Betting your life and all that you have

Or applying a risk management process to the global warming argument:

Little darling, I feel that ice is slowly melting

I'm at this event with RJ Eskow, DDay and Dante from Calitics, and several real MSM press folks:

Los Angeles, CA – For the first time in history, presidential candidates will take part in a forum focused on the issues of global warming and America’s energy future this Saturday, November 17th at the Wadsworth Theater in Los Angeles. The forum will be webcast live beginning at approximately 2:00pm PST, 5:00pm EST at:
http://www.grist.org/webcast

Senators Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Congressman Dennis Kucinich are confirmed to attend the presidential forum sponsored by Grist (http://www.grist.org) and PRI’s Living on Earth (http://www.loe.org). The candidates will present their plans to address global warming and energy issues in a series of interviews with journalists and experts in the field. All candidates from both the Democratic and Republican parties have been invited.

Updates will come as events unfold. I'm not sure if we can actually liveblog the event, we'll see.

We've also been promised (maybe) some actual face time with the candidates, so that could be interesting.


Update: David Dayen at Calitics is live blogging. RJ Eskow also live blogged.

Update: Cleaned up, edited for clarity, grammar, spelling, hopefully.

3:08
Kucinich (no notes, spoke well)

Great to be at forum not sponsored by coal industry. Tribute to Rachel Carson, Al Gore, others; called upon to talk about direction; drives a Ford Focus, vegan diet, personal choices-how do you live?

US must lead the way to abolish all nukes, participate in climate change talks.
Says our gov't is retrofitting B2 bombers with stealth tech and bombs to bomb iran; says his would be a “Works Green Administration” with environmental consciousness in all aspects of gov't. All gov't department involved in sustainabilty:

• Transportation: mass transit;
  
• Housing: green housing;
  
• Energy: disincentives for coal/nuclear, incentivize solar, microtech;
  
• Health: preventive health care;
  
• Education: teach environmental principles.
• Labor & Interior: disincentivise reduction of natural resources, land, no uranium mining on native American land.

Q&A:
K: Can challenge any & all industries; of/by/for the people; (huge applause).

Q: We once had a vp who wrote a book about climate change, got no action in congress; what can you do to reverse dynamics?
K: Cleveland once had mayor who believed all institutions should be public; imagine a pres who isn’t tied to interest groups; no hesitation to go over congress’ head to people.

Q: People fear losing jobs?
K: High energy costs in NE caused by investment in nuclear energy; resistance generally from interest groups, who control gov't.

Q: Is pension enough to offer workers
K: I support a guaranteed income, dividend! No one should be homeless, hungry.

Q: I'm not sure coal miners will be satisfied with guaranteed income; squeezing of jobs overseas
K: Energy companies, other countries have plans to build new coal powered plants around world; UN report will have much impact; clean coal is oxymoron; pay miners what they are used to; HR3300 bipartisan; new tech = new jobs, will lower utility bill, etc. Monopolies won't happy, but tough for them.

Q: People most harmed by Global Warming live in 3rd world countries, how do you help them?
K: Cap & Trade is a phony solution; we must reduce carbon footprint; islands starting to be flooded by rising ocean waters; losing our capacity for moral reasoning (in constitution); trade agreements must include workers’ rights, and environmental quality principles.

Standing ovation.


3:43
Hillary Clinton (lots of boos during intro)(speaking from notes)

This is appropriate location for forum because California leads on environmental issues; UN report today, has laid out plan; some still hold the disgraced view that no action is needed, we can’t fiddle while world warms.

Air pollution causes 24k premature deaths, 1/3 child asthma cases; what should we not to do? Look at the last 7 years. More dependence on foreign oil now than on 9/11.

Today you will hear applause for some speeches, but I hope we’re here to be serious (implying Kucinich isn't serious).

3 goals:

• 1: Reduce greenhouse gases,
• 2: Cut foreign oil imports,
• 3: innovation in clean air efficiency.

California has held per person electricity use flat for 30 years; sadly, many people believe case for Global Warming hasn’t been made yet.

Market based cap & trade is the way; she is only candidate who could hit the ground running: issue Executive Order-all new federal buildings would be carbon neutral; take tax subsidies away from gas & oil companies; raise fuel efficiency standards for autos.

