Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 24, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size


The Key to 2014




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Political Climate Change Needed

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 7, 2007

By Ellen Goodman

BOSTON—On the day that the latest report on global warming was released, I went out and bought a light bulb. OK, an environmentally friendly, compact fluorescent light bulb. 

No, I do not think that if everyone lit just one little compact fluorescent light bulb, what a bright world this would be. Even the Prius in our driveway doesn’t do a whole lot to reduce my carbon footprint, which is roughly the size of the Yeti lurking in the (melting) Himalayas. But it was either buying a light bulb or pulling the covers over my head. And it was too early in the day to reach for that kind of comforter.

By every measure, the U.N.‘s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is “unequivocal.” The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.

I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global-warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

But light bulbs aside—I now have three and counting—I don’t expect that this report will set off some vast political uprising. The sorry fact is that the rising world thermometer hasn’t translated into political climate change in America.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The folks at the Pew Research Center clocking public attitudes show that global warming remains 20th on the annual list of 23 policy priorities. Below terrorism, of course, but also below tax cuts, crime, morality and illegal immigration.

One reason is that while poles are melting and polar bears are swimming between ice floes, American politics has remained polarized. There are astonishing gaps between Republican science and Democratic science. Try these numbers: Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.

This great divide comes from the science-be-damned-and-debunked attitude of the Bush administration and its favorite media outlets. The day of the report, Big Oil Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma actually described it as “a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain.” Speaking of corruption of science, the American Enterprise Institute, which has gotten $1.6 million over the years from Exxon Mobil, offered $10,000 last summer to scientists who would counter the IPCC report.

But there are psychological as well as political reasons why global warming remains in the cool basement of priorities. It may be, paradoxically, that framing this issue in catastrophic terms ends up paralyzing instead of motivating us. Remember the Time magazine cover story: “Be Worried. Be Very Worried.” The essential environmental narrative is a hair-raising consciousness-raising: This is your Earth. This is your Earth on carbon emissions.

This works for some. But a lot of social science research tells us something else. As Ross Gelbspan, author of “The Heat Is On,” says, “when people are confronted with an overwhelming threat and don’t see a solution, it makes them feel impotent. So they shrug it off or go into deliberate denial.”

Michael Shellenberger, co-author of “The Death of Environmentalism,” adds, “The dominant narrative of global warming has been that we’re responsible and have to make changes or we’re all going to die. It’s tailor-made to ensure inaction.”

So how many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

American University’s Matthew Nisbet is among those who see the importance of expanding the story beyond scientists. He is charting the gradual reframing of climate change into a moral and religious issue—see the greening of the evangelicals—and into a corruption-of-science issue—see big oil—and an economic issue—see the newer, greener technologies.

In addition, maybe we can turn denial into planning. “If the weatherman says there’s a 75 percent chance of rain, you take your umbrella,” Shellenberger tells groups. Even people who clutched denial as their last, best hope can prepare, he says, for the next Katrina. Global-warming preparation is both his antidote for helplessness and goad to collective action.

The report is grim stuff. Whatever we do today, we face long-range global problems with a short-term local attention span. We’re no happier looking at this global thermostat than we are looking at the nuclear doomsday clock.

Can we change from debating global warming to preparing? Can we define the issue in ways that turn denial into action? In America what matters now isn’t environmental science, but political science.

We are still waiting for the time when an election hinges on a candidate’s plans for a changing climate. That’s when the light bulb goes on.

Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman(at symbol)globe.com.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Zena, February 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I believe Bert has hit the nail on the head!!!

