Peter Wehner) in helping to craft real solutions to this problem. That's what my article is about, Jesse.

That is exactly what I came away with and it is exactly what I come away with from most of your articles. This topic must cease to be a political talking point and brought into the forefront as the most important issue of our time. We need to get past the argument of whether or not climate change exists and start addressing the problem of how to slow and hopefully stop mans contribution to it!

  • 6 votes
#1.8 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:32 PM EST
CuriousG

Jesse-Az,

I'm going to suggest you do a little more research into who you're accusing of being disingenuous before jumping into that territory.

  • 6 votes
#1.9 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:04 PM EST
Colorado Bob

The poorest research one will ever see is a Koch Head swimming in the pea soup of right wing thinking. This is why they hate people who actually worked for a degree.
In any field. They can't cut and paste, and when they can, advanced research always ends with Wikipedia.

  • 5 votes
#1.10 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:22 PM EST
Jesse-Az

Physicist-retired, nothing from that memo amounts to brainwashing children into believing in anti-climate. From the memo in your link, the modules being developed are from a PhD who has extensively studied climate. That memo states that they only wish to teach the actual science of AGW studies outside of the politics. The only questionable item in there you may have is the modules grades 7-9 in which it merely states "teach the controversy if humans are impacting climate." It even states prior to that mention that he wants to teach how the science is difficult to determine, more than likely by demonstrating what actually goes into Climate research. What about that memo in your 2nd link in response to me is so scary? You are misrepresenting what Dr. Wojick is proposing because you have not seen his actual materials. YOU ARE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MEMO. You believe they will be teaching anti-climate, but nowhere in that memo is it stated they will teach against AGW, merely the science behind it along with the uncertainties with the science, which if you are truly a physicist you will know is a damn good thing.

And CuriosG, please don't respond to me unless you have an actual retort. If you attack me again, I will report you. What research did I miss? I've seen all these memos. I work in advanced technology, I understand for the most part the science behind AGW. I believe the environment is warming. I do not support LYING TO PROVE A POINT which was done in this instance against the Heartland Institute. AGW proponents are simply lying about what information has been found in the HI documents.

And Colorado Bob, why do you even mention Koch? It's one of the ways they know the Climate Memo is utter crap. The only Koch donation in the records in the leak involved Health not AGW. Yet the memo made a mistake on that account.

    #1.11 - Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:59 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    Physicist-retired, nothing from that memo amounts to brainwashing children into believing in anti-climate.

    Let's look at what the Heartland fundraising document actually says:

    “Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective”

    "Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change:

    • “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy“,
    • climate models (“models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”),
    • and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”).

    Wojick would produce modules for Grades 7-9 on environmental impact:

    • “environmental impact is often difficult to determine. For example there is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather“

    Every single one of those statements is wrong and/or highly misleading. The science of human-caused climate change is not controversial. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of settled fact.

    the modules being developed are from a PhD who has extensively studied climate

    In a word, no. Wojick is not a climate scientist. His doctorate is in epistomology - the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.

    He has not studied any of the sciences that pertain to climate change (unless one considers Philosophy to be relevant), and he has never published anything about climate in a peer-reviewed journal. He describes himself as a freelance journalist. And he has received a great deal of funding over the years from the fossil fuel industry.

    Ask yourself this, Jesse. Should people who work for tobacco-advocacy groups write health education materials for our schoolchildren? How about psychology researchers from McDonald's, Inc.? Materials for your own child's school.

    That's pretty close to what's happening here - except that the ramifications are far, far worse.

    • 3 votes
    #1.12 - Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:37 PM EST
    Lebowsky

    Great article and discussion PR, I hope that letter has an impact on Heartland but I won't hold my breath. I'm sure the greater significance is that the letter is public and available for John Q to see that there certainly is room for discussion and acknowledgement of the facts.

    I really like the way you turn the lights on a subject, thanks :o)

    • 6 votes
    #1.13 - Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:37 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    Thanks, Lebowski.

    I hope that letter has an impact on Heartland

    Something has had an impact - Heartland is really bringing out the big guns now.

    And as I've said several times. the headline is being buried here. The media is entirely focused on Gleick's method of obtaining the documents. It's all very different from Daniel Elsberg, when the media understood the important point immediately - and kept the real guilty party's toes in the fire.

    What we're getting out of this is tabloid junk. Gleick is not the important story here.

    • 6 votes
    #1.14 - Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:56 AM EST
    ombra

    What we're getting out of this is tabloid junk.

    Unfortunately that's the result of a corporate controlled media. News isn't the objective, ratings are, and not upsetting the apple cart is important to job security.

    • 5 votes
    #1.15 - Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 AM EST
    Lebowsky

    Agreed PR, unfortunately the media's concern is their bottom line and they cater to their idea of what sells, and as you call it, tabloid junk.

    That is a very interesting big gun, they sure are motivated.