US treasury will issue Energy Independence Bonds, sell bonds; use money for energy investment.

Will create National Energy Council, National Energy Advisor; Recommend new treaty to replace Kyoto.

Partial standing ovation (note: a Code Pink heckler was led out by police. I had taken a bathroom break, saw him loaded into police car.)

Q&A:
Q: Last 3 Presidents vowed to work reduce greenhouse gases, what’s different about you?
H: GWBush had no intention to work against climate change, Bush41 did good job, Clinton/Gore did good job; there are 3 major differences now:

• 1. People’s awareness greater now than 7 years ago.
• 2. The world is moving to global commitment; US doesn’t want to feel left behind because other countries doing good job, need to reassert global leadership.
• 3. Commitment can work when electorate, congress, ready to act.
  

House & Senate each passed good energy bill, we'll see what eventually comes of it; she will use executive orders.

Cosponsor of Boxer/Sanders bill, but any bill out of Environmental committee will be vetoed by GWBush.

Especially important to work with China; say to them: if you continue to use coal, you need to work toward carbon sequestration; we should work with them on demo projects, wind, solar, etc. We’re not trying to slow China & India down, we’re trying to help their economy.

Applause, standing ovation.


4:20
John Edwards

The system in DC is broken; gives thanks to Gore; the world knows Global Warming is a crisis. Politicians are too afraid to rock boat, elected leaders overrun by need to spend time chasing money; oil companies spending $$$ to make sure we are addicted to oil.

Today's UN report is more evidence than anyone should need; US will send a representative to conference in Bali with no clue.

I came out early and aggressively on Global Warming, we need to lead the world, create new energy fund by auctioning pollution permits, repealing oil co subsidies.

The cap & trade system will have effect on fossil fuel costs, prices will go up; it's a political strategy doomed to failure. Sacrifice will be required, change won’t be easy.

Elizabeth & I sat in hospital room, decided to continue my Presidential campaign to “tell truth” (invoking sympathy).

Bell Labs, a US company invented the solar cell in 1954, now 95% of solar cells are made overseas. I read that “Foreign firms envision wind farms in US”-why aren't US corporations thinking the same way?

I will pledge:

1. Will cut carbon welfare subsidies to oil and energy companies;
2. New era in innovation, smart electrical grids, safer;
3. Seed innovation, low interest loans to homeowners, industry;
4. New market; utilities –separate energy sales profits from innovation.
   

These steps will mean higher energy prices for a while, families will ultimately come out ahead, after sacrifice; we should be patriotic about something other than war. The Greatest Generation during/after WWII did great things; this is the moral test of our generation: will we leave our children a better world, as our grandparents and parents did?

Now is time for Dem party to be bold, stand up for what we believe in; We need to leave behind political calculations.

Q&A:
Q: Calling on people to sacrifice? How did we (as a country) get there? You’ve sacrificed a lot-how do you get America to sacrifice?
JE: There is a hunger to act as a national community; to take action, to “ask not what your country can do for you...”. We’re not going to be careful, not going to be politically cautious. I will call on Americans to sacrifice. The government is corrupt:

• Why no universal health care? Because of drug companies.
  
• Why no attack on Global Warming? Oil companies. Narrow interests run the government.

Q: Talking about shared sacrifice, burdens will not shared in all locations, like coal country?
JE: No more coal fired power plants until carbon sequestration is implemented. Families in coal regions: make polluters pay; money from cap & trade to help families; this will create 1 million new jobs, where? Generate them in hardship areas: rural, inner cities.

Q: Should rights to pollute be auctioned off to help people?
JE: A portion of it, rest to developing technologies.

Q: Impacts will hit world’s most vulnerable hard? What can America do to help?
JE: America providing miniscule help; the world will face difficult time. Be willing to invest in infrastructure, drought resistant crops in 3rd world. 3 billion people live on $2/day.

America needs to be a leader, but isn’t. We should lead the effort for education,\; spend $50 billion in AIDS prevention; clean drinking water; microloans.

The only way to be credible leader is to lead.

