I personally believe western civilization, in general, suffers from a serious lack of "Science Literacy". Even though it is Science that has allowed us to achieve so much as a Species, and as a Society -- it is this same Science that far too many treat as "magic", as "geeky", as "Debatable".
Funny that those who most question Science's usefulness, seem to appoint themselves as "Experts", capable of dismissing its "Findings".
(Based on what Expertise? ... one should always ask back.)
Well IF Science is indeed, Debatable -- shouldn't it be ACTUAL Scientists Doing the Debating??? (and not the well paid shills from industry and politics, who's goals are typically to create "more heat than light"?)
Well there is a very interesting Interview conducted by Discover Magazine that attempts to do just that -- Let the Pro and Con Climatologists critique each other ... Let the Scientists Speak for themselves!
I have pulled some of the interesting sections of that "debate" for your elucidation ...
(though I recommend reading the entire article if you are so inclined.)
This weekly diary takes a look at the past week's important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?
The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist's message.
:: ::
Chris Britt, Comics.com, see reader comments in the State Journal-Register
In his film Capitalism: A Love Story [set to be released on DVD and Blu-ray Monday], Michael Moore squares off with the free-market system for its role in leveraging the United States's wealth into the hands of a few.
But in one clip cut from the documentary -- which Moore provided exclusively to RAW STORY -- he interviews Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, who explains how capitalism is actually contributing to the very downfall of the human race and the "degradation of the planet."
"All sorts of people who have spent their lives studying climate change, from Bill McKibben on down, have warned us that we don't have a lot of time left," Hedges said. "So it's not just that capitalism has destroyed our economic system and hijacked our political system, but it literally is extinguishing the system that sustains life. If that's not thwarted soon...then we will begin to see massive dislocations, environmental refugees, further depleting of natural resources. Overpopulation is also an issue. The UN estimates that by 2050 the size of the planet will double."
The very concept of capitalism, Moore declares in the film, is the problem because it inevitably leads to a system where the richest few control the means of production as well as the levers of power -- leading to a "plutonomy," a term used in a leaked Citigroup memo from 2005, in which the finance juggernaut concluded that the United States is no longer a democracy.
In the interview, Hedges decries America's turn toward supply-side economics over the last three decades as the cause of stagnating middle class incomes, contrasting it with the increasingly lavish fortunes of the wealthy and the aid they often receive from the government at the expense of working people.
Here's the latest GOP "stall tactic" in a very long parade of stall tactics:
Global-Warming Scientists 'Need to Go Back to Square One,' Rep. Barton Says By Karen Schuberg, March 03, 2010
"Science is verifiable, science is something that can be replicated," Barton, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told CNSNews.com.
"This whole theory of global warming is just that: It's a theory. It's based on models. Models are based on variables, and conditions that the modelers that develop the models put into them. And the models don't replicate what's happened," Barton said. "So (scientists) need to go back to square one, look at the empirical data, look at alternative theories, and see if they can find a theory that actually fits the facts."
Representative Tom Perriello (D-VA-5) was one of the first candidates to make the Energy Smart list. Yesterday, not for the first time, he provided a clear statement as to why he merited and continues to merit a prominent position in the 'must support' list for anyone concerned about fostering a prosperous and secure America future.
Interviewed by David Roberts, Grist, Perriello spoke strongly about the imperative for better energy policy, including the necessity of putting a price on carbon. While too many in the Commonwealth are flaunting their anti-science syndrome credentials, Perriello is speaking forthrightly and directly. His narrow victory in 2008 has him in the Republican cross hairs for defeat this November but Perriello doesn't speak directly -- he speaks with great integrity and from principle. That characteristic, of having the courage of convictions and being able to speak coherently about them, goes a long way with voters who might disagree in a specific case but who respect a clear-speaking politician with principles.
And, Tom's words about the Senate-House relationship -- his direct and strong words -- merit attention, echoing, and applause.
Crossposted at Daily Kos. If you choose to recommend it there, the Rec Button may have been pushed to the bottom after the last diary comment made.
THE WEEK IN EDITORIAL CARTOONS
This weekly diary takes a look at the past week's important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?
The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist's message.
