I've been seething over the noble (but misguided) resignation of Van Jones for the past few days. I first heard of Van Jones while on a fellowship with the Environmental Leadership Program. Having been involved as an environmental justice organizer for some time I wanted to know what all the fuss was about over this neophyte. Once I learned about his background as a community activist from Oakland I began to take him seriously. I read some of his articles and was impressed with what I read. When the opportunity to see Van Jones speak at Tufts on Earth Day last year, I jumped at the chance. Anyone who watches Van Jones speak can't help but be impressed.
Now enter Glenn Beck. How anyone could watch or listen to Glenn Beck and think he is anything but an unhinged lunatic is beyond me. His claims of a vast left-wing conspiracy would be laughable if they were not swallowed whole by so many well meaning, frightened members of white-bread middle America. Glenn Beck engaged in a smear campaign that would make Joe McCarthy green with envy. While so much of it has been rebutted already, just a few points need to be made.
First, Van Jones is not a "truther", one of those conspiracy nuts who believe 9/11 was an inside job, all the Jews called in sick that day, the twin-towers were brought down with explosives, etc. . The record is pretty clear on this. Van Jones name appears on a letter in 2002 signed by dozens of activists from the Bay Area demanding answers about the 9/11 attacks, and on a petition from 2004, giving a long list of questions that the group 9/11 truth felt were not sufficiently answered by the Bush administration's 9/11 commission. The rhetoric in both documents is typical activist speak but nowhere does it state that 9/11 was an inside job. Van Jones isn't a member of any organization that was affiliated with the 9/11 truth group nor did he engage in anything beyond signing two petitions. As fringe as the 9/11 group has gotten in recent years, at the time those petitions were signed, the questions they asked were pretty common. I know from my own experience as an activist that when you attend events, "tabling" or speaking you often get inundated by other activits or groups asking for your support with this or that. I signed dozens of petitions, sometimes out of genuine agreement, sometimes out of courtesy, in my years as an activist and I would be hard pressed to remember any of them. These documents were signed 5 and 8 years ago (respectively)long before Van Jones joined the Obama Administration, to use them against Van Jones is absurd.
Second, Van Jones is not a communist, self proclaimed or otherwise. When Van Jones commented that he went from being a "black Nationalist to a Communist", he clearly was talking in a rhetorical sense about the progression of his politics. Van has never been "card carrying", attended meetings, voted communist (yes folks Communists do run for office), or self identified as a communist (other than at I noted previously). I think it;s pretty clear that he isn't a fellow traveler. Van Jones has traveled in some radical circles as most community activists have. Like many in our line of work, exploration and flirtation with radical political ideologies is pretty common. There is little doubt that Van Jones has, for a good number of years now, embraced a very tame progressivism focused on job creation and economic and environmental justice, hardly anything new or radical.
The sad thing here is not just that Van Jones, a good man, exquisitly well qualified for the job that he was given, was forced out of his office; it's that we have created an absurd "patriotic correctness" whereby only people who attend the right church, belong to the right groups, associate with the right people, say the right things in public, and sign the right petitions can be judged as "patriotic Americans" and fit for public office. We have taught a shaefull lesson to our children. As Ariana Huffington eloquently notes:
"If the sliming of Van Jones is an indication of how things are going to be, a lot of 20-somethings posting to their Facebook pages as we speak better start worrying about the digital crumbs they are leaving behind for the future Glenn Becks of the world.
Isn't it time we acknowledge that no human being with any passion and deeply held beliefs ever emerged flawless into the world? And that if every mistake, misstep, boneheaded decision, or error in judgment becomes an automatic disqualifier for public service, then we're going to be left with a political landscape filled with nothing but wrinkle-free, foible-free, passionless automatons who have never made a mistake because they never took the risk of having an original thought.".
This is a dangerous, shameful time in America. We are sharply divided as a people and thanks to talk radio and Fox News (and sadly, a generous helping not so thinly veiled racism), over 1 third of America believe that radical black nationalists and communists are conspiring to destroy America. I have never seen people so ginned up over so much bullshit. What's even more disconcerting is the painfully tepid response in Van's defense. Van's resignations has only emboldened Beck and his supporters. They smell blood in the water. What's needed is for progressives to stand up and fight back. There is a war being waged for the hearts and minds of America, the bad guys are winning folks. It's time to put a stop to this nonsense.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A visit to WBUR

This afternoon I was treated to a unique pleasure. For about 20 minutes, I recorded an interview to be used as a "Listener Testimonial" for WBUR, Bostons NPR affiliate. I sat in studio 3C where On Point is broadcast. The WBUR studio, nestled against the Boston University campus, is unlike anything I've ever seen and yes, I've seen the inside of a few radio stations (and local cable TV studios). I was greeted warmly and the staff seemed to genuinely appreciate that I was willing to come in and be interviewed. I was fortunate enough to be asked for a listener testimonial, in part because I've been a WBUR member since 2002 and I've been making monthly contributions to the station for the past three years with regularly scheduled credit card payments (a convenient and affordable way to support WBUR ). One of the questions I was asked was why was it important for me to take time out of my day and drive to Boston from Lawrence, just to talk about why I listen to WBUR. The answer is important enough for me to share with everyone.