Report this

By Bert, February 24, 2007 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think global warming is what it is, some parts of the planet are warmer than normal, others are getting frozen out like never before, I think if we’re really serious about doing something about it, then they should wrench down on business hours globally and have 2 days a week when nobody really drives because nothing’s open. 2 days a week x 52= how much carbon emissions stopped? Hmmm…the simple solution always eludes us…

Report this

By Adam, February 16, 2007 at 10:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Until the media begins reporting how you and I can act to address climate change, we might as well share information amongst ourselves.  We can think of what’s happening as carbon pollution—essentially, the Earth has run out of carbon storage space, but we keep adding more carbon to the atmosphere, thereby creating heating and all that this heating leads to: droughts, sea level rise, strong storms, heat waves, dried up rivers, and on and on.  So, it then becomes useful to think about our own relations with carbon as well as our sphere of influence: who can we talk with who might then reduce their own carbon emissions?  For the college-educated professionals who likely lurk within a site such as TruthDig, our largest carbon emissions are probably from airplane travel and driving our cars around.  Perhaps we can start by asking ourselves how we can reduce our airplane travel and our driving.  And then we can ask our family and friends and colleagues (and anonymous commenters on TruthDig) what they are doing to reduce their carbon shadow.  Also, since we still live in a republic, it seems important to write our representatives and ask them how they are helping our communities, cities, states, and nation reduce carbon emissions. Strangely enough, many of the options available to us for reducing our carbon shadow actually lead to improvements in our quality of life.  You’d think we would want to make these changes anyway, let alone for the sake of life on our one and only planet.

Some sites worth checking out:
carbonsense.org
futerra.org
compassnetwork.org

As others have commented in this string, let’s share ideas and figure this out together.

Report this

By Hondo, February 15, 2007 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I can answer your question, sueh (#52988). I am one of the non-believers who algore has failed to convert with his Travelin’ Salvation Show.

You mention the IPCC report as if it is a scientific document. It isn’t. It’s a political document put together for a purely political purpose. It has been reported that the report shows 90% consensus of the world’s climate scientists. That isn’t true. 50% of the world’s climate scientists don’t buy in to the global warming hysteria. The report simply cherry picked climate scientists and political hacks who were favorable to the algore science fiction, and that “unbiased” group reached a “consensus.”

The readers of this thread should take a look at some of the real science out there that shows that the whole global warming mumbo jumbo is just a hoax. Go to:
http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html

Report this

By Zena, February 14, 2007 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think it would be helpful if there were stories in the Media about the people’s practices concerning global warming…especially those who are college educated and what they are doing to help conteract it their own ways, no matter how small. It’s like making a snowman. you start by making a small ball and rolling it around in other snow….until it’s big enough to make a snowman. But big media already knows how to do this, don’tcha think? They know the power of advertising. It doesn’t have to start out as an all-or-nothing enterprise. In fact these things rarely work out that start this way. People are suspicious and rightly so…look how we were lied to about Iraq, thru big media. And too many of those reporters knew the truth and didn’t tell it (or their bosses, anyway)...

Report this

By mike de Martino, February 14, 2007 at 11:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ralph Nader
PO Box 19362
Washington, D.C.  20036


February 10, 2007

Dear Ralph,

I just saw “An Unreasonable Man” at the 4:30 showing in Los Angeles. I was the guy who spoke about LNG terminals off the coast of Oxnard and Malibu. Not many in the audience knew what I was talking about. There has been a concerted effort to downplay this subject in the LA market. If ever there were an issue that had Ralph Nader’s name on it, it would be this one. Government corruption, lack of oversight, bribery by foreign owned multinational corporations, hypocrisy from leading environmentalists and phony studies from the fossil fuel industry all add up to a subversion of our rights as American citizens. Everything you taught me to look out for is occurring in our community right now. I am not alone in this fight, but we need reinforcements. There are critical meetings happening in the near future that we need people to attend. Could you help us put the word out?

I have enclosed my writings, links to organizations fighting this intrusion and a short documentary called “Sand Sun Oil Gas” that I worked on with Janet Bridgers of Earth
Alert. Please give my thanks to the filmmakers for creating a moving documentary that chronicles the life of a true American hero.

Whatever you choose to do politically, I support, but if I might indulge myself for a moment, What if Al Gore and Ralph Nader put aside their differences, joined forces and became the Gore-Nader ticket in 2008? The fight to stop global warming is more important than any one party, person or government. It is time for a New Deal for the New Century.

Sincerely,

Mike de Martino
Oxnard California

Report this

By Gladwyn, February 14, 2007 at 5:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If everyone had the same credit to pollute Global Warming could be arrested.
http://tinyurl.com/29txr5
and see the video on Contraction (of CO2) and Convergence on a target.