:: ::
Chris Britt, see reader comments in the State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL)
Scientists at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center have published a study, Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth, suggesting that climate change can quite literally be measured by treehuggers. Like the average American citizen, American trees look to have had increasingly bulging middles in recent decades. Having spent their careers quite literally hugging trees, SERC scientists Geoffrey Parker and Sean McMahon have written a study documenting
evidence that forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years. The study offers a rare look at how an ecosystem is responding to climate change.
For over 20 years, Parker has gone into a set of forests in the mid-Atlantic, tape measure in hand, and giving them a hug to measure their size. Parker's own hugging has been extended with a robust group of volunteers conducting regular measurements of specified trees. (The boy scout to the right, while in a SERC forest, isn't engaged in actual measurements for the study.) Some 250,000 hugs later, he has quite a database in hand.
that the forest is packing on weight at a much faster rate than expected. ... on average, the forest is growing an additional 2 tons per acre annually. That is the equivalent of a tree with a diameter of 2 feet sprouting up over a year.
Now, there are many things that contribute to plant growth, from soil quality to rainfall to temperatures to CO2 concentrations. Parker and McMahon have concluded that the driver for the bulging middles of the studied groves is best explained through human impacts: the rising levels of CO2 (a nutrition); and the warmer temperatures and extended growing season due to global warming (driven, in no small part, due to the rising CO2 levels).
Veronica Martin always demonstrated this never ending positivity. I think this is what I liked best about him. He was always upbeat- and oftentimes it seemed that nothing could bring him down.
David Martin reminded me of Guthrie, Springsteen, and Dylan. A man who could tell you his story in such a way that you could not deny how it applied to you. It didn't matter if he was telling you about a cause he felt strongly about or what he had for breakfast, if he saw your face every day or you just read his words on a... page, if you even agreed with him or not - There was no denying that his story WAS your story. I feel honored to have been able to have been part of his story, as well as have had him as part of mine.
And, so on ...
What struck me about Martin, repeatedly, was his ability to take such a wide range of issues and communicate them with a clarity and structure that laid the issues out bluntly for any with a mind open enough to listen. While he did so on a plethora of issues, at times his clarity of thought and writing related to energy and climate issues simply stood out. There is a reason that I reached out to cross-post one of his pieces at GESN. In Change in the Weather, Martin tackled ClimateGate with the perspective of a non-expert judging what logic and sensible thinking leads to. And, he concluded:
Even if global warming isn't our fault, it is our responsibility. The United States alone produces 220 to 230 million tons of garbage a year - 4.6 pounds per person. Most of this is not recycled, but simply dumped or buried in landfills, where it contaminates groundwater and produces health hazards for anyone living nearby. This is unquestionably our responsibility. We made this mess, and we must clean it up. And when it comes to global warming, the question must be asked, "Who is going to handle it?" Who else can address the issue of sea levels rising as the polar ice caps melt? Who else can come up with solutions to entire cultures being destroyed due to rapid climate change? The answer is the same. It's up to us. We try to deny the existence of human-caused global warming so as to deny our part in destroying the planet - a concept so vast it renders people utterly helpless. But now's not the time to be helpless, or to be swayed by naysayers who refuse to accept the truth right in front of their eyes. It's a time to be bold, brave, and visionary, and step forward to accept our responsibility to clean up the planet and not let Nature suffer for our mistakes. If that's not being personally responsible, what is?
I agree completely (which is something I normally make a point not to do with anyone, just on principle), and I also want to thank you not only for writing the piece that I was planning for tomorrow morning, but doing such an excellent job.
Mr Luntz is at it again, doing what he does best: Making Stuff Up for purely Politcal Gain!
Wall St Consultant Frank Luntz Pens Memo On How To Channel Economic Anxiety Into Protecting Wall St Abuses Lee Fang, ThinkProgress - 02/01/2010
[...] Luntz, who gained national recognition for his role in shaping the buzzword-heavy Contract for America with Newt Gingrich in 1994, has built a sizable business selling his messaging advice to both corporations and Republican campaigns.
