TWITTER: @GreenNewsReport
VIA SMART PHONE: Stitcher Radio!
IN TODAY’S RADIO REPORT: We’re back! … As Obama calls for rebuilding America’s roads, railways & runways, just in time for the election; BP’s blowout preventer raised from the deep; Oil found in MS oyster beds; Prominent climate change skeptic reverses course … PLUS: The “Kochtopus”: Out-of-state billionaires try to kill CA’s landmark global warming law with an Orwellian ballot initiative … All that and more in today’s Green News Report!
Listen online here, or Download MP3 (6 mins)…
| Link: | |
| Embed: |
Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com.
IN ‘GREEN NEWS EXTRA’ (see links below): Arctic: Both fabled NW and NE passages now open; Antarctica: A climate warning from the deep; Chevron seeking exemption from state environmental laws in CA; A Green Mobile Home in a spiritual trailer park; Inquiry finds U.N. climate panel needs to ‘fundamentally reform’; Mafia cash in on lucrative EU wind farm handouts; Australian Greens seek ‘fast, furious’ climate steps; Fish fight: FDA to hear comments on GM salmon …PLUS: Five Ways You Can Help Pakistan (and the Rest of Us) …
STORIES DISCUSSED IN TODAY’S ‘GREEN NEWS REPORT’…
- Update: BP Oil Disaster in the Gulf:
- Gulf Oil Blowout Preventer: Where Is It? (Huffington Post Green)
- BP blowout preventer brought aboard vessel: Investigation turns to why the 5-story device failed to stop spill (MSNBC)
- Did FBI Secrecy Cost Government Spill Probe Its Credibility? (The Daily Glob)
- Oil well capped, ‘shrimp and petroleum’ festival goes ahead: Eager to move past the devastating Gulf of Mexico oil spill and celebrate a local tradition, thousands of people flocked this weekend to Louisiana’s annual Shrimp and Petroleum Festival. (AFP)
- BP spill: White House says oil has gone, but Gulf’s fishermen are not so sure:
Counsellors and lawyers are busier than seafarers in Louisiana, as some experts warn that fishing industry will never recover (Guardian UK) - Mississippi Shrimpers Find Oil Throughout Waters, Refuse To Trawl: They tied an absorbent rag to a weighted hook, dropped it overboard, then pulled it up to find it covered in a mix of BP’s crude oil and toxic dispersants. (Alternet)
- More seafood testing needed, scientist says: Gina Solomon, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, is calling on federal officials to conduct a more rigorous testing regimen for Gulf of Mexico shrimp and seafood. (NOLA.com)
- The Government’s Shrimpy Seafood Safety Test: The FDA also admitted that it doesn’t have methodologies in place to check for a number of components of chemical dispersants in seafood yet (Mother Jones)
- Up to 90% of oysters dead in Mississippi reef sample
: Catches resulting in an abundance of empty oyster shells led some fishermen to doubt the viability of the season, which typically begins in September or October. (Miami Herald) - Congressman: BP “Openly Blackmailing the American Government”: If the oil giant can’t keep drilling offshore, its promise to compensate victims of the Deepwater Horizon disaster might go unfulfilled—or so the company claims. (Mother Jones)
- BP gives $10 million to National Institutes of Health to study health effects of oil spill: Part of an ongoing pledge BP made in late May to provide up to $500 million for independent research into the spill’s impact (NOLA.com)
- Louisianans affected by Gulf oil spill seek lessons in Alaska from Exxon Valdez. (Washington Post)
- Some see wetlands loss a threat greater than any oil spill. (Houston Chronicle)
- Uncertain future after Gulf oil spill has Buras fishing lodge owner on edge (Mobile Press-Register)
- Shoe company hopes ‘oil spill collection’ will raise money for cleanup (Mobile Press-Register)
- Investigation Into BP’s Other Big Gulf Operation Still Not Done (Mother Jones)
- “Skeptical Environmentalist” Reverses Course: Lomborg Calls For Action on Climate Change:
- The Flexible Enviroskepticist: ‘Skeptical environmentalist’ Bjørn Lomborg reverses his climate skepticism: Danish statistician, self-styled “Skeptical Environmentalist,” and shrewd self-promoter is updating his long-held position that climate change isn’t much of a problem (Grist)
- Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change:
