Thursday October 8, 2009, 6:27 pm
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce — the 97-year-old organization that bills itself as the “voice of business” — wants to put climate science on trial. As the Environmental Protection Agency nears a final ruling that manmade global warming endangers the public health and welfare, “the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial-style public hearing” on the science of climate change is needed to “make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science.” William Kovacs, the chamber’s senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs, told the Los Angeles Times this hearing would be “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century“:
It would be evolution versus creationism. It would be the science of climate change on trial.

In 1925, Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes was indicted for teaching evolution against state law. His trial, intended as a test of the law, became a national phenomenon when as the World Christian Fundamentals Association and the American Civil Liberties Union brought the famed lawyers William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow into battle. Scopes was found guilty. Even though the state supreme court overturned the verdict of the “bizarre case” on a technicality, the public fallout was intense. The anti-evolution movement lost steam (before being reborn as “intelligent design“) and science textbooks with biblical quotations were phased out.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is taking a similarly bizarre approach here, calling for a show trial of climate science. Perhaps Kovacs and other officials at the U.S. Chamber believe that the rest of the business world shares their extremist views. After all, U.S. corporations continue to fund their multi-million-dollar lobbying against health care and energy reform.

It’s also possible this is an attempt to disrupt the effort to fight global warming with a culture war, tying the science of climate change to fundamentalists’ unease with evolution. Conservative activists have already made the connection. “It’s still a theory,” a town hall protester confronted Rep. Mike Castle (D-DE) after he supported climate legislation in June. “So is Darwin’s theory of evolution! And yet we have the audacity to say global warming is accurate, it’s more than a theory?”

There aren’t many natural parallels between the physics of greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels and the biology of natural selection, but the American conservative movement depends on the cozy relationship between oil and the Christian right. It seems like a high-risk strategy to convince Americans that God means for us to pollute His creation on behalf of oil and coal tycoons. But when reality is not on your side, there’s not much else left.

Update: At the Swamp, Jim Tankersley explains how the “trial” would work:

Scientists would present evidence for and against the finding. Each side would be allowed to cross-examine the other. An administrative law judge, or an EPA official, would preside and issue the final ruling. The EPA conducts similar hearings routinely, but on much smaller issues, such as issuing permits. Chamber officials say the agency held a large-scale public hearing in the 1970s on the subject of toxic water pollutants. EPA officials say such a hearing would be a waste of time and money - so the Chamber will likely sue in federal court in hopes of forcing one.

Update: At Climate Progress, Joe Romm notes that the science of climate change has already been fought over in court, and asks the board members of the Chamber of Commerce “to declare whether they are evolved members of humanity or dedicated to our self-destruction.”

These members claim to “support economy-wide reductions in CO2 emissions and/or federal cap-and-trade legislation”: Alcoa, Caterpillar, Deere & Co., Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, Eastman Kodak, Entergy, Fox Entertainment, IBM, Lockheed, Nike, PepsiCo., PNM Resources, Rolls Royce, Siemens, Toyota, and Xerox.

Thursday October 8, 2009, 6:27 pm
Please note the specific paragraph -
There aren’t many natural parallels between the physics of greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels and the biology of natural selection, but the American conservative movement depends on the cozy relationship between oil and the Christian right. It seems like a high-risk strategy to convince Americans that God means for us to pollute His creation on behalf of oil and coal tycoons. But when reality is not on your side, there’s not much else left.

Thursday October 8, 2009, 8:21 pm
So why not have the trial? Are warmers afraid their evidence won't stand up to close examination?

Thursday October 8, 2009, 10:51 pm
I'm not a warmer (why call people names anyway; this isn't the 3rd grade). I'm a scientist who is able to evaluate data and determine the reliability and validity of scientific studies and results. I understand the carbon/oxygen cycle in our atmosphere and am unwilling to lie about it. I understand the effects that humans and factories and energy plants are having on the carbon/oxygen balance in our atmosphere, and the impact on of that on our climate. I'm happy to have the trial, it'll turn out the same way the Scopes trial eventually did - with the fundamentalists on the losing side and losing credibility in the long run.

You commented on an article earlier that it is arrogant to believe that we control the climate of the planet - I've never heard anyone make that claim. It's dishonest to deliberately misstate a position to make it inherently false. The fact that we do not control the climate does not mean that it is impossible for us to have any effect on it. I don't control the flow of traffic at the corner but I can gum it up pretty good by running the light as 70mph and crashing up a bunch of cars and causing all sorts of emergency vehicles to come. People who understand climate change (not global warming, the Earth will not uniformly warm) are saying that we are having an effect on the climate - do you really challenge that contention? Do you really believe we can dump billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and kill off the CO2 to O2 processing plants and phytoplankton and just never have even the tiniest effect on the climate in our atmosphere? Really?

No matter who you are or where you go, the laws of physics apply. Big oil and big coal can only buy off so many scientists for so long, and then the truth comes out just like it did about Big tobacco. The bummer is that we have to waste the money and time - but I'm good with it if the Chamber of Commerce commits to pay all related legal fees for both sides, and all the court costs too, when they lose. I'm sure plenty will still deny it, because it is inconvenient and requires sacrifice for us to begin to undo the damage. This time, thanks to the Internet, the people unwilling to make those sacrifices for future generations will be on record and can be called to account by those future generations.

Friday October 9, 2009, 12:46 am
You know boo kiss my what about physics

Learn something and stop spouting that ridiculous claptrap about irrelevant tobacco companies.

Australia's best known Geologist, Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne, has just published his seventh book titled "Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science".

In an extensive interview with Brian Carlton, the Professor gives the background on this book as well as providing insights into the reasons why he believes that the concerns of the "climate change" crusaders is a "load of hot air".

Part 1: Professor Ian Plimer Interviewed by Brian Carlton; Heaven and Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo

What Prof. Plimmer didn't know when the interview was recorded was that the tree ring cores which were the basis for the climate scam have now been shown to be carefully selected...cherry-picked.

The whole foundation of the global warming cult just crumbled.

Friday October 9, 2009, 1:43 am
Judy, you wouldn't know learning if it bit you. As for that boo kiss line, your grammar is as good as your science, apparently.