Q: How can America lead on climate change? Our credibility is shot; the world thinks we went to war over oil.
JE: We have enormous responsibility to lead, the world needs to see America act in an unselfish way. We’re an example of bad behavior, we need to re-establish moral leadership. We need to end war in Iraq, reverse things:

• Guantanamo;
• Illegal spying;
• No more rendition, secret prisons.

Why as a country do we debate about torture? What is wrong? It's not our America, we need to take it back.

Q: Reality is, none of the bills will pass, we need 60 votes. Should we compromise or hold out on better legislation?
JE: The most powerful weapon: don’t sit at conference tables with industry and lobbyists & scared politicians. If we act like we did in working toward civil & women’s rights, the politicians will follow.

We need public campaign financing; there are practical politics involved. We need to increase strengths in House & Senate; America wants change, something different. We need to weed out corruption, status quo. I am certain I can go into swing state and be helpful to the Democratic cause (is this a concession that he may not win, but would work for Democratic candidates?).

Q: The candidates are out ahead of media, how to get through media filter?
JE: All the media consolidation ia a bad thing! (applause in press tent). Big corporations are bad; the Presidential debates spend more time sniping, not talking about issues. The media are more interested in horse race, not substance.

Standing ovation.

Press tent:

John Edwards:

1 thing to say, as recap: Global Warming is a huge crisis, we need to take bold action, weed out corruption, influence of oil, gas, energy companies.

Q: McCain/Lieberman bill?
JE: Not good enough.

Q: Difference between you and Hillary?
JE: I came out early, more emphasis on losing corruption, different position on nuclear power: I don’t favor any new nuclear plants.

Q: As we implement ideas into marketplace, changes may not happen fast enough?
JE: I support a 40 mpg standard by 2016, but any standards need to be fluid, to take advantage of new tech.

Q: LA is planning a subway to sea; what is role of mass transit?
JE: Mass transit good thing; we should be very aggressive in projects.

Q: Global Warming: bigger issue than war on terror?
JE: No bigger issue over long term. End the war, change health care, but this is anout saving lives, preservation of planet.

Organizers & panelists available for Q&A

A: We heard a lot of visions, bold plans, ideas. We want more forums, more candidates.
A: More companies say they need federal funds for Global Warming help.
A: Heckler displeased with Sen. Clinton.
A: Energy policies so complex, debate hard.
A: Plenty of good in the proposed energy bill: tax credits, CAFÉ standards, mch that could be done immediately.

Q: Water supply crisis?
A: Water untold energy story.

A: Initiatives coming from bottom up: cities, counties, etc.; the message will drive DC.


The End.

Tell it like it is, Don't be ashamed to let your conscience be your guide

Here's a great example of how the memory hole re-writes our history every day. When I started posting about this, the headline said: White House Says Draft Testimony On Climate Change Wasn't Diluted
But now when I access the link to that headline I find CDC Director Says White House Didn't Dilute Climate Testimony

And there is no mention of the original article. OK, so I'll go with it:

CDC Director Says White House Didn't Dilute Climate Testimony

ATLANTA-- Julie Gerberding, the director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, defended Wednesday her congressional testimony on the health effects of climate change earlier this week.
[...]
Dr. Gerberding, speaking Wednesday at a luncheon hosted by the Atlanta Press Club, dismissed as "ridiculous" such allegations.

"This is not an issue of cover up related to climate change and health," she said.

Reeeeally!? Given Bush's constant suppression of science, that doesn't seem possible:

The original, unedited testimony presented to Congress by Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and obtained by ABC News was 14 pages long, but the White House Office of Management and Budget edited the final version down to a mere six pages.
[...]
In response to the controversy that followed, White House press secretary Dana Perino stated that the White House Office of Management and Budget redacted the majority of the information on the basis that the science in the testimony did not match the science reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
[...]
"The science that Dr. Gerberding was trying to bring forward was based on the IPCC report," Knowlton said. "It's quite stunning that only weeks after that group received the Nobel prize for their work that the White House is deleting scientific statements based on that work.
[...]
"We talk of the politicization of science," said Dr. Linda Rosenstock, dean of the UCLA School of Public Health. "In the politicization of this topic -- the science wasn't changed, it was deleted."