    • 7 votes
    #1.16 - Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:33 AM EST
    Reply
    Pacific Northwest Blogger

    There are U.S. agencies planning, preparing and making changes to how they conduct business to offset the effects of Climate Change -- it's that real... it's here. Responsible agencies and departments including but not limited to the department of defense are doing their part to lesson the impact and even adapt to those changes.

    Below are just a few references showing how responsible cities, government and their agencies are tackling the problems of climate change.

    • Preparing a People: Climate Change and Public Health
    • Opportunities for Engagement with the National Climate Assessment
    • U.S. cities prepare to adapt to climate change
    • Guidebook Will Help Communities Prepare for Climate Change Impacts
    • U.S. Government Study Finds Climate Change Impacting Water Availability, Agriculture,...
    • Study: Navy, CG must prepare for climate change
    • Environmental Impact of Your Energy Use
    • U.S. Government repository for Climate Change Initiatives
    • National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (draft)
    • Report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate CLIMATE CHANGE - Financial Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in Coming Decades Are Potentially Significant (PDF)
    • Navy Releases Roadmap for Global Climate Change
    • Climate and Land Use Change

    Climate Change is real. Responsible people are working towards solutions. The Heartland Institute does have an opportunity to use their experience and marketing leverage to help drive solutions.

    • 18 votes
    Reply#2 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:54 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    The Heartland Institute does have an opportunity to use their experience and marketing leverage to help drive solutions.

    I believe they have a critical role to play here, too, PNB. In fact, I sometimes doubt that meaningful progress can even be done without them.

    Any attempts to address this issue will require considerable support across the political/industrial spectrum. While we are making progress in some areas, as you point out above, a comprehensive approach is needed here.

    The first step is to agree on the basic tenets of the science. What we are willing/able to do regarding policy must be built on that agreement.

    Thanks for that excellent list above. I'll be working my way through it.

    • 17 votes
    #2.1 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:27 PM EST
    Pacific Northwest Blogger

    Just found this additional link EPA partners with Army on 'Net Zero' effort

    I like their stated approaches and how they intend to integrate their work into communities and culture. They get it: cultural change...

    • 10 votes
    #2.2 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:21 PM EST
    ryoushi12

    I saw you hade ONE military related link, but shouldn't there be more of those. The military, probably because of the war in Iraq and more importantly in Afghanistan, have learned the lesson, HARD, that being dependent upon oil and fossil fuels in general is a potential fatal flaw that could bring the military to its knees. They have therefore being putting serious money into finding reliable eneergy resources OUTSIDE the fossil fuel regime. And, the pentagon has done a number of reports on what the impact of global warming (and cooling) would be on US security, and how able the military would be at meeting those threats. And, the "threats" largely include drought, famine, expansion of disease, energy shortages, loss of trade, losss of water, over population and so on.

    Republican politicians may be going NANANANANANA about global warming,but the military takes it seriously apparently.

    • 9 votes
    #2.3 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:29 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    I saw you hade ONE military related link, but shouldn't there be more of those

    Correct. The Pentagon has been working on it for almost a decade now, ryoushi. For example:

    Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us (2003)

    • Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
    • Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

    And this:

    Pentagon to rank global warming as destabilising force (2010)

    You can read their latest unclassified version here.

    • 12 votes
    #2.4 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:07 AM EST
    FlNutmegger

    The military, probably because of the war in Iraq and more importantly in Afghanistan, have learned the lesson, HARD, that being dependent upon oil and fossil fuels in general is a potential fatal flaw that could bring the military to its knees.

    More importantly than modern lessons learned they should have remembered one of the most valuable lessons from our WWII victory and that was denying the Axis powers fuel to a point where they were grinding to a halt. Those who choose not to remember history are doomed to repeat it.

    • 7 votes
    #2.5 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:08 PM EST
    Reply
    MalamuteMan

    A fantastic article PR!!!

    It is very very difficult to read this without feeling overwhelmed by skepticism about the prospect that conservatives will come to their senses... but I'm trying!

    These are the words that stood out for me...

    This is not a liberal invention; it’s physics.

    WOW!!! What a breath of fresh air coming from a conservative!

    and this...

    To deny this is to deny reality, to subordinate truth to ideology. And in the long run that can only damage conservatism.

    What an amazingly succinct summary of the problem. It threatens to damage much more than just conservatism. Subordination of truth to ideology... it is everywhere... Thinking about what that can do and already has done is a scary and depressing thought.

    I can't stop saying it... those few words are so potent and so compelling... That is exactly what I have been trying to say in my own much more long-winded, less clear and less compelling way.

    "Stop subordinating truth to ideology!" As much as I hate billboards, I would love to see that emblazoned in giant letters on thousands of billboards everywhere.

    • 13 votes
    Reply#3 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:09 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    Thanks, Mal.

    And you point out the most powerful words in the piece. I'd add this:

    Conservatives should be part of that conversation.

    I agree. We should all be part of that conversation, because the ramifications will impact every single one of us - for many generations to come.

