Warner vs. Gingrich On Climate Change
Today in the House there was a dramatic contrast between a Republican Party embracing the urgent need to take serious action about global climate change and one wedded to ideology.
Consider it a "Tale of Two Testimonies."
About two years ago, Newt Gingrich and I had a civil, respectful debate on the environment. We disagreed on the way forward, but agreed on the urgency of the global climate change crisis. So it was disappointing to see Newt rehash the same tired formula today in his testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He spent almost all of his prepared remarks saying the word most popular with his party: No. And he continued to use talking points and "facts" that have already been discredited many, many times.
Here's an example: too many Republicans continue to completely overstate the cost of the proposals, misstating an MIT study so badly that one of the main authors of the study felt compelled to go public to correct the record. The GOP talks of a cost in the thousands per household, while the Union of Concerned Scientists has concluded that the energy policies currently under consideration will be a net gain for the economy.
In his prepared testimony, Newt continued the false rhetoric that the major energy problem is a lack of domestic oil production. Leaving aside the fact that domestic oil production would never have a major effect on prices in a global oil market, Newt's rhetoric completely ignores the whole point under discussion: the awful climate disruption from global climate change. Oil drilled here has the same carbon footprint as oil drilled anywhere else.
This is an incredibly urgent situation. The science of climate change is accelerating as more evidence comes in, and the change is consistently in the same direction: the problem is even more acute than we thought just a few years ago. The Arctic ice is disappearing faster, ocean acidification is progressing, and global temperatures are rising faster than previous models suggested. Climate scientists previously recommended a ceiling of 550ppm in the atmosphere, but now we're told that the limit is 450ppm. Jim Hansen and other top scientists are now warning that we need to limit atmospheric concentrations to 350ppm.
But at the same time as the forecasts are getting more dire, there is more and more technology coming online that gives us hope of getting a new pathway. Unlike Newt's rhetoric of doom and paralysis, we can build a new 21st century economy with more prosperity, and a cleaner environment. I expect more from someone like Newt who once talked about "Winning the Future."
But there's hope yet for a center to reassert itself in the GOP Ranks - led by a statesman. Today former Sen. John Warner said:
I grew up with the World War II generation and was privileged to serve in the U.S. Navy, at the age of 18, in the last year of that conflict.Americans were inspired in the darkest hours of the Great Depression, and that war, by the immortal comments of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, given in his first inaugural address, in 1933: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The U.S. emerged from a depression, World War II, and rebuilt strong nation that exceeded all our dreams and expectations
Today our nation and much of the world is in the grips of an economic crisis without precedent. The brave men and women of our armed forces and that of other nations are engaged in two wars. Understandably there is a measure of fear in our hearts as to whether we should undertake at this time such an enormous and uncertain challenge as posed by the issues before us in this hearing. But I say, in the spirit of the past generation, that it is our duty to dispel fear and press on.
We need to get this done. To do it, we need a comprehensive plan in our country, and undertake tough negotiations internationally. We need to create a transportation policy that upgrades our high-speed rail and other forms of mass transit. We need to support the burgeoning clean energy economy by implementing strong energy efficiency and renewable energy standards. We need to build a transparent, dynamic carbon market that will reward clean industries and lead to a new, green economy.
And if we do this domestically, we will have the moral authority to engage with the international community to lead the way to a new global climate change agreement. The United States can't do this alone, and the world can't solve this problem without the United States. This is a time for global leadership from our country. As Senator Warner said, "We cannot and should not wait for other countries to take the lead. Their participation in a global treaty is critical, but the United States is a world leader, and it is upon us to act now and join other nations in exerting leadership. Only then can we expect others follow."
Right now, even without an international treaty, many countries are moving ahead with building green economies, aiming to reap the benefits of new industries and innovation. Germany now has more workers employed building wind turbines and solar cells than manufacturing automobiles. China has announced its intention to be the global leader in electric vehicles within three years. We can't afford to be left behind in this race, and the world's climate can't afford to wait any more for our leadership.
The time is right for bold action, not misstated facts and outdated ideology.
As a country, we need to move quickly and boldly to confront these challenges, and we need the Republican Party to take a different and honest path on the answers - to sound more like John Warner and less like Newt Gingrich did today.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The $120,000 given to the Fraser Institute by Exxon Mobile can buy a lot of mis-information. But how about the $12,000,000 spent by Exxon Mobile between 1998 and 2004 in support given to climate skeptics? Really a great investment when you think of all the profits that this money helped insure.