Report this

By sueh, February 11, 2007 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis,
  Why do you “not believe there is enough data” on climate change?  Are you not aware of last week’s IPCC report?  Just how much more data do you need?  Give me some valid reasons to doubt the 90% consensus shown by the climate scientists on this issue.

Report this

By Scott, February 10, 2007 at 11:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If a politician wins an election with 54% of the vote these days it’s described as a landslide or a vast majority so in comparison, I think 90% constitutes a vast consensus.

Your’s truly asked “When will an election hinge on a candidate’s plans to reverse global warming?”

In a couple of months possibly. Our minority Conservative government in Canada is faced with the prospect of having to implement Kyoto as it stands despite its own opposition to it.

—-“OTTAWA - A Liberal-sponsored bill that would legally require the Conservative government to abide by the Kyoto protocol’s short-term targets will be debated for the final time in the House of Commons today, before going to a vote next week when it is all but guaranteed to pass.

Constitutional experts say the implications of passing the bill could see Prime Minister Stephen Harper forced to choose between implementing measures to meet Kyoto targets he has called unrealistic or calling a general election.”—-

Link

Report this

By joneden, February 10, 2007 at 7:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I dare them upset us with that report (which drastically understates the consensus opinion about the danger from the melting ice sheets.)

Don’t worry folks. We have been listening to these chicken littles for the almost half century since Rachel Carson penned that fear mongering screed, Silent Spring.  In the mean time, we have been able to add another 3 plus billion people, and our economy and air have never been better. (We are expecting still another 3 billion by mid century.)

And that anti semitic Jimmy Carta. Remember when he started haranguing us about a fuel shortage. Boy did we get pissed. We kicked his butt out of office and elected our self a real pres. Ronald Reagan ripped those unsightly solar panels off the White House roof and told us No Problem, not to worry.  And boy have we had a party since then. If you ain’t got a 4000 sq ft house and 3 SUVs, you ain’t sh… We have been pumping our oil out from under them Arabs as if it was water out of the Pacific. As for all this global warming hype, Exxon,  the American Enterprise Institute, our President, Pat Robertson, Rush ,and Michael—all the people we depend on to give us the straight scoop—tell us it is nothing but liberal agenda and scientists on the take. And so what if there is global warming? Big Deal! What do you think we got air conditioning for?  And how about all the business opportunities that will be created by an ice free Arctic—all the new oil drilling sites, shorter and cheaper global shipping routes, and Club Prudhoe Bay for those who like exotic vacations. As for the coming loss of the Polar Bears, go buy your child a stuffed one.  And by the way, if you yearn to dive on a beautiful coral reef before they all die, go get yourself a coral reef screen saver from Freeze.com.  Party Down Folks!

And just think, people in the most remote corners of the world can see it all on TV and join in on the party helping us liberate all that buried carbon.

If by chance, you find that this spending down of the natural capital, the global natural trust fund—the source of fish, food, fiber, stable weather, etc.,  the source of all the things that make the Earth a perfect home for humans—is bothering you, may I suggest you see a shrink.  At a couple hundred bucks an hour, he or she can try and talk you out of “your exaggerated concern,” and if that fails, medicate you. Another option is to become a fundamentalist Christian. In this case, you need not concern yourself with any responsibility for the future of this evolving dystopia because Armageddon is at hand. The other advantages of this route out of your anxiety and paralysis are that your pastor will explain everything to you in simple terms that you can understand, tell you which Republican to vote for (not that voting for Dems is likely to help very much), and then you are good to go. (In this regard, it is worth noting here that President Bush is doing his part to BRING IT ON—as he promised Pastor Ted he would for the 30 million votes.  His plan to light up Iran this spring (with underground nukes) may be enough to finally get all the separate fires he has either set or fanned—Israel ‘s occupied territories, Lebanon, Iraq of course, and Afghanistan—to coalesce into that final conflagration from which all the good folks will be able to ascend into Heaven, that glorious place where a palace and a whole fleet of Hummers awaits each and every family.) In any case,  until you actually experience the Rapture, you might want to continue to recycle and maybe downsize to a smaller SUV with, of course, an “I am an Environmentalist” sticker on it.

