Global warming is a “bipartisan”, “chicken and egg” debate that has gone on for decades...

There are many strong political tactics being used
to manipulate the next voting cycle beyond a "reasonable" party or candidate
race.

Scientist and environmentalist need to take action to make our
democracy work during the next election.

The general public needs to
know what the motives are behind the “reactive” climate reports.

Political “green actions” are volatile and never sustainable. Global warming
is a “bipartisan”, “chicken and egg” debate that has gone on for decades...

It is vital to our existence that we continue to work on sustainable
solutions that are proven to work. Utilizing politically based paranoia &
pseudo science tactics will undermine and continue to divert billions of
dollars away from critical environmental & energy programs that are confirmed
to work.

The articles below exemplify this devastating political
debate and more money wasted.

Imagine if the Millions spent on just the
publication, circulation and promotion of these shows went towards
environmental education a tangible energy programs or current technology?

ANY environmental or energy engineer would tell you that this kind money
diverted to scientific development could have a revolutionary impact in
resolving the real problems in our short lifetimes.

Hey but, I
can't bitch cause I don't vote ;-)

 

Senate Committee Issues Fatwa on Brokaw

Segueing from the last post (on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works’ attack on An Inconvenient Truth) the Committee has struck again. Today it attacked former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw on, of all things, a Discovery Channel program he’ll be hosting on Sunday. The Committee Majority’s release is thin on science but is alarmingly rich with reactionary paranoia. The Senators embarrass themselves and their committee with this attack on Brokaw (and Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, and “Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio”). The 860-word assault haphazardly tosses assertion and conjecture at Brokaw and his sources, hoping something will stick: For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democratic Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz. There’s a lot more like that, as the Senators attempt to write off the findings of three well-respected scientists as being purely partisan motivated. Their main thesis is that the show fails to include a wide-enough range of opinions. Curiously, in the attack’s one scientific nugget, the Senators rely on only one scientist, and one factoid, in their attempt to discredit Brokaw and the broadcast. To paraphrase New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, this attack is not science, it’s political science. “Climate Change: What You Need to Know” airs on the Discovery Channel Sunday, July 16 and will be repeated Saturday, July 22.

 

 

Northern Perspective

In a guest column for the Toronto Star, a Canadian chemist makes some nice outside-the-border observations about the venom being spat at An Inconvenient Truth. The U.S. right wing has reacted venomously to this movie made by the former Democratic contender for president. On June 27, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a statement that included quotes such as, Gore’s “arguments are so weak they are pathetic,” “a propaganda crusade … mostly based on junk science” and “this man is an embarrassment to U.S. science … ” Step back a moment. First of all, in Canada, can you imagine Environment Canada issuing an official denunciation of a movie? Since when do government members review films? Second, bear in mind the substance of the film. If Gore had declared the end of gravity, or claimed DNA to be optional, he couldn’t have been condemned any more baldly — his critics have exhausted the dictionary of abuse. This last observation is especially well-noticed. Rather than discuss the substance of what scientists and their champions are saying, skeptics like the Senate Committee continue to prefer smoke and handwaving. In their effort to make their argument sound strong, they are painting themselves into a reactionary rhetorical corner. And it’s getting more bizarre and paranoid each day.

 

 

 

My fav! http://www.junkscience.com/