Exclusive ‘Sceptical environmentalist’ and critic of climate scientists to declare global warming a chief concern facing world (Guradian UK) - Bjørn Lomborg: the dissenting climate change voice who changed his tune: With his new book, Danish scientist Bjørn Lomborg has become an unlikely advocate for huge investment in fighting global warming. But his answers are unlikely to satisfy all climate change campaigners (Guradian UK)
- Global warming science is still evolving — but not in the direction the disinformers think: Simon Lewis debunks another flawed Wall Street Journal editorial (Climate Progress)
- Obama Announces Plan to Rebuild America’s Infrastructure (But Does Not Discuss Odds of Snowballs in Hell):
- WATCH: Obama Pitches New Jobs initiatives; Focuses on the Economy (C-SPAN)
- READ: Transcript: Obama’s speech at Laborfest (On Milwaukee.com):
On the day I announced the end to our combat mission in Iraq, I spent some time, as I often do, with our soldiers and veterans. This new generation of troops coming home from Iraq has earned its place alongside that greatest generation. Like them, they have the skills and training and drive to move America’s economy forward once more. And from the time I took office, we’ve been investing in new care, new opportunity, and a new commitment to their service that’s worthy of their sacrifice. But they’re coming home to an economy hit by recession deeper than any we’ve seen. And the question is, how do we create the same kind of middle class opportunity my grandparents’ generation came home to? How do we build our economy on the same kind of strong, stable foundation for growth?
Well, anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it’ll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up – they just haven’t studied our history.
- Obama looks at oil incentives to pay for infrastructure, industry takes exception (The Hill)
- Obama wants $50B to beef up infrastructure ‘as soon as possible’: President Obama on Monday called for an upfront investment of $50 billion to improve roads, railways and runways as part of a larger six-year strategy to update the nation’s aging infrastructure. (The Hill)
- Obama Offers a Transit Plan to Create Jobs (NY Times)
- Hit the breaks!: Obama: Rebuild America by slashing oil tax breaks (Grist)
- California’s “Dirty Air” Prop 23 Funded By Millions From Oil Industry:
- Prop 23, So-Called ‘California Jobs Initiative’, an Orwellian-Labelled Scam That Would Destroy Jobs and Environment: Will lies of the oil industry’s ‘poison populism’ be exposed in time to save humanity?… (The BRAD BLOG):
That ‘Tea Party’ backing Koch Industries, an oily conglomeration which is ranked as one of the nation’s worst polluters, has joined with two other Texas-based oil industry polluters, Tesoro Corp. and Valero Energy Corp., aka the “Toxic Twins,” comes as no surprise. After all, Koch has already been aptly described by Greenpeace as “the kingpins of climate science denial.”
- Petrodollars: Koch brothers jump into Prop 23 fight (Grist)
- Federal, state, and local leaders unite against Prop 23 (Climate Progress)
- L.A. mayor, Latino activists take on oil companies over Proposition 23: They say the ballot initiative to suspend the state’s climate change law would hurt low-income communities already suffering the most from pollution. (LA Times):
“Go home, Texas oil companies,” Villaraigosa urged at a news conference aimed at encouraging voters to oppose Proposition 23, a November ballot initiative to suspend California’s 2006 climate change law until the state’s unemployment rate drops.
- Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine: Explore Koch’s Web of Dirty Money and Influence (Greenpeace):
Billionaire oilman David Koch likes to joke that Koch Industries is “the biggest company you’ve never heard of.” But the nearly $50 million that David Koch and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming is no joking matter.
- Koch firm donates $1 million to campaign to suspend climate change law (Sacramento Bee)
- Fiorina calls Prop. 23 ‘imperfect’ but supports measure (Sacramento Bee):
Fiorina’s critics were quick to denounce her position, saying it was at odds with many economists who warn that it would kill jobs in California and send them overseas.
