Op Ed - Betraying the Planet - Paul Krugman »
Posted By deathray 7 months, 2 weeks ago in Political OpinionSo the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement. But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
867 Views Share Story 117 Comments Report
Submitted By:
deathray
Hm...summarizing a life...Investment banker, sailor, unintentional gourmet cook. Ex US Naval officer, also Foreign Service. Split my time between NYC and Miami Beach ...
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 117 (view all)
-
93%
deathray7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
another example of how people vote on important issues because of imperfect information, or more precisely, in this case, willful ignorance
Reply
fta:
most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.-
-
50%
pc257 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
only in America land of opportunity
Reply
the bill stipulates that 25 percent of power generates has to come from wind and solar.....
this is a good one folks......only the Dems would push a bill considering the following
http://www.livescience.com/environment/etc/090610-...
U.S. Winds Are Dying Down, Study Suggests
We don't need to point this out, but let's do it anyway: What irony if the wind indeed dies down just as billions of dollars are being invested to harvest it in the effort to reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming! Global investment in green energy quadrupled over the past four years and in 2008, wind got the most new money ($51.8 billion).
-
-
93%
deathray7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
fta:
Reply
The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.
Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.-
40%
oldslowjim7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry but the facts you've stated make no sense.
Reply
Why are ice caps shrinking? Increased temperatures would indicate increased evaporation, thus more moisture in the air. Hot air holds more moisture content than cold air, witness thunder storms at cold/hot air boundaries, and only precipitates out when the air gets colder. Where would this occur under a global warming scenario? Closer to the poles, thus the ice caps should be growing due to the increased snowfall! Perhaps you have a link to a study that shows there is also increased snow melt going on at these regions that is not only melting the additional snowfall but past snowfalls as well? I can't find any.
Your own statement that "absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped" is apt evidence that the processes actually occurring are still relatively undecipherable. Why should we believe anything from models where the underlying processes are only guesses?
Show me a model where the creators can accurately "forecast" the past by putting their data into their models in reverse. This should be an important verification tool. I can't find one that says "we can accurately forecast what has already occurred". Consequently, it is obvious to me at least, that not one of the models accurately take into account all the climate processes that are occurring. In fact, the need to jigger with the models to account for the recent, almost decade old, plateau of temperature is also evidence that the models are based upon guesswork.
Lastly, not one post on here from the members of the "religion of global warming" mention one good thing that would occur from a rise in temperatures. It seems that the dogma of this religion is that there is no good that can occur from global warming. To me that is a bunch of hogwash! To accurately access the change, one simply must weigh BOTH the good and bad. To only quote the bad, means one has an agenda. To not even know what good things could also occur means there is a vast pool of ignorance among the posters.
To bet the farm on anthropogenic warming seems to me to be very egotistical. What happens if warming is not anthropogenic but totally natural phenomenon? We will have wasted trillions of dollars and decades of time which would have been better spent on mitigation. At least with mitigation, you have both bases covered. Your attitude is similar to the government telling everyone else at a betting table they MUST go all in because the government KNOWS what the next coin flip will be. Yet, the government has no skin in the game. Think about it a little. Are you THAT confident? -
17%
fjgalt7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
June 27, 2009 11:10 AM PDT
Reply
E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming
"Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
"Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html...
(The 98-page report is included in a link in the story.)
-
-
88%
deathray7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
fta:
Reply
Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.
Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.
Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.-
95%
Will13137 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
His contempt for HARD SCIENCE.. . my god the man is a Doctor of Medicine.. and he's on the house committee for get this. Science and Technology.. also Homeland Security.. no wonder the country is so F-d up..
Reply
he'd be more suited to be a Witch Doctor.. than an MD.. I'd certainly NEVER let him be my doctor..
-
-
96%
quicksilver06027 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why are so many, so willing to ignore hard science...
Reply
One word - CONTROL.
People in general - particularly those in power - are uncomfortable with the notion that there are aspects of life one can't completely control. Sadly, this is a large part of life and ignoring the inevitability of things like our health failing, a faltering economy and the climate changing, is all too human.
We elect our officials to rise above this weakness in ourselves...to look past the perceived "inconvenience" and fear and vote in the best interests of man and the planet...not their chances in upcoming elections.
I doubt most even read the entire bills upon which they vote, let alone consult respected experts.
It's unforgivable...but not too late to change.
Dear Elected Officials,
Please do your jobs.
Forever yours (or until you let me die),
Earth-
96%
deathray7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you're right -
Reply
we elect our representatives in the hope that they are smarter than the rest of us, but all too often the're just as averafe (or below average) as the people who elected them.
the problem here (as krugman illustrates) is that our representatives ignore empirical evidence...for selfish reasons.
i guess that's the downside of democracy; all things being equal, our representatives aren't any smarter than their constituents.
i guess we do get the government we deserve, in our representatives.
-
-
38%
beavith17 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
its not hard science. its a monte carlo simulation.
Reply
a lot of wonderful work, but i'm troubled by the fact that the long term forecast is measured in weeks. how do they measure in decades?
its guesswork.
and of course, the very irritating Paul Krugman wrote it. he has become to me the Rush Limbaugh/Keith Olbermann righty/lefty over the top self promoter.
if he told me i was on fire, i wouldn't believe him. he natters like a fishwife.-
-
-
100%
kobzikov7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"its not hard science. its a monte carlo simulation"
Reply
And that's not a rational objection, it's an ad hominem attack.