I've been a fan of public broadcasting for as long as I can remember. As a child growing up before cable TV, the Internet and the wasteland of talk radio, PBS was the gold standard for quality television. Channel 2 was on constantly around the house growing up. My grandfather, who lived through the great depression and World War 2 had a 6th grade education and literally worked himself into an early grave supporting his family (that included my divorced mother, my sister and I) was an avid watcher of Public Television. Monty Python, The World at War, The McNeil-Lehrer report, NOVA, Masterpiece Theater all held my grandfather's attention and competed with lesser programming for mine (often winning). Like many people of his generation, My grandfather understood the importance of education and he did not mock intellectuals as "elites" to be distrusted. My Grandfather was not well educated but he was smart and most importantly, he aspired to be more than he was, to understand the world and to grow. I created my own relationship with PBS in 1980 with Cosmos and Carl Sagan and my own children grew up watching PBS.
I rarely listened to public radio however, until I started a new job in Waltham and had to face an hour long commute from Lawrence. Desperate for anything intellectually stimulating I surfed the dial those first few days until I found 90.9FM and I was hooked ever since. While I listened to NPR throughout the 90's, I never contributed until after September 11th. In the hazy and confusing days after the terrorist attack people were desperate for answers and the corporate media moved overnight from being the watchdog of democracy to a defacto public relations arm of the government. I began to notice a change in the tone of public discourse and news coverage. From Fox news anchors wearing flag pins to Ari Fleischer telling Americans to watch what they say, the news media we desperately needed willingly shut down, except for public radio. While NPR didn't assume the role of the loyal "opposition" like the Pacifica Radio network (also part of PBS but looked at as the rarely seen hippie cousin of the public broadcasting family), it nevertheless provided the only comprehensive, objective news reporting available in the first few months of the "war". So, in 2002 I finally put my money where my ears were and became a WBUR member.
In the years since, the corporate media landscape has only gotten worse. Even on cable TV with it's 24 hour news cycle there is precious little comprehensive, in depth news coverage. This superficial coverage is exacerbated by the plague of wretched commentary shows like Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly factor, and Countdown (sorry Olberman, even though I may agree with you most of the time you are a piss poor journalist). ( It should be noted that C-SPAN is a noteworthy and praiseworthy exception to this trend) Talk radio is even worse. Gone are the days when people could actually learn about complex issues on the airwaves. One need only listen to WTKK FM for a day to see how low we've sunk. Can anyone honestly say that Michael Graham, Jay Severin, Michelle McPhee or Jim & Margerie actually inform anyone or promote anything resembling a deep conversation about the difficult issues we face? The airwaves are filled with pontificating jack-asses telling us what THEIR opinions are. Commercial radio is a wasteland of irrational, anti-intellectual propaganda. The American people are literally being made dumber by talk radio. (take a look at my older postings here to see what I think of Michael Graham)
By contrast, public radio serves the public interest, just as all radio and TV stations once did. Without the headaches of stock holders and the need to turn a profit or satisfy advertisers, public radio is free to focus on doing what its supposed to do; provide objective, comprehensive, in depth news and public affairs programming that will inform the public, promote understanding, and incite public discourse. Bill Moyers once said that real news is the news we need to remain free. NPR and WBUR is the only reliable, trustworthy source of "real news" we have left and it deserves our support. Public broadcasting isn't government run though its partially government funded. This is PUBLIC radio, it's OUR radio station and WE need to pay our fair share. I support WBUR because its MY station. It's your station also...give it a listen and judge for yourself: www.wbur.org
You can also check out:
www.npr.org
www.pri.org
www.pacifica.org/
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Michael Graham gets climate change wrong, again.
Here we go again.