I'm still waiting for some scientific proof that there is no global warming taking place or that atmospheric absorption of infra-red by carbon dioxide from the burning of coal and oil has no effect on climate. Or that this is all psuedo science. Better yet proof of the IPCC scientists
Sorry, I don’t happen to believe that AGW is some grand conspiracy. Nor have I attempted to argue that there has been zero warming, or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. No need to go there.
What I do have a problem with is the overhyped apocalyptic predictions of complete planetary meltdown, Manhattan undersea, etc. This is where we go from "settled science" to "faith-based science".
AGW is simply an attractive bandwagon for many, a means to a desired end, and not all its members think the same. Most of us mean well; some of us want to save the planet, and some of us just want to get off of Middle East Oil. Some of us just want to plug the hole in the federal budget.
I am not about to defend the oil companies, but there is plenty of cynicism to go around. Science is largely irrelevant to the AGW debate, I’m afraid. It is now 100% a political issue. The US Government desperately needs money, and as a result we may get a Cap & Trade tax or some such thing. Unfortunately I think none of that will have much effect on climate (assuming it even needs affecting). It may help the deficit though.
Now, if you will excuse me I'll go out to my mailbox and await my check from ExxonMobil. Please be patient. This could take a while.
Regarding the supposed medieval warming and Greenland was green meme. GLOBAL temperatures were not warmer than now during the time period from 800-1300 AD. Proxy data for world temperatures ( I believe that is a combination of things like isotope ratios in ice layers, and tree rings, diatoms in sediment samples, that kind of thing ) show no more than +.4 deg C above the combined average temperature during the last 1800 years or so, whereas we are now something like 0.9 degrees above the baseline average for that time period. So if you are deflecting your concerns about global warming based on your belief in the medieval EUROPE or NORTH ATLANTIC warming meme, your belief ship appears to me to be taking on water.
I think the temperature reconstruction you are referring to is the now infamous Mann “Hockey Stick”, wherein the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period are all but erased. Lots of controversy on this one, and I don’t consider it reliable. More recent reconstructions indicate that the MWP was indeed a global phenomenon, and as warm or warmer than current. Naturally, depending on which analysis you choose to trust, you are either a shill for Big Oil or a mercenary for Greenpeace. But to the extent I can detect a credible sampling, it appears to me the MWP was indeed global.
Of course I prefer to use more recent data if possible, but even if we ignore the MWP and go back 420,000 years with the Vostok core data, it appears there were other times when temps were higher than now, and CO2 similarly high. It is also abundantly clear that there has been a whole bunch of climate change going on without our help.
For now I will choose not to paddle my “belief ship” with the Mann Hockey Stick. Give me the Mercury 4-stroke, please.
Some ideological skeptics do not realize that many, perhaps most of those who are concerned about global warming really wish that the skeptics were correct. If the climate scientist community had to say “oh my God, you are right we were wrong”, I would be greatly disappointed in the scientific community, I would be greatly disappointed in the current predictive powers of science, I would feel weakened in my science-based view of how the world works. But if convincing science were presented to me, I would accept it. Instead , what I see are "think” tanks largely supported by vested economic interest groups, disseminating do-it-yourself expert kits which are then continually refuted, rebutted, neutralized and made to look foolish by the scientific community but which, in the mean time delay action, delay change, and allow the likes of Exxon Mobile to reap record profits. I have in my life time seen the growing season starting earlier and ending later over the decades, I have seen pictures of things like a bronze age man whose body fell out of a melting glacier. I have seen convincing evidence that the majority of the world’s glaciers are melting, I see the extent of summer time arctic ice shrinking. Am I worried? No, since I will likely be long dead before the worst effects begin. It is the world of the future, perhaps your world that we are talking about here. Have a nice day.
JanBjernfalk cites all sorts of sincere sounding factoids, out of context, to try and sway this discussion. He cites words from the Fraser Institute to back up his pious sounding pronouncements. Unfortunately, he fails to mention that the Fraser Institute has received at least $120,000 dollars of funding from Exxon Mobile since 1998. When the "free" market was jacking the price of gasoline up the sky, some of your hard earned money was going to a pay for "think" tanks like the Fraser Institute to help "inform" you of the "truth" about greenhouse gases and global warming. Where does that fit into the logarithmic equation? Which particular wavelength are we talking about? Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. And if a temperature rise, no matter how slight, is enough to release methane from under sea clathrates where they are currently sequestered, then things could just start to run away, shall we say, exponentially, couldn't they.... Squid ink to obscure your view courtesy of your own gasoline dollars! Cheers.