- Senator Barbara Boxer — Her Reelection — Our New Climate Movement: We must help Senator Boxer’s reelection campaign no matter where we live. She’s a champion against offshore oil-and-gas development, while Carly Fiorina’s sympathy is with the oil-and-coal companies. (Subhankar Banerjee, Huffington Post Green)
- Exposing the Billionaire Koch Brothers’ Funding of Rightwing Anti-Environmental Organizations:
- Explosive Expose: Covert Operations: The billionaire Koch brothers who are waging a war against Obama. (Jane Mayer, New Yorker Magazine):
David H. Koch his brother Charles are lifelong libertarians and have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes, all under the radar.
- OP-ED: The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party (Frank Rich, NY Times):
ANOTHER weekend, another grass-roots demonstration starring Real Americans who are mad as hell and want to take back their country from you-know-who….
There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the “death panel†warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs’ banner may not know who these brothers are.Their self-interested and at times radical agendas, like Murdoch’s, go well beyond, and sometimes counter to, the interests of those who serve as spear carriers in the political pageants hawked on Fox News. The country will be in for quite a ride should these potentates gain power…
- PBS ombudsman Getler whitewashes the Koch-funded greenwashing episode of Nova that whitewashes the threat of human-caused climate change (Climate Progress)
- Pro-Environment Groups Outmatched, Outspent 7-to-1 in Battle Over Climate Change Legislation (Open Secrets.org):
ExxonMobil, the industry leader in 2009, spent $27.4 million in lobbying expenditures that year — more than the entire pro-environment lobby.
And in July, congressional debate on global warming stopped cold.
In other words, Goliath whipped David.
‘GREEN NEWS EXTRA’ (Stuff we didn’t have time for in today’s audio report)…
- Arctic: Northwest and Northeast Passages Now Open: Event marks the third time in recorded history that both the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage have melted free. (Mother Jones)
- Chevron may be seeking exemption from state environmental laws for its refinery rebuilding project (San Jose Mercury News):
Now environmentalists and some legislators are sounding the alarm in Sacramento, saying Chevron’s lobbyists in the Capitol have been quietly trying to craft a deal to give the company — America’s third largest, with $10.4 billion in profit last year — an exemption from the state law that requires environmental studies of major projects.
…
Built in 1902 by Standard Oil, the refinery ranks as the third-largest source of toxic pollution in Northern California, having released 604,483 pounds of chemicals last year, including 392,038 pounds of air emissions such as benzene, lead, ammonia, zinc, acids and other chemicals through its smokestacks and other equipment, according to EPA records. The plant also is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in California, having put out 4.8 million metric tons in 2008, according to the state Air Resources Board. - Ecomobile: A Green Mobile Home In A Spiritual Trailer Park (Treehugger):
It has become increasingly clear that you cannot separate the home from the context, and that what we really need is a sort of green trailer park, where people can own their unit but share common resources. It turns out that it exists, and has since 1962; Dr. Graham Meltzer just built his own home, the ecomobile, in the Park at Findhorn, a “growing eco-village and spiritual community.” in North Scotland. Existing caravans (British for trailer) are being replaced with everything from yurts to eco-mobile homes.
- A climate warning from the deep: The dispersal of tiny sea creatures in Antarctica has alerted scientists to the vulnerability of Earth’s ice sheets (Guardian UK)
- IPCC the light: U.N. climate panel needs to ‘fundamentally reform,’ review finds: A U.N.-ordered review said Monday that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) needed to “fundamentally reform” how it operates after embarrassing errors in a landmark report dented its credibility. (Grist)
- IPCC climate change panel needs transparency, review panel finds (Christian Science Monitor):
The IPCC climate change advisory panel, stung by criticism that it ignored dissenting views, underwent an independent review of its management. Observers have called the report ‘remarkably hard-hitting.’
….