Don’t let them scare mongers get to you.

Be positive and know that there is always a technological fix—there is some talk now about putting mirrors in space (if our astronauts can keep it together until we can get them up.) 

Party Down folks!

Jon
Connecting the dots: From human behaviors to Ecosystem decline
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org

Report this

By John, February 10, 2007 at 5:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think its interesting that global warming has become as much of a political issue as its a science issue.  It truly seems if you are a liberal democract you believe in global warming and the sky is falling attitude.  If you are a republican you don’t believe that global warming is a fact.  The real fact is scientist DON"T agree on global warming and they are the people with the smarts and the facts and the studies.  If they can’t agree…...well maybe global warming is really more opinion than fact.

Report this

By Bert, February 10, 2007 at 2:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Motorcycles save fuel.


Side note: The verification word box to submit your comments on this site is a royal pain in the…

Report this

By Hondo, February 9, 2007 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow! What a good little liberal Ellen Goodman is! First, she states that the “fact” of global warming is “unequivocal.” By saying that, she completely ignores the fact that 50% of the world’s scientists disagree. Or that today’s global warming nuts are the same clowns who, 30 years ago, were hysterical over an impending Ice Age. Or that it is absolutely insane to believe that the so-called “weather experts” who are so breathless over global warming are the same people who can’t give us an accurate 5-day weather forecast!

Next, Goodman uses the tried-and-true strategy from the liberal playbook of demonizing the opponent. People who don’t believe in the “X Files/Fox Mulder/The Truth Is Out There/Voodoo Science Fiction” that is the global warming hysteria are also Anti-Semites? You people are nuts!

The truth is that the earth has gone through alternating periods of warming and cooling throughout the history of the earth, and mankind has nothing to do with it. The truth is that liberals want people to believe otherwise because the liberal agenda is to use the bogus global warming issue as a tool to create a one-world government under the socialist, secular progressive control of the United Nations. The truth is that liberalism is a cancer that renders the victim unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, fact and fiction, good and evil, and warm and cold.

Report this

By Richard, February 9, 2007 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, it took eight comments before Adam (#52633, 4:51 a.m.) finally got to the root cause of the problem—“the hyper-growth of our human population.” It’s the aggravating factor in anthropogenic global warming. More people produce more carbon dioxide. (Duh!) And buying fluorescent light bulbs and walking two blocks to the library instead of driving aren’t going to do squat to prevent global warming. We need to stop arrest growth—especially in the developed world.

So Goodman is off the mark in her assessment about the politics of this. It’s going to be difficult to inspire people with low birth rates (you know, the people with brains) to take action when the chief spokesperson in the crusade against global warming is father of four Al Gore. As someone who is childless—and therefore not culpable—I’m more concerned about how I’m going to be inconvenienced by attempts to reverse the effects of other people’s reproductive self-indulgence than I am about what kind of world their children are going to be living in.

One more thing: It would be interesting to see whether the birth rate of global-warming deniers is higher than that of people who accept that reality.

And Adam, thanks for sharing your copious homework. Data rules.

Report this

By Adam, February 9, 2007 at 5:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As someone who has accepted the challenge of trying to understand the consequences of our collective human actions of the last two hundred or so years—the release of millions of years of carbon into the atmosphere, the loss of millions of acres of carbon-sucking forests, the hyper-growth of our human population and the massive alteration of the land for farming which this has led to, etc.—and as someone who pays attention to what our planet is already experiencing—the rapid loss of mountain glaciers and Artic and Greenland ice, the rapid warming of the oceans to greater and greater depths, the spreading droughts, the strengthening storms, etc., etc. —and to consider how these huge changes inter-relate—a drying Amazon leads to drought in the US farmbelt, warming oceans lead to the loss of phytoplankton and therefore the release of yet more carbon to the atmosphere leading to yet more warming, etc., etc., etc.—it’s been a humbling experience to educate myself about these changes and recognize how daunting the challenges are for all of humanity.  And then, to read the denials of these changes, both the thoughtful and the idiotic, I’m left wondering if we’ll wake up in time to act.