Yes, I believe you are quite correct in stating that CH4 (methane) is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, in terms of thermal effect per unit concentration. At the same time, it is also true that there is a lot less CH4 around, so overall it still contributes less to global warming than CO2. By comparison, out of all the greenhouse gases, CO2 accounts for about 3% of the warming, and CH4 is much less. H2O and clouds account for about 90-95% of Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Also, just like CO2, CH4 only absorbs certain wavelengths, and the incremental effect of adding more diminishes as the concentration goes up.
As for funding, $120K over 10 years ... is that a lot? How much funding did the IPCC receive in that same time? After all, wouldn't the IPCC members be out of jobs if they were to conclude that man-made global warming were a relative non-problem? However, I agree that when researching anything on this topic one should always be skeptical of the information source, and look at all sides.
If you choose to believe in "exponential runaway" and "tipping point" disaster scenarios, I'll respect your right to do so. My problem is I can't find any real data or science to support that (only wishful speculation). I think if that risk were real, then it would have happened during 800 - 1300 AD when global temps were significantly warmer than now, and when Greenland was actually green.
If you want a runaway greenhouse effect look at Venus...ho
Venus ... thanks for the tip. I will try to avoid that place.
But seriously, please help me understand your point here.
Is it that: Venus = Earth + 300ppm CO2 ?
or, too many Venutian SUV's finally took them to the tipping point?
or, is the 40X atmosphere density part of the problem?
Could that happen here? Really?
We can not expect Newt to act with intelligence and honesty even if he had a record of ever having done so. He is running for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2012. Intelligence and honesty are not generally considered to be prerequisites for that job. They may, in fact, be disqualifying factors.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one of many in our atmosphere (including H2O, CH4, NO2, O3, etc). Without these gases, earth would be 33 degrees C colder than it is. The effect of adding more CO2 is logarithmic (the more we add, the less the effect on temperature). Doubling the amount of CO2 (currently 388 ppm) in the atmosphere will result in an estimated increase of 1.6 degrees C. Once we get to 800 ppm, the effect of adding more is practically nil.
Problem is, that 1.6 deg rise is insufficient to cause the sort of apocalyptic disasters as seen in Al Gore’s movie.
Some climate scientists (e.g. Hansen) have hypothesized something called a “positive feedback”. The idea is that as CO2 increases, this also causes H2O (a more significant greenhouse gas) to rise even more, and produce an even greater temperature increase.
However, this positive feedback mechanism has never been empirically observed or proven. Recent evidence actually shows the opposite effect. Regardless, the climate computer models we keep hearing about have the assumption of strong positive feedback built in. And these models have so far been notoriously wrong in predicting the future. The positive feedback does not exist.
We can chip away at that 1.6 deg rise by curbing CO2, but it seems unrealistic that we can make it anywhere near zero. Meanwhile, other more powerful forces (ENSO, PDO, Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, volcanos) are in effect which will continue to vary our climate over time.
It is also worth noting that there have been other times in human history when the earth was warmer than today, and with much less CO2 in the atmosphere:
"The huge—and still growing—Medieval Warm Period Project of CO2 Science
hosts a readily accessible collection of totally independent databases that
demonstrate a globally synchronous MWP between approximately 800–1300
AD, when temperatures were significantly warmer than those of the present.
As indicated in the beginning of this appendix, many commentators claim
that temperatures over the latter part of the twentieth century were higher
than those experienced at any other time over the past one to two millennia.
This claim has been extensively investigated in recent years by dozens of
independent research teams in more than a hundred published papers. Based
upon the synthesis of real-world data presented here, the claim is unlikely to
be true. Thus, the corollary claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the
burning of fossil fuels have caused “unprecedented” global warmth cannot be
substantiated. Late twentieth-century temperatures are not unprecedented,
falling well within the range of natural millennial-scale variability, particularly
in comparison to the interval 1,000 years ago, when there was 25% less CO2
in the air than there is today."
Source: http://www
I can also point to an article that says that smoking does not cause cancer. Would you like to read that???
You guys must work for some right wing think tanks.
And yes, the science has spoken as much as you guys intentionally try to spin it.
Senator Kerry you once again write an insightful, sensitive and prudent article on a subject that should not be debated but acted upon. Which brings me to the Republican mindset. There was a recent letter to my local tiny town newspaper by a local Rep. Representative Gene Chandler, who referred in his letter to the Appeal by the Sierra Club, Wilnerness Society on proposed destruction of wilderness area (The Mill Brook Project). Re. Chandler called this Appeal "frivolous". Amazing. I have written him a letter in which I describe my perception of Republicans as being consumers and destroyers and not conservationists. They ought to hang their heads in shame.
I just have 1 simple question you ( Actually, you posed several simple questions.