And what was the White House response? I'm so glad you asked. Direct from the WH press briefing:

Q: Back on the CDC testimony. You said this morning that Dr. Gerberding's testimony was not watered down. Can you tell us why it was altered to leave out any discussion of serious health effects relating to global warming, and to leave out her original comment that, "CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern"?

Perino: [...] And so the decision on behalf of CDC was to focus that testimony on public health benefits -- there are public health benefits to climate change
[...]
And in the meantime, we are working with experts like Julie Gerberding to figure out what are going to be the health benefits and the health concerns of climate change, of which there are many.

Yes, of course, there will be many health benefits from climate change ... there will be a lot fewer people to object to Bush's eviscerating science and stuffing the corpse with his political and big bidness press releases.

Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

I’ve been asleep, And I need to wake up now

(Picture from South Bay Mobilization)

There's nothing worse than a Right-wing partisan prick, except a Right-wing partisan prick who tries to seem reasonable, while still spouting clear and provable crap:

Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

He follows a long line of illustrious humanitarians who have selflessly and with no thought of personal reward, served the needs of humanity through the sheer goodness and purity of their souls. Or, in Gore’s case, those who have shamelessly promoted themselves as saviors of the planet when they have been proven in a court of law to be nothing more than alarmist charlatans.

Dude, always a flying agenda in search of a landing strip. First, you might want to check out some of the actual, you know, reporting, that tells the accurate story of the British Court ruling. Here's the definitive source, previously linked to here earlier:

A UK High Court judge has rejected a lawsuit by political activist Stuart Dimmock to ban the showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth in British schools. Justice Burton agreed that

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

There were nine points where Burton decided that AIT differed from the IPCC and that this should be addressed in the Guidance Notes for teachers to be sent out with the movie.

Unfortunately a gaggle of useless journalists have misreported this decision as one that AIT contained nine scientific errors. Let me name some of the journalists who got it wrong: Sally Peck in the Daily Telegraph, Nico Hines in the Times, Mike Nizza in the New York Times, James McIntyre in the Independent, PA in Melbourne's Herald Sun, David Adam in the Guardian, Daniel Cressey in Nature, the BBC, Mary Jordan in the Washington Post, Marcus Baram for ABC News, and (of course) Matthew Warren in the Australian.

Never able to resist the urge to trample the truth in reverent quest of the last ounce of hackery, our Right-winger still tries to appear reasonable:

I simply don’t know if the scientists who posit catastrophe are right. I do know that every “sign” pointed to as “proof” their theories are correct by global warming advocates today is not indicative of long term climate change. But I do not reject out of hand the idea that greenhouse gas emissions must be cut in order to prevent (or mitigate) drastic changes in the climate.

In short, I’m an agnostic on the subject. I am not a scientist. I can’t examine the evidence the way a climate modeller or a atmospheric physicist can and reach an intelligent conclusion. We must base our beliefs on explanations of that data by scientists themselves.

No, I am not a scientist. But neither is Al Gore. And the Nobel Committee’s curious choice of the former Vice President for the Peace Prize is perplexing indeed. Global warming is a scientific phenomena. To give it to someone whose scientific acumen has been questioned both by scientists and the courts strikes me as incomprehensible.

That's perhaps because the scientific studies, and years of data analysis reported on in An Inconvenient Truth come from actual scientists, with advanced degrees other than bought-and-paid-for Harvard MBAs.

I'm sorry if science is too hard for you. And no, this isn't a collision between the Middle-Ages church and Galileo. It's more like a collision between the road runner and the coyote.

Rick, look down. You're falling.


Addendum: This Right-wing prick has blocked me from commenting at his site, and I never left a comment, however critical, that wasn't cordial and courteous.

Bastard.

If I gave you the truth, would it keep you alive?

Editorials in newspapers written by anonomous writers are especially, since the writers hide behind, well, their anonymity. Still, you'd think some Right-winger genius would be happy to own this slam of Gore's Nobel Prize:

Former Vice President Al Gore, who says he "used to be the next president of the United States," has won the Nobel Peace Prize for advancing scary half-truths, flat-out errors and politically inspired schemes about global warming. We congratulate Mr. Gore and hope it's some personal consolation.

Nevertheless, we're uninspired as Mr. Gore takes his place alongside Yasser Arafat and Kofi Annan, similarly honored with credentials of similar substance.

