Rebecca Otto is going to have an interesting reelection campaign in 2010. Two of her competitors, Patricia Awada Anderson and Randy Gilbert, cannot do simple math (although Awada Anderson also has problems with sheer incompetence, too). Since the MN State Auditor position involves double-checking other people's math, you'd think this would disqualify these two from running for this office.
Apparently, her third opponent, Jeff Wiita, can do math correctly -- he's a CPA. Unfortunately for Mr. Wiita, he has other problems. This is his actual campaign literature, this is apparently the best, competent candidate the modern Republican Party can come up with.
That's right, Mr. Wiita. We Democrats don't understand you or get you. As a matter of fact, I believe that most Minnesotans don't get you, either.
I'm glad you love your truck. I'm glad you have a bumper sticker that proves you support our troops. Have you done anything for them recently other than drive your truck with your bumper sticker?
We don't get how you can deny absolutely all of the peer reviewed science that indicates that global climate change is a looming catastrophe of biblical proportions. This is just a hunch, but I'm guessing that you cannot point to any accredited scientists doing peer reviewed work that support your position.
We don't understand you emotional dependence upon your guns. If elected, will you bring your guns to work with you as State Auditor?
The problem with the climate change denier claim that heat causes increases in CO2 is that it's a half-truth. If you guessed the "hockey stick" chart (Coleman showed Al Gore using it in An Inconvenient Truth) now shows CO2 rising, you're correct. If you guessed there's a feedback process, right again. I also give credit to anyone who guessed that deniers are relying on a chart they claim is debunked. They do indeed claim the chart has been shown false, and that claim is even repeated later in Coleman's report, even though he relies on it to make the point about temperature rising ahead of CO2 (along with a snippet of a scientist explaining it, though I noticed not confirming his main point, which makes me think the interview was cut off conveniently)--- one of the classic markers of denialism.
The true part of their half-truth is that increases in global temperature can cause an increase in CO2. The warmer the ocean becomes, the less its ability to hold CO2, so it releases it into the atmosphere. Being a greenhouse gas, the CO2 traps heat, raising the ocean's temperature along with the atmosphere's, reducing its ability to hold CO2, and that's the feedback. Eventually, some other factors (or "forcings") caused the ocean to cool and increase its ability to absorb CO2.
Which gets to why the deniers accepting the temperature/CO2 chart to this point should find the right side of the chart scary.
(Climate change deniers, meet ericf and FwDtR - promoted by Joe Bodell)
One of the claims made by global warming deniers is that carbon dioxide can't be causing an increase in temperatures because the cause and effect is the other way around. Heat causes increases in CO2. You can see an example of this claim in the first of a series of videos on the site of a TV station in San Diego. The "reporter", John Coleman, one of the founders of The Weather Channel and one of KUSI's weathermen, claims global warming is completely disproven because the "hockey stick" chart shows the levels of CO2 rising after temperatures rise. Coleman later claims global warming is false because it's cold in Minnesota in January. Seriously.
However, it's not good enough to say the deniers' claim is wrong because Coleman is a liar or an idiot. I'm asking you to try to figure out what's wrong with the specific claim about CO2 following temperature.
If you said the problem with the Y2K disproves global warming story is that they have nothing to do with each other, you were reasonable, but sorry, I do think Y2k has something to tell us about global warming; though not what the deniers think. The answer I'm looking for is Y2K was real but averted.
For the benefit especially of those for whom the 1990's are tales from long ago (I have clothes older than you! Sadly, that's true.) the Y2K bug had to do with how years were stored. Computers had so little storage space, that programmers hit upon the neat trick of storing years as just the last two digits, saving the two bytes from the first two digits, so 1970 became 70 and so on. The bug was that some code wouldn't work when 2000 came along (probably no one guessed the old code would still be in use), because computers would assume that meant 1900 or not know what to do with or something like that.
Farhad Manjoo has a good rundown on how the alarm was raised and the efforts the government spearheaded to fix the bug, so I won't go into all the detail. Suffice it to say the fear was planes would drop out of the sky, which might not have actually happened, but no one knew for sure. Maybe the air traffic system would shut down, or utilities would shut down, or the banking system would collapse. No one wanted to be responsible for a disaster with the consequent lawsuits, so there was a massive effort throughout both the private and public sectors to get it fixed. COBOL programmers grayed out of their profession were in demand again, and many organizations replaced their old hardware and software with new versions that didn't have the problem to begin with. In fact, I've long suspected Y2K was as responsible as the Internet for the tech boom, which would explain why it ended quickly in 2000.
