iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Lucia Graves
GET UPDATES FROM Lucia:

Michael Mann 'Disappointed' In Obama's Global Warming Record

Posted: 03/31/2012 12:12 pm Updated: 03/31/2012 11:49 pm

Michael Mann

WASHINGTON -- It's a Friday afternoon and Michael Mann is at a downtown coffee shop. The climate scientist became famous in 2001 for his "hockey stick" graph that showed 900 years of relatively stable temperatures veering sharply higher in the 20th century. But now, standing in line at a crowded Starbucks at 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, the Penn State professor is decidedly out of the spotlight.

Mann is in town to promote his new book, "The Hockey Stick And The Climate Wars: Dispatches From The Front Lines." While he had a strong turnout at the local bookstore, Politics and Prose, the topic that once made Mann a household name is now conspicuously absent from the national conversation.

President Barack Obama had just embarked on a cross-country energy tour, touting his "all-of-the-above energy strategy" in visits to Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Oklahoma. But he never once mentioned the single greatest consequence of America's reliance on oil and gas: global warming.

He wasn't the only one curiously silent on the issue.

Newspaper headlines announced the spike in gas prices, and Republicans on the campaign trail praised the merits of drilling. Rachel Maddow invited famous climate denier Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) onto her show, where he ran through his usual talking points. "I expect that on Fox News," Mann said after his visit to Starbucks, where he ran into HuffPost editorial director Howard Fineman and agreed to an interview.

Mann had no pressing appointments, as Washington whirred with talk of energy policy. So he walked with Fineman back to the HuffPost Washington bureau, where he spent the afternoon drinking beer and explaining how the country's pre-eminent climatologist came to be standing invisibly at a coffee shop next to the White House at a time when his issue is more important than ever.

Mann's temperature graph was cited in the 2001 United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seminal report, which concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the global climate." His research would later make him the target of the infamous "climategate" email scandal of 2009, in which more than 1,000 emails were leaked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK and used by climate deniers to falsely allege that scientists had manipulated data. "Mann-made global warming," they called it at the time.

Excerpts from HuffPost's conversation with Mann:

The Huffington Post: Obama has been talking about America’s energy future on the campaign trail a lot this past week, yet he never mentions climate change. What do you make of that?

Michael Mann: I thought there was some irony to Obama going to Oklahoma, the state that maybe has been most devastated thus far by the emerging effects of climate change, to present a vision of our energy future that really did seem to ignore climate change. I was disappointed by that frankly.

HuffPost: Disappointed, but were you surprised?

Mann: In Obama’s second State of the Union address, he actually seemed to concede the scientific evidence as a weakness. He argued that we need to pursue a more enlightened energy strategy in spite of the doubts about the science of climate change. … We’ve actually made negative progress from where we were 10 years earlier, when Clinton gave his final State of the Union address. We've gone from the science being the primary reason to move forward to the argument that we should move forward in spite of supposed weaknesses in the science of climate change. So we've retreated to a position of weakness on this issue with Obama relative to Bill Clinton.

HuffPost: How about his appointees? How have they done?

Mann: It’s been a mixed bag really when it comes to Obama and climate change because he appointed all the right people to the various agencies. You know, no complaints about Steven Chu, Jane Lubchenco, John Holdren. … It’s like he had this all-star basketball team, but he wouldn’t let them go out on the floor and play. With the exception maybe of Chu, who’s been out there talking about these issues, they all seem to have been on a very short leash in terms of speaking up publicly about the energy challenge and the need to deal with climate change.

I know that they all have very enlightened view on this because I know some of them and I know what they’ve written and where they’ve stood on this issue for some time. So he appointed the right people, but then he didn’t really let them move forward on this issue. He says the right things sometimes, but then appears to retreat from them. The bottom line is that at the very least he appears conflicted between where his own heart is -– my guess is that his own heart is with moving forward and dealing with the problem of climate change -- and his instincts as a politician.

HuffPost: Do you feel like the book tour is allowing you to get your message out?