You can prattle endlessly about one scientist here and another scientist there who saw some tree ring cores but it doesn't make any difference what you say about it ever. The simple fact is that the laws of physics still apply and always will. The carbon/oxygen balance is being overwhelmed because we're pumping tons and tons and tons of carbon into the air and we're killing and cutting the carbon 'filters' that process CO2 into O2 for us. You never discuss that because you cannot answer the factual statement in any meaningful way. You just keep citing hooey and quoting people who yell about cherry picking and scams. YOU talk about the laws of physics then, not quoting but explaining if you can. You probably just can't because you are parroting back what you're told.

The reference to the the tobacco industry is an analogy. Doctors and physicians lied to Congress about the dangers of tobacco because they were paid to do so, just like the scientists who have lied about climate change because they are paid by big oil and big coal and big energy to do so. It's analogous. If it's a bad analogy, bring some data to prove it. You calling something claptrap doesn't make it so, more likely the reverse because citing biased sources and claiming you have something to crow about doesn't earn you any credibility.

As for learning something, you should learn the basics (like high school basics) of what you're trying to argue instead of yammering about someone who may have made a mistake or may have been taken out of context or may have been lied about or lied to. What is crumbled is this nonsense - do you have a case at all? If you do, would you please state it? Look at your own comment for pete's sake - you pick one isolated statement here and you pick some other non-example way over there. Your comment is a prime example of cherry picking.

Your sources are not credible and your statements are unsupported. Your claims about my logic and my science and physics in general are manifestly false. If you have an explanation, based in the laws of physics, BRING IT. If you have a reasonable argument against big tobacco as a good analogy to the corruption of science/scientists in the US by big coal and big oil on climate change, BRING IT.

Friday October 9, 2009, 10:50 am
Your sources are the ones tainted by $80 BILLION. As I said, you know nothing...you are parroting a line of propaganda. I've been following this since March of 2007...and it's a scam set up by governments.

NZCPR Guest Forum
Prologue to Copenhagen
Chris de Freitas is climate scientist and associate professor at the University of Auckland.
EXCERPT:
"The US federal government has spent 80 billion US dollars on climate research on the assumption that human caused rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem. Despite this, no one has yet found even a shred of objective scientific evidence that humans are causing damaging global climate change.

The so called evidence emanates from a vociferous group in the scientific community who, for a variety of reasons, are set on promoting predetermined conclusions not supported by empirical data or real-world observations. The science they rely on is all about the number of scientists who agree with them and claims of consensus to suppress quality control in climate research. “Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth”, warned climatologist Reid Bryson.

The planet has warmed and cooled several times over the past 150 years, all within the range of natural climate variability. There are no published scientific papers that show irrefutable proof that any of this is human-caused. Proof is not to be mistaken for the output of hypothetical climate models, none of which has been shown to reliably predict climate. Proof is not merely evidence of warming coupled with the default conclusion “it must human-caused” when we don't how else to explain it. This is nothing more than admission of ignorance. Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges changes we have seen may be natural. The following statement appears in a major IPCC report “Climate Change 2001”.

“The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural.”

The notion of an unchanging climate has been used to deceive us. It is a conveniently forgotten fact that most of the industrialised world went into hysterics during the forty years of global cooling beginning in the late 1930s. It has been replaced by global warming hysteria over a temperature rise over 100 years of less than one degree, a trend that started before modern industrialisation caused atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to rise.

According to MIT atmospheric scientist, Professor Richard Lindzen, hysterics over changes in global mean temperature of a few tenths of a degree “will astound future generations”. Lindzen says “such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.”

“Climate change” has become a pseudo religion, and much of the blame lies with the media. Rather than focus on hard climate science, the media have instead become enthusiastic advocates for scientifically unfounded alarmism. There are many well-documented examples of this.

In a letter to the New York Times, Dr. Martin Hertzberg, an atmospheric scientist who featured in the 2009 ‘U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists on Global Warming’, accuses the newspaper of “continuously regurgitating fear-mongering, anecdotal clap trap of global warming propagandists”. He said “your coverage of the climate issues is a reflection of either extreme negligence or simply scientific illiteracy”. But the real reason may be simpler: talk of impending climate catastrophe is interesting, whereas sober analysis of climate data is boring.(Dr Hertzberg is the source for the Second Law of Thermodynamics making the CO2 hypothesis invalid because the hypothesis violates it.)

The IPCC has been complicit in the scaremongering and exaggeration. The IPCC is a governmental institution that selectively accepts and rejects critical comments from expert reviewers of its reports, as my climate science colleagues and I can prove, having been part of the IPPC-managed review process. Surprisingly, given the great costs and social impacts of emissions reducing policies, there is no government “ombudsman” or any means to “audit” what is going on in the IPCC, or to tell if all the extravagantly funded research has been a good investment. The IPCC has been a major driver of global warming hysteria, which has overshadowed concern for real global-scale problems. It is a matter of social responsibility if limited resources could have been better spent on uncontroversial environmental problems such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services - which we know affect hundreds of millions of people."
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest166.htm

Friday October 9, 2009, 12:56 pm
Judy, it's unfortunate for your line of reasoning, but you can't scam physics and claims of scamming fall flat in the face of the science and the data. Plus we've got all those satellite photos of the ice melting and the permafrost melting, and those measurements of sea levels rising.

Your expert from Auckland may be wrong, or mistaken, or misquoted, or looking at something out of context, or bought off (like the cancer experts were by the tobacco industry) - sometimes some experts or scientists are any or all of those things. Your previous expert from Australia could be any of those or any combination of those.

Your statements about the IPCC are meaningless because I never quoted or cited the IPCC (have never based any argument on any IPCC anything) and the article doesn't mention them either. You are setting up an organization you have a quote about so you can argue against something outside this debate here.

Talk about the science if you understand it and stop quoting sound bites and claiming I don't know what I'm talking about. I started following climate change long before 2007 and I watched a corrupt Bush administration (for 8 years) work hard to sit on the science because big oil and big coal lobbied for that.

If you know what you are talking about, talk about the planet's atmosphere and the carbon we're pumping into it and where that carbon goes now that we've cut down vast acres of forests while building more carbon-belching factories and energy plants. You took shots at my analogy about big tobacco buying experts like big oil and big coal are now - go ahead, explain what's wrong with it! If you know something about this, talk about the science instead of pasting chunks of quotes that may be bought off, or be the result of bad research or bad data, or be taken out of context.

