Global Warming Denyers: Take Responsibility!

Something the right-wing parroted over and over since I can remember is taking responsibility for your actions. It was used to great effect when St. Ronnie Reagan bashed on people receiving welfare in the 1980’s, claiming too many of them were driving Cadillacs, among other ridiculous claims. “Take responsibility for your actions,” the right would scream at anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby. George Bush has provided thousands of examples of how the same advice just doesn’t apply to Republicans, the Iraq occupation and Hurricane Katrina being just two examples.

I wrote about one recent example just over a week ago after I read that Dennis Avery, a “Senior Fellow” at the Heartland Institute, wrote and widely published an article, “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares”. The biggest problem with that article? Many of the scientists listed never gave their consent to be listed. So the scientists did what they should have done: asked to have their names removed from Avery’s propaganda. Then what happened?

Via frankbi, a few things have happened. First, the title was changed:

The title of the 14 Sep press release has been changed from

500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares: Alphabetical List

to

500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares

This happened between 2 May and 4 May. Were any of the scientists’ names removed? Of course not! That wouldn’t jive with the propaganda, now would it. I mean, Exxon and other corporations have paid millions of dollars to have their crap spewed by “reputable institutions”. Admitting they were lying wouldn’t achieve that goal.

Now, the debacle has reached a wider audience: the New Zealand media. You know, New Zealand, where science is actually respected. The U.S. corporate media? They likely think this is how things should happen. Now, H.I.’s President Joe Bast says there will be no further changes either to the title of the paper or those cited as supporting its flawed conclusions.

This constitutes a complete disregard for accepted methodologies within responsible, professional organizations. This constitutes a complete lack of “taking responsibility” for one’s actions. This serves as just the latest example of why the right-wing is slowly losing influence: their actions and intentions just aren’t credible. I haven’t heard one way or the other, but I wonder if legal pressure is being considered. I know if my name were on that list, I’d do everything (legal and ethical) I could to remove it.

The problem really manifests itself when “analysts” (propagandists) from the Heartland Institute or the Independence Institute get attention in the corporate media. They’re brought on as guests to right-wing radio shows and invited to write columns in major newspapers, as though they’re serious, neutral professionals. And what’s the first thing they always parrot? That peer-reviewed science journal articles constitute junk science, and their “science” is without bias.

This case demonstrates something very important: if the denialist propagandists lie and act unethically so easily, why are they taken seriously by the corporate media? Because they’re connected and they have an agenda.

Thankfully, more citizens and businesses are taking the threat of climate change seriously. They’re acting of their own volition. They’re actually following the right-wing’s advice and taking responsibility for their actions. Those millions of propaganda dollars spent by Big Energy? It’s turning into a wasted investment.

h/t DeSmogBlog

Quick Hits & 1 Long Hit 5/6/08

The Climate Security Act needs to be strengthened. You can use the League of Conservation Voter’s action page to request your Senators to do so.

Oil hit $122 per barrel in trading today. That’s double what it was one year ago. That’s more pressure exerted on families’ budgets.

Buyout billionaire Henry Kravis saved $96 million through tax loopholes in 2006 alone. That’s just one buyout billionaire, in one year, making use of one loophole (tax evasion scheme)! Just think how much these private equity crooks are costing taxpayers who are already battling financial hardships and home foreclosures. BraveNewFilms has a video about this and a request for the presidential candidates to close the buyout industry’s tax evasion scheme.

The Bush “administration” has lost 400 employee laptops that conduct delicate, often secret, diplomatic relations with foreign countries, an internal audit has found.

Ironically, the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program is administered by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which is responsible for the security of the department’s computer networks and sensitive equipment, including laptops, among other duties.

These are the same idiots who want to convince Americans they can responsibly handle access to information about the lives of Americans while demanding no Congressional oversight. HAHAHAHAHA! I don’t know what’s worse though: the above or the fact that Rep. Steny Hoyer and others are still willing to grant retroactive immunity to proven lawbreaking telecommunications corporations.

Analysts are reportedly torn over what an energy windfall profits tax would do. A few things here: corporations were given tax breaks by President Bush and Congress. Now that Democrats want the breaks to expire, what are Republicans and corporations calling the action? That’s correct: a tax increase. They’re spinning it like the tax was never before applied and woe to the poor corporations that are earning profits in the billions every quarter.

Re-applying fair taxes on the oil corporations could provide long-overdue dollars to renewable energy research and development. There needs to be a much larger focus on the development side of things. Technologies exist to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions - we need to help drive them into the marketplace more efficiently.

If oil corporations raise gas prices to regenerate their ridiculous profits, a majority of consumers will not blame the government. It would be clear at that point which entity was really responsible for excessive prices.

Pro-corporate analysts in the article bring up the fact that Google has a profit margin of 25% while oil corporations have profit margins closer to 10% and nobody is recommending a windfall profits tax on Google. Can you point to an example of how you or your family is paying more for goods because of Google? Oil corporations are directing more of their profits to buying back their stock, enriching stock holders. They should be directing that money to developing refining capacity. They’ve ignored refineries for decades and we’re paying the price for that short-sightedness at the pump.

Of course, the ultimate ideological argument has to be presented: government shouldn’t force movement of monies to R&D, the “free-market” should. The Heritage Foundation gets a nod in the article, with David Kreutzer asking if the government could take this capital and do a better job investing it than shareholders can. David and others aren’t willing to recognize that shareholders haven’t been able to make the correct decisions in the past generation. They’re only interested in further enriching themselves and the rest of us get to suffer for it: high gas prices, geopolitical instability and occupying the Middle East are only a few examples.

I, for one, have no more patience for these greedy vampires. The “free-market” has been unable to act in the interests of our society’s citizens. Taxes need to be reapplied to oil corporations and the richest Americans. They need to invest their fair share into our nation’s infrastructure and long-term interests.

Denver Post Loves Conservatives & Their Issues

The theme from yesterday’s Sunday Denver Post was pro-Republican, pro-Republican and pro-Republican. From headlines to important yet missed details, readers were treated to another example of why it pays to beat up on the media for 30 years, as long as you’re a Republican.

Article #1: “McCain faces a wild West” by Chuck Plunkett. Inside, Chuck details how Colorado’s Republican elites didn’t back McCain in the caucus. In fact none of them joined McCain for his stop here last week. Chuck writes how James Dobson has said he cannot and will not vote for McCain in the general election. Americans believe the economy is in a recession, foreclosure rates set a record every month, the dollar’s value is collapsing, oil approaches $120 per barrel (and reached it today), gas prices are setting records, families are having trouble paying for food, a super majority now want troops out of Iraq in a small time-frame (one year or less), and voters are registering as Democrats faster than Republicans, turnout in the primaries thus far has averaged 2-1 D to R. Poll after poll has shown, at best, tied support for McCain versus either Democratic contender. More polls are showing a substantial margin in the Democrats’ favor.

Imagine a similar scenario for the Democratic nominee: local party leaders refusing to show up for a town hall meeting/fundraiser. Environmental leaders refusing to vote for the nominee. Do you honestly believe the headline would read, “Nominee faces a wild West”? Hardly. The number one topic would be how unelectable they were and how the Democratic Party was mortally split. But not the Republican nominee and not in the Denver Post, no siree.

Chuck does spend some space regaling readers with the ridiculous Rev. Wright “controversy” and Obama’s “now infamous bitter comments”. Really? McCain faces a wild West because of two issues that aren’t on any voters’ radar screens? Chuck should be spending more time discovering how much a non-story Wright and Obama’s commentary really is. For instance, a CBS/NY Times poll shows support for Obama growing since Obama’s denunciation of Wright two weeks ago. The so-called “flap” exists only in the minds of conservative talkers and beltway bloviators. Thus, the Denver Post makes sure to include the non-issue in the article.

Pine Beetle Update

As a resident of the Mountain West, I’ve seen first-hand the effects of mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) in forests.* Areas of formerly dark green pine trees turned rust red. Those areas have gotten larger quickly over the past few years due to lack of sustained cold temperatures during our winters. Identifying human-influenced climate change as the cause is not a stretch, it’s widely accepted by scientists.

There is now mounting evidence that the hundreds of thousands of acres of dead trees in Colorado, and many more beyond the state’s borders, will cause those forests to change from carbon sinks to carbon sources. A little background: healthy forests act as giant reservoirs (sinks) of carbon dioxide. The trees absorb CO2 during their respiration and production of chlorophyll. The difference now is as these trees die by the millions, all that stored carbon will be released back into the atmosphere. An atmosphere that, as mentioned above, humans have been busy injecting CO2 and other greenhouse gases during the trees’ life spans.

Overall, that situation doesn’t sound very good. It gets a little bit scarier when one realizes that computer climate models haven’t been programmed to take this process into account yet. Activists have been proposing for some time now that high latitude forests could be protected and expanded to help trap some of the atmospheric CO2. It now appears that those forests are falling to the effects of already induced climate change. And let’s be honest: the climate changes we’ve seen so far haven’t been catastrophic. Scientists are noting smaller-scale changes around the world: large ice shelf collapses, record Arctic ice melt, etc. Those forests cannot be counted on as people had hoped in the future, at least not until we control our GHG emissions and decrease the GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.

I began covering this problem with an eye toward some solutions. Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO02) introduced a couple of bills dealing with the mountain pine beetle kill back in January:

Higher Ed & Ballot Measures

Today’s Rocky Mountain News has a couple of items I wanted to bring attention to (and I’m only scratching the surface). The first:

CU Chief Tepid to Ritter Plan

Let’s start by describing Ritter’s plan, which isn’t done until the last 1/3 of the article (controversy over journalism).

Ritter endorsed a citizens initiative Thursday to eliminate a property tax credit for the oil and gas industry unique to Colorado. Killing the tax credit would bring the state about $200 million more a year.

Under the plan, 60 percent would go toward “Colorado Promise” scholarships to help families pay for college. The other 40 percent would be divided among projects to help communities offset the impacts of the oil and gas industry, set aside wildlife habitat and develop renewable energy sources.

Doesn’t sound that bad. What’s Benson got to say?

But Benson acknowledged that he and Ritter discussed an approach that would have sent the increased oil and gas revenues directly into universities’ operating budgets. Benson said he was never “cool” to the governor’s idea but argued that the oil and gas industry needed something in return - such as easing off on new environmental rules being drafted by state regulators.

Ah, the magical ability of Bruce Benson’s fundraising… no wait, Benson isn’t raising money, he’s telling the Governor that industry needs less regulation in return for directing severance money toward education. Benson won’t get behind any plan that doesn’t proactively neutralize expected opposition from the industry. That’s interesting. What threshold does Benson have in mind, exactly? How far would Gov. Ritter and others have to go before Benson gets aboard?

Or are those even the correct questions? What about: What is Benson’s first priority as CU President? Is it identifying sources of income for the state’s colleges and working to secure those funds? Or is it to fight for the interests of the industry where he made his millions? This is but one example why Benson shouldn’t have been the only choice to be CU’s President. His long-time loyalties seem to be in direct conflict with his current duties.

Benson is quoted in the article as not wanting to part of Custer’s Last Stand, citing the tens of millions of dollars the oil and gas industry would spend to defeat Ritter’s proposal, which would be presented to voters later this year. Benson also said that he needs operating money while warning the Referendum C will expire in 2 years.

Perhaps Benson should utilize his vaunted leadership skills and begin working to extend the effects of Ref C or do away with conflicting constitutional spending limits. Everybody knows higher education is in a bad spot financially in Colorado. Whining isn’t going to make it better.

*****

The second item I saw was fourteen proposed ballot initiatives were submitted to the Legislative Council yesterday. Are you ready for this? There could be 127 ballot measures this November. The good news: only one so far has been approved for the ballot. This is getting ridiculous. I consider myself somewhat of an issue junkie, but even I blanch at the thought of researching 127 measures, some of which are designed to compete with one another.

X-posted @ SquareState

Obama & Clinton

A widespread discussion ensued last week after the Democratic debate in Pennsylvania. Locally, Mario Solich has a radio program and joined in the discussion. Last Thursday, he said a couple of things that frustrated me. To begin with, I’ve supported Obama since John Edwards dropped out of the race. Hillary Clinton has always been my last choice because I don’t get the sense she has any interest in following what the American people want. (1st tangent: Which brings up a point: the president is not the leader of this country. They are the executive of one branch of our government. They are supposed to be elected and they are the citizens’ employee, just like Congress members. We the people are the leaders.)

Back to Mario: one thing he said really stood out to me. He was comparing Obama’s and Clinton’s claims to war opposition. (2nd tangent: stop calling it a war, Mario. It’s an occupation and our engagement will end the sooner we all adopt this frame.) His comment went like this: “Hillary Clinton has taken a true stand against the war, while Obama hasn’t”. It was based on Clinton’s votes in the U.S. Congress while Barack Obama was a state Senator in Illinois. A true stand against the war, Mario? That comment projects so much snobbery, it’s disturbing to me. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, hardly a “true stand against the war”. She has since failed to acknowledge the lack of judgment of that vote, going so far as to say if she had to vote again, she would probably vote the same way. That is hardly a “true stand against the war”.

Mike Rosen’s Global Warming Disinformation Mouthpiece: Maureen Martin

He’s done it before, but this will mark the first time I’ve covered Mike Rosen’s efforts to spread global warming disinformation by hosting denyers on his radio program on 850 KOA (via Colorado Media Matters). Amy Oliver, another radio host in the market, has hosted plenty of her own denyers, so Mike has company. The thing that is similar between the two hosts is their utilization of “free marketeers” as “experts” on climate change. This episode builds on the right-wing’s attempt to scare people into thinking discussion about climate change is secretly hiding an anti-economy viewpoint. It’s nonsense of course, but they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their lock on our economic system, no matter how much it strengthens the disparity between classes.

Mike Rosen introduced Maureen Martin as a “senior fellow for legal affairs at the Heartland Institute”. That’s sounds impressive, doesn’t it? The Heartland Institute is only one think tank among many that focus on “free market” approaches. It has become more clear to Coloradans recently what kind of “free market” these advocates would like to move toward: indentured servitude, human trafficking, child prostitution and compulsory abortions, via the Schaffer-Abramoff proposal. No thanks, Bob, Mike, Maureen and Co. I actually support workers’ rights - they’re what created and what sustain the middle class.

Bob Schaffer’s Troubles Mounting

A couple of stories surrounding Bob Schaffer have really caught people’s attention, both in the blogosphere and in other media circles. Here’s a smattering:

I wrote a piece about Bob Schaffer, Jack Abramoff and the Mariana Islands the other day. That story has been picked up and expanded on by the Denver Post:

‘Abramoff ties cloud Schaffer’s ‘99 fact-finding trip’

A lot of heavy lifting on this scandal has been done by ProgressNow: Marianas questions dog Bob Schaffer. Thanks to Alan and company!

Steam Powered Opinions offered their advice about Bob Schaffer’s (Mr. Sweatshop) and his wife (Mrs. Sweatshop) little trip. Turns out, they did some fact-finding on parasailing also. Oh, the trip was entirely paid for: they went for free. That’s the kind of free market Republicans like.

A heavy-weight has joined in: John Marshall over at Talking Points Memo previously thought Bob Schaffer had a casual acquaintance in the Islands. The tie to Abramoff came as a shock. Good read at the link.

Update: Oooh. Talk about heavyweights: The story has been front-paged at DailyKos. ‘CO-Sen: Schaffer/Abramoff/Marianas scandal explodes’.

Bob Schaffer & Jack Abramoff

There’s been quite the kerfluffle in the blogosphere surrounding Bob Schaffer’s presentation of the Northern Marianas as a good example of a guest worker program. If you haven’t heard about the background story, you certainly will in the coming months. Big Oil Bob has reopened the books on some huge ethics ghosts from Republican past: Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay. But wait, it gets better. The story also deals with … forced abortions. I’m going to enjoy watching Republicans trying to spin their way out from all this.

The least shocking thing about this is the utilization of sweatshops in the Marianas. As disgusting as it is, it’s a logical extension of the right-wing effort to destroy workers’ rights here in the United States. What would corporations give to employ workers for next to nothing while increasing the prices on products sold in the U.S.? A lot, considering the way they’ve shut down manufacturing plants state-side and opened up factories in countries with more conservative labor laws (read: little to none).

Udall, Coffman, the 4th Amendment & the Media

Udall told members of the White House Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health last Thursday that the way the federal government treats sick nuclear weapons workers and their families “speaks volumes about us as a society.” It’s pretty typical stuff for our current administration and Republicanism in general: workers get screwed as those in charge change the rules mid-stream. It once again boils down to: Republicans don’t believe government works. So why elect them and let them prove their ideology stinks?

By the way, what is Bob Schaffer’s (Rep. Udall’s opponent for CO’s 2008 Senate race) take on this issue?

*****

From Colorado Ethics Watch:

Through open records requests and other research, Colorado Ethics Watch has identified significant blocks of time on the official calendar of [Republican] Secretary of State Mike Coffman that were either used for meetings with potential funders of his congressional campaign, or are unaccounted for as private appointments and meetings. In the meantime, it is unclear whether Secretary Coffman is meeting critical goals and deadlines required of him as Colorado Secretary of State.

Coffman was elected to this office in 2006, despite the horrid performance of his Republican predecessor. It was unfortunately an under-the-radar kind of race. Coloradans, in their search for a type of bipartisanship that simply doesn’t exist with today’s Republican Party, elected Coffman in the hopes he would “balance” Gov. Bill Ritter. The balance that has been put on display: unethical Republican activities and ethical Democratic activities. You know Republicans would make this the headline-du-jour for weeks if a Democratic Secretary of State did the same thing.

*****

The corporate stenographers working at major media outlets are serving the country well, don’t you think? I sure do: In the past 30 days (from Apr 5th backwards), 65 times more Obama-bowling articles showed up on a NEXIS search than Yoo-4th Amerndment articles. What’s the significance? John Yoo, while at the U.S. Department of Justice, wrote a memo which authorized torture and presidential lawbreaking. The Bush administration has declared the Fourth Amendment to be inapplicable to “domestic military operations” within the U.S. Barack Obama went bowling.

Which story did the corporate stenographers decide to report on? The bowling story. Why? Well, according to Republicans, because the media is too liberal. It seems to me that if liberals ran the corporate media outlets, they would raise a red flag about the 4th Amendment being declared inapplicable. No, the media has been led around by right-wing extremists who want Americans to believe liberals want to take their guns away. Liars and fear-mongers: today’s Republican Party.