Mann: I had some quality interviews with some media outlets. I think it's difficult in this 24/7 constant news cycle to gain attention for an issue like this. And in a book tour, what you're of course hoping for is to sustain the attention and the interest in the topic. You're just competing with so much, especially during an election year, but at the same time this is an issue that keeps coming up and you have people like my former senator, Rick Santorum, who on the campaign trail has espoused the view that climate change is an elaborate hoax just like James Inhofe claims. And so in a sense it is a timely issue I suppose because it keeps on coming up in the political campaign and because people are asking about this ridiculously warm winter and this hot spring and they're starting to wonder, is this climate change? And it actually provides us an opportunity to talk about it.

Too many of my colleagues are so scared of drawing any relationship between the two because they know they’ll be attacked by climate change deniers, so they're unwilling to even talk about the possibility that climate change is influencing the weather. From a scientific point of view, if you take a sober look at what we're seeing, it is very much consistent with the impact of climate change on our weather the models have predicted -- that we will see a substantial increase in the number of warm days in the U.S. and that’s what we’re seeing.

FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- It's a Friday afternoon and Michael Mann is at a downtown coffee shop. The climate scientist became famous in 2001 for his "hockey stick" graph that showed 900 years of relatively stable...
WASHINGTON -- It's a Friday afternoon and Michael Mann is at a downtown coffee shop. The climate scientist became famous in 2001 for his "hockey stick" graph that showed 900 years of relatively stable...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,058
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (23 total)
09:03 PM on 04/21/2012
Loved the Movie "HEAT". Wasn't fond of "MIAMI VICE" though.
This American
An end to all this nonsense
12:51 AM on 04/12/2012
The party is over, time to come up with a new con game. You have run out of pigeons.
08:57 AM on 04/11/2012
I'll take these 49 over Mann's hockey stick any day!

http://www.chron.com/business/press-releases/article/Former-NASA-Scientists-Astronauts-Criticize-3472875.php
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
01:30 PM on 04/11/2012
Have any of them ever published anything in climate science?

Mann's research is excellent and is corroborated by a number of other lines of evidence, which also exhibit the hockey stick effect. Looks like the scientists are right and the deniers are still wrong and still desperate to defame the scientists by name.
02:28 PM on 04/11/2012
Quite likely yes. You can check into it in your spare time.

These scientists have published in the peer-reviewed journals, no doubt over the objections of the Climategate gang . . .

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
02:55 PM on 04/11/2012
populartechnology is a known denier site. There is no valid science there. Not one single one of those papers is valid. For all that effort, you and poptech have not produced a single valid science paper which refutes AGW.

Lists of things are not the same as producing one single valid scientific citation. Do you perceive the difference?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
eaarth2
“An era ends when its illusions are exhausted
05:55 AM on 04/08/2012
The Science of Global warming remains a mystery to many Americans- thy are confused and vexed by it- not because the science is all that complicated- but the highly funded deniers have placed misinformation and doubt into the public's mind.

Dr. Mann is one of the greatest scientists alive today, along with Jim Hansen over at NASA. These two men have brought to light the serious problems will face from carbon emissions.

The Paleo climate records are concise and do not lie- the track we are on now is catastrophic- its happened before and will happen again as carbon continues to rise in the atmosphere. Mann's frustration with Obama is understood- the President however has chosen to kick the can down the road another 4 years. Sadly however the time is now up- waiting till 2016 , or now 2020 will make our decisions even more difficult- reducing C02 emissions 15% a year- an impossible goal. C02 will reach the 450ppm as early as 2030- and 3 degree C or more rise in global temperatures a certainty.
This American
An end to all this nonsense
12:56 AM on 04/12/2012
It ain't happening. people aren't stupid enough believe in predictions that do not pan out. Time is the enemy of all con-men, and the CAGW movement got wacked by it.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
03:38 AM on 04/12/2012
Now you are projecting, TA. Time is the enemy of the fossil fuel funded anti science campaign.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:52 PM on 04/03/2012
Prominent Global Warming "Skeptic" Hides The Incline

Dear RebelRyder,

Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Robert M "Bob"Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?**

Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensible lie?

If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter's gross misrepresentation of scientific data.

Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributo­r to several of the most prominent organizati­ons that are "skeptical­­" of man-made global warming, including:

* The Heartland Institute
* The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
* The Science and Environmen­tal Policy Project (SEPP)
* The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
* The Nongovernm­ental Internatio­nal Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
* The Internatio­nal Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stopgov
We have IRRECONCILABLE differences
04:47 PM on 04/03/2012
I couldn't respond to your last post to me, so I jumped on this.

Sorry, but I was in college when Mr. Carter (in his sweater) and others were screaming an Ice Age is coming an we will run out of oil by 2010. So am I a skeptic, yep. As I stated, I even took a solar engineering course along with my other engineering studies, because I was a believer. But over the years as an environmental engineer, things did not come to pass as predicted. And today there are many scientists questioning the theory and data. Does that mean they are wrong, no, but it also doesn't mean they are right either.

Given a choice between an Ice Age or Global Warming, I'll take Global Warming, because we will starve in an Ice Age. But until you or someone else explains the climate change documented by NASA on other planets in the solar system, I'll believe it is a natural cycle.

I know I won't convince you, but since I once was a "believer," who has be around and reading reports for 40 years, it will take a lot more data to get me back on that side of the fence. But thanks for the discussion.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:26 PM on 04/03/2012
Stopgov: "I was in college when Mr. Carter (in his sweater) and others were screaming an Ice Age is coming"

Science denier talking points never die, no matter how many times a stake has been driven through their hearts.

"Climate science Crock of the Week: 'In the 70s, They said there was going to be an Ice Age.' "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

In fact, even in the 1970s papers supporting global warming were far more prevalent in the scientific literature.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:37 PM on 04/03/2012
Stopgov: "Given a choice between an Ice Age or Global Warming, I'll take Global Warming"

We don't have that choice.

Stopgov: "until you or someone else explains the climate change documented by NASA on other planets in the solar system, I'll believe it is a natural cycle."

Needing to know why some other planets are warming and cooling before you accept the scientific evidence on AGW theory is invalid "logic".

Your are evidently unaware that the Sun's linear radiative output trend has been essentially flat over recent decades while the Earth has continued to warm (and other planets have warmed and cooled).
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:42 PM on 04/03/2012
stopgov: "over the years... things did not come to pass as predicted."

This mid-70s prediction published in the preeminent scientific journal 'Science' was right on the money:

----------------------------------------------------
Science 8 August 1975:

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

Wallace S. Broecker

Columbia University

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide… Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/460.abstract
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:52 PM on 04/03/2012
Climate science denier (then, as now) Nigel Calder's 1980 prediction however was laughably incorrect:

"[By the year 2000] the much-advertised heating of the earth by the man-made carbon-dioxide 'greenhouse' fails to occur."

-- Nigel Calder, 1980

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/06/the-book-of-pre.html
12:38 AM on 04/03/2012
From the interview:
"HuffPost: How about his appointees? How have they done?

Mann: It’s been a mixed bag really when it comes to Obama and climate change because he appointed all the right people to the various agencies. You know, no complaints about Steven Chu, Jane Lubchenco, John Holdren."

Really? No complaints about John Holdren?
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
09:07 AM on 04/03/2012
"Really? No complaints about John Holdren?"

That's an old denier attack. Holdren and his co-authors review those positions held by others, but they then conclude that they are wrong for many reasons. They most certainly don't advocate them.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:01 PM on 04/03/2012
RebelRyder: "Did you read this one? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/fda-bpa-nrdc-petition-_n_1392582.html"

That one doesn't even mention John Holdren.

Nice attempt at mud-throwing obfuscation against Dr. Holdren and then when called on it changing the subject.

Dear RebelRyder,

What is your science education and professional experience that somehow leads you to believe that you understand climate science better than the experts at the National Academy of Sciences?

Please answer the question instead of continuing to run away from it - thank you.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:56 PM on 04/03/2012
Prominent Global Warming "Skeptic" Hides The Incline
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear RebelRyder,

Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Robert M "Bob"Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?**

Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensible lie?

If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter's gross misrepresentation of scientific data - thank you.