    On a side note - after our last email exchange, did you happen to come across my NYT article? Just wondering.

    • 11 votes
    #3.1 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:35 PM EST
    MalamuteMan

    ...did you happen to come across my NYT article?

    Well PR... I have to confess, I have done my damnedest to figure out who you are... [Mal hangs his head in shame...] I am pretty sure anonymity is important to you, and I REALLY want to respect that, but you are such an amazing person I just couldn't help myself. That said, I haven't had much luck... I have come across a few things, including an NYT article that had a few interesting puzzle pieces in it... but none of the pieces fit together very well... [Mal looks at the cover of the puzzle box... looks back at the pieces scattered on the table... scratches his head...]

    I would love to see that article... perhaps you will send me a link... :-)

    • 8 votes
    #3.2 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:08 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    I suspected that you'd be tempted to poke around a bit, Mal ;-)

    Lesson to self - never post 'anonymous' emails from your iPad...

    • 10 votes
    #3.3 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:12 PM EST
    MalamuteMan

    Mal doesn't want to migrate to an iPad... Mal uses an etch-a-sketch... ;-}

    • 10 votes
    #3.4 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:52 PM EST
    canary-in-the-coal-mine

    "always go to TOR. trust TOR. TOR never let you down." Turock Dinosaur slayer.

    • 1 vote
    #3.5 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:19 PM EST
    Reply
    caballojoe

    I don't know about others, but I have a great deal of difficulty believing that entrenched special interests like Koch Industries will approach this issue in good faith, notwithstanding that it is a potential world-wide catastophe in the making. Greed is evil, and trumps many things in life, even the prospect that one's children, grandchildren and further progeny will face a life of suffering to pay for the richness of David and Charles Koch. The ability to spend millions of dollars running interference against science and scientists that are working to make our future viable calls into question the very foundations of our society, the capitalist system and loose regulation that characterizes today's system of free enterprise.

    The efforts of Heartland Institute to poison the well of scientific knowledge far exceed the definitions of lobbying and public relations. What they are doing is a fraud on the world community that threatens literally billions of people; indeed the future habitability of the planet is at stake. It is time that the corporate sponsors of such enterprises be held accountable on a scale that is commensurate with the harm these miscreants threaten to do to human beings now and for generations to come. Clearly, the Kochs are amoral in their approach to business, and it is the almighty dollar that dictates their action, and the behavior of all corporate actors whose only commitment is to the bottom line. If governments of nations throughout the world do not act now, and stop catering to the wealthiest entities in the history of the world, the best interests of humanity will not be served. There must be severe penalties. The welfare of the human race is the issue. The future of the planet hangs in the balance.

    If we value free enterprise, economic mobility and equal opportunity, and we want to preserve the culture of capitalism, it is time that strict laws are enacted to prevent the kind of manipulation of information and scientific data practiced by Heartland Institute and its financial backers, with potent criminal laws and stiff penalties. Exacting fines or forfeitures for such activity just becomes one more potential line item on the cost accounting statements of corporations like Koch Industries.

    • 11 votes
    Reply#4 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:45 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    caballojeo,

    How would we go about taking on that kind of wealth and power? I'm asking seriously - because I honestly don't see the path.

    • 9 votes
    #4.1 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:54 PM EST
    caballojoe

    I don't know. My post was basically a visceral reaction. There are many impediments, including the First Amendment, not to mention the right to privacy and the Fourteenth Amendment, too, although I would argue that these rights never should have applied to corporations in the first place. It would take nothing short of a Constitutional overhaul, or at least overruling many Supreme Court precedents, like Santa Barbara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

    I was talking with my friend the other day saying that we have to re-evaluate the way society uses corporations as a way to pool capital for useful business enterprises. It used to be that corporate charters were much more tentative vehicles, and if there was a hint of wrong-doing, or even a notion that the corporation no longer served to benefit the community, the charter would be nullified. Today, corporations hold all the cards. They have even greater rights and freedoms than individuals.

    I suppose we would have to start there, but that would take a major political effort, with widespread grass roots involvement, and I recognize the odds would be heavily stacked against success. After all, we are still a primitive race of beings, as evidenced by the current nature of political debate, and a potential leader of the free world being opposed to contraceptives and equal rights for people of different sexual orientation.

    • 9 votes
    #4.2 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:34 PM EST
    MalamuteMan

    There are many impediments, including the First Amendment...

    I find it ironic that the very foundation of our republic, the First Amendment, enables lying with impunity, which in turn facilitates... "subordination of truth to ideology."

    • 6 votes
    #4.3 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:34 PM EST
    canary-in-the-coal-mine

    Konfronting the Koch suckers is quite easy - they are a corporation - do not buy their products. Remember a few working men (women) will also be hurt by this action...