Seven investigations have been conducted into allegations of data fudging or other alleged scientific abuses stemming from the leaked emails. The investigations all concluded the science itself is sound. - Fish fight: FDA to hear comments on GM salmon: The FDA has scheduled meetings September 19-21 to hear advice about whether the agency should approve GM (genetically modified) salmon. (Food Politics)
- Mafia cash in on lucrative EU wind farm handouts – especially in Sicily: An ill wind is blowing over Italy’s green revolution, as the Mafia seek to capitalise on generous grants for renewable energy. (Telegraph UK)
- Green Party Assumes Pivotal Role in New Australian Government: Minority government must deliver on climate reform and carbon pricing in return for support from Greens (Solve Climate)
- Five Ways You Can Help Pakistan (and the Rest of Us) (YES! Magazine):
Some may hesitate to contribute to flood relief because we associate Pakistan with qualities we don’t admire—nuclear proliferation, religious fundamentalism, the oppression of women, and a corrupt and powerful military. But the people of Pakistan are more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of these problems, and above all else, they are fellow human beings in dire need.
So how can we distance ourselves from the qualities we don’t like while offering solidarity to the people of Pakistan?
Ah, Brad, Desi & the Green News Report. Know you three needed some R & R, but it’s so good to have ya’ll back!
Thanks, Ernesto! And I’ll assume those kind words are not just because you got a shout out in today’s episode! 😉
I’m about as concerned over the Northwest passage opening up as I am about the South Pole of Mars that has been melting for the past 3 years in a row. That is for those of you who believe JPL is a reliable source of information. Oh, and they’ve also confirmed a .5 degree C increase in Mars temperature the past 30 years. I haven’t a clue why this is happening, but I’m sure some of the scientific geniuses out here on the Green Blog will fill me in.
The California Jobs Initiative (CJI) is an oil corporation farce and fraud. There is no connection, whatsoever, between greenhouse gas emission reduction and the loss of jobs. This notion is an insult to the intelligence of the people of California. In fact, there is growth in the clean renewable energy industry. The only jobs created by the oil industry are clean-up jobs after oil spills and deep water, blow-outs and pump-handler jobs. CJI will make fantastic profits for the oil industry, increase air pollution, especially in communities around their refineries, and there will not be lower gas prices. Koch Industries, Valero and Tesoro are super Enrons. Since when did the oil companies start to show any concern for the unemployed and their families?
Brook parroted yet another Fossil Fuel Industry/GOP/sucker talking point with:
Really? Where’d ya get that info from? Fox “News”? Rush Limbaugh? Marc Morano? Fred Thompson?
Seriously, Brook, are you just willing to retype anything they tell you, without bothering to check it out in the least?! Are you that daft? Or just don’t mind if your comments have any relationship with truth?
Now we never claimed to be “scientific geniuses” here “at the Green Blog”, but when we have questions of science, we do tend to rely on actual scientists for the answers to them. You may wish to try it.
You can start here, in regard to your Mars talking point:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
Do be sure to read both the Basic and Intermediate responses to your and Mr. Thompson’s “science”, since I’m certain you’re genius enough to comprehend both.
And please consider this your second warning about violation of our rule against posting “knowing disinformation” here. If you keep it up, you’ll not be commenting here much longer. So thanks for minding those rules, Brook.
Maybe you missed the part where i cited my source: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. And your source was skepticalscience.com. This pretty much says it all, folks.
So, again we ask the question — why is Mars warming up. Anyone want to take a stab at that one? Anyone?
Maybe you missed the part, “Brook”, where you didn’t actually cite anything. You just claimed that JPL says so.
Links, please, so people can read specifically what you’re claiming JPL said, and the context — say, specifically the part where the folks at JPL say the data on Mars (which has no oceans, a very thin atmosphere, where the instrument record extends back less than a decade because no humans have ever set foot on it) has any relevance to disproving the evidence of climate change on Earth.
(For those like “Brook” who haven’t yet bothered to check into it, SkepticalScience.com is a compendium of the ACTUAL scientific studies dealing directly with these subjects, LINKED for further study. That “Brook” didn’t bother pretty much says it all.)
Happy to oblige, but disappointed it is necessary…
http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/science/4_recent_climate_change/index.html
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17977/Mars_Is_Warming_NASA_Scientists_Report.html
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723
Brook,
The Heartland Institute and Canada.com are not reliable sources. They are funded by API, Koch and the like. However, your link to NASA clearly explains the causes of the observations on Mars. Large variations in Mars’ planetary motions are causing the climate change.