Global Warming nuts (Oops! Name calling. Won’t win any converts that way! )
,water boils at 212F ( under certain certain conditions which you didn't specify. ).
Water freezes at 32F. ( see previous comment).
The average refrigerator temperature is 38-42F. (Citation?)
Question is,,,what is the temperature of the earth supposed to average. ( This question is not clear. Do you mean the surface of the earth? The inhabited areas? Are you including the core? How high in the atmosphere? )
Let’s assume that is warming,could it be possible that we are supposed to be warming, possibly controlled by higher power,dare I say the word that scares the crap out of you people ( When I argued with my parents as a teenager, I would call them "You People". Rush Limbaugh refers to everyone as "You People". Kind of arrogant and presumptious in both cases. )
, GOD. (You appear to be projecting your deity fear onto others! You know, you could ask others if they fear GOD rather than pretending that you know that for a fact. My vision of GOD might be that of a benevolent being who wishes that others would use their GOD given brains to think more clearly and treat each other better. ) May GOD bless you by making you think more clearly. Amen.
Please provide your evidence as to why "The Greenhouse Effect" either doesn't exist or doesn't work....
If thinking more clearly means thinking like you,or some on this site,no thank you. And I think that you knew the general premise of my question,but like most on your side,deflect the question.
Your right Steve, it's a reaaaaalllly simple question. Follwed by gibberish.
I just have 1 simple question you Global Warming nuts,water boils at 212F. Water freezes at 32F. The average refrigerator temperature is 38-42F. Question is,,,what is the temperature of the earth supposed to average. Lets assume that is warming,could it be possible that we are supposed to be warming,possibly controlled by higher power,dare I say the word that scares the crap out of you people,GOD. Look at the kooks from the 1970s and all the doom and gloom predictions that they made then,all by the year 2000,and guess what,were still here,going strong.
I have no problem with people conserving,but not by the hand of GOVERMENT. Did ya notice that the people that preach the most are the biggest polluters of the planet, Gore,who flies around in hisl jet,2000 bucks a month for electric bill on only 1 of his 4- 5 homes. Travolta,who owns what,4or 5 jets,which I assume are just for show. Streisand, who is said to use 10,000 dollars a month in water useage. Lear Jet Dicaprio,who flies around on his personal jet. And how about the biggest hypocrite,Obama,why not just stay in D.C. for earth day,but no,he has to waste how many thousand gallons of fuel to fly to iowa,for a photo op,.nothin
Wake up people,do not be like sheep,or you will be led right into be sheared. How many of the beloved left,Olber
I have said for years,,,I am a enviroment
And that "1 simple question" is...
(By the way, a question usually ends with a question mark.)
Here's a simple analogy for you -- maybe you can follow this one: Water is good for us, right? But drink four gallons in an hour and you're dead. Your electrolyte balance would be destroyed and your cells would basically collapse.
Carbon dioxide (the main gas humans exhale and the gas that is emitted by these "polluting" entities) is fine in the correct amounts. And yes, our planet has endured the cycles of having more or less in the atmosphere. But many species perished during those fluctuating times, and many others reproduced at alarming rates. When it becomes blatantly apparent that CO2 has increased 5000% more than it should have during the last 40 years (any environmental scientist can help you with the exact data) then we have a ginormous problem. Too much too quickly will change our plant life, insect life, and water levels to the extent where entire crops are wiped out and coastlines disappear. Quickly.
(And just because left-wing celebrities don't always practice what they preach doesn't mean that they're not trying to make a difference. Unfortunately, sometimes they have to rely on the current means of travel in order to get things done efficientl
There may or may not be a nasty problem developing that could cause huge problems for millions of people around the world. Lots of smart people are convinced we need to take action to keep it from happening. Others disagree and think we should do nothing.
1. If we do nothing and nothing bad happens we'll save some money, have cleaner air and less dependence on foreign oil.
2. If we do nothing and the smart people are right, then terrible things will happen all around the world. People will die. And we won't be able to fix it.
What's the question?
The ScatterGun Defence. Just throw around a list of random observations, dress them up as facts, and see if anyone tries to engage you in a dialogue, which they probably won`t, and then declare yourself the `winner`. Yippee! Have another beer for yourself. What a man.
Well said.
You are an environmentalist? Could have fooled me..
Remember that old song that goes "Don't know much about science books.....
Clearly you don't believe in doing research into areas you know little about...
If I were you, i wouldn't be that proud.....
Why is the only argument that Republicans have is cost? Why is there outlook of cost always short term as well? For them, any investment in the future has become to costly. Let Joe shmoe keep his money and spend it more wisely. Really? Then who looks for the common good of the nation, and looks to parry the moves of China to establish dominance in the world, places as close as South America? Certainly not corporations (they LOVE conflict, and are not nationalists).