    • 1 vote
    #4.4 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:21 PM EST
    rwalker-2504195

    PR, we can start with tax reform. Our current system makes it cheaper for people to farm out labor to different countries. That has to change. We have to rebuild the middle class. www.thetransactiontax.org ...thats a good start. I think there also needs to be measures that make it better for wealthy people and banks to keep their money moving instead of it being static.

    To take away corporate person-hood is next. They haven't been people for long...time for them to be businesses again, and I'm talking about as they were viewed over 150 years ago...

    Term limits in government. No more setting up shop in DC and holding your hand out....not good for anyone except the two people at the top. I almost think there should be a 4th branch of government. It should be an interface between government and the people, and it should also provide a check and balance to corruption in government...I'm no political science major, but work has to be done on our government. It isn't working the way it stands...or slumps as it were...

    I'm not a communist, but I think the difference in the super wealthy and the super poor in this country is waaaay too much. Maybe there needs to be more incentives for wealthy people to give their money away... :)

    • 4 votes
    #4.5 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 4:21 PM EST
    Reply
    Pacific Northwest Blogger

    I don't know about others, but I have a great deal of difficulty believing that entrenched special interests like Koch Industries will approach this issue in good faith, notwithstanding that it is a potential world-wide catastophe in the making. Greed is evil, and trumps many things in life

    I would alter that last phrase to make it a workable proposition.

    A problem with wealth is a self reenforcing system. The more you have, the more you can make and less you have to invest to make it. In a position of wealth a person's worldview is altered, they travel in different societal circles, engage with other businesses and people like themselves and what may be a problem to others isn't visible because of the economic/societal bubble surrounding them. We need to pierce that self reenforcing bubble but not attempt to break it. Like blowing soap bubbles, you can combine a smaller one with a larger.

    My view is how to make our bubble which contains our concerns attach to their larger bubble to make it one so we can all work with the same focus. It's easy to stand outside from another perspective and project our values... but that has little impact. We need to understand their focus, then extend it to meet ours or ours to meet theirs.

    Do we know for sure that's it's financial motivation on their part? Can that be put to the test, validated through repetition? How about we ask the Heartland Institute and others a simple question, what is your motivating goal? Then ask ourselves can we help them achieve it in ways that fit ours? I would hope to make partners and work towards solutions,

    • 8 votes
    Reply#5 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:10 PM EST
    MalamuteMan

    A problem with wealth is a self reenforcing system. The more you have, the more you can make and less you have to invest to make it. In a position of wealth a person's worldview is altered, they travel in different societal circles, engage with other businesses and people like themselves and what may be a problem to others isn't visible because of the economic/societal bubble surrounding them.

    An excellent point PNWB!!! Your bubble metaphor is very good, especially this piece...

    We need to pierce that self reenforcing bubble but not attempt to break it.

    That hit the nail on the head... Their addiction to the comforts offered by the bubble in which they live is so severe that they live in fear of having their bubbles popped. Almost any kind of change is perceived as a threat... The more they have, the more they fear they will not have enough.

    How about we ask the Heartland Institute and others a simple question, what is your motivating goal?

    Do you think you would get an honest answer???

    Then ask ourselves can we help them achieve it in ways that fit ours?

    I think that is what I have been describing as compromise. I am a proponent of leading by example... but based on what has been happening... Do you think there is likely to be an answer that would give us an opportunity to "help them" achieve their goals "in ways ways that also fit our goals"??? That's a roundabout way of saying, "Isn't one of their goals to ensure that we don't achieve any of our goals... whatever they may be?"

    • 5 votes
    #5.1 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:23 PM EST
    Pacific Northwest Blogger

    That's a roundabout way of saying, "Isn't one of their goals to ensure that we don't achieve any of our goals... whatever they may be?"

    I don't claim any insight of what their goals actually are, that's why I threw out a hypothetical question about their motivating goals. There's so much misdirection and so many think tanks playing ping pong with the details I can only conceptualize their goals. I would like a straight answer.

    I see the same problem with think tanks that I hear time and time again directed at government, in their being a lack of transparency. The think tanks from what I can view play a lot of shell games, moving ownership and funneled research sales pitches between organizations. Who do they really speak for? Where's our ability to gauge motivations, their actual income sources, who specifically buys their output, their actual goals when they work in such an foggy environment?

    The think tanks have a lot of perceived influence over our policy makers. I say that as I read something from one, then see the wording, terms and pitch coming from politician's within hours of a think tank release. Do the think tanks work for the politician's, are they consultants to them? If so where's the paper trial and receipt showing the use of tax payer money buying their services? If they are writing the words for many of our politicians, then don't we all have a right to know all the details about these think tanks?

    They are in a very real way effecting our nation's policy and legislation and all the details about relationships, funding and even their goals must be part of the public record.

    We have a congressman in Issa who is investigating every congressional interaction between anyone looking for misdeeds. Why isn't Rep Issa investigating the think tanks, they relationship to members of government, their funding sources, their internal email system correspondence and putting their executives in front of congress under oath to answer these and many more legitimate questions?