Monte Carlo method is widely used in accelerator physics, astrophysics, fluid mechanics, plasma physics, statistical mechanics, solid state physics. It is also instrumental in design and analysis of heat shields, aerodynamic forms, radiation detectors, wireless sensors, and sensor networks to mention just a few applications.
And if I was a betting man I'd be willing to wager good money that you check weather reports and take an umbrella with you when your local weatherman says that there is a high chance of rain.
-
-
32%
rbiii7 months, 2 weeks ago
-
100%
Spadecaller7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Percpetion and fact are often unrelated-- even more so in the realm of fashion and politics. In politics, good science is dependent on the ethics of the leaders we elect. So the question understandably haunting the minds of those of us who have ligitimate concerns about greenhouse gases and the effects of climate change is whether or not our representatives prefer to sell their awareness to the highest bidders in order to preserve their careers in politics. Not a very reassuring prospect for postitive change. With this growing awareness of lobbyists vs responsible change, we must learn and implement more methods that can eradicate the influence of lobbyists and unscrupulous potiticians. Typing these words out and posting this story is one method, and a good start indeed.
Reply-
94%
cleare7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
a very good start indeed, especially when the commentary is as thoughtful as yours, spade.
Reply
struggling for balance between self-interest and communal interest describes the history of cultures in a nutshell. but, in this case, we're talking a global community and the health of our shared home.
while the bill, IMHO, doesn't go far enough, at least it's a baby step. the bigger challenge is in finding a way to get past the nay-sayers. (seems clear we won't be able to convince them until their vacation homes disappear in floods or beach erosion.) -
-
-
94%
truthiness7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the goal behind taxing fossil fuel use, is that out of self interest people will switch to alternatives faster in order to save money. It is the government forcing the market in a certain direction by creating disincentives for certain behavior. A policy which has worked historically much better than, say, prohibition of certain behavior.
Reply
even if, for some reason, you don't believe in climate change and humanity's ability to affect it, surely you can agree that clean air and water is good. This bill will improve that situation over the long term as well. It will also help in our efforts to get off foreign energy dependence.
how? by encouraging the use of alternatives through economic pressure.-
14%
rbiii7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The government is not and will never be the most effective source for that economic pressure. Too many strings, special interests, and corruption all backed by the taxpayer's money. It is a recipe for disaster.
Reply
And I'm not even touching on the fact that all this is going above and beyond the intended role of the Federal government.
-
-
-
-
92%
Radiofreeeuropa7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
According to actual analysis, this is a net job gaining bill. Boo Hoo, it's not all that difficult to look at what C02 producing products were used in any industry. Any business keeps those kinds of records anyway. Deduct measures that were taken that reduce emissions and there are some reasonable tracking stats.
Reply
-
-
100%
aceofspades17 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This off topic, but people are actually reading this post unlike those currently at the top of page one.
Reply
What is going on at Prop - articles that have only 2 or 3 people reading them are given prime exposure while postings such as this are buried down the list.
Prop better wake up I don't want to have to scroll through inane articles like "20 ways to wake up early" or "candy facts" to get to where there is an actual discussion going on-
92%
Progressive7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The articles with the most comments are in a sidebar on the right side of the front page, which is now updated more frequently, but on a seemingly random basis.
Reply
Click on "Today" at the top of the first page to see the most propped submissions of the past 24 hours.
-
-
-
tadair919Comment removed: Spam
-
33%
tadair9197 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Chicken or the Egg? Temperature Rise Comes Before CO2 Rise
Reply
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-CO2-lagg... -
30%
tadair9197 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NASA Correlates Temperature With Sun.
Reply
(Wonders never cease)
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA%20Study%20Acknowledg... -
11%
Wolfie20077 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Try this one.
Reply
http://www.propeller.com/story/submit/thanks/ -
94%
Radiofreeeuropa7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Basically what the deniers want you to believe (and they are well funded from the major polluters) is that man can belch **** into the air and water and mother nature will simply absorb it with no ill effect. If that seems reasonable to you, try ****ing in your bath water. See if there is an effect.
Reply-
-
60%
antibrainwasher7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exon Mobile just stopped funding charlatan deniers last year after a massive protest of scientists withing the community, such as the ACS. They make billions by delaying the clean up of their polution, its a strictly greed perspective, they are murdering traitors, as are the deniers in congress and even on propeller, self intrested murders, who chose to kill the planet over the welfare of their own children. Cowards and murders and superstitious teliban terrorists, I give you the party of cons, whose only principle is make the rich richer.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
fjgalt7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
Reply
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
http://www.petitionproject.com -
-
100%
Eagle_Eye7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great post dr!! I read this yesterday and thought about posting it but I am so tired of being hounded by the naysayers, CapeCoralMan, DrJ, etc.
Reply
I spent 30 years of my life dedicated to the wildlife, environmental research and education all to watch it being destroyed. I ask myself why many times and I just don't have the heart to do it any more because I know I can't make a difference where as those years I worked at it I thought I could make a difference..... -
100%
DEMONSLAYAR7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
some of you people are really mean and inconsiderate. If we did something foolish like make more renewable energy think of those who would suffer. The price of oil would drop causing a decrease in Exxon's profits. the average person would be burdened with more money to carry in their pockets. Iran would lose money too, that would mean less money for Hammas. How do you expect Iran to build more nukes and share them with other Arab nations if they don't sell more oil? And then there is the poor utility companies that would suffer. Their profits would go down. you would be creating capitalism in the energy field. OMG there would be small companies having to hire people and give them pay checks. Why would you want America to prosper and not send so much money out of the country? the poor saudi's would lose so much. Dam you selfish people.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.