These sources simply reported the NASA findings — not their own. However, I’m glad we are getting somewhere here, as John admits global warming IS happening on Mars. Hey, we are making progress. It’s not a tea-bagger fantasy — it’s actual real gol dang science.
Now, let’s examine what the article really says, and that is they have a WORKING THEORY of why Mars is warming. Now, these people are real scientists willing to admit they don’t have all the answers, but have a good theory as to what might be happening on Mars.
Is there a correlation at all between Martian GW and GW here at the same point in time? A real objective scientist would be asking those questions, but we don’t have objective climate scientists. We have evanglicals with Phds.
For a moment, let’s go back to your initial post:
So you’re more concerned about what’s happening on the planet you don’t live on, vs. the one you do?
Um, no one is ‘admit’ting that Mars is warming — the request was that you show specifically where JPL indicates Mars data is relevant to disproving whether Earth’s atmosphere is warming from human activities.
You can’t because JPL says no such thing. Heartland and Canada.com are not scientific organizations and their conclusions should not be confused/conflated with those of the scientists at JPL. [on edit, the scientists quoted at those links are not from JPL, and seriously hedge their conclusions on the relevance to Earth’s climate.]
JPL says the limited Mars data set can inform Earth climate studies, but nowhere do they claim it has direct relevance in predicting the sensitivity of the Earth’s very different atmosphere to the massive inputs of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. No cars on Mars, you know! Or coal-fired power plants, or water vapor, or oceans — just as Earth doesn’t have the Mars dust that is believed to be the primary driver of Mars’ climate (Szwast 2006). But luckily “real objective scientists” are asking those questions, as JPL demonstrates. Please don’t misstate their conclusions.
Lastly, just to clarify your comment at #10, are you saying that only scientists who study Mars are doing “real gol dang science”, and the scientists who study Earth’s systems are not?
‘Cause it sure reads like you respect the “real scientists willing to admit they don’t have all the answers, but have a good theory” only if it relates to Mars, yet actively denigrate the data of scientists who study Earth systems who ALSO admit they don’t have all the answers and have ALSO presented their “WORKING THEORY” — just because you just don’t like their conclusions. What’s your process for evaluating data?
Again, the data from Mars is limited. The volume of data collected on Earth’s systems is literally orders of magnitude greater, and it all points in the same direction. Yet one is from “real scientists”, the other from “evangelicals with Phds”?
You might enjoy this: an actual climate scientist in a debate with 52 skeptics that aired on Australian TV.
WATCH: Can one climate change scientist change the minds of a roomful of climate change sceptics?
Transcript is here, if you don’t want to watch.
Brook said:
Yes, I’m sorry that simply trusting in the uncited claims of anonymous commenters falls below our standards of “evidence” here. I know it’s difficult moving from Fox “News” to some place like The BRAD BLOG where actual source information is required.
And speaking of actual “source information”, did you even bother to read the links you posted here, Brook?
Did you realize, as John J noted for you, that two of the “sources” you cited were from fossil fuel funded ECONOMIC sites (versus scientific sites)? That one of those two pages you cited relies on a scientist who says we will have an ice age on earth in the next 50 years? That the other notes that, at best, only 10 to 30 percent of GW on Earth (as correlated with Mars in best case scenario) could be attributed to increased solar output? (That, even as the other page charges we’re about to have an ice age?!)
As to the actual source document, the one from NASA, did you bother to read IT at least? If so, you’ll surely have seen that they make no such claims as you’re implying, that their research goes back just a few years, that they attribute any *possible* warming on Mars — as based on the tiny body of data they have, versus the mountains of data from dozens of earth sciences back here on planet Earth — to fluctuations in orbit and/or other potential and unverified theories?
It’s amusing that the one Russian scientist who claims we’ll very soon have an ice age and the other scientist who poses extremely vague and un-peer reviewed theories at the NASA site are “real scientists” versus the thousands of scientists across the globe who all agree on decades of peer-reviewed consensus findings, across dozens of disciplines which all confirm the same final working hypothesis. Those thousands of folks, of course, are “evanglicals with Phds” who are not “objective” (even as you show no evidence in the slightest for their lack of objectivity).
