Two People Who Make America Look Like A Joke
At the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting, former President Bill Clinton blasted the GOP for supporting climate science denial. As Brad Johnson of TP Green reports, Clinton was asked about what Americans can do to fight climate change and replied:
The best thing you could do is make it politically unacceptable to engage in denial. We look like a joke. You can’t win the nomination of one of our parties if you accept the science. It’s really tragic. We need the debate between people who are a little bit to the left and a little bit to the right what’s the best way to solve the climate crisis. We can’t have this conversation because we’ve got to deny it?
Speaking of people who can’t win the nomination of their party, Jon Huntsman called Rick Perry out by name on his climate denial. Huntsman told Bloomberg’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” that “I think on science he’s out of the mainstream”
Here’s the video:
“If you’re going to run from climate science, if you’re going to run from other mainstream scientific principles, evolution among them, I think you’re suggesting to a whole lot of people out there that you’re out of the mainstream…. Rick has been outspoken in that regard. I think on science he’s out of the mainstream.”
Perry is so far out of the mainstream that’s he’s not in the water at all.
Heck, given the once-in-a-multi-century drought Texas is experiencing, we even have a visual depiction of just how far out of the main stream Perry is:
The remains of several alligator gars are seen along the dried out bed of O.C. Fisher Lake Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2011, in San Angelo, Texas. A bacteria called Chromatiaceae has turned the 1-to-2 acres of lake water remaining the color red. A combination of the long periods of 100 plus degree days and the lack of rain in the drought-stricken region has dried up the lake that once spanned over 5400 acres. AP Photo.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I would suggest that the reason the US looks like a joke is the same reason that Australia has for a large proportion of its populace believing climate change denial.
1 Rupert Murdoch.
There is your problem and ours. The question is what to do about it?
Yes…
True…
Not an easy answer to the question.
He’ll die of old age at some point (as well as the Koch’s), but that propaganda machine of his will continue to hum along for years and years.
For the machine to be taken care of, it will have to have become common knowledge that it was the main cause of a large crisis of some sort (caught bribing US politicians & or police officers – like in the UK – to do something really awful would be good).
And it’s not just old man Murdoch … it’s Roger Ailes and a few others in that organization.
And of course the alphabet soup of right wing think tanks AEI, CEI, Heartland, etc.
We need a “climate pearl harbor” that makes the threat real to the wide public. Then, just as factories were simply ordered to switch from cars to tanks for WWII, we’ll be able to redirect capital and labor to building the carbon-neutral economy, without regard to the short term profit motive that is the current problem.
Rob, another major factor is the failure of our education systems to interest kids in science. I discovered in 2009 that plenty of Aussies do not even know why CO2 etc are called GHGs. A basic understanding of how GHGs work innoculates people against the nonsense peddled by the likes of the Murdoch monster.
That suggests one answer but a more short term and immediate strategy is to link all mentions of increasing disasters to the fact that this rapdily accelerating mayhem is just as the climate scientists predicted. That creates doubt in the minds of even the most dedicated denier, ME
Bill O’Reilly gave us the answer on what to do: tax the rich! Then they will all quit and move to some godforsaken tax haven outside of the United States and do radio and tv shows from there.
Ha! I like it:
“This is Glenn Beck, broadcasting from a bunker somewhere in the libertarian paradise of Somalia. I can hear gunfire outside, but that’s OK because I don’t pay any taxes!”
Rob, you nailed it. Now Republican politicians MUST repeat the views of Limbaugh and the unified right wing propaganda media or they will lose. They know a sizable portion of their voters are members of this cult of media and expect their politicians to follow the right wing line – or else!
Limbaugh has called out many politicians. See how them come bowing and scraping the next day to the throne of Limbaugh begging for mercy and forgiveness. It always happens. The unified propaganda right wing media is calling the shots in our government today.
I totally agree. I’m not joking when I say he is the most dangerous and potentially destructive man in the world. He has done more to undermine democracy than anyone in recent history, since effective democracy requires an informed public. And, as demonstrated by his behavior in the UK, his lust for power is unlimited.
Clinton got it right- of course the GOP is a joke. Meanwhile, Huntsman drummed up the courage to say “out of the mainstream”, a tepid and ambiguous statement. How about “up in the ozone”?
It doesn’t matter that we are embarrassing ourselves as a nation. Far more important is the terrible policy gridlock that these fossil fuel bought leaders are causing. And to beat them, we have to put up a fight. Let’s home that Obama hasn’t learned that too late- if he’s learned it at all.
Mike – I’m not clear on what you think is Obama’s motivation for behaving as if AGW is not his problem.
I hope we’d agree that the examples of that conduct, from gratuitously reneging on the UNFCCC baseline in March ’09 to last week’s blocking even of the EPA’s proposal of GHG rules, are too numerous and too well discussed since ’09 to need review here.
An accurate understanding of the political constraints is surely critical if an effective course of action is to be identified and pursued.
The standard apologia, that public opposition to action is just too strong – seems to me sheer bullshit. Over 70% of Americans acknowledge AGW, and view it as a matter of concern, whose extent varies from somewhat to extremely.
What is more, he’s been taking obstructive actions both at UNFCCC and for example in the giveaway over the senate bill and in covertly discrediting its sole republican sponsor, of which the US public is almost wholly unaware. Such actions were not done for public approval or re-election prospects.
If the man were just a shill for the fossil corporations – which I doubt – then his choice of Holdren & Chu makes no sense – likewise their acceptance of the positions (which of course presumes that they are not just shills too).
Many times here on CP I’ve put up the thesis of Obama’s maintaining the Bush policy of tacitly using climatic destabilization against China’s govt to deflect its looming challenge and secure a climate deal that doesn’t undercut US hegemony. I’ve done so not least in hopes of a response showing some other plausible motivation for his conduct that fits the the scope of the evidence, but neither that nor a refutation of the thesis has been posted.
I know you’re as committed as anyone to generating change, and I think like many here you’d recognize that we haven’t a chance of doing so if we don’t know what we’re up against. So I’d ask it straight:
what you think is Obama’s motivation for behaving as if AGW is not his problem ?
Regards,
Lewis
Lewis (sorry for the delay- I’ve been busy)-
in answer to your question, I believe that Obama doesn’t quite sense what is going on. He listens to Chu and Holdren, but also to Nelson, Rockefeller, and even sordid characters like McConnell, his old buddy from the Senate.
This is a character failing as well as an intellectual one. The best explanation I can think of comes from Malcolm X: our president is a “house nigger”, the slave who dresses and talks nice and gets extra privileges. He’s still a slave, though, even though he is unaware of it. If he weren’t, he wouldn’t be doing psychopathic bowing and scraping, in the form of stopping ozone regs and pressing for drilling in the Arctic and the Tar Sands.
Mike – thanks for your response.
You remind me that there was a description current in the ’60s & ’70s of a person recruited for public relations purposes to veil the continuation of an unpopular policy – which may well fit Obama rather neatly.
It was: “A White House Nigger”.
I think it relates to the period when the White House was still resisting demands for full emancipation by the Civil Rights movement.
It does not of course identify which policy’s continuation motivates Obama to behave as if intensifying global warming was in America’s national interest, being either the policy of just supporting fossil fuel profits, or that of breaking China’s challenge to US hegemony and its demand for an equitable climate treaty.
Yet I’m intrigued as to why so many here on CP would rather view their president as corrupt than as being capable of putting the national interest in US dominance ahead of the need for controlling global warming.
Regards,
Lewis
The tragedy that’s coming isn’t a joke. I read these remarks and think, “This is what Weimar felt like in 1933.” Or “This is what Rome felt like in 475.”
It will be far worse then Alaric sacking Rome in 410, the end of the Weimar in 1933 or October 1929 on Wall Street.
I agree with both you and Jeffrey. However, both of you are looking at only one part of the elephant– the part of the elephant this blog deals with, the environment. The coming economic storm in the financial markets is another part of the elephant and also promises to be ugly. Burning Reichstag, here we come.
The Story of Three Little Politicians
You may be surprised by who I’m about to talk about.
It is unfortunately necessary — but also all too easy — to talk about the Palins and Perrys and Bachmanns of the world. And although it’s necessary and easy, it’s not nearly sufficient.
My goodness! Let me begin with an assumption that’s probably a decent one: Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton can probably get President Obama’s ear and attention if they really want to. So what does this mean?
It means that we have on our hands three “little” politicians — President Obama and both of Bill and Hilary — that I call “little” because all three of them are participating in or enabling the nearly hush-hush low-key ineffective strategy that we’re all seeing take place in the Democrat party regarding climate change.
Here he is, Bill Clinton, talking about the silly deniers Perry and Bachmann. Much better that he should prompt and push President Obama to do what he ought to be doing — and to lambaste Obama, figuratively speaking of course, if he doesn’t.
Political “calculus”. Perry and Bachmann are either ignorant or they’re using political calculus, as they see it, to try to win votes — or perhaps both. Meanwhile, the same can be said of President Obama. Most likely he’s using “political calculus” to try to win votes. This sort of fumbling misinformed political calculus is going to do us in. Whatever happened to John Wayne or even the straight-talk that President Obama PROMISED you and me before we chose to vote for him, on that basis.
So — and forgive me please for expressing my frustration here — fed up with this sort of bland and banal political calculus. I see all three of them — President Obama, Bill, and Hilary — as deeply weak when it comes to the climate problem. Did I say deeply? I meant DEEPLY.
We apparently have three little politicians on our hands — three who are choosing to be little! — when it comes to climate change. Yikes! And we ourselves are barely, just barely, starting to peep. Double yikes. Let’s consider our options, for goodness sake.
If Bill Clinton takes the time and effort to criticize Perry and Bachmann one more time — even though it’s right to criticize them — rather than putting that same time and effort into pinching you-know-who to get her and Barack to say “no” to Keystone XL, well, I’ll have had it with all three of ‘em.
Can Think Progress and ClimateProgress not see the problem with the present state of affairs — and here I’m talking about President Obama’s present approach and what we, here, aren’t doing about it?
Sorry for the frustration. It’s mounting.
Be Well,
Jeff
Oh The Irony
So Bill Clinton is saying that Bachmann and Perry make the U.S. look silly, while at the same time his party and ours (the Dems) has the White House, his wife is the head of the State Department, John Podesta is the head of the most influential progressive think tank in Washington, it’s entirely up to the President (unencumbered by Congress) whether or not to approve Keystone XL, people have gotten themselves arrested at the White House to bring attention to the issue, the leading scientists around the world say we’ve gotta do something quick and big regarding climate change, and despite all that, President Obama (from what we’re led to understand) is likely to approve Keystone XL. Who will be causing the U.S. to look silly if at the same time we express deep concern about climate change but approve Keystone XL anyway? Give me a break!
Here is a thought for President Obama in relation to the fact that he holds the White House now and faces the Keystone XL decision now: Use it (your authority) or lose it (your credibility and the White House).
Sigh,
Jeff
Jeff, you expressed the frustration of all of us who follow this climate chaos issue closely. There is a lot of blame to go around the Dems as well but we have convenient pinatas in crazy perry and mad michelle to divert our attentin away from the very fact that the dems own the Oval Office and the floor of the Senate.
And what are WE doing about it? Obama and the Clintons are just more pinatas we can swing at while we sit around and blog about change without actually changing ourselves. Who in this conversation has a carbon footprint below 1 earth? Not me.
My hope is that Huntsman keeps blasting away. He makes clear, understandable statements regarding how real and dangerous climate change is. They make Scary Perry and his ilk look shallow and force the truth into the media. He says what Obama SHOULD be saying and the more he says it, the more politically correct it becomes for Obama and anyone else to say it.
I feel he’s doing the country a great service regardless of other questionable climate/environmental qualifications. I hope he stays in the race for a while. Guess I should send a campaign donation?
Also very glad to see Bill Clinton coming out strongly. He has a charisma and a following that Gore and many others lack. Again, this will encourage others.
As for Hillary: it’s her State Dept that’s saying the tar sands pipeline is ok. I don’t see her pushing Obama to be a hawk on Climate Change.
Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist
· Testimony to US Congress will also criticise lobbyists
· ‘Revolutionary’ policies needed to tackle crisis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
PUT REX TILLERSON ON TRIAL FOR HIGH CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
Exxon Mobil snagged a “coveted” Russian oil prize, cutting a deal with the state oil company, Rosneft, to explore an untapped portion of the Russian Arctic. And while many details of the partnership remain clouded in doubt and secrecy, the agreement is undoubtedly a big deal. Here, five possible consequences:
5. And it allows Russia to drill in America
Under the deal, Rosneft has the option of investing in drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Texas. “Those operations could include two of the industry’s most contentious oil extraction methods — drilling for oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and using the so-called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, technique on land,” says Kramer. “The Russians want to learn about both types of drilling for use at home.”
http://theweek.com/article/index/218757/exxon-snags-a-coveted-russian-oil-prize-5-consequences
Nice to see the former President saying something.
But, as has been pointed out in previous comments – it was President Clinton who gave up on serious climate action in his time, its his wife who approved the Keystone 1 tar sands pipeline and now 2 years later the Keystone XL extension.
All that said, its nice to hear him talking about things – I wish he was mounting a primary challenge.
If Bill Clinton wants to redeem himself for his legacy of triangulating vacillation, then he would use his position as “elder statesman” to attack the media for giving voice to deniers. The way to do this is to frame climate change as a litmus test providing incontrovertable evidence of the media’s corruption. Suppose he were to say, “Look, in the scientific community the case for climate change is rock solid. The accumulated evidence supporting the scientific consensus has basically ended any serious disagreement on the broad scope of the problem. It isn’t contoversial. But the media’s coverage of the issue all to often is to put together a pair of talking heads on teevee and to let them argue. The denialist in the pair is inevitablty a paid hack, a propagandist working for a right-wing front organization — and the media let this hack spout his baloney without ever explaing to the audience what a load of garbage he’s pushing. What does it say about any “news” organization that they put forward climate change as an area of “controversy” when virtually every major scientific society on the planet in areas relevant to climate change has made strong, official public statements affirming the consensus? It says the media is corrupted by special interests who profit from confusion about the issue and the inaction that results from that confusion.”
I think this approach is effective because the media is nothing if not self-absorbed. They love to do stories about how important their role in the story affects the story. The right long ago started a drumbeat about the “liberal media” and that bullshit still sells. It’s time the make the media hypersensitive about letting deniers sell their BS. Clinton can help a lot if he wants to do that – and I think that going at the deniers by attacking the media they use may be more effective than attacking the deniers themselves.
In fact it is exactly this kind of action that is putting pressure on one of Murdochs papers here in Australia. Criticism of the Australian (a national Australian newspaper)started as a trickle but is rapidly increasing. Evidence on the number of stories that falsely portray climate science has been built up and evidence of false credentials being ascribed to the deniers is too. Criticism of the quality of the journalism and the journalists professionalism is starting to bite here judging from the increasingly shrill and unhinged reply coming from the orginisation. This is hurting Murdochs company very much and if it continues will either blow the companies reputation out of the water or will force them to stop printing such fallacious material.
Kudos to Clinton for pointing this out–something that I’ve also been saying.
I’d pile on by pointing out that paying attention to science enabled America to become a superpower, creating millions of jobs and trillons of dollars of economic growth. It makes absolutely no sense to turn our backs on science now, at a time when we most need to pay attention to it.
Former presidents don’t generally comment on what sitting presidents should do, as I learned when asking President Carter about climate change last year. However, given its importance to our collective futures, I think we should encourage all of the former office holders to ask Obama to give a prime time “State of the Climate” address to the American people.
Hey Obama, you could end this stress,
just give a “State of the Climate” address!
Talk about the illusion of choice.
Obama could prove me wrong. Just give a “State of the Climate” address
The right-wing Republicans (rwGOP) have repetitively demonstrated they are failures in reasoning and in informed, educated, critical thinking. Using the movie of the same name as a metaphor, I characterize the rwGOP as Dumb and Dumber’s rise to political power.
These are people who are promoted as potential leaders to deal with issues of national or global consequences? What’s wrong with this picture?
And what’s that say about the American electorate–the majority of voters who are enabling Dumb and Dumber in the first place?
It isn’t just the right-wing politicians who are an international embarrassment, it’s also the extraordinary level of ignorance and gullibility of the American electorate:
Bachmann on CO2: “not a single scientific study can be found that shows CO2 is harmful”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buBHJNoxutg
Boehner on CO2: “the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical”
http://tinyurl.com/3lymtl2
We don’t seem to “get it” regarding Republican politicians. They MUST follow the dictates and exact wording of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the big right wing propaganda media on climate and everything else or they will get called out by NAME on these media.
This can kill their chances of election. Big right wing media is setting the agenda and framing the issues in Washington and elsewhere.
We had better recognize this control by right wing media because it has already inflicted great damage on America by electing George W for President, egging on the attack on Iraq, forming the wing nut Tea Party, championing ruinous deregulation and a lot more.
All forces who care about America and her founding principles need to focus on this media. Right wing propaganda media can destroy a nation – and has in our time.
I agree with what you say, Bill, as one “layer of the onion”, and, imo, there’s another more insidious layer:
Uninformed voters, disinformed voters, and non-voters together are the root cause of America’s economic crisis, high unemployment, the right-wing Republican (rwGOP) House majority, and presence of Dumb and Dumber (rwGOP) in the Senate and House.
When, typically, fewer than 40% of registered voters actually vote, clearly, tens of millions of Americans don’t take voting as a serious responsibility. Too many don’t bother to do the hard work of informing themselves from primary sources and critically evaluating major issues, candidates, or legislation. Instead, millions vote based on disinformation, gullibly believing Fox News provides truthful, balanced news. Millions more rely on main-stream media, not realizing too many reporters have abdicated fact-checking, report whatever is stated—fact or lie–as a balanced perspective, and thus propagate rwGOP lies and disinformation. And still more millions aren’t even paying attention, consumed by the daily demands of work and/or parenting. At least 29,000,000 more (Huffington Post), who voted in 2008, didn’t vote at all in 2010. Apparently, they believed their vote didn’t matter or that not voting had no consequences.
The solution is you and me and rare investigative journalists—and all those who are still concerned with facts and consequences: Let’s inform and motivate to VOTE the right-wing Republicans out of political existence!
And beneath this layer is the training so many low information voters get in school, church, and home:
Tribal identity is maintained not by how we learn about or discover the nature of reality, but rather by the conclusions we arrive at. As each assertion is fiercely defended and repeated, they become a collection of disjointed sound bites, often contradicting each other. The only way this cognitive dissonance can be maintained is by never looking at the consequences of the assertion.
(That is, “if this were true, I should expect to see that“.)
So if you are a True Christian, a Real American, and the Right Sort of Person, you can simultaneously say that you want your social security untouched, and you want the government to stop entitlements.
The schools and right wing propaganda cocoon also destroys the distinction between subtly different uses of words, and even conflates opposite definitions, depending apparently only on emotional connotations. So Rick Perry believes in America and Jesus (double plus good), but Joe Romm believes in global warming (ungood). And President Obama is a fascist, a communist, and a liberal.
Reality for these folks is a social construct (not that they think of it like that). The issue of global warming is (for them) like a political boundary. Arguing successfully determines what it is. And their arguments are not a process for discovery (scientific argument), but a political struggle (dysfunctional family argument). Hence they can reuse a claim even when it’s been refuted by the person they are talking to! A left jab might be blocked in a street fight, but the next might get through, after all…
How do we get through to these people? It requires labor intensive and sustained effort to undo a lifetime of deliberately broken reasoning habits.
So true. It’s a tough battle, but worth it.
Kermit, thank you for your insights–yes, the absence of critical thinking skills combined with the need to belong to and go along with a “tribe” to feel accepted… these are powerful factors.
The level of public debate on climate change is incredibly low. As a meteorologist, I cringe when most Republicans speak on the issue. But I’m also appalled at the attempts on the left to silence the debate. There are many skeptical scientists who raise very valid concerns about current climate change disaster scenarios. Al Gore calls them members of the “flat earth society” and Bill Clinton tries to silence them and others have called for criminal codes for science skeptics. The Virginia State Climatologist was removed from his job for not being PC on climate change even though he was doing an excellent job. Republicans regained power and have retaliated against other climatologists. This is unacceptable in a free science society.
Let the science speak. Contrarian views should be welcomed. Politicians should be ignored. There are many sides to the story and people would do well to listen to informed sources that disagree with your political leanings.
Mary wrote: “There are many skeptical scientists who raise very valid concerns about current climate change disaster scenarios.”
No, in fact, there are not.
Mary wrote: “Let the science speak. Contrarian views should be welcomed.”
The science HAS spoken, and the so-called “contrarian views” have been repeatedly refuted by the empirical evidence. Those who continue to push such “views” are not “skeptics” — they are cranks, frauds or dupes.
By “Virginia State Climatologist” I assume you refer to Patrick Michaels, a professional climate change denier who is heavily funded by the fossil fuel, utility and automobile corporations, who has presented blatantly deceptive claims about the work of James Hansen in Congressional hearings. Michaels was not “removed” — he resigned following controversy about his fossil fuel industry funding, and went to work for the fossil fuel industry funded propaganda mill, the Cato Institute.
And, with all due respect, your closing suggestion that the overwhelming and unequivocal scientific evidence of ongoing, dangerous anthropogenic global warming is a “political leaning” is utter nonsense — and it’s exactly, word-for-word, the nonsense that is used by dishonest deniers to imply that anthropogenic global warming is a “liberal hoax”.
Mary, what century are you living in?
Contrarians are shills paid to spit out their ‘uncertainties’. Heck, the renouned Pat Michaels, fired as the VA ‘climatologist’ admits taking fossil fuel money to support his ‘excellent work’ at the libertarian strong hold CATO institute. Is that an honest practice for that ‘informed source’.
Give us a break Mary. Take the rest of the day off.
I imagine you’re asking a sincere question from the perspective of someone who recently started paying attention to climate change… and/or, some of us here might have had the opportunity to gain 20-30 years more data exposure than you ;-) In any case, a sincere question deserves a respectful answer.
The science of climate change has been speaking loudly and clearly since circa 1968. I first heard about it in 1970 from my Applied Science professor at U.C. Davis. The scientific information has been increasingly more sophisticated, as it also has been more available. The Scientific Method relies on replication of experimental results to confirm an hypothesis.
Substantial published confirmation exists, after decades of work by many scientists, investigating climate change from the point of view of a large body of several different areas of expertise (Oceanography, ice core studies, glacier and ice melts, changes in insect populations, and much more). Even if there are natural causes of climate change, that does not invalidate the scientific evidence that human production of GHG is the (or a) principle factor causing this change. In other words, there is more than sufficient scientific evidence to support taking corrective action, regardless of the monetary cost, before it’s too late.
The unscientific disinformation has been available since the right-wing Republicans (rwGOP) got a dim clue that maybe dealing with GHG emissions might reduce their puppet masters’ excessive profits… and, of course, the rwGOP would rather reduce life on Earth than reduce corporate profits.
As a meteorologist, you have the technical background to understand the science underlying climate change. May I suggest that you review the scientific literature available from 1965-8 to prior to circa 2000, before the rwGOP injected high-volume noise, confusion, and disinformation into the lay public “awareness”?
The conversation has been going on quietly for decades–most people haven’t been listening.
It’s also worth noting that, due to Aristotle’s “Law of the Excluded Middle”, Western thinking has been dominated by “either-or” logic ever since, i.e. the false notion that given an idea and a contrarian idea, that one of them must be false.