Nice. Note the obligatory dismissal of the award itself, by mentioning Arafat. Don't forget, pal, they also gave one to that paragon of Right-wing ideology Henry Kissinger.

As far as "scary half-truths, flat-out errors", let's just see now. Anonymous editor continues:

The errors "arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of (Mr. Gore's) political thesis," said High Court Judge Michael Burton. He ruled teachers must alert children to the errors.

The judge said Mr. Gore is wrong to claim global warming will cause sea levels to rise 20 feet and that increases in CO2 precede warming when they actually come afterward. Inconvenient truths don't stop there. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank, has compiled point-by-point refutations of Mr. Gore's hype and alarmism.

No, not really. Here is the above quote in context:

18. Mr Chamberlain persuasively pointed out in his skeleton (at paragraph 7(c)):

"Scientific hypotheses (such as the hypothesis that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases) do not themselves constitute "political views" within the meaning of s407, even if they are doubted by particular political groups. But, in any event, nothing in the 1996 Act (or elsewhere) obliged teachers to adopt a position of studied neutrality between, on the one hand, scientific views which reflect the great majority of world scientific opinion and, on the other, a minority view held by a few dissentient scientists."

19. Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:

i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].

ii) there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view [s407].

20. Mr Chamberlain also rightly points out, at paragraph 7(a) of his skeleton that:

"The Film is intended to be used by qualified teachers, not as a substitute for, but as a supplement to, other teaching methods and materials. The original Guidance, prepared by a panel of experienced educationalists, identified those parts of the Film's scientific presentation where further context or qualification was required and provided it, with suitable references and links to other reputable sources of information. It encouraged teachers to use the Film as a vehicle for the development of analytic and critical skills. It did not attempt to hide the fact that some scientists do not agree with the mainstream view of climate change and even made reference to The Great Global Warming Swindle (together with a website containing a critique of it)."

21. However, for those same two reasons set out in paragraph 19 above , the teachers must at least be put into a position to appreciate when there are or may be material errors of fact, which they may well not, save for the most informed science teachers.
22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

Yep. Funny how #22 was left out of the editorial.

Here's the punchline:

Global warming alarmism serves those opposing free-market economics and its fossil-fuel reliance and those seeking power and profit by gaming the system once they force rule changes. Neither motive is in most peoples' interests.

Look, idiot. Free-market economics promises to deliver one thing only: PROFIT. No social justice, no righting of wrongs, no scientific breakthroughs, just profit. And the only gaming of the system today is traders, speculators, and wealth pundits who tout stocks and make fortunes for the investor class.

Instead of calmly discussing climate change, and the clear reasons for it, the Conservatarian free-market worshippers will lie and cheat, and produce conflicting research:

Mr. Gore's award will spur more alarmist momentum. To balance the scales, we recommend CEI's A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truthat www.cei.org and the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalismby CEI senior fellow Christopher Horner

That's this CEI:

CEI calls itself "a non-profit, non-partisan research and advocacy institute dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government." The Boston Globe has called it "one of Washington's feistiest think tanks." CEI's commentaries frequently appear in media venues such as ABC's 20/20, American Spectator, Christian Science Monitor, Consumers' Research, Crossfire, Forbes, Good Morning America, Larry King Live, MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Moneyline, New York Times, Policy Review, PBS, Reader's Digest, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Washington Times. It postures as an advocate of "sound science" in the development of public policy. In fact, it is an ideologically-driven, well-funded front for corporations opposed to safety and environmental regulations that affect the way they do business.

. . . The head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Michael Sanera, sent out an email last March looking for kids who had been "scared" by environmental education:

I have been contacted by ABC News," Sanera wrote..."A producer for John Stossel...needs examples of kids who have been 'scared green' by schools teaching doomsday environmentalism ... (He needs kids and/or parents to appear on camera.) I have some examples, but I need more. Would you send out a notice to your group and ask if they know of some examples.

You get the idea. Ideological hacks, corporatist jerks, and useless tools.

In the end, the criticisms in the Judge's lawsuit are trivial. A complete analysis was done by Tim Lambert at Deltoid. Read the whole thing.


(Title lyric by Seether. They recorded their first major label album at the last studio where I was on staff. Lovely guys, very nice.)