Americans Prefer Candidates Strong On Science

A new poll conducted by Scientists and Engineers for America indicates an overwhelming majority of voters prefer candidates who support research into science and technology, with emphasis on the three E's: education, environment, and energy. Nice to know, and in a sane world I'd be tempted to add a snarky "No shit?" But in the bizarro conservative fantasy world constructed by the Bush-McCain GOP, maybe it's we best count our few remaining blessings even as they vanish faster than dry ice on a hot summer day. Among the key findings:

Majorities across partisan lines say they would be more likely to support a candidate who is committed to these issues. However, Democrats express considerably more intensity than do independents and Republicans for a candidate who is committed to preparing students with the skills they need for the 21st Century, reducing the cost and improving the quality of healthcare, and addressing climate change and the demand for energy through public investments in science and technology.

Almost twice as many Democrats (65%) are "much more" likely than Republicans (38%) to vote for a candidate committed to preparing students with the skills they need for the 21st Century through public investments in science and technology education. Predictably, Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one (48% to 17%) when asked if they're much more likely to vote for a candidate committed to addressing global climate change through public investments in science and technology. Strangely a similar partisan pattern is seen when asked the same question about using science and technology to address the demand for energy. One interpretation of the above would be, apparently, a lot of Republicans still resist admitting they were wrong -- or more accurately were misled by sources they inexplicably continue to trust -- over climate change. And a sizable chunk seems to feel that either energy policy is fine as is, or that science isn't part of any solution.

Some of this may seem odd in the most technological nation on earth, but keep in mind the process isn't static; we're probably seeing the end result of some partidularly vicious recent iterations. In today's political climate, a sort of cultural selection regularly combs through the conservative base with every new shiny piece of evidence for [Insert Respective Field of Science Currently Under Right-wing Assault], leaving behind only those conservatives with the greatest immunity to invading intellectual pathogens from the insidious liberal vector called reality.

•  Science Debate 2008!!!!

  14 Science Questions the Next President Should Answer

  by DemFromCT on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:22:28 AM PDT

  •  and the 6th is...

    6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. Some estimates suggest that if H5N1 Avian Flu becomes a pandemic it could kill more than 300 million people. In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?

    by DemFromCT on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:23:11 AM PDT

    •  We are already on that

      Someone read part of the "Masque of the Red Death" to GWB and he is building a wall on the Rio Grande (though it skips the property of his friends and contributors)  

      by entlord1 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:31:11 AM PDT

      •  how not to conduct vaccine trials

        http://www.austriantimes.at//index.p...

        Docs test bird flu drug on homeless

        Polish doctors are facing charges after a string of deaths in illegal medical trials into a vaccine for the deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu.

        A clinic in Grudziadz, northern Poland, is said to have recruited homeless volunteers who thought they were being paid two pounds each to be tested with a vaccine for a normal flu virus.

        But Polish media reports now say it has emerged that the guinea pigs were being tested with a new anti-bird flu drug.

        by DemFromCT on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:29:05 AM PDT

        •  How About We Minimize Clinical Trials In Place of

          nearly endless and often worthless testing with enormous expense and terrible harm?

          FDA Strikes Again

          LEXINGTON, Mass., June 4 PRNewswire -- Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDEV - News) today announced that based on a recent discussion with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the NDA filing for NEBIDO®, the Company expects the FDA to formally request that the Company provide additional safety data prior to approving NEBIDO...

          The Company believes that the FDA's safety concern is derived from spontaneous post-marketing adverse event reports of the NEBIDO 1000 mg (4ml) dose. In the Indevus U.S. clinical trials, which included a total of approximately 500 patients, there was a single, non-serious, instance of this phenomenon with the 750 mg (3ml) dosage of NEBIDO. The patient did not require medical intervention and the event resolved without issue within 10 minutes. This patient has continued to receive regular injections without further incident. Because estimations of the true frequency of these events are difficult to determine from post-marketing reports on patients having received the 1000 mg (4ml) NEBIDO dose, FDA has asked for new data to more precisely calculate the incidence of the occurrence prospectively, as well as methods or procedures to mitigate the incidence with the 750 mg (3ml) dosage.

          http://biz.yahoo.com/...

          Should be a lot of fun designing a trial for a non-problem, let alone figuring out how to resolve same.

          Did you catch that?  One volunteer in a trial of a testosterone replacement drug long approved in Europe had a coughing spell that lasted less than 10 minutes and the FDA wants a clinical trial to eliminate the threat.  

          Wonder why drugs cost so much?  An FDA commissioner can kill more people in a single day than Bush and Cheney can in a lifetime.  Both the FDA political scientists and Congress critters could use some testosterone treatment themselves looks like.

          Best,  Terry

          by terryhallinan on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:31:21 PM PDT

          •  oddly enough, when drugs produce dangerous

            effects like Thalidomide or Vioxx, the first thing everyone screams and yells is "why weren't they tested more thoroughly"?

            1. Have your cake.

            2. Eat it.

            Can't do both.

            by Lenny Flank on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:34:01 PM PDT

            •  Thalidomide is an approved drug

              Were you aware of that?

              It is hardly the first approved drug that has teratogenic effects.  

              The resistance to approval had nothing to do with the effect on fetuses.  It was a happy accident.  There was actually mindless trials in this country on pregnant women as an anti-nausea pill.

              Despite the symbolism, thalidomide testing is an indictment of the FDA rather than a credit.

              Thalidomide has proven a very useful drug for treating cancer.  It could be made safe for pregnant women but we are too busy with other things - like protecting the monopoly of Big Pharma from more effective drugs.

              The Chinese are not so inclined and are continuing research in the purification of chirals that we abandoned in this country.

              Nobody suggests that safety should be abandoned but rather that sanity should prevail.  

              BTW it was Obama's efforts in that direction that first attracted me to him.  Few others know or care I have found.

              The burden of imbecility at the FDA in life, health and treasure is enormous.