Again, If you have an explanation, based in the laws of physics, BRING IT.

Friday October 9, 2009, 1:04 pm
You are confused and totally ill informed. Beside the FACT that the foundation papers for the scam were all based on a group of tree ring cores (10 or 12)extracted from a much larger group (224) . When the larger group was studied...there was no effect.

Then we get the FACT that CO2 has never correlated with temperature over the history of the earth.

"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

As I said...you don't know anything except the propaganda.

Friday October 9, 2009, 2:24 pm
Judy, saying I'm ill-informed just doesn't make it so. You are focused on one tiny measurement of one tiny aspect. I'm not talking about tree rings or what happened where there were more volcanoes, fewer people, and no coal-fired energy plants.
Again, you are trying to focus the debate on a tiny aspect where you have something to cut and paste. The atmosphere back then had massive forests to absorb the CO2 expelled by volcanoes then and no humans making it worse. That is simply not the case now. And no one has ever said that those high levels didn't do damage to the species living then either.

Lots of things happened before people got here and before we starting pumping millions of tons of carbon into our atmosphere. Sometimes species went extinct without people having anything to do with it but that doesn't mean people can't cause a species to go extinct.

And AGAIN, the fact that other factors influence temperatures and warming doesn't mean we aren't doing tons of damage that must be stopped. Your logic is bad. Bald eagles were dying from old age, disease and predators too, but that didn't mean that the use of the pesticide DDT wasn't having catastrophic effects on the species. So there goes your argument, again.

If you can explain the science yourself, please do. The stuff you parrot by copying and pasting consists of bad logic and related facts that are either not critical or are taken out of context. Measuring the past is very instructive, but measuring current levels in context is more so. If you really understand anything about this, then explain it - no cutting and pasting quotes.

This is about the Chamber of Commerce calling for yet another court fight over climate change (another because they lost). You took issue with my analogy and attacked my science. You never answered any of those issues, you just continue to copy and paste stuff.

I'm not the one pasting in propaganda, YOU are. I'm explaining and discussing and debating based on my own knowledge and solid logic. The fact that sun spots and other aspects are relevant and having an impact does not make carbon irrelevant.

If you can explain your position, based on your own knowledge and understanding, please do.

Please explain your unsupported attack on my analogy between the bought off climate deniers and those bought off to deny the dangers of tobacco.

Please explain your unsupported attacks on my knowledge and data, no cutting and pasting any more of that propoganda either. Please explain, in your own words, your understanding of the carbon/oxygen content of Earth's atmosphere and its effects on us, now, in modern times when the primeval forests are pretty much gone and more people need more oxygen than before there were all these people.

Saturday October 10, 2009, 7:02 pm
"You are confused and totally ill informed. Beside the FACT that the foundation papers for the scam were all based on a group of tree ring cores (10 or 12)extracted from a much larger group (224) . When the larger group was studied...there was no effect."

This questionable claim was made by Stephen McIntyre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre

{{{McIntyre has worked in hard-rock mineral exploration[2] for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.[3] He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[4]

Prior to 2003 he was an officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies.}}}

So he has a financial motivation to fake data too, doesn't he?

"Then we get the FACT that CO2 has never correlated with temperature over the history of the earth."

Not a fact at all. There are TWO factors in climate change, whether natural or man-made, the Sun AND greenhouse gases. It's amusing that the chart titled "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time" omits the solar output data. It's CHERRY-PICKED!

Projection and delusion are all you have, Judy Cross!

Saturday October 10, 2009, 7:39 pm
I agree with all of you, there is no reason to put a scientific theory on trial.

Saturday October 10, 2009, 10:04 pm
There certainly is a reason to examine the evidence for something they are about to use to change the economies of the developed nations.

There never was anything real to support the hypothesis...EXCEPT LIES PAID FOR BY GOVERNMENTS.

The delusionals are those who blindly follow the biggest scam and fraud ever attempted.

You can't smear Steve McIntryre since his work is all volunteer and he gets no benefit out of it. Also Briffa was forced to finally publish his data, so McIntyre got a look at it after 5 years of trying.

People don't hide data for no reason, when one of the cardinal rules in science is ANYONE should have access to all the data so they can reproduce the result...or not..

Unlike Al Gore the Crook who has made $100 million on the scam and planned to make much more.

Were you planning to get a cut Dale? How will you be rewarded for your services in the cause of fraud?

Sunday October 11, 2009, 1:17 am
Oh my word after all those comments... me no comment...

Sunday October 11, 2009, 8:47 am
Judy, my point was that religion should never be on trial. Freedom of religion is an important feature of any society.

Sunday October 11, 2009, 10:12 am
Judy, there have already been court cases and the losers/liars lost because big oil and big coal can't buy everybody. The evidence stands, the court decisions stand. Why should we pay for big coal and big oil to delay everyone while they lose again. Did you READ the article? Or just start pasting your propaganda again right away?

You say that people don't hide data for no reason - that was the Bush/Cheney argument for invading Iraq, that if Saddam didn't have WMD, he'd let everyone in. They ignored the fact that Saddam was more worried about his enemy Iran and was trying to keep them at bad. Oversimplistic arguments don't have much value for really complicated issues like climate change.

You talk about a cardinal rule of science - (are you a scientist, yes or no) but you do not seem to know the rules. Researchers don't need the data to reproduce the study; what we use to reproduce a study is the method the instruments/measures, and the description of the subjects/population of the study. Then, without having the data (which could introduce bias) we use the same tools and the same/similar subject/population and the same criterion measures or instruments under the same/similar conditions and attempt to reproduce the results within appropriate variation for the specifics. Perhaps you are confused again. After a study is published in a refereed academic journal, the data will be made available for review by qualified parties for up to five years. If a biased blogger from a disreputable site asked for my data, I might not send it either. If they waited more than 5 years, I'd just ignore them completely. Where do you look up your rules? Please provide a citation because I'd like to see if you made those up.

Your logic and example again fall of their own weight - we can call unpaid people into question if they are wrong or lying - money isn't the only motivation in human behavior. Are YOU getting paid or are you wrong for free? Maybe it's because you like the attention or maybe you own oil stock - you damage your credibility when you make statements that are so easily dismissed. Lots of people get passionate and get on the wrong side without being paid. That's not a critical criterion for knowing what you are talking about.