------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:25 PM on 04/03/2012
RebelRyder: {{{ … crickets … }}}

Funny how science deniers invariably run away from addressing and acknowledging prominent "skeptic" Bob Carter's de facto global warming fraud.

It's almost as if science deniers aren't actually real skeptics, and instead deny climate science for ideological and/or monetary reasons.
Kommonman
Blame it on Dyslexic fingers..next question
02:48 PM on 04/02/2012
As in gulliver's travels that hockey stick needs to be used in the same fashion as the bag of rocks on the climate deniers...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:19 PM on 04/02/2012
You may want to rethink O's grades:

O avoids loser legislation. Climate change's still in that pile, due largely to Fox.

And given 60 Senate votes are required to change anything substantive. That means,
other than the bully pulpit, limited executive orders, and unsavory "signing statements", presidents lack leverage.

Then we have a 5/4 SCOTUS that's clearly thumbing its nose at any pretense of political/ideological impartiality.

Who really thinks corporations are people?

And to get something signed, it's usually better to keep items off the front page because the bigger the issue, the bigger the congressional pushback.

Yet, the EPA ruled CO2 a pollutant. Think that would've happened under GWB?

Get real.

Meanwhile, here's what $8 billionaire, Fox News/News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch, who hires the talking heads who tell deniers what to think, REALLY thinks about global warming,

2007: "Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction.” We must transform the way we use energy, and of course not only because of climate change..."

http://www.newscorp.com/energy/full_speech.html

2011: "I am proud to announce that News Corporation has reached its first major sustainability milestone: we have become carbon neutral across all of our global operations and we are the first company of our kind to do so."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/rupert-murdoch-news-corp-carbon-neutral_n_829640.html?ir=Green
ubrew12
that crazy uncle from Amarcord
09:58 PM on 04/02/2012
Its scary. And a lesson for future Americans, that on the subject of climate change, Australian-born newsman Murdoch has more say on what legislation is passed, and what isn't, than American-born climatologist Mann.

One man gets a billion dollars and the ear of Congress, for what, for learning how to tap phones? And the other man gets a PhD in Physics and gets to be called a communist. What lesson is being taught here, for the next generation?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:38 PM on 04/02/2012
Yes. It's incredible.

According to Forbes, Murdoch is among the top 10 most powerful people in America.

And it's difficult for anyone sane to reconcile that these deniers continue to believe what he tells his bobble heads to tell them, rather than what he says and does himself, even when we place the undeniable and irrefutable right in front of their faces.

Irrationality uber alles.

Moreover, Murdoch seems to have bypassed U.S. Immigration to buy his way to American citizenship via special act of Congress, all in order to get around the law that said foreigners could not own more than a 20% stake in U.S. news media.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:26 PM on 04/02/2012
National Academy of Sciences (2010):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations...

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782 
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Oregonlib
Micro-bio empty
11:48 AM on 04/02/2012
The Republicans on the otherhand will not be a mixed bag, they will be flatout bad for everyone.
photo
uvymopka
The voice of truth, in a sea of Loons
10:30 AM on 04/02/2012
Even while protagonists continue the propaganda campaign, an already large and still growing number of people realize that the global warming scare is a hoax. Climate change is not man-made and there is nothing we can do that would have a significant impact on global climate. Carbon dioxide, made the villain in the fake battle, is not threatening us with catostrophic global warming. The threat of rising sea levels, more powerful storms and floods, droughts and crop failures, shrinking islands and climate refugees are ideas popularized by Al Gore’s work of fiction. Meanwhile, the climate seems to be in a bit of a cooling trend. Even this doesn’t seem to matter. We can only imagine that the election campaign in 2012 may sport a claim that rapid political action is already yielding positive results. Perhaps then, the army of unemployed, growing in response to Barack Obama’s leadership, will remind us of what we already know. Obama is incompetent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roshi98
Dum spiro, spero
10:45 AM on 04/02/2012
You've made a lot of criticisms here with absolutely NOTHING to back them up. Show us the evidence that you clearly have which tens of thousands of scientists, national academies of science, and other scientific bodies the world over have apparently colluded to cover up.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to PROVE what you claim.
11:28 AM on 04/02/2012
Everything he said is true, and many voices are saying it.