              Scary stories without intelligent debate are not overly productive I think.  

              Best,  Terry

              by terryhallinan on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:08:58 PM PDT

              •  Okaaaayyyyyyy . . . .

                You seriously want to have an "intelligent debate" over whether we should, uh, carry out safety testing on drugs?

                Really?

                You really and honestly consider that to be a matter for "debate"?

                Are you a Ron Paul fan, by any chance?

                by Lenny Flank on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:14:33 PM PDT

                •  Restrain Yourself From Mistating What I Wrote

                  please.  I am sure you can do it if you try.

                  You seriously want to have an "intelligent debate" over whether we should, uh, carry out safety testing on drugs?

                  No.

                  I want to have an intelligent debate about the conduct and analysis of clinical trials.

                  By their very nature clinical trials are a beastly affair.  Efforts to protect the volunteers and the public should be maximized, not the prestige of the FDA and the monopoly of drug companies.

                  Did the example I gave you of safety concerns inspire your confidence in the FDA?

                  How come they approve dangerous and ineffective drugs despite clear indications of problems while preventing safe and effective drugs from reaching the market.

                  Could there possibly be something wrong with that fine bunch?

                  Best,  Terry

                  by terryhallinan on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:26:39 PM PDT

  •  Something that bugs me

    Honda just released a new hydrogen powered car the FCX Clarity.  It's a real work of genius - runs 270 miles without a fill up, only emission is water vapor.

    Why didn't an American company invest in the R&D to do something similar?

    Science is important.  Way important - not just in school, but in having a long term vision of the future.

    by The Ghost of Leo McGarry on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:25:51 AM PDT

    •  Tell that to the Republicans! n/t

      by JeffW on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:30:32 AM PDT

    •  We need engineers!

      and companies who will invest in research, and the long term.  Too many companies are now run by "gotta have it now" corporatists who don't push back against Wall Street (line my pockets today!).  We can do whatever we set out minds to accomplish--it's not a matter of capacity, it's a matter of will.  

      Look at the investment in research by the feds under GWB.  Slashed.  the About only research that can get through is that pushed into the DOD budget, which no one reads.  

      by bigforkgirl on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:38:35 AM PDT

      •  as I mentioned in another comment

        I think we need Michael Skelly in Congress and Wes Clark as VEEP in an Obama administration to help accomplish what you're suggesting:

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        by eve on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:34:47 AM PDT

    •  One reason

      why I'm so impressed with Obama's investment in science education. I know it pisses off the NASA folks (and being in TX, I hear that from Houstonites aplenty). But we won't have as strong of a space program going forward if we don't invest in scientists and science education today.

      Here's the link and here's a quote:

      Today, we face a new set of challenges, including energy security, HIV/AIDS, and climate change. Yet, the United States is losing its scientific dominance. Among industrialized nations, our country’s scores on international science and math tests rank in the bottom third and bottom fifth, respectively. Over the last three decades, federal funding for the physical, mathematical and engineering sciences has declined at a time when other countries are substantially increasing their own research budgets. Barack Obama believes federally funded scientific research should play an important role in advancing science and technology in the classroom and in the lab.

      What makes me particularly happy is that it's federal funding, which means it's not corporately funded, so the research can be in the public good, rather than simply for profit.

      by kath25 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:39:32 AM PDT

      •  NASA, and space advocates

        have no problem with education - many of us think its great - what concerns us is that he is pulling money from NASA, and hasn't offered up a major space policy position, and the reality is is that NASA gets crap compared to the education budget.  

        Go watch the Obama rep at the presidential space panel to see what I mean

        by FerrisValyn on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:51:23 AM PDT

    •  uh, there's a problem with hydrogen

      Unless you can tell me where the hydrogen mines are located...

      Hydrogen takes energy to produce (electrolysis of water is one example).   If the energy comes from coal plants, the emission is much more than water vapor.  So  it isn't necessarily a panacea.

      by science on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:41:05 AM PDT

      •  It's a step in the right direction

        If the electricity comes from renewables or we get hydrogen from biological processes (I hear they're engineering bacteria for this), we're good.

        by The Ghost of Leo McGarry on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:44:45 AM PDT

      •  Nuclear the best way to make H2

        At Idaho National Labs they're working on an advanced reactor that can produce large quantities of hydrogen as well as electricity.

        Today almost all hydrogen is made by fossil fuel combustion.

        Nuclear plants do not emit greenhouse gases.  

        More people would understand these things if we had better science education.  Only 1 in 10 Americans know what radiation is.  One in 5 think that the sun revolves around the earth.

        by Plan9 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:55:34 AM PDT

        •  "Nuclear plants do not emit greenhouse gases"

          No, just radiation. One reactor, Browns Ferry, was almost brought down by a candle! That's a pretty high level of vulnerability.

          I have a degree in Physics from the "too cheap to meter" days. I remember the great hope nuclear promised back then and so wanted it to succeed. Still do, I guess. But knowing more about the science behind it now, I can't bring myself to support nuclear.

          Show me one insurance company that will insure a nuclear plant and maybe I'll buy in. Until then, we are stuck with the right's "Privatize the profits and socialize the costs." And then there's the waste problem. To that I say "That's why there are red states." :)

          by armadillo on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:58:19 AM PDT

          •  Coal-fired plants emit more radiation

            Annual average radiation emissions from coal-fired plants:
            1-4 millirem.
            Annual average radiation emissions from nuclear plants:
            .009 millirem.

            Browns Ferry did not have fireproof sheathing of its electrical cables, etc.  Since that accident, all nuclear plants have to have fireproof sheathing. No one was exposed to any radiation.

            FYI Coal-fired plants kill 24,000 people a year by emitting fine particulates.  
            Zero deaths to the public from nuclear plants.