And you are still citing bad sources and hearkening back to ring data from a couple of trees. We're far past that and you can stop clinging to it now. No one will be persuaded by that - the predominance of the data left that in the dirt long ago.

And still - I'm still waiting for you to explain the basis of the shots you took on my analogy between big tobacco buying experts and big coal/big oil buying experts - please explain why it's claptrap and irrelevant or stop commenting on my posts.

AND STILL - I'm waiting for you to state clearly why you are calling out my knowledge and understanding when you continue to paste propaganda, call people out without making any case for it ever, and cherry pick tiny data and hooey sites while accusing others of doing what you are role modeling.
If you can explain the carbon/oxygen balance in our atmosphere and how pumping millions of tons of carbon into the air after cutting down most forests is having no effects, BRING IT. If you can explain why your big oil and big coal buying experts is different than big tobacco buying experts to lie to Americans and before Congress, then BRING IT.

People can make money doing a service honestly and doing the right thing. Al Gore is making money in the best traditions of honest American capitalism (admittedly rare now). Why not? He's doing something important. There's nothing wrong with earning money honestly. There's something wrong with lying for free, though, and it happens, despite your claim that people who aren't getting paid must be taken literally because they can only be honest. And the Bush government never paid anyone to lie to help the climate change argument (do you really believe that??) and are now on the record as fixing the data by taking climate change data out of environmental reports.

If you have any logic that makes sense, please bring it. Leave the bad examples, the bad logic, the biased web sites and the tiny tree ring studies at home, please.

Sunday October 11, 2009, 10:46 am
Geez, what instruments are used to duplicate measurements of temperature taken 50, 100, 500, 1000 years ago. Believe whatever you want, but it is belief.

Replace the combustion engine, then change society. Currently no viable alternative for cars, trucks, and planes. Electrical engines have promise, but what to do with those darn batteries... There are very viable alternatives to power generation and oodles of ways to improve efficiency of buildings, but none for getting from point a to point b.

Sunday October 11, 2009, 1:51 pm
Paul, different studies are replicated in different ways. If your data consists of measurements taken long ago, those measurements cannot be replicated, certainly. Either we agree they are valid and reliable (good measurements) or we look at the instrumentation used then and see if it took reliable and valid measurements or not. It's also about the meaning of the measurements and the analysis of data like temperature data. Climate change cannot be measured by simple temperature differences across time because climate change doesn't consist of uniform warming of the planet. So even if there's data regarding the quality of those temperature readings, they may or may not be indicative of climate change.

Yes, we have power generation alternatives but big oil and big coal don't like it and are working against it. Some are arguing we shouldn't even use viable alternatives in power generation. And there are alternatives that improve the situation for moving from A to B - carpooling, public transportation, more efficient vehicles, combining trips, staying home, and others. The fact that we can't fix the problem entirely doesn't mean we can't do much better (we are) and we're still working on that combustion engine.

You have identified a significant continuing problem. Still, when gas prices shot way up, people drove less, carpooled more, stayed home some and took public transportation. We can do much better and we should. It's not belief; it's human behavior and we can change it if we're willing to do the work.

Sunday October 11, 2009, 2:50 pm
Judy, Judy, Judy.....I see you're over here making trouble, too. Why is it that everywhere you go, you're making trouble? You know, that's the literal definition of a troll. But then again, it's also has become the defining trait of the far rightwing that just love displaying their ignorance. Please, tell me you are the former.

Sunday October 11, 2009, 3:36 pm
JennyLynn W,

Thanks for the well thought out response to my observation. (no sarcasm, it was well thought out and fairly presented) I agree that when gas prices shot up, people drove less, etc. But how did those changes affect the economy? Negatively, in my opinion. Until we have a viable option, we sorta gotta use combustion. As you know, until the science of the global warming theory is proven and accepted, I'm in the wait and see camp. However, I keep as small a carbon footprint as anyone I know.

I am all for reducing pollution, recycling, and pretty much the main points of the global warming movement. The portion that causes economic problems is an issue for me. How do the poor, in the US and elsewhere, fare under a poor economy?

If, and this is a possibility, the global warming theory turns out to be incorrect. Millions of people will no longer see a need to have a low environmental impact because they changed their behavior based on a theory. If the theory collapses, their behavior may not be far behind.

Bottom line for me, it isn't proven yet. There are legitimate scientists, not funded by big oil or governments, who are unwilling to use the 100% certain phrase even when they believe that global warming exists. It isn't worth arguing, at least for me. I fully support your right to believe whatever you wish and contribute time and energy to support your beliefs. I actually wish more people would do that, even when I don't agree.

As far as the courts getting involved, whatever a judge decided would not be based on science but law. That's the last thing we need, whether it's a US court or an international one.

Judy, you're not a troll and I'm very doubtful that you're ignorant. Seem to spell and type pretty well to me.

In my humble opinion, everybody should take a break, head over to the Spirituality side of Care2, read something by Isha, Chopra, or anything posted by Mel and take a nice breather. That's what I'm going to do...

Sunday October 11, 2009, 3:57 pm
Paul, thanks back! I think it's great that you are keeping a small footprint while you wait and see. There are some things I've studied for decades and am still unwilling to make statements with 100% certainty because so few things are so certain.

I see your point about support for good behavior falling if the theory is disproved - if it would go that way then all of us who talked about responding to climate change would have a great responsibility to communicate the need for continued action and why. But I would say that this is one aspect of the call to slow/stop climate change that is a general benefit. All these things are things we should do for other reasons. I generally don't ask people to stop or start something for the sake of stopping climate change. I ask them to stop polluting and wasting and to start recycling and reusing for their children and grandchildren, or for the future of marvelous species like the cheetah and the tiger and the polar bear. I ask people to combine errand and carpool and walk more so we can stop sending our money to countries in the middle east. I ask them to consume less so we can send less money to communist or dictator governments in the far east.

I donate more time and energy and money to specific causes than I do to discussing global warming/climate change. Because there are all sorts of problems to solve! You set a good example, and I'm off to take a break too - thanks!

Sunday October 11, 2009, 4:22 pm
"There certainly is a reason to examine the evidence for something they are about to use to change the economies of the developed nations. There never was anything real to support the hypothesis...EXCEPT LIES PAID FOR BY GOVERNMENTS. The delusionals are those who blindly follow the biggest scam and fraud ever attempted."