    • 7 votes
    #5.2 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:56 PM EST
    CuriousG

    Why isn't Rep Issa investigating the think tanks, they relationship to members of government, their funding sources, their internal email system correspondence and putting their executives in front of congress under oath to answer these and many more legitimate questions?

    Because he's not really looking for justice, he's looking for anything to make the Democrats look bad.

    • 10 votes
    #5.3 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:19 PM EST
    MalamuteMan

    PNWB,

    I don't claim any insight of what their goals actually are...

    I think it is best to keep an open mind and avoid preconceptions... But I see a great deal of inconsistency between their words and their actions. That makes it difficult to trust what they might say their goals are. Your suggestion is a noble idea... but at some point, taking action with the noblest of intent starts to feel like being played for a sucker.

    • 7 votes
    #5.4 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:31 PM EST
    Pacific Northwest Blogger

    I see a great deal of inconsistency between their words and their actions. That makes it difficult to trust what they might say their goals are.

    You kind of answered that

    That hit the nail on the head... Their addiction to the comforts offered by the bubble in which they live is so severe that they live in fear of having their bubbles popped. Almost any kind of change is perceived as a threat...

    If we can provide them an opening instead of backing them into a corner perhaps they can use the opportunity to come out into the light and rework what they've been "against" to become "what they could do".

    We've seen this from a few anti climate change folks who after having access to all the data changed their views and now see how human's are indeed impacting our climate. Couldn't we do the same with think tanks? They have to be worried about their long term business and if siding with legitimate science helps them in the long run then perhaps they could become a strong advocate instead of critic?

    Do I think my response is realistic? That would be up to these think tanks and their response.

    • 5 votes
    #5.5 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:38 PM EST
    MalamuteMan

    Points well made PNWB!

    They have to be worried about their long term business...

    Sometimes I wonder about their "long term" concerns...

    • 3 votes
    #5.6 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:57 PM EST
    Pacific Northwest Blogger

    I know this all looks very naive on my part, trusting a think tank who has a record of support for things that do harm... but perhaps one of those inside might come across the idea that they could become the good guys and do something about it, if nothing else maybe we can provide a safe place in society for an insider whistleblower...

    • 4 votes
    #5.7 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:16 PM EST
    MalamuteMan

    ...perhaps one of those inside might come across the idea that they could become the good guys and do something about it...

    A very nice idea PNWB!!! Naive or not, I like it! Striving for pragmatism and optimism in spite of very difficult circumstances! Commendable!!! And I with you...

    • 4 votes
    #5.8 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:50 PM EST
    Pacific Northwest Blogger

    Well there is precedence for one aspect i.e. Wendell Potter is a recent example. From exec to being a public spokesperson making an honest living exposing what happens on the inside. More dramatic examples are out there of people changing their thinking.

    People can change, if we allow room for it.

    • 5 votes
    #5.9 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:56 PM EST
    Reply
    East Bound and Down

    Someone tell Al Gore to hangar his jet. Oh wait I forgot carbon offsets. He planted a tree in Uruguay to offset his fossil fuel consumption

    • 3 votes
    Reply#6 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:48 PM EST
    Jensen-576947

    Mix politics, religion and science, and you have a toxic brew, akin to alchemy. As a retired Chemist, I, too, am highly agitated at those in Politics or Religion, that constantly try to Hijack scientific data and transmutate it into oxymoronic garbage.

    • 12 votes
    Reply#7 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:48 PM EST
    Belfrey

    Top-rate article, P-r!

    • 9 votes
    Reply#8 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:06 PM EST
    CuriousG

    Couldn't agree more! The article and comments are all top notch, a welcome respite from the normal political ping pong here.

    • 7 votes
    #8.1 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:13 PM EST
    Reply
    Colorado Bob

    PR -
    Anthony Watts made the list , of people sucking at the Heartland's money teat.

    As Dr. Master's said, " No surprise there. "

    • 5 votes
    Reply#9 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:23 AM EST
    Physicist-retired

    CO Bob,

    This leak has all but destroyed his reputation. It will be hard for any but the most devoted deniers to assess credibility to anything Mr. Watts says from this point forward.

    I only wish that DenialGate was getting one tenth of the coverage that ClimateGate got - twice.

    BTW: this news is much, much bigger in Australia and New Zealand, where the HI has funded similar disinformation campaigns.

    • 8 votes
    #9.1 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:40 AM EST
    Reply
    Colorado Bob

    PR -
    The "Director of Science" at THI :

    Doing a little digging, it seems that Jay Lehr is a self proclaimed internationally renowned speaker, scientist and author who has published over 900 journal articles. 900! Seem incredible? Too incredible to be true – at best I could find 25 (16 as first author). Most of these are focused upon mainly on ground and waste water, and several of them appear to be in questionable journals (Texas Banking, Proceedings of the National Waste Processing Conference amongst other highlights). Unsurprisingly, none of them are related to climate change. He's also published a few books of little relevance (my favourite is "Fit, Firm & 50 A Fitness Guide for Men and Women over 40").