            Nuclear utilities are self-insured, paying into a common fund:

            Nuclear Insurance: Price-Anderson Act

            The Price-Anderson Act, which became law on September 2, 1957, was designed to ensure that adequate funds would be available to satisfy liability claims of members of the public for personal injury and property damage in the event of a catastrophic nuclear accident. The legislation helped encourage private investment in commercial nuclear power by placing a cap, or ceiling on the total amount of liability each holder of a nuclear power plant license faced in the event of a catastrophic accident. Over the years, the "limit of liability" for a catastrophic nuclear accident has increased the insurance pool to over $10 billion.

            Under existing policy, utilities that operate nuclear power plants pay a premium each year for $300 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor unit. This primary insurance is supplemented by a second policy. In the event a nuclear accident causes damages in excess of $300 million, each licensed nuclear reactor would be assessed a prorated share of the excess up to $95.8 million. With 104 plants licensed to operate, this secondary pool contains about $8.6 billion. After 15 percent of this pool is expended, prioritization of the remaining funds is left to the discretion of local jurisdictions. After the insurance pool is used, responding organizations like State and local governments can petition Congress for additional disaster relief under the provisions of Price-Anderson.

            One insurance pool, American Nuclear Insurers, is comprised of investor-owned stock insurance companies. About half the pool's total liability capacity comes from foreign sources like Lloyd's of London. The average annual premium for a single-unit reactor site is $400,000. The premium for a second or third reactor at the same site is discounted to reflect a sharing of limits.

            Because virtually all property and liability insurance policies issued in the U.S. exclude nuclear accidents, claims resulting from nuclear accidents are covered under Price-Anderson. It includes any accident (including those that come about because of theft or sabotage) in the course of transporting nuclear fuel to a reactor site; in the storage of nuclear fuel or waste at a site; in the operation of a reactor, including the discharge of radioactive effluent; and in the transportation of irradiated nuclear fuel and nuclear waste from the reactor. Price-Anderson does not require coverage for spent fuel or nuclear waste stored at interim storage facilities, transportation of nuclear fuel or waste that is not either to or from a nuclear reactor, or acts of theft or sabotage occurring after planned transportation has ended.

            Insurance under Price-Anderson provides financial assistance for bodily injury, sickness, disease or resulting death, property damage and loss as well as reasonable living expenses for individuals evacuated.

            The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended the Price-Anderson Act to December 31, 2025.

            Nuclear Regulatory Commission

            If a carbon tax is enacted, nuclear plants will become the cheapest source of electricity.  Right now nuclear power is already competitive with coal in some regions.  

            by Plan9 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:51:17 AM PDT

            •  Thanks, but not convinced

              Browns Ferry did not have fireproof sheathing of its electrical cables, etc.  Since that accident, all nuclear plants have to have fireproof sheathing. No one was exposed to any radiation

              OK, one problem found by happenstance. What's next? Where can we find operators who are beyond OJT? Regardless of technology, there's always the human factor. You can play You Bet Your Life if you like, as long as you can guarantee it doesn't affect my life.

              Coal does release radiation, but it's distributed over time and space. A nuclear plant would concentrate the radiation all in one spot in a short time. Think breeze vs. tornado, in a way.  Your ".009 millirem" assumes no accident, right? So what's your point?

              I once encountered some of those Fusion hucksters in an airport lobby- Denver, I think. Remember them? I asked one why he was promoting a nuclear plant in Denver instead of wherever he was from. He could or would not answer. 'Nuff said. Never looked back.

              by armadillo on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:22:30 PM PDT

              •  Don't create a standard for safety you aren't

                willing to apply consistently to other aspects of life. Would you make the same demand about automobiles? Thousands die every year in accidents, including pedestrians and bicyclists who aren't even passengers. These accidents are caused by people betting other people's lives. By your criteria, cars should be banned.

                Three Mile Island did concentrate all the radiation in one spot and no one was hurt. Unlike Chernobyl, TMI had a containment.  

                People who work at nuclear plants typically live close by. 'Nuff said.

                by Blubba on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:12:26 AM PDT

        •  nuclear died decades ago

          It was promised as producing electricity "too cheap to meter".  Instead, it is the most expensive way to produce electricity, which is why energy companies themselves gave up on it decades ago.

          Quite aside from the nuclear weapons proliferation problems, and the unsolved problems of waste disposal.

          There is simply no solution to the energy problem from the "supply" side. There is simply no way for the world to produce enough energy for everyone on the planet to live our lifestyle. The only thing we can do is reduce global demand to meet the capacity that we can sustainably produce.  

          Alas, that means that Americans will no longer be able to glibly continue to live their gluttonous and wasteful lifestyles.

          And we'd rather die than give that up.

          by Lenny Flank on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:02:02 PM PDT

          •  Many new reactor applications

            Even without building any new reactors in 30 years, US nuclear power has grown substantially and grown faster in the past 50 years than any other combustion-free source of electricity.  

            Here's a graph based on info from the Energy Information Administration.

            Nuclear plants have upgraded over the years and operate at over 90% capacity, providing 20% of our electricity and almost all our emissions-free electricity.

            About 30 new license applications are in the works in the US and worldwide dozens of new reactors are in various stages of planning and construction.  Germany has decided to hold off shutting down its nuclear plants--it was planning to replace them with dirty coal-fired plants and natural gas.

            May I invite you to go to Wikipedia and look up "base load"?  We have only two sources of large-scale base load electricity in the US: burning fossil fuels and using the natural process of radioactive decay of uranium to heat steam.  Our choice gets down to whether we want to keep burning more and more fossil fuels and killing more and more Americans from their fine particulates so that we can power the servers that make DKos possible or whether we want to phase out fossil fuels for base load and replace those dirty plants with nuclear plants, which get an enormous amount of energy from a very small volume.

            One uranium fuel pellet weighing 3 pennies contains the energy equivalent of a ton of coal.

            by Plan9 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:28:08 PM PDT

            •  the bottom line is

              the bottom line.