Judy, you keep repeating those unfounded claims like they actually mean something in the real world. Not from where I stand.

From the start, you ASSUMED that Stephen McIntyre and others like him are honest and Al Gore and his allies are crooked because of a conspiracy theory, while I have concluded that McIntyre is a con artist and Al Gore is for real because of an opposing conspiracy theory (that ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies are supporting global warming denialist propaganda). Considering the various tactics you have engaged in since I first encountered you in 2007, the latter seems far more likely.

Judy is motivated by a central dogma, which is MAN CANNOT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE. I know that is a total crock because of simply logic, such as:

1. There are over six billion people on Earth. (Does Judy think there is far less?)
2. There has been dramatic population growth over the past century. (Does Judy think population growth has not happened?)
3. The Industrial Revolution began in the mid 19th Century. (Does Judy think that has not been so, and that we have always had fossil fuel burning and greenhouse gas emitting industries?)
4. Human industrial, transportative, and power generational processes have produced vast quantities of CO2. (Can Judy disprove that?)
5. Humans have also destroyed vast areas of forests in the world, which would have absorbed most of the excess CO2 we emit. (Does Judy think otherwise?)
6. The heat retaining properties of CO2 have been known for over a century. (Can Judy disprove them? Does she think the conspiracy to scam people over global warming extends back that far?)
7. The conditions of the planet Venus were a striking confirmation of the greenhouse effect in action. (Does Judy think the data from that planet, including from the Venera probes sent by the Soviet Union, were also faked?)
8. CO2 measurements from the 1950s to today document the steady increase in CO2 levels. (Does Judy think all that data is faked too?)
9. Solar output measured over that same period does not show a steady rise that would match the global temperature rises. Instead, it showed regular rises and falls by an 11 year cycle until 2005, when it fell out of that cycle and dropped lower than ever measured. (Ironically, Judy has used the Sun going quiet as fuel for her crusade, while at other times ignoring the Sun and acting as if temperatures dropping while CO2 levels remain high disproves the man-made Global Warming hypothesis. This is a non-sequintur.)

Sure Judy, all that scientific data is faked, all those scientists are liars, all those evil governments are trying to oppress and maybe even kill us off! And I'm a jelly doughnut!

BTW, I've seen graphs of human population growth over the past several centuries and they look like.......a hockey stick! Just as the global temperature measurements do. Yet no one has suggested that those graphs are based on fake data. Why hasn't Stephen McIntyre looked into that? Instead of doing his own research on climate change (like Micheal Mann and James Hansen have done), McIntyre makes allegations about others' work on his blogs for others to pick up and spread around like they are gospel. That's ALL!

Sunday October 11, 2009, 6:01 pm
For some reason I keep hearing a Bushism over and over in my head. "Do we wait until that Smoking Gun comes in the form of a Mushroom Cloud"? There WAS no threat, at that time, CLEARLY!
Seems to me, there were a hell of a lot of far right nut jobs willing to believe that lie. Isn't it ironic that it is that same bunch of fools that refuse to believe we're killing our planet.

Sunday October 11, 2009, 6:07 pm
Do we wait until there is no turning back? Until all of the predictions come true. Until it's PROVEN? What's at stake?

Monday October 12, 2009, 1:24 am
Scopes was convicted and it had the same effect that King Canute (Knute as he'd spell it if he wrote) had when he decreed ebbing of the rising tide or the Roman Senate declared Caesers immortal gods. I don't know that the Senate succeeded in deifying Caeser, but Augustus and Nero are dead and Knute got wet. We canexpect the same result for the Chamber if anyone lives through Global Warming (even if the planet's temperature doesn't budge, the atmosphere's temperature has risen because we've added so much carbon dioxide to it as well as methane and sulpher dioxide,

Monday October 12, 2009, 3:46 am
Interesting, when I was in Italy I saw installations built by the Romans. They are the same distance from the sea as they were a couple of thousand years ago. The beach, very rocky by the way, of the town I stayed in was where it was when the monastery that borders it was built over 1,000 years ago. Most scientist agree that it isn't rising seas creeping in on Venice, the city is sinking. Fortunately, the rest of Italy is doing just fine.

Put the lobbying money from the Global Warming Movement into developing the technology to replacing the combustion engine. That would be a real service to mankind.

Heard a speech a few years ago by one of the Rutan brothers where he talked about the lack of invention in the latter half of the 20th century compared to the first half. He said that the basics of airplane building hadn't changed except that there are computers in the cockpit and cushier seats for pilots. We need to open the doors to innovation by reducing the regulations that limit experimentation with new technologies.

Until then, oil supporters would sound like buggy wip manufacturers from 100 years ago except that there is no new technology to replace cars and ttrucks. Cars didn't get developed by the government or through lobbying or influencing public opinion. They came about because someone built them and they were better than the horse and buggy. Want to eliminate that combustion engine, then come up with something better.

As to fools that refuse to believe we're killing the planet. Without using a computer model with assumed inputs about historical temperatures, can anyone prove that global warming exists? So far, the answer is no. You either believe it or you don't. Incidentally, name calling is generally not a good way to persuade those that disagree. Doesn't work at the personal, or the government, level. But the government method always involves force.

The connection between Iraq's supposed WMD's and not believing global warming exists was very valid. Each is an example of a belief system, not science. Clean up your own footprint, which most of us on Care2 probably have done, and leave out the use of governmental force to accomplish change.

Monday October 12, 2009, 9:50 am
You seem to have missed my point, Paul. The science is there for climate warming. There wasn't one bit of evidence for WMD, although the 'nut jobs' on the far right lapped it up like thirsty dogs. Now with plenty of evidence, they react like ostriches with their heads in the sand.
Whether you want to accept the science or not, do you think it's wise to continue our present course? There is obviously too much at stake for that.

Monday October 12, 2009, 10:06 am
Union of Concerned Scientists

Monday October 12, 2009, 10:29 am
" The science is there for climate warming. " should be changed to WAS there.

It warms and cools about every 30 years. If you are referring to the "science" that supposedly shows humans control climate by generating CO2...that has been shown to be fraudulent.

"At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

To compound the insult...CRU now claims that they destroyed the climate record data to "make more room"
From "the Dog Ate Global Warming'

"Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=

My question is, why do people around here knowingly continue to support a fraud...a scam...a crime against humanity.