I think it’s important to begin focusing on global solutions, even if it means talking past the loudest of deniers.  Since CO2 is rising beyond 380 ppm in the atmosphere (100 ppm, or about 40%, more than any previous natural inter-ice-age warming of the past 440,000 years), and point-of-no-return thresholds seem likely around 450 ppm (or a little higher, if we’re lucky), we need global action fast.  Since CO2 levels will continue to rise even as humanity lowers its emissions (since “lowers” is still more than a sudden zero) the only possible solution is a very rapid, perhaps twenty to thirty year, contraction of carbon emissions.  Simultaneously, the clear-cutting of forests also has to be stopped; and, obviously, letting tropical forests grow back, where still possible, is also a priority.  May you live in interesting times, eh?! 

There are solutions under consideration at all levels of governance in countries across the planet.  Ironically, the US leadership is correct when it argues that the solution must involve the whole world (i.e. China and India), even if the US alone contributes a fourth of all carbon emissions globally.  We have to call Bush’s bluff (and before him, Clinton and Gore) and put a global plan into action.  I suggest you check out the work of the Global Commons Institute (gci.org.uk) and also of Climate Solutions (climatesolutions.org), for starters.  And I would encourage the writers of TruthDig, Ellen Goodman included, to write articles discussing proposed solutions to rapid global warming.  We need the media to take up this conversation with the public and our leaders.  We need everyone to take up this conversation and take action.

We’re running out of time, folks.

Report this

By yours truly, February 8, 2007 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How convenient for big oil that when people are confronted with an overwhelming threat and don’t see a solution, it makes them feel impotent, so they go into deliberate denial.  And of course big oil has nothing to with this, since it doesn’t try to control the public discourse on global warming through its financing of political campaigns and influence upon the mainstream media. When will an election hinge on a candidate’s plans to reverse global warming?  When MSM will cover such a candidate’s plans without labeling him or her some sort of nut, and when MSM stops giving big oil’s bought scientists as much credence as it gives scientists who actually study global warming. Yes, the political climate has to change.  But for that to happen, the facts about global warming have to get out.  Not just with these periodic reports, but day after day. MSM does this during the build-up for war, so why not with a build-up to reverse global warming.

Report this

By tom_paine, February 8, 2007 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis,

You provide a wonderful example of ignorance and denial.  Your only “facts” (as is customary for Bushevik Liars and the people who unscrew their heads and pour it right in without processing the information a whit, the better to regurgitate in the appropriate format as you have done) are that science once felt that the data indicated a pending ice age, and was wrong.

My my, what a staggering ignorance of the history of science and the workings of the scientific method.  I also presume from your comment that you had very little science in college and likely are a slaesman, marketer, advertiser, PR man, or another job which involves the repeated production and consumption of lies.  Just a guess, but based on the data (in this case, your own words).

Science is constantly improving on itself by means of new understanding.  Aristotle postulated certain physical and cosmological information from the data he possessed.  He was wrong.  Newton came along and gave us kinematics and calculus.  But Newton was partially wrong and Einstein came along and superseded Newton’s analaysis of the data he had with superior technology to gather said data and superior analysis.

That’s how science works, but I suppose to someone who’s employment and daily life almost certainly touches not at all on the scientific method nor on logical scientific thinking.

I further noted you had to include the Bush Bootlickers’ staple, the personal attack.  Notice I am firing back tenfold, simply because you and the rest of those locked in medeval ignorance, and 1930s style authoritarian-worship will ultimately return us to the Dark Ages unless your leaders are stopped.

You yourself are as inconsequential as a single Nazi Stormtrooper, and you (if you hold to what I have observed about a vast majority of right-wingers these days, though it wasn’t always this way) believe nothing The Party (not Nazi or Commie, this time around, it is the Republic Party you place above your country and even simple human decency, as you spirtiual antecedents did from 1933-1945) believe nothing the Party doesn’t spoon-feed you.

Me?  If real honest-to-God peer-reviewed science (which isn’t perfect, but is by far the best tool we have of understanding the world) concluded with 90%+ certainty that global warming is not man-made, then I would have to agree with peer-reviewed science.  At least until mroe data and better analysis gave us an even clearer understanding that superseded the old.