              Electric companies haven't built any new nukes in decades. They cost too much.

              Quite aside from the weapons proliferation and long-term waste disposal problems (the costs of which are not even factored into the "costs too much" conclusion.

              It's not environmentalists that are stopping nukes.  It's not hippies with signs.  It's not ignorant uneducated consumers.  It's the electric companies themselves, for economic reasons.  And global warming doesn't change those economic reasons.

              Nukes are dead.  They've been dead for decades, and they won't be resurrected now.

              Nor would they help even if resurrected.  There simply is no technological fix.  There simply is no way, none, to produce the energy levels required to give the whole global population an American level of usage.

              That means one of two things will happen:  (1) the globe reduces its power consumption to a level that can be sustained (and that means that American usage levels will go down, a LOT), or (2) we will continue our profligate lifestyle and simply force everyone else to carry us on their backs.

              by Lenny Flank on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:26:01 PM PDT

              •  Update for Lenny: It's 2008

                FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - The nation's nuclear energy industry, all but stagnant for three decades, is quietly building toward a resurgence with more than two dozen new reactors on the drawing board in 15 states.

                The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is already reviewing license applications from plants in eight states to build 13 new reactors, and it just received another application for two more. Later this year, plants in seven other states plan to seek permits for a dozen more reactors.

                The first could be built and operating by 2016.

                from NRC Reviewing Applications for 13 Nuclear Reactors across US, June 13, 2008 3:12 PM ET

                What's your plan for meeting the soaring demand for base load electricity?

                by Plan9 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:08:17 PM PDT

                •  it's 2008 and nukes are still too expensive

                  So nobody's building them.

                  As for my plan for meeting the soaring demand, I already said:

                  There is simply no solution to the energy problem from the "supply" side. There is simply no way for the world to produce enough energy for everyone on the planet to live our lifestyle. The only thing we can do is reduce global demand to meet the capacity that we can sustainably produce.  

                  Alas, that means that Americans will no longer be able to glibly continue to live their gluttonous and wasteful lifestyles.

                  by Lenny Flank on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 03:16:15 PM PDT

                  •  Finland, France, China, South Korea, Japan,

                    India, and Argentina are not nobodies. They are all building them. There are about 34 reactors currently under construction worldwide. Many more countries, including Britain, and the US are getting ready to build them. If nuclear was so expensive, state public service commissions would not allow them in the rate base (utilities have to justify new power plants as the low cost alternative) and companies that operate in deregulated markets would not be considering building them if they thought nuclear was going to be more expensive than natural gas or coal with carbon sequestration.

                    As with the price of gas, people will conserve electricity as the price goes up, not before. Basic economics.

                    by Blubba on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 06:09:10 PM PDT

    •  Minor quibble....

      Whence came the hydrogen?  Separating and compressing hydrogen for use as automotive fuel is an energy-intensive process, and right now it's most often being done using ...

      ... oil- and coal-fired power plants.

      So all you've done is move the combustion of fossil fuels from the engine to the power station.  As it turns out, it's almost always more energy-efficient to convert fuel to energy as near as possible to the point of usage, because there is always energy lost in transition (of state) or transmission (over distance).

      So if the hydrogen for this "ultra-clean" car is coming from oil- and coal-fired plants, it may have a larger energy budget and carbon footprint than would an internal combustion engine powering the same shape and size of car.

      This is definitely a case of NSTAAFL: No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

      Ultimately, moving human beings around individually is simply too energy-intensive to sustain.  We need to focus on improving public transportation, rather than hoping for the "scientific miracle" that will let us maintain our individualistic, convenient, selfish lifestyles.

      by NCrissieB on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:42:15 AM PDT

      •  Public transportation is great, but

        it's not probably going to be practical in say, the middle of Kansas.

        Hydrogen-powered engines are probably going to be needed as a transportation option.  

        by The Ghost of Leo McGarry on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:48:21 AM PDT

        •  The basic question is this....

          Where and how often do we absolutely need portable energy?

          By "portable energy," I mean contained within and used by a moving vehicle.  We need that a lot less often than we think, and a hell of a lot less often than we want it.  For most of us, if fixed energy alternatives were available, we really don't need much portable energy per person.

          Fixed energy alternatives would be electric rail, and more walking communities, where people can get from home (fixed) to work (fixed) to shop (fixed) on foot or bicycle.

          The advantage of fixed energy design is that, in many cases, you can generate it locally - at the site or in the neighborhood - with renewable fuels like wind, solar, or water.  Again, the nearer to the user you generate it, the less energy is lost in transmission.

          In terms of net energy, the ideal is to build or retrofit energy self-sufficient homes, offices, factories, schools, and shopping centers, within walking distance of each other or linked by fixed energy transportation, and all connected to a local energy grid where excess generation at one site (e.g.: a home when everyone is out) is shifted to meet needs elsewhere, and with both designs and lifestyles requiring the least possible supplement when the primary local source is unavailable.

          Obviously, you can't do that everywhere, and you can't do it overnight anywhere.  So yes, in the near term you adopt other solutions, optimized for a given region, neighborhood, and building.

          But even as we're adopting and implementing those near term, temporary solutions, we also need to be educating people as to the long term changes we'll need to make, reshaping and revaluing our society in terms of energy efficiency.  That will mean making sacrifices - both in individualism and convenience - in order to have a more sustainable, energy- and climate-compatible society.

          What's optimal for agricultural Kanas will not be optimal for more densely populated urban regions, but we need to optimize everywhere.

          by NCrissieB on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:24:55 AM PDT

          •  We only have to sacrifice if

            we limit ourselves to resources on planet.  There is plenty of clean energy, and plenty of resources, if we invest in off-planet resources, like Space Based Solar Power.