    Lehr proclaims to have "…on 36 occasions has testified in congress to explain the realities of environmental issues as it related to pending legislation". What you won't find on his webpage is that Lehr is actually a convicted felon in the US, imprisoned by the US government and fired from several positions / associations for defrauding the EPA! So exactly where is the evidence that Lehr is either an economist or environmental scientist, or that his opinion on climate change is worth a damn? Either way, i'm sure The Australian newspaper will have a field day given their complete lack of objectivity and balanced reporting (read here for more). I'll sign off this post with words from my colleague John Quiggin, who untill a few weeks ago was an active supporter of the Brisbane Institute:

    http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=2467

    • 6 votes
    Reply#10 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:05 PM EST
    Colorado Bob

    Message from Jay Lehr
    To: All Ground Water Professionals
    Everywhere
    From: Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D.
    Re: Summary of the activities that led to my imprisonment by the federal government and my firing
    by the National Water Well Association.

    In 1988, the U.S. EPA began an investigation of a $170,000 add-on contract to NWWA's initial U.S. EPA
    contract to develop the Drastic mapping system to delineate ground water vulnerability...

    http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/12/23/11302/549/143#c143

    • 6 votes
    #10.1 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:08 PM EST
    Reply
    Pacific Northwest Blogger

    Heartland Institute Threatens To Sue Anyone Who Comments On Leaked Documents

    "Bloggers around the world have been commenting on recently leaked Heartland Institute documents that reveal their internal strategies to discredit climate science. These posters are now under threat of legal action.

    • 7 votes
    Reply#11 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:29 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    Whistleblower John Mashey Files Complaint to IRS Regarding Heartland Institute’s Non-Profit Status

    “I believe there was a massive abuse of 501c(3),” Mashey told the UK’s Guardian in a phone interview.

    “My extensive study of these think anks showed numerous specific actions that violated the rules – such as that their work is supposed to be factually based.

    Such as there was a whole lot of behaviour that sure looked like lobbying and sending money to foreign organisations that are not charities.”

    • 10 votes
    #11.1 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:40 PM EST
    Pacific Northwest Blogger

    Please delete if you find the following off topic

    Breaking rules, Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank Files as a 501 (C)(3) Organizatons but creates another Group to Spend Large sums of Money Lobbying, while Giving Current seated Senator Mitch McConnell a Salary and Retirement Fund

    This article has details showing links between this specific think tank's efforts and proposed legislation. Would like to see the same depth of detail for the Heartland Institute.

    In this era of calls for transparency and accountability, shouldn't those calls also be directed outside government to organizations that effect government policy, elections and drive legislative outcomes?

    • 10 votes
    #11.2 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:42 PM EST
    Pacific Northwest Blogger

    EXPOSED: The 19 Public Corporations Funding The Climate Denier Think Tank Heartland Institute Alt src

    Perhaps activists would consider a petition, letter writing campaign or occupy event to these companies to remove their corporate sponsorship?

    • 9 votes
    #11.3 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:42 PM EST
    CrowMeris

    PNB, thanks for the links. I skimmed the no-longer-confidential fundraising document this evening - I may have trouble sleeping tonight.

    • 3 votes
    #11.4 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:02 AM EST
    Reply
    Colorado Bob

    OT -
    Last week, NOVA did a repeat show on the "Blue Holes" in Bahamas . In the last quarter of the program, they gathered a set of stalagmites going back 80,000 years. 5 changes in the record. Three, show a thick layer of dust from Africa being transported to the islands just before the change.

    Examination of the stalagmite shows evidence of more than five major climate changes over the last 80,000 years. This corroborates findings in samples taken from ice cores.

    But then he notices two curious details: first, the way the bands formed suggests that at least one of these climate episodes came on very abruptly.

    At the end of the last Ice Age, about 11,000 years ago, conditions changed radically, from dry to wet, within 50 years. This change was probably accompanied by a rise in temperature and sea level.

    And Swart notices something else: some of these climate events are preceded by a mysterious dark band. When he samples the dark bands, he finds iron.

    So is there some link between iron and climate change? How could that be? The Bahamas are made of coral; there's no iron anywhere.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/extreme-cave-diving.html

    • 6 votes
    Reply#12 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:36 PM EST
    Colorado Bob

    NARRATOR: It's estimated that over the past five decades, the Sahara has seen a ten-fold increase in large-scale dust storms. If we are witnessing the beginning of a major climate change, it could happen fast, just as it happened in the past, maybe in as little as a lifetime.

    • 8 votes
    #12.1 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:38 PM EST
    cjcold

    I have to assume that the iron would be either volcanic or meteoric in nature. Both of which, given sufficient energy, are capable of initiating climate change. Just goes to show you that it doesn't take a whole lot of input to radically alter the planet in a relatively short amount of time.