That, too, is the nature of science and no one who has mortgaged their mind and soul to Totalitarian Liars, as you have Dennis, could possibly understand.

Science is all about GOING WHERE THE DATA LEADS and to hell with preconceived notions.

You, Dennis, and those like you are the spiritual descendants of witch-burners and stormtroopers.

Sorry if the truth hurts.  On the other hand, could a Nazi Stormtrooper, a Communist Party member, or a Bushevik Bootlicker, ever be hurt by the truth?

I believe that is what Nazi, Commie, and Bushevik propaganda is, besides medeval in it’s thought-patterns.  It is a method by which you, Dennis, are isolated from reality, in which you Dennis, are incapable of seeing anything that is not Party Approved.

As a scientist, I despair.  For the Founding Fathers specifically designed our System of Checks and Balances to prevent to millions of weak minds like yourself from being herded up by a Totalitarian Regime and used as an instrument to end 225+ years of American Freedoms.

And yet, here we are, and that is exactly what has happened to you and the millions like you.  And American Freedom is on life-support, the outcome uncertain.

But again, I have no doubt that no truth, convenient nor inconvenient, could penetrate your “wall of Hannity”.

College educated, you say?  IN WHAT?  To be fair, I am a molecular biologist who works daily trying to cure disease using new genetic technologies.

Report this

By Don, February 8, 2007 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dennis, your comments are right on the money. Assuming that there really is global warming, the bulk of discussion should be not on how to mitigate it, but how to adapt to it. The reason nobody talks of adaptation is simple. Mitigation involves yet another fascist cabal of industry and government. Adaptation does not.
Global warming is the next military-industrial-congressional complex…devoted to taking your money and controlling you in the midst of a fascist military dictatorship.

Report this

By Stephen Smoliar, February 8, 2007 at 2:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For all the ways I think Emery Roe got it wrong in the NARRATIVE POLICY ANALYSIS book of 1994, he has one paragraph in that book about global warming that deserves some consideration:

The issue here is not what should be done or even what must be done globally, but what financial and decision-making resources allow us to do practically.  Do we really believe, after four decades of trying to transfer technology and institutional arrangements from the developed countries to parts of the developing world, that we will have fewer failures when transferring even more complex technologies and arrangements across altogether wider tracts of the planet?  As just noted, we already have considerable grounds for decentralized action to reduce CO2 emissions across the United States, without waiting to settle the global technology transfer problem.  In a world where the best is the enemy of the good, the bumper sticker has thus got it wrong.  Better you act locally, when others feel compelled to think globally.

In other words there are any number of ways in which we can shift the dominant narrative to a local story with a more positive “spin” (like with light bulbs;  and, from a more pragmatic point of view, you get further dealing with local factors where you have SOME control than with a global disaster scenario that NO ONE can control.

Report this

By Jenny, February 8, 2007 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

lol. Sharp witty on the mark Ms Ellen Goodman. Hadn’t read any of your stuff for a long while. Glad I found truth dig and look up your comment.
Your humour frees me up a bit from the daunting task before us.

Dennis, what it’s gonna kill ya to buy a lightbulb?

Report this

By bohdan yuri, February 8, 2007 at 9:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While we’re all debating the issue of CO2 and other chemical emissions in regard to global warming; the one crucial factor that is never addressed seriously is—- deforestation, the clearing of lands for whatever reason and especially in the tropics.

With each cut down tree there is one less absorber of CO2 and one less tree to release fresh oxygen into our atmosphere.

Report this

By Dennis, February 8, 2007 at 7:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am a college educated Republican and I do not believe there is enough data on global warming nor is there enough data to demonstrate that if it is happening that human activity is causing it. What happened to the impending doom of the ice age that the panic peddlers were selling in the late 1970’s.  Guess it didn’t take so they switched to global warming.  Human activity had nothing to do with the real ice age and the evidence is scant at best that global warming is taking place and even more sparse is the evidence that humans are to blame.  Perhaps Al Gore can solve the problem.  He’s pretty smart.  After all he invented the internet and now he seems to be an expert on global warming.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook