Whether it’s owned by Google or not, you’ve got to love YouTube for giving you the chance to see things like this: Republican Congressional candidate in Minnesota’s rural, majority-Republican Sixth District Michelle Bachmann says at a public meeting that she doesn’t believe global warming is an established fact… and gets laughed at by the audience. And this is Minnesota, where people are nice! It ain’t just us, folks: the average American understands that global warming is nothing to laugh at… or, uh, you know what I mean.
There are hundreds of campaign events going on this month - see what happens when candidates in your area get asked some tough questions on what they’re doing to stop global warming, and maybe whether they’re Loyal to Big Oil. You know where to send the video.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
There are “skeptics” who aren’t denying the existence of climate change. Many of us agree that there is an anthropogenic component to the current global climate change. Up until about 2001, this effect was thought to be modest and predictable by just about everyone, including Dr. Hansen, the so-called “father of global warming.” The original prediction was for total global warming of 0.75 degrees C /- 0.25 degrees C over 50 years (with a portion of that due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases).
Exaggeration and fear mongering based on one possible scenario does not advance the debate. That is where Al Gore has chosen to lead and unfortunately where Dr. Hansen has chosen to follow. Unfortunately Dr. Hansen has made the transition from scientist, to impassioned advocate, to media alarmist. Taking one possible scenario from one general circulation model and using it to frighten the scientifically illiterate public is shameful and does not advance the debate.
I also believe it is legitimate to question why “the precautionary principle” should govern our public policy. First we came up with a “best guess computer model.” Then we fed that model 35 different levels of anthropogenic emissions tuned to 7 different sensitivities. Then we looked at the output and some of the resulting scenarios seemed to be extreme. Now we are ready to make public policy because we can’t prove the computer model is wrong or that the extreme scenarios are impossible? That doesn’t seem logical or scientific to me in the least.
You owe it to yourself to learn about the topic, rather than assuming you are informed because you watched a movie of a PowerPoint presentation and viewed a few photoshopped satellite photos.
The climate system is quite complicated and we don’t understand exactly what’s going to happen, but I don’t think I would call it the “precautionary principle” now. Pacific islanders are sinking and are evacuating their island homes; people around the world are already dealing with weather patterns that are beyond the range of hundreds to thousands of years of experiences and measurements from droughts to floods to hurricanes. We should have taken precautionary action in the 1980s, but because of all the money invested by Exxon and others in keeping things how they were, we’ve been delaying any substantial action for over 25 years. We now have very little time left to try to mitigate the potential destruction that we’ve (mostly rich nations) brought onto ourselves (but those who are and will continue to bear the brunt are the poor around the world)
Thanks Pete, for your concern that I’m basing my interest in global climate change solely on my viewing of An Inconvenient Truth. You can rest easier knowing that it’s not the case.
I would agree with Liz that now we should start making public policy based on the fact that consistently, experienced scientists are seeing results on the outer edges if not beyond expected margins of error in predictions about climate-related phenomena in the natural world.
What, exactly, do you have to lose by listening to the best climate scientists in the world (we’re not just talking about Hansen)? You owe it to yourself to take a step back and ask yourself whether you are using ideological predilections and predispositions against public interest policymaking to rationalize the continuation of a supremely irrational situation of energy use and carbon pollution.
You may feel vindicated when the next IPCC report narrows its predictions for temperature increases during the coming century to something where the high end is around 4 degrees rather than 6 (that’s in celsius, mind you). All I can say is, be happy that the outer limit of original projections may not come to pass and that we didn’t take policy action based on that silly precautionary principle fearing 6 degree warming, because there won’t be much else about a 4 degree celsius increase in global temperatures to be happy about.
That’s a priceless video. I’m glad to see that it’s becoming ludicrous for people to ignore global warming. In response to Pete above, might I ask how you make any decision in life? It should be based upon the best available data. With the predicted (and now current) consequences so dire, why would you prefer to gamble the potential deaths of millions against using less energy? Our culture must change or it will be changed for us.