WTKK radio personality, right wing-nut and climate change denier Michael Graham has posted another poorly written hack job on climate change. Graham borrows heavily from equally poor piece from Fortune Magazine. Graham's own interpretation and spin on this make a bad article even worse. The premise is basically that John Christy,( one of less-than-half-dozen credible climate scientists who either deny anthropogenic climate change (man made global warming) or think it's not going to be as bad as we think) destroyed Jame Hansen in recent congressional testimony. Actually, Christy's own words and published commentary show that he does believe man is warming the climate and that greenhouse gases are contributing to the warming. Christy seems to put more emphasis on land use changes than most scientists and continues to make bad analysis of satellite data.
What I find interesting is the horrible spin Graham puts on this:
"Unlike most alleged journalism on climate change, this is an interview with an actual climatologist (John Christy) as opposed to some politically active biologist/geologist/etc. who is speaking outside his field."
This statement is laughable because it actually turns climate change denial on it's head. Usually it's the anti-global warming crowd that churns out unqualified "scientists" to attack the truth. I'm not sure who Graham is talking about here but most of the scientists I've seen or read about in the media are actual climate researchers. Graham continues with: "He noticed that Hansen--Al Gore's stooge--wasn't just wrong about increased temperatures, he was ridiculously wrong."
What's really interesting here is that John Christy, who is a respected climatologist but one who is at odds with about 98% of the climatologists in the world is treated with deference, Graham (and his minions who post to his blog) claims to have a "real" scientists while James Hansen, arguably the most respected climatologist in the US, winner of numerous honors and a climatologist who has been published more often than most scientists, is Al Gore's "stooge". This subjective bullshit would be laughable if it were not for the fact that Graham actually has an audience. The worst part of this is that Hansen's climate model predictions actually turned out to be quite good as a 2005 analysis pointed out. The book Censoring Science is a must read for anyone who really wants some insight into James Hansen.


Graham goes on to claim that glaciers are not a problem:

WHAT? I don't know who's more confused. Graham or Christy. Glaciers, "ice cover" and sea ice are all different things. Christy is really talking out of his ass here and Graham is eating it all up. Glaciers are losing mass at a rate twice as fast as they normally do and that rate of loss is increasing. The long term outlook for glaciers is bad and the likely results; raising sea levels and a loss of fresh water storage are a direct threat to human life. As far as the ice cover in the south "making up" for loss in the Arctic, it would be wise to look at the Antarctic in it's entirety before making pronouncements about an entire continent.
Graham then moves into a critique of "Al Gore's" proposed solution to global warming (I thought it was President Obama's): "The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe. Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it."
Excuse me but I thought we were talking about climate science, not policy decisions. This is the typical "kitchen sink" tactic at work, insist that the science is flawed AND attack to solution. Forget for a moment the utter lack of reason in this, Christy/Graham are also flat out wrong. They wrongly assume that only the US will move aggressively to curb GHG emissions, something that simply isn't going to happen. This is a favorite new argument, one that is getting more traction than it deserves. Stabilizing the climate is both possible and necessary.
Graham concludes with a link to this story, actually using it as "evidence" that global warming theory is in trouble. I wonder if he actually read the article as it points out that likely sea level rise if the West Antarctic ice shelf collapsed would be "only" 3 meters instead of the projected 6 meters though the article notes that such a massive shift would actually shift the earths rotational axis. You're right Michael, nothing to worry about.
Once again, Michael Graham has made people dumber. Why does this man still have a microphone in front of him?




WTKK radio personality, right wing-nut and climate change denier Michael Graham has posted another poorly written hack job on climate change. Graham borrows heavily from equally poor piece from Fortune Magazine. Graham's own interpretation and spin on this make a bad article even worse. The premise is basically that John Christy,( one of less-than-half-dozen credible climate scientists who either deny anthropogenic climate change (man made global warming) or think it's not going to be as bad as we think) destroyed Jame Hansen in recent congressional testimony. Actually, Christy's own words and published commentary show that he does believe man is warming the climate and that greenhouse gases are contributing to the warming. Christy seems to put more emphasis on land use changes than most scientists and continues to make bad analysis of satellite data.
What I find interesting is the horrible spin Graham puts on this:
"Unlike most alleged journalism on climate change, this is an interview with an actual climatologist (John Christy) as opposed to some politically active biologist/geologist/etc. who is speaking outside his field."
This statement is laughable because it actually turns climate change denial on it's head. Usually it's the anti-global warming crowd that churns out unqualified "scientists" to attack the truth. I'm not sure who Graham is talking about here but most of the scientists I've seen or read about in the media are actual climate researchers. Graham continues with: "He noticed that Hansen--Al Gore's stooge--wasn't just wrong about increased temperatures, he was ridiculously wrong."
What's really interesting here is that John Christy, who is a respected climatologist but one who is at odds with about 98% of the climatologists in the world is treated with deference, Graham (and his minions who post to his blog) claims to have a "real" scientists while James Hansen, arguably the most respected climatologist in the US, winner of numerous honors and a climatologist who has been published more often than most scientists, is Al Gore's "stooge". This subjective bullshit would be laughable if it were not for the fact that Graham actually has an audience. The worst part of this is that Hansen's climate model predictions actually turned out to be quite good as a 2005 analysis pointed out. The book Censoring Science is a must read for anyone who really wants some insight into James Hansen.


Graham goes on to claim that glaciers are not a problem:
"On glaciers:
Ice melts. Glaciers are always calving. This is what ice does. If ice did not melt, we'd have an ice-covered planet. The fact is that the ice cover is growing in the southern hemisphere even as the ice cover is more or less shrinking in the northern hemisphere. As you and I are talking today, global sea ice coverage is about 400,000 square kilometers above the long-term average - which means that the surplus in the Antarctic is greater than the deficit in the Arctic.


Graham then moves into a critique of "Al Gore's" proposed solution to global warming (I thought it was President Obama's): "The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe. Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it."
Excuse me but I thought we were talking about climate science, not policy decisions. This is the typical "kitchen sink" tactic at work, insist that the science is flawed AND attack to solution. Forget for a moment the utter lack of reason in this, Christy/Graham are also flat out wrong. They wrongly assume that only the US will move aggressively to curb GHG emissions, something that simply isn't going to happen. This is a favorite new argument, one that is getting more traction than it deserves. Stabilizing the climate is both possible and necessary.
Graham concludes with a link to this story, actually using it as "evidence" that global warming theory is in trouble. I wonder if he actually read the article as it points out that likely sea level rise if the West Antarctic ice shelf collapsed would be "only" 3 meters instead of the projected 6 meters though the article notes that such a massive shift would actually shift the earths rotational axis. You're right Michael, nothing to worry about.
Once again, Michael Graham has made people dumber. Why does this man still have a microphone in front of him?





Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Boston Phoenix - decadent?
Tom Duggan and I have e-mail arguments on a regular basis. Often they are well reasoned debates about issues that both Tom and I have deep, heartfelt disagreements on. Sometimes they are superficial, occasionally they degenerate into glorified pissing contests. An unwritten understanding we've had over the years is that exchanges we have over private email stay, for the most part, private. I also believe that regardless of how heated an argument gets the first one to attack the other person (instead of the persons position or ideas) loses. Our recent exchange over the Boston Phoenix is one that Tom saw fit to drag into the public arena on his weekly radio program, "Paying Attention" on WCAP.
The argument started after I linked 2 articles from the Phoenix to my Facebook page. Tom's comments basically stated that the Phoenix was a decadent, left wing newspaper and that the National Enquirer provided better news coverage. One need only do a Google search on the Phoenix to learn that is has won dozens of awards for its news coverage and provides some of the best coverage of the arts, entertainment and media in the Boston area as well as first rate reporting. It was the paper that broke the clergy sex abuse scandal and while it is an alternative paper complete with an "Adult" section, it is hardly decadent.
For the sake of argument, lets take a look at this weeks Phoenix; For starters YES there is an adult section - let's put that aside for a moment (Tom claims it's pornographic, well see about that). Hmmm front page, coverage of the struggling Rose Art Museum and the possibility that Brandies University may sell it (Page 29), snippets about stories inside on film, music, the Dali Lama in Foxboro. Nothing decadent here...it must be inside. A full page ad for the House of Blues, we will see many full and half page ads throughout the paper for local clubs, concert venues, museums, theaters, etc.
We find extensive coverage of the troubles at the Boston Globe, the Dali Lama's visit to Massachusetts and holding court at Gillette stadium, MIT's media lab and the latest breakthroughs in music technology, a story on Dewaun Parker a graduate of Berkley (school of music) and his work with Dr. Dre (THAT must be the decadent stuff), a review of newly released films including Angels and Daemons, reviews of local theater action including Grey Gardens-the Musical. Local restaurant reviews, club listings, sports, Pretty tame stuff, on the back page there is an interview with former adult film star Sasha Grey, but not because she is a porn star, but because she is attempting to cross over into mainstream films. To say that the National Enquirer is a better source of journalistic excellence is, at best, a bad joke.
The letters-to-the-Editor are both supportive and critical of the Phoenix's recent editorial urging that Jay Severin not be allowed to return to the airwaves on WTKK (that was one of the pieces I linked to Facebook that started all of this). The editorial takes former Vice President Dick Cheney to task for defending torture and working the cable news show circuit attacking President Obama. The Phoenix is a liberal-left paper to be sure and it makes no bones about it but it is tame by most standards. In 2000 the Phoenix endorsed Al Gore over Ralph Nader for president, hardly a left wing position.
Now on to that "pornographic" Adult section. The cover model this week actually looks less "slutty" than usual, pretty, curvy, quite healthy, rather "normal"and sporting a bikini, she is about as pornographic as a sears catalog photo. The ads run the gambit from telephone "chat" lines to escort services, every taste can be catered to; gay, strait, transgendered and every flavor and combination imaginable. There are ads from adult bookstores in the area and mail order paraphernalia is easily available. The pictures that accompany the ad are provocative, titillating and appropriately blocked out in the right spots. They are suggestive and surely not suitable for kids or adolescents but they are also clearly NOT pornographic. There are no graphic depictions of sex, no frontal nudity, nothing that crosses the line into porn. One thing Tom and I both know well is what porn looks like, believe me, this isn't it.
The Phoenix is niche paper. It's liberal editorially, covers news and events from an alternative or progressive vantage point. It covers the arts, entertainment, academia, the club scene. It is in the same vein of the Village Voice and like the Voice, is quite honest about what it is (and is not). Comparing it to the Globe or (laughingly) the Valley Patriot or the Enquirer is pointless. Several things should be obvious; The Phoenix is very good at what it does, the quality of it's journalism is excellent, it is far from pornographic and it is not "decadent".
The argument started after I linked 2 articles from the Phoenix to my Facebook page. Tom's comments basically stated that the Phoenix was a decadent, left wing newspaper and that the National Enquirer provided better news coverage. One need only do a Google search on the Phoenix to learn that is has won dozens of awards for its news coverage and provides some of the best coverage of the arts, entertainment and media in the Boston area as well as first rate reporting. It was the paper that broke the clergy sex abuse scandal and while it is an alternative paper complete with an "Adult" section, it is hardly decadent.
For the sake of argument, lets take a look at this weeks Phoenix; For starters YES there is an adult section - let's put that aside for a moment (Tom claims it's pornographic, well see about that). Hmmm front page, coverage of the struggling Rose Art Museum and the possibility that Brandies University may sell it (Page 29), snippets about stories inside on film, music, the Dali Lama in Foxboro. Nothing decadent here...it must be inside. A full page ad for the House of Blues, we will see many full and half page ads throughout the paper for local clubs, concert venues, museums, theaters, etc.
We find extensive coverage of the troubles at the Boston Globe, the Dali Lama's visit to Massachusetts and holding court at Gillette stadium, MIT's media lab and the latest breakthroughs in music technology, a story on Dewaun Parker a graduate of Berkley (school of music) and his work with Dr. Dre (THAT must be the decadent stuff), a review of newly released films including Angels and Daemons, reviews of local theater action including Grey Gardens-the Musical. Local restaurant reviews, club listings, sports, Pretty tame stuff, on the back page there is an interview with former adult film star Sasha Grey, but not because she is a porn star, but because she is attempting to cross over into mainstream films. To say that the National Enquirer is a better source of journalistic excellence is, at best, a bad joke.
The letters-to-the-Editor are both supportive and critical of the Phoenix's recent editorial urging that Jay Severin not be allowed to return to the airwaves on WTKK (that was one of the pieces I linked to Facebook that started all of this). The editorial takes former Vice President Dick Cheney to task for defending torture and working the cable news show circuit attacking President Obama. The Phoenix is a liberal-left paper to be sure and it makes no bones about it but it is tame by most standards. In 2000 the Phoenix endorsed Al Gore over Ralph Nader for president, hardly a left wing position.
Now on to that "pornographic" Adult section. The cover model this week actually looks less "slutty" than usual, pretty, curvy, quite healthy, rather "normal"and sporting a bikini, she is about as pornographic as a sears catalog photo. The ads run the gambit from telephone "chat" lines to escort services, every taste can be catered to; gay, strait, transgendered and every flavor and combination imaginable. There are ads from adult bookstores in the area and mail order paraphernalia is easily available. The pictures that accompany the ad are provocative, titillating and appropriately blocked out in the right spots. They are suggestive and surely not suitable for kids or adolescents but they are also clearly NOT pornographic. There are no graphic depictions of sex, no frontal nudity, nothing that crosses the line into porn. One thing Tom and I both know well is what porn looks like, believe me, this isn't it.
The Phoenix is niche paper. It's liberal editorially, covers news and events from an alternative or progressive vantage point. It covers the arts, entertainment, academia, the club scene. It is in the same vein of the Village Voice and like the Voice, is quite honest about what it is (and is not). Comparing it to the Globe or (laughingly) the Valley Patriot or the Enquirer is pointless. Several things should be obvious; The Phoenix is very good at what it does, the quality of it's journalism is excellent, it is far from pornographic and it is not "decadent".
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Nature editorial on climate change.
Published in the latest edition of Nature, one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world.
*************************************************************************
EDITORIAL
Time to act
Without a solid commitment from the world’s leaders, innovative
ways to combat climate change are likely to come to nothing.
It is not too late yet — but we may be very close. The 500 billion tonnes of carbon
that humans have added to the atmosphere lie heavily on the world, and the burden
swells by at least 9 billion tonnes a year (see page 1117). If present trends continue,
humankind will have emitted a trillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere well
before 2050, and that could be enough to push the planet into the danger zone. And
there is no reason to think that the pressure will stop then. The coal seams and tar
sands of the world hold enough carbon for humankind to emit another trillion tonnes
— and the apocalyptic scenarios extend from there (see page 1104).
Nations urgently need to cut their output of carbon dioxide. The difficulty of that
task is manifest: emissions have continued to rise despite almost two decades of rhetoric,
diplomacy and action on the matter. But that unhappy fact should not be taken
as a licence for fatalism. Governments have a wide range of pollution-cutting tools
at their command, most notably tradable permit regimes, taxes on fuels, regulations
on power generation and energy efficiency, and subsidies for renewable energy and
improved technologies. These tools can work if applied seriously — so citizens around
the world must demand that seriousness from their leaders, both within their individual
nations and in the international framework that will be discussed at the United
Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.
As essential as it is, however, simply agreeing to cut emissions will not be enough.
The fossil fuels burned up so far have already committed the world to a serious amount
of climate change, even if carbon emissions were somehow
to cease overnight (see page 1091). And given the
current economic turmoil, the wherewithal to adapt
to these changes is in short supply, especially among
the world’s poor nations. Adaptation measures will be
needed in rich and poor countries alike — but those that
have grown wealthy through the past emission of carbon
have a moral duty to help those now threatened by that
legacy (see page 1102).
The latest scientific research suggests that even a complete halt to carbon pollution
would not bring the world’s temperatures down substantially for several centuries.
If further research reveals that a prolonged period of elevated temperatures would
endanger the polar ice sheets, or otherwise destabilize the Earth system, nations may
have to contemplate actively removing CO2
from the atmosphere. Indeed, the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is already developing scenarios
for the idea that long-term safety may require sucking up carbon, and various innovators
and entrepreneurs are developing technologies that might be able to accomplish
that feat (see page 1094). At the moment, those technologies seem ruinously expensive
and technically difficult. But if the very steep learning curve can be climbed, then the
benefits will be great.
More radical still is the possibility of cooling the planet through some kind of ‘geoengineering’
that would dim the incoming sunlight (see page 1097). The effects of
such approaches are much more worrying than those of capturing carbon from the air,
however. The cooling from geoengineering would not exactly balance the warming
from greenhouse gases, which would cause complications even if the technology itself
was feasible — something for which the evidence has been circumstantial, at best.
But discussions about the possibilities offered by geoengineering could also lull the
world’s leaders into complacency — if they lead them to believe that the technology
“Even a complete halt
to carbon pollution
would not bring the
world’s temperatures
down substantially
for several centuries.”
1www.nature.com/nature Vol 458 | Issue no. 7242 | 30 April 2009
© 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
*************************************************************************
EDITORIAL
Time to act
Without a solid commitment from the world’s leaders, innovative
ways to combat climate change are likely to come to nothing.
It is not too late yet — but we may be very close. The 500 billion tonnes of carbon
that humans have added to the atmosphere lie heavily on the world, and the burden
swells by at least 9 billion tonnes a year (see page 1117). If present trends continue,
humankind will have emitted a trillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere well
before 2050, and that could be enough to push the planet into the danger zone. And
there is no reason to think that the pressure will stop then. The coal seams and tar
sands of the world hold enough carbon for humankind to emit another trillion tonnes
— and the apocalyptic scenarios extend from there (see page 1104).