The new memo instructs opponents of financial reform to simply lie about reform legislation, and to twist economic anxiety resulting from the recession into fear of any government effort to fix the underlying cause of the financial crisis. The most dishonest argument is that financial reform would "punish" taxpayers while rewarding "big banks and credit card companies." In reality, top financial industry lobbyists are not only fighting proposed oversight regulations, but have said recently that they are opposed to "any regulation" at all.
As most of you are well aware, last week was a snow week in Washington, DC, and the odds are pretty good that there's something like that going on for you as well.
Our good friends in the conservative community have seized upon the moment as proof that this whole "global warming" thing is just a big scam perpetrated by the likes of Al Gore and his Legion Of Weather Nazis; their mission being only to deprive the American people of their Constitutional right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of a Ford Super Duty F-450 King Ranch Edition with the Heavy Service Suspension Package, Snow Plow Prep Package, Transmission Power Take-Off Provision, dual alternators, and supplemental cab heater.
To drive the point home, last week Senator James Inhofe's family went to the time and trouble to build a little igloo on the National Mall for our amusement.
But here's a question: just what has the weather been like in other places-for example, in my part of the world...or in the Senator's home State of Oklahoma?
It's a good question-and the Senator won't like the answer.
Most of us know that Most Glaciers ARE Melting. Here are some stats:
A Reply to the Attacks on Climate Change Science The science is sound and the glaciers are shrinking, says the Union of Concerned Scientists. 02/10/2010
A 2005 global survey of 442 glaciers from the World Glacier Monitoring Service found that only 26 were advancing, 18 were stationary, and 398 were retreating. Overall, about 90 percent of the world's glaciers that scientists have measured are shrinking as the planet warms.
For our scientifically challenged fellow-citizens, it may hard to understand, but simply experiencing a few record-setting Snow Storms, does NOT automatically disprove the theory of Global Warming (aka Climate Change). Science doesn't work that way. Science takes evidence. Science takes data. Science takes experiments - and lots and lots of Measuring. ... It takes measuring of those boring things, called Facts.
The theory of Climate Change, views weather events from a long-term perspective. Climate varies from year to year. Decade to decade.
Climate is a generational phenomenon. (could be why the younger generation "gets it" -- more so than the older.)
Weather, on the other hand, changes with the wind. Weather is a daily event. Weather is the background noise, upon which we plan our daily lives.
In other words, weather can change - a lot; over the course of a week, or over a Season. ... Weather can even swing wildly over the course of a day sometimes - just ask anyone caught without rain gear, when unexpected downburst rolls in.
Weather is volatile. Weather is constantly changing. Climate not so much.
This weekly diary takes a look at the past week's important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.
When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:
1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?
2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?
3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?
The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist's message.
A recent change of the guard in the Massachusetts Senate race force the President to reveal he is working. We, the American people, are waiting, just as we have been for months and months. For a full year, countless citizens have felt as though they were patient. Yet, the President did not seem to have their interests at heart. True change has not come. Countless constituents anticipate none is forthcoming. Three hundred and sixty five plus have gone by and the American people are tired of being patient.
Last night I put up a quick diary at DKOS about a live online broadcast on a forum, debate, on the Future of Energy being held at the University of Charleston and streamed live to what looked like a full house. They have quickly broken up the video into three parts and placed them on YouTube as well as the Real News Networks website. The forum is about an hour and a half long and while civilized, as it should be, Kennedy keeps putting down pretty much every sorry excuse Blankenship tries to use in defending what he and the coal corporations are doing to West Virginia and the Heritage and Beauty of that State and this Country in the name of Great Wealth for the very few and less and less for the workers and residents of West Virginia and well beyond their state borders!
Today, Americans are engrossed in earthquake coverage. The tremor in Haiti bought unimaginable death and destruction just south of our borders. Events related to the recovery and rescues emerge as banner headlines. Haitians Seek Solace Amid the Ruins. For a week now, the struggle to survive, revive the injured, and retrieve the bodies strewn on the streets of Port-au-Prince was also the central theme of most every broadcast. In the midst of the misery, many Americans, felt desperate for a reprieve from the devastation that emotionally drained them. Millions took time to escape in a welcome distraction. Sassy, former Governor and Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin Made Her Debut appearance on Fox. Tomorrow another reality will replace these stories, just as each superseded the hoopla over Harry Reid's reference to race. Metaphorically, the tales provide persons, policies, and, or practices fifteen minutes of fame. In actuality, these fade from our mind quickly.