            But if limit ourselves to traditional alternatives, and terrestrial resources, then there will need to be a lot of sacrifice, and I don't think humanity is willing to accept that level of sacrifice.  

            by FerrisValyn on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:04:25 AM PDT

      •  from whence comes this hydrogen and why

        Toyota predicts fuels will come from dirty energy mining
        

        I know it can come from solar and wind etc, but at least one autocompany thinks it won't. Why?

        Why, when we are on the last legs of the Oil Age, scraping the bottom of the barrel, are they thinking along these lines?

        by dotcommodity on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:49:17 AM PDT

        •  "From whence" is redundant

          "Whence" means "from where."  So "from whence" would mean "from from where."

          by NCrissieB on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:53:42 AM PDT

          •  cofee....need ....my...coffee

            duh!
            :-)

            by dotcommodity on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:08:58 AM PDT

      •  Space Based Solar Power

        yes, there is lose during transition, or transmission, but if you have a large enough supply of power/energy to begin with, its not a problem.

        So why not consider investing in Space Based Solar Power - it will give us the required level of energy needed to maintain the current lifestyle

        by FerrisValyn on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:03:52 AM PDT

    •  Too busy pushing

      hummers, escalades, expeditions...

      When considering US rightwing corporate ideology, the lack of scientific thinking isn't the half of it.

      I mean, the fascists can do science, in spades, when it suits them -- like for drilling ANWAR, developing cluster bombs etc..

      We're dealing with something beyond that.  Something more along the lines of sheer perversion.  

      For real understanding of what drives corporate America, we probably ought to be focusing more on the 7 deadly sins.

      It's the fascism, stupid!

      by scotts on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:12:19 AM PDT

    •  Ummm, Honda Japan or Honda America?

      I think the real question you are asking is: "Why weren't Americans doing the engineering?" Maybe they were.  I don't know. Honda has at least two plants in the USA that I'm aware of.

      It's not only factory jobs that have been outsourced.  Engineering jobs have been outsourced for decades too.  With globalization, you can live anywhere in the world, and do your work via a Blackberry and computer.

      by Aidos on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:33:57 AM PDT

  •  Those Are Political Science Questions Mostly

    Rather comical is the conflict in conjunction of these two questions posed in sequence:

    6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. Some estimates suggest that if H5N1 Avian Flu becomes a pandemic it could kill more than 300 million people. In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?

    7. Genetics research.  The field of genetics has the potential to improve human health and nutrition, but many people are concerned about the effects of genetic modification both in humans and in agriculture. What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?

    If you don't see any conflict, you should worry some about your own scientific literacy.

    4. Education.  A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th.  What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?

    One good start might be to elect science literate politicians.

    Best,  Terry

    by terryhallinan on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:13:05 PM PDT

•  What about GOD!

  Just quoting one of the questions hurled at Oliver Sacks a few years ago when he came to my town on a book tour.

  by archer070 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:26:34 AM PDT

  •  I'd love to ask God...

    ...my own 14 questions about science.

    Question #1: what's that thingy that hangs off the other thingy for?

    by juliewolf on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:33:33 AM PDT

    •  Your uvula?

      I think it's to prevent you from choking.

      by kath25 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:40:49 AM PDT

      •  careful with that word

        I think I got sent to the principal generations ago for writing filthy words on a biology test for using the term.

        by entlord1 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:46:48 AM PDT

      •  The Throat Punching-Bag has a function??

        by revenant on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:44:58 AM PDT

•  evolution

  Science, the word, is seen as code for evolution.  So many Americans have been brain washed by religion and that leads to the belief that science is the anti Christ.  

  by melvynny on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:27:42 AM PDT

  •  I think it's not religion..

    ...there has been a systematic propaganda campaign to discredit all sources of objective truth... that there is no "truth" other than what the "morally superior" people deem as proper belief.

    Politically, it really got going during Reagan, but enough sane persons, even inside the Repub party, were around to stifle some of the worst of that regime (think, James Watts, Sec. of Interior). Now, the right has been so besotted with the power that came with fear manipulation and control (and some would say creation), that they cheerfully expounded the neocon/apocalyptic beliefs most would have to know were absurd... attack strengths. Is your candidate a war hero? Attack that. Is he right on the facts? Attack truth... show contempt for the "reality based" community. Roll back the enlightenment.. roll back the Magna Carta.. while we're at it, roll back Aristotle and Socrates and the whole notion that reason can bring insight into what things are...

    "Are you going to believe us, or your own lying eyes?..."

    by modestybl on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:15:39 AM PDT

  •  ooops

    You mis-spelled "fundamentalism".  It's not spelled "R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N".

    Most religious people, worldwide, have no gripe with evolution.  Or any other part of modern science.

    It is only the fundamentalist nutters who have a gripe with science.  And most religious people think the fundies are just as nutty as you and I do.

    by Lenny Flank on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 12:03:56 PM PDT

•  This makes my head hurt

  86% of voters say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who is committed to preparing students with the skills they need for the 21st Century through public investments in science and technology education.

  But...but...how can we be getting these laws like in Louisiana where they intend to prepare students for the middle ages??

  by mem from somerville on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:28:08 AM PDT

  •  Alchemy 101

    is on the curriculum.  After they learn to turn lead into gold, we're good.

    by The Ghost of Leo McGarry on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:29:21 AM PDT

  •  at least the students in LA

    will be prepared for exorcisms and inquistitions which may be more job related than we suspect should McCain be elected.

    by entlord1 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:32:39 AM PDT

    •  Jindal

      The fact that this guy exists amazes me.

      I hope McCain picks him as veep and he becomes the laughingstock of the country.

      by rini6 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:44:46 AM PDT

  •  good for headache:

    

    by ezdidit on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:12:34 AM PDT

    •  But you have to take it

      with DHMO!!

      http://www.dhmo.org/

      by mem from somerville on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:30:37 AM PDT

      •  Oh, man, that site is even funnier

        than I realized:

        Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide

        Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

           * Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
           * Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
           * Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
           * DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
           * Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
           * Contributes to soil erosion.
           * Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
           * Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
           * Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
           * Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
           * Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
           * Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
           * Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

        The thermal one cracked me up.

        by mem from somerville on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:33:02 AM PDT

•  Bring back the OTA !!!!

  by AllanTBG on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:28:39 AM PDT

  •  Restoration of Office of Tech Assessment

    is urgently needed.  