Nations urgently need to cut their output of carbon dioxide. The difficulty of that
task is manifest: emissions have continued to rise despite almost two decades of rhetoric,
diplomacy and action on the matter. But that unhappy fact should not be taken
as a licence for fatalism. Governments have a wide range of pollution-cutting tools
at their command, most notably tradable permit regimes, taxes on fuels, regulations
on power generation and energy efficiency, and subsidies for renewable energy and
improved technologies. These tools can work if applied seriously — so citizens around
the world must demand that seriousness from their leaders, both within their individual
nations and in the international framework that will be discussed at the United
Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.
As essential as it is, however, simply agreeing to cut emissions will not be enough.
The fossil fuels burned up so far have already committed the world to a serious amount
of climate change, even if carbon emissions were somehow
to cease overnight (see page 1091). And given the
current economic turmoil, the wherewithal to adapt
to these changes is in short supply, especially among
the world’s poor nations. Adaptation measures will be
needed in rich and poor countries alike — but those that
have grown wealthy through the past emission of carbon
have a moral duty to help those now threatened by that
legacy (see page 1102).
The latest scientific research suggests that even a complete halt to carbon pollution
would not bring the world’s temperatures down substantially for several centuries.
If further research reveals that a prolonged period of elevated temperatures would
endanger the polar ice sheets, or otherwise destabilize the Earth system, nations may
have to contemplate actively removing CO2
from the atmosphere. Indeed, the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is already developing scenarios
for the idea that long-term safety may require sucking up carbon, and various innovators
and entrepreneurs are developing technologies that might be able to accomplish
that feat (see page 1094). At the moment, those technologies seem ruinously expensive
and technically difficult. But if the very steep learning curve can be climbed, then the
benefits will be great.
More radical still is the possibility of cooling the planet through some kind of ‘geoengineering’
that would dim the incoming sunlight (see page 1097). The effects of
such approaches are much more worrying than those of capturing carbon from the air,
however. The cooling from geoengineering would not exactly balance the warming
from greenhouse gases, which would cause complications even if the technology itself
was feasible — something for which the evidence has been circumstantial, at best.
But discussions about the possibilities offered by geoengineering could also lull the
world’s leaders into complacency — if they lead them to believe that the technology
“Even a complete halt
to carbon pollution
would not bring the
world’s temperatures
down substantially
for several centuries.”
1www.nature.com/nature Vol 458 | Issue no. 7242 | 30 April 2009
© 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Friday, May 1, 2009
The response to "Torture"
My blog is linked to my Facebook page and not surprisingly, "Torture" got a pretty strong response from Tom Duggan and friends. I couldn't make this up folks...The comments are below.
*****************************
Tom Duggan at 7:09am April 28
*****************************
Tom Duggan at 7:09am April 28
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
DOn't you see Tom? It doen't matter what THEY would do. It doesn't matter if one OF THEM talked (by the way, more useful intelligence on the so-called Second 911 was gained from non-coercive means than torture... Read More). It doesn't even matter if doing what's right costs lives. That price, in fact, is the whole point. This isn't about pacifism (I am not a pacifist as you well know).
If we don't stay true to the values that make this country great then America is just another place and we are just another collection of people.
Tom Duggan at 7:26am April 28
Timothy Utley at 8:23am April 28
Tom, instead of calling people "sissies", which is laughable, why not just accept that many people believe that what we teach our children actually works on a bigger picture too: that taking a higher ground has it's own higher rewards. that violence only brings more violence.
Maybe, just maybe Tom, it's YOUR fucked up ideology that breeds terrorism by the very acceptance of such aggressive global tactics, which is certainly not limited to a few cases of torture. ... Read More
To be fair, I do not know you, so pardon me sir, .... but it kind of pisses me off for you to label people as "sissies" simply because they do not believe violence is going to accomplish what I think we all want: a peaceful world.
Tom Duggan at 8:31am April 28
Tom Duggan at 8:33am April 28
Trina Hofreiter at 8:34am April 28
Tom Duggan at 8:39am April 28
................AH now I feel better!
Tom Duggan at 8:42am April 28
Barbara Ann at 3:12pm April 28
Tom Duggan at 5:59pm April 28
Barbara Ann at 7:11pm April 28So they water boarded the guy 179 times. That's 179 times they tortured him.. Hmmm....doesn't seem to be working
Tennis Lilly at 9:30pm April 28
I'm not sure because once you went down the road of ad homonym* attacks and insults you sounded more like Ann Coulter.
* That means personal attacks – it’s Latin.