    • 7 votes
    #12.2 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:31 PM EST
    Reply
    Pat P11111

    We need to start running adds that coincide with extreme temperatures in the US. We should target conservative states where climate deniers are a significant portion of the population.

    All they need is to show people denying climate change followed by local temperatures and end with the question, "Is it hot enough to change your mind yet?"

    We could start in Texas this summer.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#13 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:52 PM EST
    MalamuteMan

    An interesting Idea Pat!!! I'd love to see someone do it. But I am afraid there as some of these folks who would still be denying there was any change (or at least making the claim that it had no human cause) even after those signs were laying in a heap of ashes.

    • 3 votes
    #13.1 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:02 PM EST
    Pat P11111

    The majority of those deniers have been told repeatedly that human climate change is a lie. We need to link the heat they feel with the facts of the matter.

    We cannot win these people over with simple reason we must use emotion, feelings.

    Certainly some will never recover from the brainwashing but some will. If we keep relying on facts alone none will.

    I know this methodology runs counter to the science driven climate change community but we must face these facts. When reason doesn't change minds what will?

    We must appeal to the emotion. Reattach these people to reality by linking the heat they are experiencing with climate change even with out an absolutely clear link.

    Leadership does not rely on reason but emotion. When Martin Luther King said, "I have a Dream" we all knew it was unattainable but how many followed that dream? How many still hear and follow that dream today? He was not appealing to our reason but our emotion.

    • 4 votes
    #13.2 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:20 PM EST
    MalamuteMan

    We must appeal to the emotion. Reattach these people to reality by linking the heat they are experiencing with climate change even with out an absolutely clear link.

    Like I said, a very interesting idea. The power of PR (in this case I am referring to public relations rather than my very powerful friend Physicist-retired) is being used for virtually every sort of message... perhaps it is time for it to be used to "reattach these people to reality."

    • 4 votes
    #13.3 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:07 PM EST
    CrowMeris

    Pat, we don't have to wait until the upcoming Texas summer. We can do it now, right here where I live in the Southern Tier of New York State. Temperatures in the upper 40s, snowfall more than forty inches behind what we should have by this time of the year - entering spring-time in a drought, with the very high possibility this will be our worst year for forest fires in decades and decades.

    An emotional appeal? Let's go for it.

    • 3 votes
    #13.4 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:12 AM EST
    Pat P11111

    CrowMeris,

    Temperatures in the upper 40s, snowfall more than forty inches behind what we should have by this time of the year - entering spring-time in a drought, with the very high possibility this will be our worst year for forest fires in decades and decades

    I think you may be over rating the cognitive abilities of the target audience. Winter is counter-intuitive as a time to suggest global warming. You may have some success though so feel free to proceed.

    I like the idea of running the adds on record setting hot days. The message should be clear and unequivocal, like a sledge hammer between the eyes. We need to teach at a level below logic, like a child learning to not touch a hot stove. Hot Days=Global warming.

    If we can link the direct physical feeling of scorching heat by the target audience to climate change we are done. Always remember we are not working with geniuses, quite the opposite. So the simpler the better.

    "Is it hot enough to change your mind yet?"

    People tend to frame their arguments in a way that convinces themselves. That is the most common failure point in marketing. Know your audience. We intuitively rely on what convinced us.

    • 2 votes
    #13.5 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:33 PM EST
    Eagle Averro

    Pat P11111 Money SCREAMS, to them, so best way to get them to understand is set up environmental systems that save YOU money, that get their attention.

    • 1 vote
    #13.6 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:13 PM EST
    Reply
    Castor Bridge

    The climate changes, always has and always will. Anyone who thinks that the climate shouldn't ever change from what it is today, is a flat earther and desperately needs to study history.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#14 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:58 PM EST
    Belfrey

    Fortunately, climate researchers think nothing of the kind.

    • 5 votes
    #14.1 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:06 PM EST
    MalamuteMan

    Castor,

    Anyone who thinks that the climate shouldn't ever change from what it is today, is a flat earther and desperately needs to study history.

    Because history tells us the climate has changed many times without any help from mankind, that does not tell us that the changes we see today are not caused by humans. If you feel us "flat-earthers" need to study our history, then perhaps you should think about having another look at your logic textbook.

    • 5 votes
    #14.2 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:21 PM EST
    Pat P11111

    Castor,

    The climate changes, always has and always will

    Animals have always defecated where they want and always will. Human society broke that pattern because we found it to have serious consequences.

    We no longer deposit our bodily waste in the streets and we shouldn't pump our energy waste it into the air either.

    This is not complicated stuff.

    • 6 votes
    #14.3 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:30 PM EST
    MalamuteMan

    Pat,

    Graphic!!! But also compelling!!!

    • 2 votes
    #14.4 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:58 PM EST
    Pat P11111

    MalmuteMan

    I was attempting to add some emotion to the argument rather than just logic and facts, which clearly sometimes fail to persuade.