There’s ample reason to include “both-and” thinking. As a pertinent example, it’s possible that climate change is caused by natural phenomena AND high levels of human-generated GHG. As a new species on the planet, we certainly don’t know much, so we do need to be open to investigating all potentially new knowledge.
Nevertheless, openness to new possibilities or the discovery of new causes doesn’t necessarily alter already scientifically confirmed phenomena, even if there’s additional causes than we currently know about.
For what it’s worth, keep in mind that anyone, who believes climate-change science is a hoax or that GHG increases are not caused by humans, necessarily does not understand the underlying science and/or gullibly believes disinformation. I approach these people from this perspective:
Even people with just an 8th grade education understand “for every action, there’s an equal but opposite reaction”. By significantly changing the composition of atmospheric gases, doesn’t it make sense THAT SOMETHING WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS?
So, rather than arguing about whether this is a real crisis or a hoax, why not think about it this way: We live on a nice planet. It’s the only one we have. Why not keep it livable for all life forms by not dumping unnatural amounts of gases into the air, and by not dumping toxins into the air, soil or water?
We know from the past 15,000 years of evidence, we can all live here when we do that. Keep our house clean.
Mary, you sound like just another CEI shill to me. The hallmarks are there- claimed expertise (but not even a name), faux reasonableness, let’s have a debate, etc.
Go to Dot Earth or WUWT. We can smell a rat on this blog.
Lame…
Either we decide to limit GHG emissions or we continue to do nothing. It is pretty simple; the science is well established and supported by a vast amount of evidence. But you needn’t worry about silence. The anti-science media and internet machine has not slowed down and the contrarian views are being received loud and clear. Those idiot politicians that President Clinton is referring to are simply parroting anti-science tripe put out by those well established propagandists.
When I see fellow liberals reading the New York Times, I have the same thought that President Clinton had about climate change deniers.
TS
Several comments have mentioned Clinton’s “triangulating vacillation: and the fact that he was the first to “abandon climate change”.
The words that stick in my mind are;
” – it’s the economy stupid”.
Contrast this with Greens M.P. Caroline Lucas – elected to the U.K. Parliament stating ;
“Advanced industrialised economies like ourselves cannot afford to go on growing, particularly if we want to give people in poorer countries a chance of being able to at least meet their basic needs,” she said. It was a mistake to make growth an economic objective, she added, saying: “Growth is a side issue. The end goal is about prosperity in terms of greater wellbeing, in terms of greater equality, in terms of having a cleaner environment, in terms of having more security for your kids in the future.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/09/caroline-lucas-interview-andrew-sparrow
I have to admire the remote Bhutan Kingdom and the government policy to measure happiness. Gross National Happiness (GHP). It does not seem to rely on the economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
“GNH” was designed in an attempt to define an indicator that measures quality of life or social progress in more holistic and psychological terms than only the economic indicator of gross domestic product (GDP).
1.Economic Wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of economic metrics such as consumer debt, average income to consumer price index ratio and income distribution
2.Environmental Wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of environmental metrics such as pollution, noise and traffic
3.Physical Wellness: Indicated via statistical measurement of physical health metrics such as severe illnesses
4.Mental Wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of mental health metrics such as usage of antidepressants and rise or decline of psychotherapy patients
5.Workplace Wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of labor metrics such as jobless claims, job change, workplace complaints and lawsuits
6.Social Wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of social metrics such as discrimination, safety, divorce rates, complaints of domestic conflicts and family lawsuits, public lawsuits, crime rates
7.Political Wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of political metrics such as the quality of local democracy, individual freedom, and foreign conflicts.
This is so ironic. Bill Clinton is ridiculing Climate Change naysayers yet his very own wife Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s DOS has itself ignored Climate Change impacts that the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline will have in the end of market refinery communities in Texas. Texas would get all these dirty tar sands, refine them, in many cases at refineries that are in tax free enterprise zones, sell them overseas for massive profits and Texas gets burdened with massive climate change. Seems like Bill needs to talk to Hillary about this one. This is just so sadly ironic.