Our nation's big polluters and their allies in the U.S. Senate are launching a direct attack on efforts to stop climate change. We must defeat them -- right now.
Today, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is expected to offer an amendment to revoke the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon dioxide.
Sen. Murkowski is trying to destroy the most effective tool we currently have for reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- the EPA's Clean Air Act power to reduce CO2 emissions.
The Clean Air Act gives the EPA power to regulate dangerous pollutants in our air, including greenhouse gases. Right now, that's the only legal authority the federal government has to fight climate change.
Sen. Murkowski's agenda isn't hard to understand: fossil fuel lobbyists helped write the original version of her amendment,1 and she is Congress's top recipient of campaign contributions from the massively polluting electric utility industry.2
The featured song last week addressed the matter of U. S. involvement in near continual warfare, which defined almost the entirety of the decade beginning on January 1, 2000. As we look forward to the next ten years, extending to January 1, 2020, U. S. military action in Iraq persists and significant escalation is planned in Afghanistan. Future military intervention in other countries looms as a disturbing possibility. If continued long enough, the United States may well follow the fateful trajectory of the Soviet Union, plummeting into the same abyss, having failed to learn from their predecessor's untoward experience. Continued U. S. military action and/or the eventual demise of this country to at least Second World, if not Third World status, will exert varying degrees of impact upon the rest of the world. Despite this, many nations will likely survive mostly, if not fully intact.
As we consider the decade ahead, perhaps the most critical matter of all is that of climate change. As our mother earth's ability to sustain human life deteriorates, adverse impacts will first be noted in other areas of the world, gradually spreading like a terminal malignancy throughout the remainder of the planet. We can only imagine the accuracy with which our mainstream news media will disclose these developments to the general public, if this occurs at all. More and more people will, of necessity, be crowding into continually shrinking areas of land, thereby reducing the amount of the earth's surface available to produce that which is necessary to perpetuate life. Those newly encroached upon by incoming refugees may not always welcome their new neighbors with open arms and may not be willing to share their meager food and water supplies with their recently arrived guests. We can imagine the results, however much we may wish not to engage in such an uncomfortable exercise.
President Obama announced on Friday that negotiations among the the world's nations had resulted in a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough" on climate change.
One administration official, however, acknowledged in remarks to the Associated Press that it was only a first step and not sufficient in itself to head off global warming. Going by other reactions to the deal, that would appear to be an understatement.
The Guardian obtained a leaked draft of the agreement and reported that "it says countries 'ought' to limit global warming to 2C, but does not bind them to do so."
The Toronto Starexplains, "It is not binding and it does not set new greenhouse-gas reduction targets. Instead, countries are to set their own emission reduction commitments, which would not be legally binding. Those commitments will be the subject of further negotiation, with the aim of a final deal at next year's summit in Mexico."
A Greenpeace representative toldThe Guardian, "This latest draft is so weak as to be meaningless. It's more like a G8 communique than the legally binding agreement we need. It doesn't even include a timeline to give it legal standing or an explicit temperature target. It's hard to imagine our leaders will try to present this document to the world and keep a straight face."
A representative of World Development Movement used even stronger language, saying, "This summit has been in complete disarray from start to finish, and now appears to be culminating in a shameful and monumental failure that will condemn millions of people around the world to untold suffering. The leaders of rich countries have refused to lead and instead sought to bribe and bully developing nations to sign up to the equivalent of a death warrant."
Adele Morris, Fellow, Global Economy and Development and Policy Director for Climate and Energy Economics, Global Economy and Development at The Brookings Institution and Kurt Davies, research director at Greenpeace USA, talk to Paul Jay about the Copenhagen "Climate Sham":
Reform Immigration -
March on Washington
and giving them a hug to measure their size. Parker's own hugging has been extended with a robust group of volunteers conducting regular measurements of specified trees. (The boy scout to the right, while in a SERC forest, isn't engaged in actual measurements for the study.) Some 250,000 hugs later, he has quite a database in hand.