Tom Duggan at 10:19pm April 28
Tom Duggan at 10:22pm April 28I am disagreeing with your position that we should NEVER torture. When our national security and our very lives are at stake NOTHING should be off the table. THAT is my position, it is just too bad that some americans are SO spoiled and SO comefortable and completely out of touch with the dangers of the real world that they see OUR government as the biggest threat to humanity instead of the Muslim terrorists and those who support them
Tennis Lilly at 7:05am April 29
Tennis Lilly at 7:16am April 29
Tennis Lilly at 7:17am April 29
Barbara Ann at 9:19am April 29
Tom Duggan at 9:27am April 29
THis explains why you are for open borders not defending our country against threats foreign or domestic and are MORE concerned with the safety and comfort of Terrorists over Americans.
Tom Duggan at 9:32am April 29
You and Tennis, with all due respect, are so extreme in your IDEOLOGY ... Read Moreand your "IDEAS" that facts, real world dangers and ACTUAL events don't seem to matter. As long as you all fFEEL good about yourselves and can tell YOURSELVES you have a MORAL HIGH GROUND, Ameirican lives mean nothing.
Truman interned the Japanese to keep us safe, Lincoln suspended Habeus Coorpus etc. While it is true anyone willing ot give up a little liberty for a little security ends up with neither, those who are willing to give up a little liberty for A LOT Of security Survive long enough to have these kinds of silly debates about waterboarding four terrorists.
Tom Duggan at 11:02am April 29
Jimi Carter at 11:11am April 29
Are you honestly stating for the world to read that if there came a time when your family's life was at stake and the ONLY way you could gain information that would SAVE their lives was to 'pour water over the head of a hooded man' - you wouldn't do this? Do you care SO LITTLE about the lives of Americans?
As someone who prides himself on being 'Intelligent' and/or 'Compassionate' you would sacrifice innocent people in order to avoid a vile human from having to listen to 'Loud' music or go without sleep for hours... ... Read More
Are you OK? No, I mean are you actually understanding that the PIGS who wish to destroy.. not simply hurt... but WIPE OUT American and Israel... could CARE LESS about our "Morale Standing"..
Wake Up!
Jimi Carter at 11:14am April 29
Jimi Carter at 11:17am April 29
Jimi Carter at 11:31am April 29
You are seriously losing your perspective! Dude where else in this world is the 'Idea' of America' taking shape? UM.. NO WHERE! So once we are done... and with the big O in charge.. it's becoming more sooner than later.. once we are DONE.. there will be no more "Idea of America".. that's what makes us unique.. and why so many Legal Immigrants and unfortunately.. ILLEGAL SCUMBAGS want to be here and not where they are presently living. Does this not make sense to you?
Tom Duggan at 11:32am April 29
Tom Duggan at 11:44am April 29
I, on the other hand am fighting people like YOU who ... Read Moreput our troops lives in jeopardy, want to hand cuff our government from protecting our families and are more outraged by FOUR Muslim Terrorists being water boarded than those who commit REAL acts of terror against US.
I think that covers it
Barbara Ann at 11:34am April 29I do realize who and what we are fighting; do you
Tom Duggan at 11:44am April 29
I, on the other hand am fighting people like YOU who ... Read Moreput our troops lives in jeopardy, want to hand cuff our government from protecting our families and are more outraged by FOUR Muslim Terrorists being water boarded than those who commit REAL acts of terror against US.
I think that covers it
Jimi Carter at 11:56am April 29
Congratulations!
Tom Duggan at 2:05pm April 29
Tennis Lilly at 4:49am April 30
Tennis Lilly at 4:58am April 30
Tennis Lilly at 5:09am April 30
I think the two of you have done a fine job of making my points (and embarrassing yourselves in the process). Thanks
Tennis Lilly at 5:10am April 30
Jimi Carter at 8:35am May 1
Tennis Lilly at 7:51pm May 1
Jimi Carter at 8:28pm May 1
You believe that Tom and I use a thought process " culled from 'high school ... Read Morecritical thinking class" - Yet your statements are that of a 'child' who's afraid of the 'boogie man' and 'shakes' when 'bigger children' yell at him. Why have you no will to 'Live' and/or at least help a fellow human who may be in danger?
It doesn't make you a better person to sacrifice the life of an innocent person in order to claim to your enemy 'Nah Nah at least we don't torture'...
Tennis Lilly at 9:31pm May 1
, it's controlled drowning. That it MAY, under some concocted, extreme situation provide information that MAY save lives doesn't make torture moral or legal. MY statements are that of a child? Are you serious?