Monday October 12, 2009, 10:42 am
My question is, why does Judy persist in taking a contrarian view on every single thread she posts on?
Your reputation precedes you.

Crime against humanity?? That's rich. What would you call it if all of the predictions come true? Same crime, isn't it?

Monday October 12, 2009, 11:24 am
MJ M, I didn't miss your point, I was making the observation that there is consensus but not proof. If I drop something, it falls. Gravity is. Global Warming may be, or not. I haven't seen any scientific proof or any scientist who has said that they have proved that global warming exists.

Until then, people doing what they can to minimize their impact on the enviroment is a great idea. Everyone should do it. Making major regulatory changes or laws that cause the destruction of economies, the impoverishment of people, and tend to wreak havoc on life as we know it, is not a valid direction when it is based on theory.

We know now that there are no WMD's, at least of the nuclear variety, in Iraq. My point is that the time may come when we know that there is no global warming. We don't know whether it is or isn't, based on current science. Your link indicates that the Union of Concerned Scientist put the current science at 90%. How many scientist agree, don't know, but still haven't seen that 100% number.

Monday October 12, 2009, 11:39 am
Actually, Paul, the very first cars weren't better than horse and buggy at all. They were slow, broke down all the time, usually wouldn't start, and were a laughingstock whenever the reliable horse and buggy rolled on by the stalled vehicle. Of course, cars improved pretty quickly as innovators continued to work to make them better (and as roads got better). Yes, cars didn't get developed, or much improved, by the government - you're right. Still I'd suggest that the government of 100 years ago was a very different thing as was American society of 100 years ago.

We haven't innovated up to our potential in transportation, but computers have come pretty far pretty fast, I'd say. Our innovation in that arena is pretty good - and then there are all those computer chips in appliances, and communication devices, and even in vehicles. As a teenager on the farm, I worked on my own cars, on trucks and combines and everything else but no more - now my baby goes to the mechanic because of the electronics. Otherwise, we've become somewhat lazy and complacent about innovating around our needs rather than our wants.

Actually we've become complacent about a lot of things, too many really. And we've paid a huge price for it and will continue to do so. In fact, in many ways we're going to dump a huge chunk of the costs on to future generations and they won't say nice things about us when they figure it out.

And I suspect that big oil has the same reaction to non-gas fired vehicle engines that they have to the efforts to reduce carbon - they'll keep telling lies and buying people off and funneling campaign contributions to the people who are supposed to represent us. Still, petroleum goes into all sorts of paints and chemicals and into most plastics, and so on and so on. So it's not like they'll starve, but they won't like their profits taking a big hit and they'll fight it every step of the way. We just have to do more ourselves.

Monday October 12, 2009, 11:55 am
90% ?? Is that all? What the heck was I thinking? By all means, ingore the doomsayers.

Monday October 12, 2009, 1:52 pm
JennyLynn W., I have to say we agree on a lot, but I'm still not on the governmental change bandwagon. I also couldn't agree with you more about the differences between American society and government 100 years ago compared to today. As an example, one hundred years ago, there was no income tax in the US. It was put into existence by amendment in 1913 and the first rate was 1% for those making over $1mil. In addition, the government and most companies were much smaller. I'm all for strong local government, the bigger and farther away the leadership gets, the more concerned I get. Your post was very well thought out and composed and I took it to heart. Thank you!

MJ M, I like your most recent post. I'm even sending you a green star! When it comes to weather forecast, a prediction of 90% precipitation is a sunny day 90% of the time...that's what I was thinking. I don't think any of you guys are doomsayers, just people who are concerned and less skeptical than this doubting Thomas. I may be wrong, but I bet your favorite author isn't the same as mine, Ayn Rand.

That said, I do take care of my tiny part of the environment and hope everyone else does the same.

Monday October 12, 2009, 2:11 pm
Hi Paul, I'm not at all insisting that you should agree with me - I learn lots of things from you and others who challenge me to rethink my perspective and my take on complex things like this (pasted in propaganda doesn't count). If we agreed we wouldn't have so much fun discussing this - and I find positive, informative discussions like this fun (and instructive).

I don't expect you to get on the government bandwagon because of this discussion - I appreciate that you care and that you are doing all sorts of positive and necessary things, meanwhile your motivation is all in your head (as is mine and everyone's) and is less relevant than your positive actions!

Monday October 12, 2009, 2:27 pm
Duly noted, Paul, and thanks. I too, have been a doubting Thomas most of my life, and on most issues that don't pose such an urgency and potential danger as this one.

I have to confess, I'm not a huge fan of Ayn Rand, although Atlas Shrugged was a very thought provoking read, as far as fiction goes.

It's trully going to take more than hope, that everyone does their part in taking care of their environment. It's going to take legislation and regulation. Way too many corporate types just don't give a sh**.

Monday October 12, 2009, 4:00 pm
MJ M, couldn't agree more on the corporate types.... My problem is that I don't think the government types are any better, at least at the federal level. Maybe if there were no lobbyist or money involved with senators and reps, I'd feel differently?

Monday October 12, 2009, 4:24 pm
But Paul, it's the lobbyists for the corporations (Big Oil) that are pressuring Washington to ignore the climate change science. Any efforts by Congress to ingore the lobbyists and acknowledge the science, can only be a good thing.

I'm all for lobby reform. Reform hell, BAN the practice!

Monday October 12, 2009, 4:39 pm
I wonder if any of you would consider taking a look at something to tell me what you think of it? It's a simple and low-tech video where a high school science teacher runs through his logic regarding climate change or global warming. It's not about the evidence, it's about how to decide what to do given the current state of the evidence (Paul, you made me remember about this) and it's not very long. If you would be so kind as to take a moment?? THANKS!
http://www.switched.com/2007/12/19/high-school-teachers-global-warming-video-a-youtube-hit/

Monday October 12, 2009, 4:51 pm
LOl....NOW THAT WAS WORTH WATCHING....lol Very good of him...

BIg Gorilly Hugs...

Monday October 12, 2009, 6:14 pm
Global Warming

Monday October 12, 2009, 6:33 pm
'The risk of not acting, far outweighs the risk of acting.'

Yes, think about it.

Tuesday October 13, 2009, 3:07 am
I'll have to watch the video later today, but I will. At Starbucks in the morning and the speakers on my Macbook are way too weak to hear him.

Just to confuse everybody, my favorite author is Rand but my next two are Tolkien and Chopra.

MJM, I hear you and understand why you balance the risk of not acting versus acting. I look at it slightly differently. For me the cost of acting is definite, the risk of not acting indefinite. Granted, the penalty of not acting if the science is true, and if man is the primary cause, is substantially punitive. (and you guys didn't think I had the gift of understatement!)

Tuesday October 13, 2009, 3:28 am
And a brilliant display, I might add.

Tuesday October 13, 2009, 4:30 am
"After the publication of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand received numerous letters from readers, some of whom had been profoundly influenced by the novel. In 1951 Rand moved from Los Angeles to New York City, where she gathered a group of these admirers around her. This group (jokingly designated "The Collective") included future Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, a young psychology student named Nathan Blumenthal (later Nathaniel Branden) and his wife Barbara, and Barbara's cousin Leonard Peikoff. At first the group was an informal gathering of friends who met with Rand on weekends at her apartment to discuss philosophy."

Critics have accused the Greenspan-led Fed of inflating the housing bubble by keeping loan rates too low for too long, encouraging reckless lending and borrowing. Greenspan himself has admitted as much, telling CBS last year, “While I was aware a lot of these practices were going on, I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late. I really didn’t get it until very late in 2005 and 2006.” And as The New York Times put it in a December 2007 article headlined “Fed Shrugged as Subprime Crisis Spread”

So, your favorite author used to 'pal around' with the same Allan Greenspan that not only presided over the worst banking meltdown in this country's history, but encouaged the practices that drove us to it? I suppose by extention, we can blame much of that idiot Greenspan's brilliance on Rand, the author.

Have you ever checked out Hemmingway? Maybe some Twain? Orwell penned a couple gems.
Homer and Plato were generations ahead of their time. When I think of great authors, I'm sorry, Rand doesn't jump out at me.

Wednesday October 14, 2009, 3:38 am
Actually Greenspan's actions at the FED were inconsistent with Rand, who was more than a pal, she was his mentor! She began a magazine, the Intellectual Objectivist, and wrote extensively about her philosophy. The only reason I voted against Obama was due to something he said the Saturday before the election. Obama is a highly educated brilliant man and his comment was misunderstood by most media outlets. He said, "McCain and Palin are calling me a socialist, since when did they adopt The Virtue of Selfishness". The Virtue of Selfishness is one of Rand's books. Ayn Rand was born Alice Rosenbaum and defected from the Soviet Union. Her philosophy is credited with the beginnings of the Libertarian movement I considered it his coming out moment. I wasn't going to vote, since I had no confidence in either candidate.

Twain, Hemingway, Orwell, Homer are some of my favorites. I prefer Aristotle and Aurelius to Plato. Sounds like we both enjoy reading!

I'm a former banker, current investment advisor, and not a big Fed fan and didn't care for Greenspan's betrayal of Rand's philosopyhy. But Greenspan was not solely to blame, let's not forget the Community Reinvestment Act of Carter, the expansion by Clinton, and the expansion in 2006 by the newly returned to power Democratic congress. And, in all fairness, let's not forget Republicans either idly standing by or actively participating with them. Both parties receive massive lobbying contributions from Wall Street! Finally, someone lobbied banks to make the loans that eventually were repackaged by Wall Street and were partially the cause of the economic crisis. He used the punitive compliance issues of the Community Reinvestment Act to force bankers to make subprime loans. He was very successful and became our new President and received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Wednesday October 14, 2009, 10:17 am
Well Paul, I can see that this is an exercise in futility. A banker AND a McCain Palin voter! If you think that either of those facts give you any credibility, well.........see ya

Wednesday October 14, 2009, 11:22 am
Well, Paul, you lost me too, on the facts.

"and the expansion in 2006 by the newly returned to power Democratic congress" but the fact is that the Dems didn't return to power until late January 2007 and this mess was WELL underway long before that. Leading up to the election the ... people ... at CNBC and in the GOP and on Fox kept saying the Dems had been in power for two years when it had been less (during summer/fall 08) than one and a half or so. Not only were people lying about the time Dems had to control Congress, some gloss over the fact that it was a very narrow margin of control mostly undermined by the Blue Dog Dems, by Cheney's tie breaker vote if needed, and by the fear that the Bushies were fanning to keep Americans in line.

Obama had absolutely nothing to do with much of anything leading up to the subprime mess because even when he was in the US Congress, he was a relatively obscure junior / freshman senator until he started to run for President. Are you suggesting he started this from the statehouse in Illinois? Wow, that would be quite a trick.

The subprime mess has nothing to do with loans to minority people either. The banks got into the subprime markets for the money, and because they believed (like Greenspan) that housing prices could only go up and they'd have the house value even in conditions when people defaulted. Those loans given with no investigation were the idea of the mortgage companies and investment banks - not anyone having anything to do with the CR act.
The subprime mess is firmly rooted in the repeal of Glass Steagall and that was McCain and the GOP back in 1999 (led by Phil Gramm, McCain's BFF for finance and treasury). No, Obama didn't run Congress then. Clinton signed it but shouldn't have; still it was a GOP bill from a Congress controlled on both sides by the GOP. It's also rooted in the 8 solid years of corruption where no regulatory agency in this nation did its job well if at all - an environment created by Cheney/Bush - who are also the ones who turned the defense contractors and war profiteers loose on our treasury and took us from surplus to debt. If the financial mess caused you to vote against Obama (and for Palin?? OMG!) then you might have benefited from doing some significant research on your own rather than going with the CNBC/GOP line.
We agree on quite a few things, but you can't tie any of that mess to Obama (Peace prize or no, and why toss that in anyway??) using any of the facts available.

Wednesday October 14, 2009, 11:39 am
What Phil Gramm did in getting Glass Steagall repealed should put that criminal at the top of the list for known terrorists that would do harm to this country.

Wednesday October 14, 2009, 3:39 pm
I didn't vote for Palin, Glass Steagal I agree was a mistake and it looks remarkably like the Obama Financial Reform plan, feel free to look for my article on examiner with the www and the com but I don't know how to paste it in. The article is about the Investors Protection Act of 2009 and how it actually weakens the regulations and is in todays issue.

MJ M, Palin is an idiot, as you may have noted, my vote was against Obama not for McCain/Palin. As to whether or not it makes sense that I didn't vote for Obama, let's see what happens over the next 4-8 years. Incidentally, given the choice, I would rather socialize with the left.

Obama was the candidate of change, he volunteered with Acorn before working with them as an attorney. I'm not going to bother explaining what Acorn does, that's easily found on the web. I don't watch CNBC, I read the Wall Street Journal and other non-TV news including NPR.

CRA required banks to make sub-prime loans or lose their ability to open branches, sell, or merge. It had everything to do with sub-prime lending. You might want to read Thomas Sowell's excellent book, "The Housing Boom and Bust".

Knew I'd lose you guys with the last comment on this thread this morning, couldn't get internet as I was with a friend at the hospital all day for same day knee surgery and he's fine. Navy Seals pull through anything.

Both parties are responsible for the economic mess and a simple look at Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's records of votes and lobbyist money should be enough to reflect that the Dems are not without blame. Anybody look at current lobbying money from Wall Street?

Peace Prize was just being cute, didn't mean anything by it, honestly. Although, if he gives the acceptance speech that Thomas Friedman wrote in his NY Times column this past Sunday then I'm thrilled he got it, but I doubt he'll give that speech.... I posted it on Care2 Sunday.

Wall Street securitized the sub-prime loans to make a boatload and to get them off of the banks books. Wall Street was a willing participant and contributed to the crisis, but as much as I detest some of the brokerage firms on Wall Street, the primary blame does not lie there.

Defense has not taken us from surplus to debt. Pull the monthly treasury report from the US Treasuries website and take a look at total Medicare, Medicaid, Health and Human Services, and Social Security spending now compared to 10, 20, 30, and 40 years ago as a percentage of the budget. Do the same with defense. It is surprising. Nothing against Social Security, but it's growth is terrifying...

Didn't mean to offend, just clarifying Greenspan's relatiionship with Rand, and pointing out that the people fixing this mess may very well make it even worse. Just my opinion, and I reallly, really, hope you guys are right. Finally, I wouldn't assume, on any topic that I'm willing to address, that I haven't done my own research.

Thursday October 15, 2009, 1:33 am
Paul, I take you at your word.
But I don't see how, given McCain's health, you could say you didn't vote for Palin. I also don't see how you could cast your vote for M/P and say you didn't vote for them. You could have chosen another candidate as a way to only vote against Obama, but you chose to vote for the guy who voted with Bush on all the war stuff, on all the defense contracts, and on all the budgets that took us from surplus to debt. You voted for the guy who teamed up with Gramm to repeal Glass Steagall.

You can say everything you want about Greenspan, his foolishness cost us dearly and he had a responsibility to do better for us than this. I wouldn't spend a minute defending him.

Wall Street has recently increased its contributions to Dems lately, but the party of wall street is and has been the GOP. They are much more closely allied with wall street and have turned wall street and the war profiteers loose on our treasury. Yep both parties are complicit but not equally so because the GOP has a party platform of deregulation and of business first and starve the people for as long as they can. GOP is the give every break to business and the rich and it'll trickle down party, not the Dems. I don't see it as equal responsibility so I don't assign equal blame. The GOP owned Congress from Jan 95 to Jan 07 and had a GOP president for 6 years of it. They deregulated plenty and then just failed to exercise any oversight after that, and then they gave out no-bid contracts like Halloween candy. During the years they were in control we went from surplus to deficit - just the GOP.

As for WSJ - well it used to be a newspaper but now is a Fox propaganda organ and I don't trust it because I can't trust it. I know what Acorn does and I also know who has been lying about them and why.

I did a lot of reading about the subprime and mortgage mess - not in your league certainly because I don't have your background knowledge. Don't have your banker's perspective either. I do know it's not reasonable to suppose that a few hundred thousand poor minority people had the power to bring us to the edge of financial collapse and ruin. The subprime loans went far, far beyond anything dictated by the CRA, if I understand it correctly - are you saying that ALL the subprime loans were mandated by Congress? It is also my understanding that (until the wall street caused crash) the vast majority of CRA mortgages were performing well, unlike the no-investigation loans given by the reckless mortgage companies. Of course, they might not be now, because of all the damage done to working people by investment bankers and evil wall street types who plunder and pillage for sport, pretty much.

I give you the benefit of the doubt and enjoy our conversations. Still, how is voting for deficit-causing, deregulation king, war profiteer BFF McCain a way to vote against Obama? I do know some who voted against one or the other (or both) - always choosing a third-party candidate as a protest. Because McCain had a chance to win, a vote for McCain was truly a vote for McCain, wasn't it?

Thursday October 15, 2009, 3:18 am
JennyLynn, we'll probably never fully agree but if you guys were local I bet it'd be fun to grab a coffee or other beverage and shoot the bull. We'd all be better off if people could discuss differences in their positions in the reasonable fashion that we have on this forum!

The US is a two party system, you are correct in saying I voted for McCain Palin but they were the only vote that had the potential to win against Obama. I already commented on Palin and I suspect we all agree on that part, I'm just the idiot that voted that way. For the record, I did not think the vote would result in a McCain win and, even in Virginia, I was right.

Just wanted to clarify, as I should have in the last post, minorities had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent economic collapse. I don't see any of the crisis as a racial issue, but one of economics. Even the wealthy are affected by this economy, but it is the middle and lower classes that are having their lifestyles and ability to earn a living disrupted, sometimes completely. If I in anyway implied that minorities were to blame, by the CRA reference, it was completely unintended and not something that would accurately reflect my views.

I tell my kids that we will know when racism has ended when two people, of different race and who do not know each other, can wave their hand in greeting with neither being surprised that the other is greeting them. As you might imagine, I'm an extrovert and if I make eye contact with people I say hello and if I'm driving I give a friendly wave. Amazing to me that in 2009 I still see surprise on some faces, when someone of a different race waves back.

I've read the WSJ for years and have not seen any substantial changes from Murdoch. But I also read NYT, Wash Post, Huffington Post, etc.

Oh, MJ M, thanks for not spraying me with troll spray...

Thursday October 15, 2009, 9:59 pm
A frightening new climate change study says the United States must eliminate its enormous rate of carbon emission within ten years.