    Is any kind of science panel advising Obama?

    by Plan9 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:57:40 AM PDT

•  Focus on the Family radio is

  pounding Obama hard on his "science stances" such as GW and climate change or vaccination issues or even HIV and DDT.

  Yesterday I listened to their science expert discuss how life is a miracle and scientists who ignore the miracle are wrong.
  OK, then I waited to hear about the science in question.

  Caterpillars turn into butterflies (or moths) but before they do this they spin a cocoon and while in the cocoon the caterpillar turns into a green mush. ( I am not making this up) The caterpillar loses all body parts including its brain to turn into this green mush which then becomes a butterfly in ensuing weeks. The transformation of the mush is a miracle!

  So when we ask voters about their wanting a candidate committed to science, we had best ask which science. I suspect many mean ID (which the mush example was supposed to prove)  

  by entlord1 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:29:22 AM PDT

  •  They're getting the why and the how mixed up

    God could be out there (I don't know that He isn't).  But just because He's there doesn't mean that evolution didn't take place and science doesn't explain how the universe works.

    by The Ghost of Leo McGarry on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:30:58 AM PDT

    •  the green mush was what threw me

      Evidently their science experts had never actually opened a cocoon.

      by entlord1 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:34:05 AM PDT

    •  To be anthromorphically correct

      God could be a he or a she, or with sexually mixed organs.  

      by bigforkgirl on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:40:40 AM PDT

      •  actually

        if God is good, kind and loving, then He must be male.  No decent female God would have created the human reproductive system.

        by science on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:45:26 AM PDT

        •  How could God have a gender?

          Did he or she create his/her own reproductive system???

          For that matter how could god have a brain? If god has no brain, how do they think?

          The whole "God"  logic is so circular it kills me.

          It's so obvious that the idea of god was created before any understanding of evolution, neurology, physiology and the connection between the brain and behavior. Religious fundamentalists really want to throw away the last several centuries of knowledge. It's a shame that they use the internet. If everyone was like them, there would be no internet.

          by rini6 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:15:41 AM PDT

      •  To be nonblasphemous,

        this postulated Judeo-Christian-Islamic god, a pure spirit, must be genderless.
        On the other hand, calling god "he" works out very well for half the human race. Remember the comment of theologian Mary Daly: "When God is male, then the male is God."

        by NogodsnomastersMary on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:49:40 AM PDT

  •  You know what?

    If they believe in miracles then they can stay away from the doctor when they are ill or injured. They can stop using any technology and communicate through ESP. They can do things by magic if they want to.

    Just leave the rest of us alone.

    by rini6 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:02:19 AM PDT

    •  If only...n/t

      by JeffW on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:49:55 AM PDT

•  That sounds good but....

  ....it was the same case in 2004.

  Unfortunately, the morons seems to come out and vote in droves.

  by Bush Bites on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:29:51 AM PDT

•  So, Republicans are then "much more" likely to

  vote for a candidate committed to preparing students with the skills they need to thrive in a prior century through private investments in pseudoscience and crackpottery?

  by The Zipper on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:31:35 AM PDT

  •  and McCain has already suggested the government

    awards financial prizes to researchers who want to research topics of interest.  It seems the idea of federal grants has eluded him.

    by entlord1 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:35:57 AM PDT

•  Never let a science story go uncommented!

  Where to start though? Huzzah for democrats who know science is important! It never ceases to amaze me that the clear economic impact alone of investment in science and technology is not more roundly recognized by the repugs.

  However, and I always surprise myself when I say this, Jon Huntsman, R-governor of Utah, is quite progressive in this regard and really gets after the state govt (surprise- it's a republican majority) to invest in science and technology in Utah. Suffering as I do from the trials and tribulations of generating funds to support my own research, I am SO looking forward to having a Dem back in the whitehouse!

  by UTvoter on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:32:55 AM PDT

•  Dilbert

  I always knew he was a Democrat..

  by ohcanada on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:35:57 AM PDT

•  What about Strong on Condoms?

  Because McCain isn't sure if condoms work.

  In fact, his only knowledge on the subject comes from Evil Gynecologist and Senator James Inhofe.

  by kath25 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:36:23 AM PDT

  •  That remark was worse than

    1000 "bittergates."

    by rini6 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:41:25 AM PDT

•  Even some "scientists" are skeptics on .....

  Global Warming.  I've noticed, however, that many of these are engineers who have limited field experience or geologists who worked for oil companies.  We all may be influenced by our past histories on such politically charged issues, but it is not wise to dismiss human-driven global climate change for a number of reasons.

  As a professional field biologist I saw (and see) many changes in weather patterns and was converted to the global warming idea because of them.  It is, of course, possible that the whole idea is wrong, but the possibility is, the last time I looked, 1 in 10.  Not good odds!

  The evidence keeps piling up. One creature that may have benefited from warming is the brown widow spider which has, over the last 15 years, enlarged its distribution from enclaves in Tampa, Florida, and southern California (where it had been stuck for decades), to Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma in the east and Arizona in the west.

  We are also seeing malaria and other tropical diseases appear at higher elevations than before and many other changes in distribution of organisms and tropical diseases.  If global warming is not happening then I guess such tropical organisms must be developing antifreeze!

  by Desert Biologist on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:42:58 AM PDT

  •  If climate change is not a reality

    then ALL of our thermometers are broken.

    by rini6 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:44:14 AM PDT

    •  if climate change is not a reality

      then this visualisation of the recording of rising temperatures over the last 30 years is hooey

      by dotcommodity on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:56:56 AM PDT

      •  You said it, not I.

        by IntelligentLife on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:42:31 AM PDT

        •  show us the hooey, right here in front of everyon

          Show us.  Answer my simple questions.  Forget them already?  No problem -- I'll ask again.  And again.  And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until you either answer them or run away.  I'm a very patient man.

          ahem

          So your claim now, as I understand it, is that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are the result of outgassing from sea water, and NOT from human emissions.  Yes?

