GameBanshee Forums

It did not change the fact that the issue is indeed bitterly partisan.

I just don't see what you do as political partisanship

.

Both parties are eager to go extra mile to win voters. The closer to the next elections, the more spiteful rhetoric will become. The CO2 scare is a sure bet.

“Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.”

I confess that “a paralyzing fog of doubt” always clouds my mind when I read (any) articles, especially so obviously partisan. What is wrong with "free-market think tanks"? Are they evil too? Along with "contrarian scientists"?

Although she does not spare tar and feathers for the infernal “denial machine”, Begley sounds much warmer when it comes to her political favorites.
First, she lovingly cooed over Sen. Barbara Boxer, a new chair of the Senate's Environment Committee:

“…Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered. As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

Poor naïve Senator Barbara. She had no clue. She figured there was “the overwhelming science” right out there, in the "computer-based climate models".

About Clinton who was busy fending off impeachment charges at the time:

Although Clinton did not even try to get the Senate to ratify the Kyoto treaty (he knew a hopeless cause when he saw one), industry was taking no chances.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:Both parties are eager to go extra mile to win voters. The closer to the next elections, the more spiteful rhetoric will become. The CO2 scare is a sure bet.

I've heard the word "scare" used to mean "things that aren't true, but are stated to invoke a mood of fear and hysteria." Is that how you are using it, here? Do you believe the piece is engaging in fearmongering without facts? Or does it have facts, and the fearmongering is counterproductive? Or are you and I simply outside her intended audience?

fable wrote:I've heard the word "scare" used to mean "things that aren't true, but are stated to invoke a mood of fear and hysteria." Is that how you are using it, here? Do you believe the piece is engaging in fearmongering without facts? Or does it have facts, and the fearmongering is counterproductive? Or are you and I simply outside her intended audience?

I am definitely outside.
About fear mongering:
This tactic has been, is and will ever be successfully employed by the politicians. I would not say it is always about things that are not true. I would say it is all about the garnish.
Good examples are the terrorism scare and the social security scare. Both are successfully used by the current administration to further its political goals. Is it counterproductive? Not from a winner’s standpoint.

I did not say that the article was engaging in fearmongering with or without facts. I maintain that the politicians are going to use the ominous images of “raising sea level”, “scorching heat”, and “deadly storms” as a part of their battle for the White House.

The article contains some facts. But these facts have little to do with the science per se.
In short, this article is giving an account of how the issue was historically handled (and mishandled) by various politicians and special interests groups. I already mentioned the emotional palette used to describe different politicians and their action (and inaction). Quite understandable, given the obvious political orientation. I am sure, Mr. Hannity would be no less eloquent, in his own special way (I would enjoy a Hannity-Begley debate :mischief: ).

BTW, do you have a link to a rebuttal article by contributing Editor Robert J. Samuelson, published by Newsweek, where Ms. Begley's article is described as a "fundamentally misleading", "vast oversimplification", and "a highly contrived story"? I could not find it.

Now, I would like to review the Logic:

1. There is the "Overwhelming Science" presenting the irrefutable evidence of CO2 emissions being the main culprit of current climate change (which is therefore man-made);
2. The honest, unbiased majority of scientists support this Overwhelming Science;
3. Therefore, if a (contrarian) scientist does not support it, he/she is biased and most certainly is bribed by...
4. ...the Big Oil, who else?
5. Historically, the Big Oil has been, by definition, up to no good...
6. ...therefore, whatever Big Oil says or does this time around, must be wrong and wicked as well, because that is the nature of the beast.

Well, I am no fan of the big corporations. They have their own agenda that have little to do with mine, and I can easily imagine that the Big Oil would go above and beyond to preserve the status quo.
However, I have a little problem with the assumption #1 that the scientific evidence is "overwhelming". The author does not address any scientific controversy at all. In her mind, there is no doubt. The science is overwhelming, period, paragraph.
Anyone who expresses a doubt is either a part of the well oiled "denial machine" or a victim of the malicious "paralyzing fog".

Another little problem is funding. All research has to be funded.
In the Live Talk about climate change (August 8), somebody asked Ms Begley a question about funding. The answer was rather interesting:

Question: You mention who is funding the "global warming deniers", but just who is financing the "global warming advocates"? Obviously, all the scientists being named in these reports are not doing this for free. I'd like to know where their funding is coming from - what are their political leanings?

Sharon Begley: I hear this argument so often, but it never ceases to puzzle me. There is a difference between the $$ going for ads, PR etc and the $$ going to do research in Greenland and Antarctica, to take ice cores, to make atmospheric measurements needed improve climate models, to study the physics of clouds . . . Scientists don't care which way the answer comes out. They guy who disproved global warming would win the jackpot in terms of prestige and reputation. Of course scientists who do climatology are paid, just as cancer researchers and plasma physicists and every other kind of scientist is paid to expand the sum total of human knowledge (and produce cool spinoffs like the internet, lasers, MRIs, CT scans, cell phones . . .) But to equate that with paid propaganda seems ludicrous.

Ms. Begley did not answer the question, did she? Yet, there are allegations of numerous research grants and funding being readily available to scientists whose research is linked to the “overwhelming science”.
“Scientists don't care which way the answer comes out”. Not them contrarian ones though. I suppose, one evil entity is probably AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) with over 30,000 members. AARG called IPCC reports “wildly distorted and politicized”.

My personal concern is the global pollution of air, water and soil, not just CO2 emissions (which is a part of the pollution problem).

Lady Dragonfly wrote:I did not say that the article was engaging in fearmongering with or without facts.

I misread you, then. Sorry.

I maintain that the politicians are going to use the ominous images of “raising sea level”, “scorching heat”, and “deadly storms” as a part of their battle for the White House.