    • 3 votes
    #14.5 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:06 PM EST
    Castor Bridge

    Are you really trying to compare animals defecating to the climate cycles??

    • 1 vote
    #14.6 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:58 PM EST
    Pat P11111

    No I was simply asking a question:

    "Is it hot enough to change your mind yet?"

    Remember that next summer

    • 3 votes
    #14.7 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:57 PM EST
    Reply
    Rixar13

    We hope the Heartland Institute will begin to play a more constructive role in the policy debate.

    I won't hold my breath but I'd like to thank all who work to solve the problem...

    • 4 votes
    Reply#15 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:23 PM EST
    cjcold

    Don't forget the CATO institute. Another Koch brainchild created to do pretty much the same thing as Heartland.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#16 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:32 PM EST
    Pat from Montana

    Thanks PR for all your work on this.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#17 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:34 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    Thanks for reading it, Pat. I mean that.

    • 5 votes
    #17.1 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:37 PM EST
    Pat from Montana

    The private money that is interfering with this planet by half-truths, lies and deliberate deception is so wrong. The private money interfering with this planet has nothing but profits in mind. But I think it is coming to a head, although it may take another decade. These kinds of interference may work for a while but in this day and age it WILL come out.

    Don't get me wrong, private money is good when it is used for the good.

    • 5 votes
    #17.2 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:57 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    The private money that is interfering with this planet by half-truths, lies and deliberate deception is so wrong.

    I thought it was bad when it focused on obscuring the science of the dangers of tobacco, Pat.

    I knew it was bad when it focused on obscuring the science of ozone.

    But obscuring the science of climate change facilitates a 6thGreat Extinction. Simply put, it's beyond the pale. You're right - in the end, the truth will come out. But climate change is a freighttrain. It's the Queen Mary, with a turn-around time measured in hundreds of years.

    The last Great Extinction took 20,000 years. We're on track to do it in 200 years. Not very many species can survive that kind of rapid change.

    And we've already lost 30 years. By the time the truth comes out, we'll already be in a very dangerous place.

    • 7 votes
    #17.3 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:09 PM EST
    Pat from Montana

    Scary words.....200 years just slapped me aside the head btw. I see no other purpose to interfere than to get the best of right now while I am alive and to hell with the rest of humanity.......strange mentality.

    • 5 votes
    #17.4 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:32 PM EST
    CuriousG

    But, doesn't that show how much more advanced we are that we're able to do it in only 200 years vs. 20,000 years? </sarcasm>

    • 3 votes
    #17.5 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:41 PM EST
    Reply
    Dr Know

    Why do people wash their hands? Look up Semmelweis. He was a physician who insisted that medical personnel wash their hands between patients. He was almost drummed out of medicine for this stance.

    The point? "Mainstream Science" as "taught in the classrooms" of the times was completely against his practices.

    There are THEORIES about "climate change" (even the name was changed because "warming" was not completely true). Any physicist knows the difference between theory and fact.

    Does anyone believe that Al Gore can have trees planted in Indonesia to "off set" the "footprint" of his several homes?

    We should not be just doing something to be doing something. We need to have exact proof.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#18 - Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:00 PM EST
    Belfrey

    "climate change" (even the name was changed because "warming" was not completely true).

    A commonly-repeated myth, but not true. Both terms are still used by scientists, and both have been used for about as long as the topic has been studied.

    • 3 votes
    #18.1 - Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:43 PM EST
    Physicist-retired

    Any physicist knows the difference between theory and fact.

    Theories describe the underlying mechanisms that drive the phenomena we call facts, DK.

    Facts:

    • CO2 is a greenhouse gas
    • atmospheric CO2 is now at levels not seen on this planet in 15 million years
    • human activities are driving a rapid increase in CO2
    • we are seeing multiple impacts from the warming created by that CO2 already

    Theory: human-caused climate change.

    It's been around for decades now. The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts it as settled fact - not just here, but around the world.

    We should not be just doing something to be doing something. We need to have exact proof.

    I can support that.

    Before we continue dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere, we need to have exact proof that we can survive the ensuing damage.

    • 7 votes
    #18.2 - Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:04 PM EST
    Reply
    Colorado Bob

    And Colorado Bob, why do you even mention Koch? It's one of the ways they know the Climate Memo is utter crap. The only Koch donation in the records in the leak involved Health not AGW. Yet the memo made a mistake on that account.

    This makes zero sense. Period.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#19 - Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:47 PM EST
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
    Newsvine Privacy Statement
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    FUN STUFF:
    • Leaderboard |
    • E-Mail Alerts |
    • Top of the Vine |
    • Newsvine Live |
    • Newsvine Archives |
    • The Greenhouse |
    COMPANY STUFF:
    • Code of Honor |
    • Company Info |
    • Contact Us |
    • Jobs |
    • User Agreement |
    • Privacy Policy |
    • About our ads
    LEGAL STUFF:
    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com