You’re either a joke, Brook, or a paid fossil fuel industry stooge. Take your pick. Either way, as you continue to post disinformation here, prepare to see your freedom to do so on my blog come to an end shortly, unless you wise up and post actual cites to support your outrageous and tedious disinformation (eg. the lack of objectivity of climate scientists, the “evanglicals with Phds.” as you allege).
The time it takes to respond to your easily discredited bullshit is VERY quickly becoming not worth the effort. Once again, you’ve been repeatedly and politely warned.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/
More Mars warming evidence. I’ve got as many of these links as you guys care to look at. Now, this one is from nasa.gov, so i am assuming we’re cool here.
I think this debate has been very helpful for Mr. Friedman. In 24 hrs. he’s gone from claiming mars warming theory is a Fred Thompson special to actually having a scientific answer when someone asks him why Mars is warming. Glad to be of service.
Now, these theories of Mars and Earth warming are all very interesting to those who have that kind of interest. The problem with the Earth CO2 hypothesis is these scientists are claiming they can reduce the Earth’s temperature by 2 degrees — if we, the American taxpayers just fork over $ 850 billion. You would normally laugh such an absurd claim off — except we actually have politicians (who can’t balance a budget to save their lives) that are telling us it’s the only way to save the planet. “Just give us more money!”
C’mon, folks, it’s time to get real. Do you believe Barbara Boxer can control the temperature on this planet — yes or no! That’s what this comes down to. Think about it.
mean to add this one…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1660-mars-could-be-undergoing-major-global-warming.html
Northwest Passage Navigable in 1937
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100426015605AAxIH4N
What created the warming of the 30’s that led to that substantial melt? Looking for an answer, please.
Brook claimed:
Guess you’re not “looking” very hard. You may want to check the very same link you posted under “Best Answer – Chosen by Voters”.
When you get around to coming up with some crazy explanation for ocean acidification, let us know about that too. Though be sure to read your own link, whatever it will be, before posting it here, just to save us all some time. K?
Now back to your fossil fuel funded Church of Denial.
Brook disinformed:
Congrats! After lord knows how many warnings for ya, you’ve just landed yourself on the moderate bin. You’ve been warned of our very few rules for commenting for a long time. I’m sorry you’ve chosen to disobey them. Your posts will not be allowed to be published if they continue to break the rules. If we get tired of moderating you, you and your posts will be banned all together.
And no, scientists are not “claiming they can reduce the Earth’s temperature by 2 degrees … if we, the American taxpayers just fork over $ 850 billion.” Neither is Barbara Boxer. Neither is anybody for that matter.
Some, including Boxer, have been supportive of a Cap and Trade plan to use market structures to control the ever-increasing release of dangerous carbon, akin to Cap and Trade plans signed into law by previous Presidents which successfully controlled the elimination or reduction of different greenhouse gasses, without “taxing” anybody for it in the bargain.
See ya.
Brook, thank you for finally admitting your real problem with climate change data: you attack the scientific evidence because of what you perceive to be the potential policy responses, and you’re afraid of what it means to you economically.
That’s understandable — it’s an unknown that has been attacked, fear-mongered and demigogued with virulent intensity by the oil industry, who are understandably afraid of losing even a tiny portion of their substantial profits. The oil industry is the most profitable business in the history of humanity, after all, and it’s free for them pollute, let the taxpayer pay for cleanup and substantial health impacts. Big Oil can raise prices at will and pocket the profits… along with the billions they receive annually in taxpayer-funded permanent subsidies and tax breaks (which dwarf clean energy support, btw, by 4 to 1). It’s a sweet deal.
Have you considered whether your lifestyle of cheap, subsidized dirty energy might be done cleaner, greener, cheaper and more efficiently through good ol’ American ingenuity with American-made energy? Are you aware of the mountains of evidence that show investing in clean energy, energy efficiency and sustainable practices will save literally billions of dollars over the dirty energy economy we have now?
But what are you talking about here?:
Assuming you’re not making up BS about geo-engineering — No one is claiming they can “reduce the Earth’s temperature”.
It’s too late for that.
A certain amount of warming is already baked in to our future, but we have the capacity to mitigate the amount of additional inputs by moving away from burning dirty fuels, using technology we possess today.