          Would you mind explaining to me, then:

          what happens to the human emissions, then?  Where do they go?

          why have CO2 levels in the atmosphere begun climbing when human emissions began increasing, and tracked with them ever since?  Coincidence?

          you seem to be claiming that the amount of CO2 introduced by humans is negligable compared to the output of CO2 by outgassing from sea water.  Do you have any measured data to support that claim?  If so, why did the several thousand scientists from IPCC miss it, and why is it that you, a non-chemist, found it where they could not?

          Tell me what MECHANISM you propose for the sun to cause global warming, and what data you have to support your hypothesis, whatever the heck it turns out to be.

          What seems to be the problem with your, uh, answering these simple questions?

          You seem to be all blow and no go.  Just like every other pseudoscientist I've ever run into.

          by Lenny Flank on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:07:19 AM PDT

  •  Walking catfish and other tropical

    invasive species which got their start in FL are now turning up in more northern locations. I seem to remember the brouhaha over the snakehead in MD was supposed to be limited by climate and cold weather.
    I can note that fruit trees used to receive sufficient chill hours to set fruit but even Israeli types which are bred for low chill hours of 300 hours or less are not setting fruit now.
    At least global warming in the short term reduces the need for heating oil though the eventual threat of sharks lurking in the lawn is always there.  

    by entlord1 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:52:51 AM PDT

  •  Rhetorical issue....

    There's a rhetorical issue involved in this debate, and one I've not seen often discussed.  The primary rejoinder of climate change critics is defense by detail: saying that scientists "balk" at declaring that this specific storm, heat wave, freeze, flood, etc. was "caused by global warming."  So if no specific event was "caused by global warming," it's not "causing" anything, and what's everyone worrying about?

    It's a logical fallacy, of course, because weather events have multiple causal elements, so scientists will never say that any single event is "caused by global warming."  "Influenced" or "amplified," yes, but not "caused by," not in the exclusive, necessary-and-sufficient sense that the detractor is using.

    So, climate scientists (and others interested) ...

    ... how do you respond to that line of criticism?

    by NCrissieB on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:59:10 AM PDT

  •  You can find a Junior College or minor school...

    ...instructor with an engineering or science degree who'll say anything for the notoriety it may get him or her.

    Not to mention those who are just professional gadflys or getting grants from the energy industries.

    I'm sure I could come up with 100 "scientists" who say the world isn't round if I tried hard enough.

    by Bush Bites on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:04:34 AM PDT

    •  The thing that got me started on this ....

      was an engineer, who belongs to the same science honor society as I do, saying that the last group meeting on the subject had shown the whole idea to be overblown!  Just hype and nothing to worry about as change is always happening and humans are too small in effect to cause any major changes by themselves (tell that to the cod and salmon!)

      The problem with this is that their meetings might give non-scientists the idea that the science community was now backing away from Global Climate Change.

      by Desert Biologist on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:52:06 AM PDT

•  You have to be reality based

  in order to accept science.

  Funny, though, everyone likes science when they are critically ill. If God can save you from climate change, he can save you from bleeding to death, pneumonia or cancer. Even the parents of that poor girl who died from diabetes while her parents prayed, gave her CPR in the end.

  by rini6 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:43:10 AM PDT

  •  Who has been saying

    that the debate about "global warming" is over. That is science?? Let's see honest debate all over the mainstream media. I have an MS in geology. I also remember the global cooling "crisis" of the 1970's. It was all the rage then. I don't suppose there is any politics involved here. No, of course not. How about some diversity of opinion here?

    by IntelligentLife on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:53:46 AM PDT

    •  Climate change and global warming

      has a lot more evidence behind it than the brief cooling idea that arose a couple of decades ago.

      There has been speculation and prediction of the "greenhouse effect" since the 1960's.

      Also, there is no debate over the fact that the Earth's temperature is increasing. How can you say that thermometer readings are still controversial or unproven? There is no doubt that the oceans are heating up. The poles are melting. Look at the satellite photos. In addition, the change in temperature exactly parallels the increase in co2 emissions over the past 100 years.

      If you are looking for a smoking gun, you won't find it. This is too big. There is no way to find a singular weather event or trigger that you can point to.

      Science is about keeping an open mind. It is not about keeping an empty mind and refusing to accept data that is in front of you.

      by rini6 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 07:59:02 AM PDT

      •  If science is about open minds,

        then let's see the open debate. How about Al Gore vs. Roy Spencer?

        by IntelligentLife on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:03:50 AM PDT

        •   Sure,

          but Al is just the messenger. Maybe someone with more science background.

          On second thought, Gore is pretty knowledgeable.

          I bet he'd do well.

          by rini6 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:07:14 AM PDT

          •  Oh yeah, I'll bet

            Gore dodges debate at every turn. Yet, he gets all these accolades. By the way, in 2006 he used 60 times as much electricity in his primary residence in very upscale Belle Meade, TN, as I did in my very modest MN townhouse. Some spokesman for the austere lifestyle.

            by IntelligentLife on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:18:33 AM PDT

            •  bingo, got you on a Malkin moment

              This was discussed to some extent some time ago when the RW blogs went ballistic over Gore using as much electricity as 248 average American homes.

              Read up on what is linked to the meter at the Gore residence and then decide if it is so outrageous or if it is simply that he has more people at this home than you do. Actually his use has decreased since he "greened" his home.

              by entlord1 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:29:15 AM PDT

              •  I love that those who deny Climate Change

                always attack Gore personally, as if this debunks the entire idea.