Further, we've bankrupted ourselves with 8 years (actually 29) of deregulation and the philosophy of smaller government. I can't possibly think that shifting the way we impact the environment will possibly be more harmful financially than the Iraq War and the deficits run at the time (through slashing taxes for the extremely wealthy)--now China has us on our knees. Thanks Rethugs, for trying to bully the world instead of outsmarting it. Remember, Ajax lost the Odysseus.
At least when Democrats are at their worst, and costs rise, there are programs and spending to show for it. Rethugs just concentrate the pockets of the wealthy. Ayn Rand can go suck eggs.
A wonderful, hilarious story about Christopher Monckton:
http://www
From those momentous words on, in his own head, Christopher Monckton appears always to have been starring in a Boy's Own adventure entitled 'Monckton Saves the Day!' He probably gets some of that brio from his late father, Gilbert Monckton, who was 'the youngest general in the British army', who won an MC at Dunkirk. Much of the rest comes from the endorsement of 'the Lady'.
For a start, in this adventure, in which he routinely wore a bowler hat, Monckton won the Falklands conflict from his armchair after suggesting, he claims, to the Prime Minister that the best way to undermine the Argies was to have the SAS introduce a mild bacillus into the water supply in Port Stanley. 'I can tell you from experience there is nothing more demoralising than having the trots in a trench!'
On other occasions, try as he might, even Monckton could not get heard. He would have averted the Aids epidemic (having produced 'probably the first working model for the transmission of this particular kind of retrovirus in the UK', he insisted to the cabinet on compulsory testing of adults, legally enforced 'restricted association' for people who were HIV positive, but nothing was done). "The homosexual lobby said we know you, you're a Catholic, you don't like queers.'
- Rowland Manthorpe
What are you really communicating?: No one should speak to the immediate danger to the population? You will not tolerate any commentary or discussion regarding the survival and growth of the population? Last week the G8 Agricultural Ministers warned of food supply shortages. We need to confront this crisis. Fascism is the economy controlled and directed by corporate entities:creating profit. and disposing of persons deemed unprofitable. International Fascism may be controlling and financing "Green" and drug legalization political movements. These political movements that do not find their priorities in the health of the population, need investigating.
I am perplexed by the commentary of some who are not scientists and perhaps do not realize that an economic and population contraction policy, Not science, is hidden in the "Green" rhetoric of climate change. Meanwhile the United States is in the middle of a monetary financial derivative debt based global economic collapse. The debt based global economic engine is accelerating the contraction of the population's capacity to sustain itself. This is the immediate crisis. We should not be distracted by a hoax. Financial warfare is being conducted against the population via psychological operations. The earth is actually cooling now.
So ClarKing, you're a climate scientist? You sure don't sound like one.
Actually, I think he works for Marc Morano or runs a gasoline station.
ClarcKing, I am a scientist. The absorption of infrared by carbon dioxide is a fact. I have seen it in the laboratory, both as a student, and as an industrial chemist. If you and your buds think that scientific fact is a hoax, or psuedo science, then you are not schooled in science. BTW, it appears that we are headed for a record high temperature today where I am today. The earth is not cooling now where I live. From a scientific standpoint, I was just wondering.
The essential economy is food, housing, clothing, energy, and security. We need the vitals, not a Google economy. Currently, people cannot afford to keep houses, we get 50% of our food from abroad, and all our clothing. We rely on Saudi oil, and the global economy has reduced our security substantially- causing us to lose the basic economy that provides the essentials for our security.
Now - a carbon cap - that is a tax on top of everything else. HOW ABOUT FIXING THE REMAINDER OF THE ECONOMY FIRST? This is milking a cow whose udders are dry, and it detracts from the essential economy rather than improves it.
"DYNAMIC CARBON MARKET"
Cap and trade didnt work in Europe.
We need a coal electric tax.
10% the first and 20% the next year 30% and so on.
We need a cheap natural gas supply to replace the coal plants.
Through Fuel Cell, Twice as Efficient as Generators | EcoGeek ... The fuel cells run on natural gas, propane, ethanol, diesel, biogas, ... (would it fit in vehicles where a normal ICE generator fits and would a standard ...
www.ecogee
Cap and trade doesn't work. After all, this is a global problem. Our ability to buy credits from countries which don't pollute as much is exactly the same in the court of international opinion as bribing a jury or paying off a rape victim! Just because have the money to buy people off, is it moral to do so? NO WAY!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