Sorry to be the one to break this to ya, but the interaction of CO2 with solar radiation is basic, established physics. No amount of data on Mars warming can change that — or on ocean acidification, as Brad mentioned.
At least you reveal why you discount the overwhelming scientific consensus — money.
Oh, and to this Brook nonsense/waste of all of our time:
Yeah. We’re cool. Or would have been if you had an ounce of integrity. Again, did you bother to read your own link, which notes, among other similar points:
Yes, the sun does tend warm things.
If you find any scientific material proving global warming doesn’t exist because the globe seems to get cooler at night when the sun goes down, let us know.
Thanks. Was unclear on that whole day/night, winter/summer thing. Appreciate your clearing it up for all of us.
Now, um, don’t let the door hit ya.
Brook, on the very big assumption that you are simply misinformed or under-informed, as opposed to an oil industry plant, here’s an excellent starting point for you.
See, Dr. James Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity.
I would respectfully suggest that you pay especially close attention to the work by Hansen and other scientists in the field of paleoclimate studies conducted here on Earth, which establishes why the corporate-funded pseudo-science offered up by the likes of Heartland Institute and Canada.com (Hansen refers to it as “greenwash” but I prefer “hogwash”) and your inapposite reference to a JPL study on Mars are of no value whatsoever.
Come back after you’ve read and digested Hansen. Then, perhaps we can have a meaningful conversation.
The UMass Amherst report naming Koch as one of the country’s top polluters also listed Ford Motor, General Motors, GE, Pfizer, Eastman Kodak, Sony, Honeywell, Berkshire Hathaway, Kimberly Clark, Anheuser Busch and Goodyear. In other words, almost anybody who makes anything in America generates permitted emissions and can be called a top “polluter.â€
More information on Koch Industries can be found at http://www.kochfacts.com.
Thanks for your comment, “Koch Facts”. Do you agree that pollution is an issue of concern?
Re: your statement…. “In other words, almost anybody who makes anything in America generates permitted emissions and can be called a top “polluter.— Actually, no, that’s a false statement. There are many, many more companies who “make things” in the USA who are not on the list of Top Polluters.
What steps are the employees and directors at Koch Industries taking to reduce their “permitted emissions” and get off that list of Top Polluters?
The other companies you mention are working with environmental groups to reduce the impact of their operations. Kimberly Clark, for example, signed a deal with Greenpeace to implement sustainability strategies last year, for example.
To borrow a phrase from another hot topic in the news, just because you CAN pollute doesn’t mean you SHOULD. So what concrete steps are being taken by Koch Industries to reduce its emissions and its pollution?
Also, how does Koch Industries justify making this statement (from your website): “We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases”, when your owners have spent millions undermining the factual scientific consensus that exists among the vast majority of Earth systems scientists?
How does giving millions to promote Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt over the scientific consensus among EVERY reputable scientific organization in the world encourage “an intellectually honest debate?”
What is Koch Industries’ response to the assertions from economists, and entrepreneurs and tech companies in Silicon Valley that the Koch-funded CA Proposition 23 would be the real job killer, rather than AB 32?
Lastly, when will Koch Industries begin to use its considerable profits to move to clean energy and sustainable practices for its many polluting manufacturing operations — rather than waste time and millions fighting like mad to remain mired in dirty 19th century technologies?
Hey, Brook! Funny how right after you made that BS assertion about Mars, and then didn’t even bother to read the actual scientific evidence, the folks at SkepticalScience.com answered your BS assertion, in response to a flurry of questions about it (actual scientific data at the link):
Hope you’ll bother to pre-bunk yourself before posting to ensure you actually understand your own argument and the evidence (or lack thereof) behind it.
While we await a response to Des’ poignant questions @23 posed to “Koch Industries” (aka dirty energy is good for you, inc) perhaps Koch would like to explain to us why it has secretly funded the “Tea Party” movement.
While you’re at it, perhaps you would like to post a response to the claim made by Bill Koch back in 2000 when he appeared on 60 minutes, that Charles Koch and Koch Industries “made millions by stealing oil from the government.”
kochfacts.com? Now there’s an oxymoron.