                This is not about personality or "taking sides." It's about reality.

                by rini6 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:33:07 AM PDT

                •  Reality

                  is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. There have been countless cycles of warming and cooling over eons, even through historic time. There is little solid evidence, let alone proof, that human activity has any significant impact on global climate. There are plenty of "scientists" and politicians with a vested interest. They want research funding or control over behavior. "Carbon credits" are akin to the "indulgences" sold by the Catholic Church in Martin Luther's time. We need a 21st century Martin Luther.

                  by IntelligentLife on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:00:21 AM PDT

                  •  Earth's CO2 level is above 385ppm now

                    when it almost never went above 300-325 ppm during the course of the last 800K years, and was almost always it was at or below 300ppm during that period which covered some 5 or 6 glacition/de-glaciation cycles.

                    CO2 and water vapor are the primary contributors to the greenhouse effect on our planet in the current operating conditions. Water vapor has a short lifetime in the atmosphere and hence CO2 is the primary longer term driver. Based on the math I have seen, I am quite convinced that with each doubling in the ppm levels, we'll have at least a 1.5-2.5(C) increase in the global mean temperature. Greater local variations are likely because of the differences in how human-made CO2 gets released and gets spread around, and the nature of the surface locally (eg, sea ice is apparently more vulnerable, perhaps due to outgoing radiation frequencies from such a surface apparently being close to CO2's absorption band).

                    Venus has a primarily CO2 based environment (96.5% by volume and water vapor is virtually absent), it's not that much closer to the sun than the earth and they're comparable in size, and yet it has a surface temperature of over 460(C) which demonstrates the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

                    by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:30:33 AM PDT

                    •  Who says that 350 ppm is the "safe" level of CO2

                      in the atmosphere, and by what authority? Apparently green plants would like a lot more, as much as 1800 ppm. Who are we to deprive them of their rights to an optimally healthful environment? It's their world, too, and they were here before we were. (It's that little evolution thing, you know.) Besides, we can't live without them.

                      by IntelligentLife on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:50:21 AM PDT

                      •  yep, this is about the level of "argument"

                        I've come to expect from creationist, global warming deniers, flying saucer kooks, ESP nutters, etc etc etc.

                        They HAVE no data or evidence to offer, so the best they can do is try to be "cute".

                        by Lenny Flank on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:08:22 AM PDT

                        •  Hey Flunk

                          I'm not a Creationist.

                          by IntelligentLife on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:41:24 PM PDT

                          •  answer my questions

                            or shut the fuck up.

                            And feel free to make fun of my name as much as you want, if you think it will help.  (shrug)

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 04:58:30 PM PDT

                    •  And if CO2 was higher 800K years ago,

                      why was that, and why didn't it burn up then? And why are the polar bears still around?

                      by IntelligentLife on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:09:15 AM PDT

                      •  "why are the polar bears still around"?

                        THAT is the best argument you have?

                        Really?

                        Wow.

                        That's on the same level as the creationists who yammer "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

                        Quit waving your arms and just answer my goddamn questions.

                        They are crushingly simple.

                        What is the mechanism you propose for how the sun is causing global warming?

                        And where is the data and evidence to support that hypothesis, whatever the heck it turns out to be?

                        Why can't you just answer that simple goddamn question?

                        Why oh why why why can't I ever ask a nutter a straightforward question and get a straightforward answer without having to sit through a dozen preformances of the "Pseudo-Science Shuffle" first?

                        by Lenny Flank on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:13:59 AM PDT

                  •  ... and there is plenty of evidence

                    that the rapidly increased and increasing CO2 levels are a result of human beings pumping billions of tons of CO2 every year and clearing natural carbon sinks by activities such as deforestation.

                    Even the ocean CO2 levels have risen and there is growing evidence that they can't absorb much more new CO2 than already have. The increased oceanic CO2 levels make the oceans more acidic (Carbonic acid) and that could set in motion a cycle of destruction of ocean life.

                    There is no question whatsoever that the entire Carbon cycle has been severely disturbed by human activities.

                    by NeuvoLiberal on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:03:31 AM PDT

                  •  This "cycle"

                    corresponds exactly to our carbon emissions.

                    And if you want to talk about making money and vested interest, look no further than the oil corporations.

                    There is a lot more money in big oil than in buying "carbon credits." In addition, if you notice, the oil corporations have more power and media control.

                    I don't see how you think that we could have seven billion people on earth burning things and it wouldn't make a difference in the global temperature. It simply ignores the logic of physics.

                    Oh, and now it's "cycles." I thought we were cooling? Which is it?

                    by rini6 on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:04:40 AM PDT

                    •  Yes, there have been lots of cycles

                      and the warmest year in the 20th century was 1934. The warmest year in the current "cycle" was 1998, and there is considerable evidence that we are, in fact, now cooling. In the Twin Cities every month from February through May was significantly below normal. June was very slightly above normal. Oil corporations have more power and media control??? Oh please, big oil gets constant bad press in the MSM, whereas they can't get enough of the alarmist global warming stories. Watch the constant crap on NBC from "chief environmental affairs correspondent" Ann Thompson. It's enough to make you puke.

                      by IntelligentLife on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 11:27:15 PM PDT

                      •  1998 had an el nino induced peak.

                        If you account for that, 2005 may probably be the peak over tha last decade.

                        "warmest year in the 20th century was 1934."

                        That was for the US and not for global temp anamoly. Please see here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/...

                        2007 witnessed dramatic reductions in arctic sea ice (and total arctic+antarctic sea ice) areas and extents. That probably lowered the temperature of the water surrounding that ice.

                        That may have and affected both ocean and wind currents and that could be an explanation of a pretty cold winter and summer; I am not sure about this point, but it's a plausible explanation.

                        It's important for your know the facts and be honest when you engage in discussion.

                        What I suggest you to do is frequent and post your questions at Tamino's blog: http://tamino.wordpress.com/ . He's an excellent mathematician (with a spare tim