Wow. I am from Minnesota and have long loathed this woman for her crusade against equal rights for gays and lesbians. This is just priceless though. She represents every negative stereotype about current republicans - she cares only for her partisan politics and nothing for science or even that values that her supposed savior (Jesus) espoused.
Further on Nathan’s comments: the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) has gathered thousands (that would be THOUSANDS) of the worlds scientists together to assess climate change, and they’ve been working at it for a decade. The best climate minds in the business have stated without reservation that human-induced climate change is (a) a reality and (b) forcing the planet into some very unwelcome changes.
A lot more than a few photoshopped images, I’d say.
Last comment - I find it embarassing that our public officials can be so naively or willfully stupid.
To Liz, be careful about using Pacific island sea level change as “proof of global warming.” Remember when Tuvalu was sinking it was “proof of global warming” and “a harbinger of all the disasters to come.” Whoops, sea levels started rising and the storyline quickly changed to “sea levels will fluctuate and this proves nothing.”
To Nathan, I guess I will have to consider if I am “using ideological predilections and predispositions against public interest policymaking to rationalize the continuation of a supremely irrational situation of energy use and carbon pollution.” (Heck of a sentence BTW)
I think we all need to account for our “ideological predispositions” including whether we want to make public policy that “makes us feel better,” but has no impact. Given the nature of the carbon cycle, will trimming a small percentage off of our CO2 contribution actually accomplish anything? Remember the carbon equivalent of all anthropogenic CO2 is only approx. 5.5 GtC (gigatonnes carbon) whereas there are over 210 GtC in play in the carbon cycle. Will trimming 10-20% off of our contribution actually do anything? Kyoto did nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and most European countries have seen increases in the past several years. And while we can certainly “legislate” a reduction here in the US, does it make sense on any level? Does it make sense for a former vice president to criss-cross the country in a private jet while telling people to telecommute and change their light bulbs? Does it make sense to dump money into ethanol and biodiesel when there is no reduction in CO2 emissions? Actually between the loss in mileage and the additional energy used to make these products, they are a “net loss” when compared to gasoline. Are we ready to have the serious talk about nuclear power, maybe integral fast reactors? Or are we going to follow our “ideological predispositions” and shout down the nukes from the window of our biodiesel VW?
Pete, I think you meant to type “sea levels started FALLING…” but I get your point.
Liz, I think you would be glad that scientists didn’t “precautionary action” back in the late ’70s, because the consensus at that point was a coming ice age. You can read the whole Newsweek editorial at the link below and I will include a few key paragraphs to give you the gist of the article.
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
…
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
Bachmann and other pro-highway, anti-transit politicians sponsored legislation for and promoted the “Personal Rapid Transit” (PRT) scam that helped set back planning and funding for transit in Minnesota and other states and countries for many years:
http://dumpmarkolson.blogspot.com/2006/10/bachmann-supported-funding-for.html
Bachmann is huge supporter of highways and sprawl:
http://www.roadkillbill.com/PRT_Bachmann_Facts.html
Michael,
After years of trying to persuade public officials and media to give attention to global warming I came to understand that career-ism within our government agencies is at fault for the lack of education and attention given to climate change. Out of all the federal agencies, the National Weather Service - with it’s staff of 5500 and NWS offices in every state - is most at fault. I speak from experience, being a ‘Removed” NWS hydrologist.
http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=404
Here is an article that warrants review by anyone interested in global warming.
Please take a look at:
GLOBAL MEAN ANNUAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE WITH UNCERTAINTY BANDS
Per Year from 1855 through 2005
DEVIATIONS OF ANNUAL MEAN TEMPERATURE FROM LONG-TERM AVERAGE
Per Year From 1851 to 1984
and
GLOBALLY AVERAGED DEVIATIONS FROM AVERAGE TEMPERATURE PLOTTED
ON A SCALE RELEVANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATION DEVIATIONS
Per Year from 1851 to 1984
Newsweek Changes Media Climate 31 Years after Global Cooling Story
Magazine admits first article was ‘wrong,’…
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2006/20061024143134.aspx
im at school reading the info u guys said i say its okay i guess