This one struck me partly because we're about to end the decade that was preceded with great trepidation that New Year's Day 2000 would see all sorts of computer related disasters. I realized there could already be younger readers who don't know the what or why about the Y2K bug, which might explain why some deniers use it to argue against global warming.
Their reasoning is that Y2K was supposed to be some big disaster and everybody got worked up because the government and media kept talking about it, but then nothing happened. Therefore it's likely that warnings about global warming are just so much more panic about nothing.
I'm taking Dan's suggestion and putting the answer in a separate posting, and henceforth I'll take Bill's suggestion of setting a time to post the answer (so anyone else who does this, I suggest writing the debunking when you post the story). So enough housekeeping, and let's get into the debunking: what's wrong with the 1200 limousine story?
If you guessed the answer was "1200 limos to 15,000 delegates, you do the math" pat yourself on the back, because not only was that the correct answer, but that's all the reward you're getting.
The story comes from this article in the Telegraph of London. All the references to the story either linked to this article or merely asserted the claim as fact. Take partial credit if you guessed the source was anonymous, because though the source for the number of limos is named, she's a single source and the article says she "reckons", and for that reason take partial credit if you guessed we don't actually know the number of limos. The 140 extra private jets figure came from the airport, so that's probably right. Even the 1200 limos is probably a reasonable guess given that the source rents limousines.
I'm giving honorable mention to Bill's guess at "petty little ball busting", that there were valid reasons for limos and private jets, and that the good they did by getting there outweighed the CO2 emissions. That might be as right as what I'm thinking.
What I'm thinking is that the article says there are 15,000 delegates, 5,000 journalists, 98 world leaders, and some unknown number of celebrities and global warming realists protesting or holding side events. We also know there were deniers flying in to humiliate themselves (and I'm guessing they account for a few limos and planes), but lets assume protesters and journalists couldn't afford limos. Let's also round the delegates and VIPs and even deniers down to 15,000, and let's assume 1200 is the correct number of limos.
15,000 divided by 1200 means there are 12.5 delegates per limo. Maybe they're big on carpooling? If the limos were rented by delegates who had to have their own car and driver, that's just about one in twelve using limos, and eleven out of 12 getting there some greener way. Far from showing hypocritical wastefulness, isn't that actually damned green? Even assuming some sharing of limos, I roughly estimate 80-85% of delegates still using something other than rented limousines. That's hypocritical? Or a sign they know they're perpetrating a hoax?
Similar math with the private jets: 140 extra jets means one jet to 107 delegates. So deniers think they crammed 107 into each private jet? Probably they just hadn't thought through the implication, namely, and here's the gist to share with your local conservatives, only a relatively small number of delegates used limos and private jets to get to the conference.
And when their heads are spinning from that thought, feel free to add, "And I bet James Inhofe and Lord Monckton account for two of those private jets!".
I'm going to jump ahead of the obvious criticism of that headline and acknowledge it's premature. We don't yet know how the health care debate will come out. I'm going to expound on the lessons learned anyway for two reasons, only the weaker of which is that at this point, we've seen enough to be pretty sure what some of the lessons will be. With the acknowledgment that this assertion is arguable, I'm confident that most of what I say will hold up when a bill is passed and when some time has passed.
However, the second reason is not arguable at all: the legislative fights to which these lessons must be applied are starting already. The state legislature goes into its non-budgetary session in January, where it will be trying to reverse some of Pawlenty's unallotments, especially GAMC. There will also be the bonding bill which is always contentious, at least with Gov. Wounded Deer still in office. Congress is already working on financial reform and global warming legislation, the corporate lobbyists have already chosen their targets, and conservatives are certain to use the same tactics they've been using to obstruct health care, the stimulus, and pretty much everything. That's why the heading says "apply" instead of "learn". What particularly worries me is I see the same mistakes being made at this early stage.
The time has come for Minnesotans to use innovation to reduce our independence on fossil fuels. However, we must at the same time be leading the nation in the development of green jobs and the green economy. We have a moral obligation to leave future generations a clean, sustainable environment.
This will cause right wingers to foam at the mouth while shrieking. Keith Ellison is a leader (among others) to get the Obama Administration to hire more muslims. Commence foaming. Begin shrieking. The End is Near.
