Now, before I forget, a quick note to say that a) I’ll be guest hosting the Mike Malloy Show again beginning tomorrow (Thursday), weekdays through next Tuesday and b) I will have what is no doubt a Malloy Show first on tomorrow night’s show: one of my guests will be a 2012 Republican Presidential candidate. Which one? You’re welcome to guess, but otherwise, stay tuned.
With that tease out of the way…Today I had a special extended 90-minute BradCast on on L.A.’s Pacifica Radio affiliate KPFK, as I filled in for the host of the hour-long show which follows my usual Wednesday, 3:30pm PT slot.
And with that extra time we had today, I was finally able to take some calls for a change (plus, discuss Mitt Romney’s alleged voter fraud and some related issues). That was our first half-hour of the show, which you can listen to below.
In the last 60 minutes, I was delighted to have two guests, together, who had never spoken in person previously. The first is conservative/libertarian D.R. Tucker — whose recent column, “Confessions of a Climate Change Convert” was published at former Dubya speechwriter David Frum’s FrumForum.com. The must-read article begins “I was defeated by the facts.” It then proceeds to explain how the man who had previously “joined others on the right in dismissing concerns about climate change,” and felt that “any movement associated with Al Gore and Van Jones couldn’t possibly be trusted, that environmentalists were simply left-wing, anti-capitalist kooks.”
My second guest was Grist.org‘s progressive environmental and political journalist David Roberts, who responded to Tucker’s astonishing column with an “Open letter to a conservative climate change convert,” congratulating the former skeptic on having bothered to read the actual facts (some 900 pages of them, as found in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), encouraging him to keep learning and offering several points where conservatives and greens might be able to begin to find common ground on this issue.
And so, it was my hope that we’d be able to use radio to actually work on finding solutions, for a change, rather than exacerbate conflict. And so we did in the second hour, after Tucker explained his remarkable conversion. That too is also available below for your listening pleasure (or displeasure)…
PART I, Romney “voter fraud”, lots of open line callers.
Download MP3, or listen online below [appx 28 mins]…
[audio:http://bradblog.com/audio/BradFriedman_KPFK_RomneyVoterFraud_OpenLines_061511.mp3]PART II, D.R. Tucker & David Roberts.
Download MP3, or listen online below [appx 58 mins]…
[audio:http://bradblog.com/audio/BradFriedman_KPFK_DRTucker_DavidRoberts_061511.mp3]
Avoiding a nuclear catastrophe might be a place to start.
Nebraska nuclear power plant trouble due to flooding might work, or tornado damage to an Alabama nuke plant might work, that is, assuming they have a clue about the dangers in the first place.
The Washington/corporate power structure did to Wiener what they did to Spitzer. When Spitzer and Wiener were going to shine a spotlight on the power structure’s ill behavior, the power structure came down hard on their credibility with a sex scandal.
I’m afraid I found the remarks of Mr. Tucker (so-called “Global Warming Convert”) unconvincing. This is a tricky issue to address. Political Correctness has determined that “Global Warming” is a reality, and that there is unanimity in the scientific comunity.
Yet, I have a problem with what might be considered gov’t dogma. As a start, there are at least seven-hundred respected scientists around the world who have expressed skepticism of the Global Warming theory…either because of faulty science or because of a perceived hidden agenda. Please take the time to examine the Senate Minority Report on Global Warming. Incidentally, there IS evidence of climate change. We have had, for example, some of the mildest pre-summer and winter weather in history, in S. Calif. There may also be a HAARP connection, too, which very few comentators seem willing to explore. You may also remember that in the seventies and eighties, some climatologists warned of Global Cooling. Honest.
A brief sample of the scientist skeptics’ remarks:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.†– Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.†– Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.â€
“Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.†– UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
If you have an open—and discerning mind–you might find a short piece on the “TEN MYTHS of Global Warming” to be of interest. Please, at least consider all the facts and THEN draw your own conclusions. And, no–Virginia–I have no connection with power companies or oil interests. As a matter of fact, I INSIST that we switch over to alternative energy sources and engines. ASAP!!
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
I often enjoy your show, Brad, but you may have missed the mark in this issue. Minimally, you did not present information objectively.
PEACE!!
Dr. TCH said:
Actually, it has nothing to do with “political correctness”. It has to do with science and data and evidence and stuff, though that may not be your thing.
I don’t recall anyone saying there was “unanimity in the scientific consensus.” Rather, there is a vast consensus (I believe the number is about 98%, as much of a consensus as you’re likely to ever find among scientists) in the scientific community, specifically among scientists who actually study climatology and related disciplines.
Which government? Certainly not ours!
Really? Got URL? (Careful of linking to that one phony petition that included dead scientists, non-scientists, “scientists” of vehicle engineering (car mechanics) and scientists who never actually signed it and have been begging for years to have their names removed from the petition.
What should I specifically examine in the Republican/Fossil-Fuel Industry report? Happy to give any specific point a look! Let me know!
Incidentally, there IS evidence of climate change. We have had, for example, some of the mildest pre-summer and winter weather in history, in S. Calif.
Which part of “Global” have you confused with “S. Calif”? You do realize that looking out your bedroom window isn’t a particularly comprehensive study of global phenomenons, which show increased warming across the earth, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and rapid acidification of the oceans — right?
There may also be a Flying Spaghetti Monster connection, but that doesn’t mean there is any scientific evidence yet on record to support it.
I remember that one guy well. And I remember why he warned of it (aerosol, which was taken care of by Reagn/Bush I’s cap and trade treaty to limit those gasses). Here’s some help for you on that long-ago debunked denier claim (one of the most popular!):
+ “They predicted an ice age in the 70s”
+ “What 1970s science said about global cooling”
Speaking of “scientist skeptics”, I just gave you two links to SkepticalScience.com, I suggest you peruse it for a while. I’m quite certain it speaks to the bulk of long-ago debunked claims you’ve offered up above (and are likely to offer in reply to this comment.) So please save us all some time and check it first before repsonding. Thanks!
If you have an open—and discerning mind–you might find a short piece on the “TEN MYTHS of Global Warming” to be of interest. Please, at least consider all the facts and THEN draw your own conclusions.
Read that long ago. Most of those “myths” are also debunked at SkepticalScience.com
For the record, Glover writes for the industry trade site “Energy Tribune” — not that that would have an affect on his work, of course. 🙂
Cool! I’m in!
I appreciate the kind words, your input and attempt to hold my feet to the fire, even where we agree to disagree — even on your assertion of my lack of objectivity in these matters.
BTW, you needn’t be “convinced” by D.R. Tucker. That wasn’t the point of the interview/discussion. If you wish to be convinced, you might try what he did (as he was a long time skeptic), go read the actual science in the 900 pages of the IPCC’s 2007 4th Assessment report.
Peace!