The onus is on you to do some of your own research.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stopgov
We have IRRECONCILABLE differences
08:33 AM on 04/03/2012
Where is your proof?
11:02 AM on 04/02/2012
You need to read (if you dare) todays article in the Washington Post on the US rivers.
Keep sinking you head deeper in the sand baby, doesn't mnake it disappear.
photo
Son of Liberty 1765
Exposing Government Lies.
10:01 AM on 04/02/2012
Mike had to crawl into a tree ring since he was caught hiding the decline.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roshi98
Dum spiro, spero
10:38 AM on 04/02/2012
You do know by now what the actual meaning of "hide the decline" is, right? Has nothing to do with temperatures and the decline in reliability of tree rings after 1960 to use as a proxy....

Wait, why am I wasting my time? This has been explained to you ad nauseum.
photo
Son of Liberty 1765
Exposing Government Lies.
01:59 PM on 04/02/2012
That is a steaming pile of Enviro-theology spin.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:08 PM on 04/02/2012
Prominent Global Warming "Skeptic" Hides the Global Warming Incline

Heartland Institute global warming "expert" Dr. Robert M "Bob" Carter has committed de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat.*

Dear SoL1765,

Isn't that like a global warming hoax - a climate science scam?

If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter's gross misrepresentation of scientific data - thank you.

Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributo­r to several of the most prominent organizati­ons that are "skeptical­­" of man-made global warming as well, including:

* The Heartland Institute
* The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
* The Science and Environmen­tal Policy Project (SEPP)
* The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
* The Nongovernm­ental Internatio­nal Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
* The Internatio­nal Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
photo
Son of Liberty 1765
Exposing Government Lies.
02:35 PM on 04/02/2012
Good, he should be giving to those who fight the global scamming ruse.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:52 AM on 04/02/2012
Obama's basic fault is that he's attempted to placate and cooperate with the republicans. He was hired by the American people to repudiate the Bush administration policies, not to continue them. The Bush/Cheney administration actually excluded Democrats from important policy meetings held behind closed doors and that's what Obama should have done when his administration took over.

Obama's election was a mandate to drive a wooden stake through the heart of rightwing politics but instead he invited the skunks to the picnic and for the past three years we've had to endure their stink!
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:42 AM on 04/02/2012
Reality has a well-known scientific bias.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Molly D
11:41 PM on 04/01/2012
When are these guys going to figure out that global warming can't be stopped by emitting less CO2, and that that isn't going to happen anyway. No single country, let alone Obama, can begin to pull that off.

Climate change is just one piece of a raft of troubles, and in fact won't get relief until we have burnt up ALL the fossil fuels that can be extracted. When we can't grow enough food, keep infrastructure going, or employ half our people, nobody will have time for climate change. It's125 degrees in Oklahoma? Like I care. They deserve it! Orlando is one of the keys? Like I said... Bring on the new progressivism! We'll finally be rid of the Confederate states. They'll be underwater.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ecolke
Judge a man's character by how he treats animals.
12:01 AM on 04/02/2012
Agreed, we can't stop climate change, but we can reduce the damage and the rising temperatures. We DO need to be moving forward with a vengence on alternative fuel options, but we're a long way from replacing all fossil fuels.

As for your whiney sarcasm about my state, it's never been 125 degrees here, and as for 'deserving it'.....grow up. There are many of us here who are light years away from Idiotoff and his ilk. What's more, it isn't just Oklahoma, it's the entire stupidity of America and our over consumption and capitalism on steroids.

If you can't grasp that we should be working together on the massive amounts of problems we humans have thrust on our planet, regardless of geography then you'd be best off in Inhofe's camp.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Molly D
01:06 AM on 04/02/2012
OK, well, aside from my bad attitude we seem to be on the same page. I have stuff to answer for from people that ain't. The thing about what does progressivism mean if a nasty collapse is inevitable.... too messy a topic for 250 word bites. See you 'round.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Molly D
01:09 AM on 04/02/2012
PS, good luck with summer.