Much has been said recently about Rep. Michele Bachmann's insanity. I've come to call her the energizer bunny of crazy. To accompany this endearing trait, is her relationship with the truth.
It's like me and cleaning. I don't like it and I don't like to do it.
Bachmann wrote an editorial in today's Avista Partners-owned Star Tribune. In it she claims that cap-and-trade will raise pay the consequences with lost jobs, higher bills, etc. That's all well and good. She's entitled to her opinion. But she is not entitled to lie.
Any way you look at it, it's low- and middle-income Americans who will pay dearly for this. According to an analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the average American household could expect its yearly energy bill to increase by $3,128 per year. Using an analysis by Peter Orszag, President Obama's budget director, that number would be closer to $4,000.
The guy from MIT didn't say what she thinks he said. In fact, the study said the opposite. The MIT guy even sent Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) a letter telling him to stop lying about his study. That didn't stop Weeping John and his buddies.
I guess Bachmann and her buds aren't really into fact checking. Then again, neither is the Star Tribune.
Acorns-- no, this isn't about a possibly deviant activist group. I'm thinking about oak trees. White oaks, red oaks, flying squirrels, and acorns. The Washington Post's Acorn Watchers Wonder What Happened to Crop has me wondering, could a lack of acorns be a troubling sign of global warming or is it merely incidental?
The website for Republicans in Senate District 42, which Erik Paulsen represented in the House, has a despicable editorial on "The Cult of Global Warming." In this misguided article, the heads of the SD 42 Republican party deny the existence of climate change and offer tips for "Fighting their [rational people's] agenda".
Erik Paulsen was a contributor to this website during his time served in the house. Now that he's running for Congress, he must answer for its content. Erik Paulsen, do you agree with this extremist denial of climate change? Do you believe in global warming?
The Republicans' own words convey their extremism far better than I could. Here's just a sample of their lunacy:
When you hear the term "Global Warming", think "Central Planning". With Global Warming, the Left finally has its best excuse to restrict your lifestyle and take away your freedoms.
Liberals are huge supporters of Global Warming hysteria. Their belief in it has become almost cult-like -- to the point where those who voice dissent are threatened with loss of money, livelihood, and even their right to speak....
The truth is neither the science nor the economics of global warming is settled. But global warming is not really about science anyway. It is about big government.
How many different studies need to confirm the existence of climate change before these radical Republicans see fit to help us do something about it? It's time for Erik Paulsen to denounce these conservative whackos and present a real plan to help us protect our environment.
("I Don't Hate America" is still down stemming from technical difficulties. Still visit that URL hourly (if not more frequently!) to see us when we return! Until then, the fine gentleman we know and love as "Joe Bodell" is hosting content such as this here!)
Recently the prevailing discussion concerning our environment has been centered on global warming. Well, let's not talk about global warming for once. It seems other issues such as the conservation of natural resources have been swept under the rug.
Yes, a progressive does not want to yell and shout about global warming right now, you heard correctly. Global warming is a long term threat that we will have to deal with as time goes on. A gravel pit and ball fields taking over rare forest land? Well, I guess we either deal with that now or never.
Great news from our backyard to yours: Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) has become the third Senator in the past few months to renounce his former opposition to climate legislation and has cosponsored the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act!
Scientists have made it clear that in order to avoid the worst impacts of global warming we must quickly begin to reduce global warming pollution by 2 percent per year or about 80 percent by 2050. The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act offers a 2% path for reducing our global warming pollution.
Thank you for taking action on this and letting Norm Coleman know that we appreciate his support!
Nationwide mayors in nearly 500 cities, with a combined population of 64 million, have accepted that in the 21st century we cannot afford to duck and cover and hope the grave threats posed by global climate change will magically disappear. These leaders understand that generating real solutions requires more action, less empty rhetoric and fewer hollow proposals.
The Minnesota mayors, like their counterparts across the country, serve citizens from all walks of life and recognize this is an issue that transcends the red-blue politics and urban-suburban-rural divisions that all too often mar important debates.
Unfortunately, however, this growing list of mayors willing to lead in their communities, country and world isn't enough. They need the unconditional support of their federal government.
Isn't it time members of Congress wake up and acknowledge what the people on Main Street have been saying for a while now?
Christopher Truscott can be reached at chris.truscott@gmail.com. He opted to roll down his car windows rather than use the air conditioning yesterday. It sucked, but he'll do it again.