Just because a politician dramatizes an issue to get votes, however, doesn't mean it's a non-issue. Or not worth dramatizing, if that will do light fires under citizens to force more open debate on the issue.

Not that issues get debated openly in the US, of course. Our national media is a supine bunch of brainless corporate reptiles. On a good day.

BTW, do you have a link to a rebuttal article by contributing Editor Robert J. Samuelson, published by Newsweek, where Ms. Begley's article is described as a "fundamentally misleading", "vast oversimplification", and "a highly contrived story"? I could not find it.

It's here, though I find that Newsweek has admirably added it to the same page as Begley's piece. I question the main thrust of his argument, which is that we have no real solution to global warming and need to debate this. Because, as I mentioned above, we don't have any real debate in our bread and circuses culture. And because until people are upset enough to start screaming, this is not likely to change.

Though I do agree Begley screams, not just loudly, but in cliches.

However, I have a little problem with the assumption #1 that the scientific evidence is "overwhelming". The author does not address any scientific controversy at all. In her mind, there is no doubt. The science is overwhelming, period, paragraph. Anyone who expresses a doubt is either a part of the well oiled "denial machine" or a victim of the malicious "paralyzing fog".

In context, I don't perceive her as saying that at all. She speaks about the average person as being a victim of this "paralyzing fog" caused by heavy advertising and industry-funded think tanks; and there's more than a little truth to that. Public opinion is formed by such tactics, and always has been. The fact that you and I are perfectly capable of creating informed opinions on a range of issues despite these tactics of persuasion shouldn't make us overlook the number of people who can be swayed in such a fashion.

Another little problem is funding. All research has to be funded.
In the Live Talk about climate change (August 8), somebody asked Ms Begley a question about funding. The answer was rather interesting:

Question: You mention who is funding the "global warming deniers", but just who is financing the "global warming advocates"? Obviously, all the scientists being named in these reports are not doing this for free. I'd like to know where their funding is coming from - what are their political leanings?

Sharon Begley: I hear this argument so often, but it never ceases to puzzle me. There is a difference between the $$ going for ads, PR etc and the $$ going to do research in Greenland and Antarctica, to take ice cores, to make atmospheric measurements needed improve climate models, to study the physics of clouds . . . Scientists don't care which way the answer comes out. They guy who disproved global warming would win the jackpot in terms of prestige and reputation. Of course scientists who do climatology are paid, just as cancer researchers and plasma physicists and every other kind of scientist is paid to expand the sum total of human knowledge (and produce cool spinoffs like the internet, lasers, MRIs, CT scans, cell phones . . .) But to equate that with paid propaganda seems ludicrous.

Ms. Begley did not answer the question, did she?

She answered the subtext question: are global warming advocates being funded by organizations who stand to benefit greatly from their results? And yes, she still appears to be riding her hobbyhorse.

Yet, there are allegations of numerous research grants and funding being readily available to scientists whose research is linked to the “overwhelming science”.

If such allegations can be proven, I'd still like to know how many different organizations doing the funding for such research stand to benefit from it. Though I would like to know, in advance, the sources for all funding from every group or think tank that comments upon global warming. I'm inclined to think the results would be very interesting.

“Scientists don't care which way the answer comes out”. Not them contrarian ones though. I suppose, one evil entity is probably AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) with over 30,000 members. AARG called IPCC reports “wildly distorted and politicized”.

Well, one of the main purposes of the AAPG is to promote oil exploration, and it is the only major professional organization in the natural sciences to reject any sizable impact from humans on climate change. They also selected a work of fiction for their 2006 Journalism Award, because it seemed to present their own views on global warming. None of this seems inclined to make the AAPG appear as an objective body. They are heavily biased.

My personal concern is the global pollution of air, water and soil, not just CO2 emissions (which is a part of the pollution problem).

Agreed. I would also add that I think we have a multitude of climate and fuel-related problems that are interrelated. A serious public discussion waits on a change of government; and even then, people will actually have to make real sacrifices if they want to make changes in the global environment. No pain, no gain. From this perspective, Begley's crude approach is an effort to rouse the sluggish and dumb to a sense of outrage--and to maybe be prepared to cough up a few quid/dollars when the time comes.

Assuming it ever does. Our federal government, like the nation it represents, is very good at ignoring problems in the belief that they then cease to exist. You can't solve what you can't understand. You can't understand what you don't honestly and openly discuss. And you can't discuss these issues when people can't be bothered to think.

Just because a politician dramatizes an issue to get votes, however, doesn't mean it's a non-issue. Or not worth dramatizing, if that will do light fires under citizens to force more open debate on the issue.

Well, I agree, of course. Unfortunately, the importance of issues does not necessarilly correlate with the amplitude of dramatizing.
And while the mesmerized public is being entertained by the special effects conjured by the candidates debating ad nauseam a super-inflated pseudo-issue (e.g. such a vital national issue as gay marriage), the really important problems might not get proper attention at all.

It's here, though I find that Newsweek has admirably added it to the same page as Begley's piece. I question the main thrust of his argument, which is that we have no real solution to global warming and need to debate this.

Thanks for the link.
Actually, it reminds me about the clean sources of energy and the Third World economical development dilemma.

One way or another, our assaults against global warming are likely to be symbolic, ineffective or both. But if we succeed in cutting emissions substantially, savings would probably be offset by gains in China and elsewhere. The McKinsey Global Institute projects that from 2003 to 2020, the number of China's vehicles will rise from 26 million to 120 million, average residential floor space will increase 50 percent and energy demand will grow 4.4 percent annually. Even with "best practices" energy efficiency, demand would still grow 2.8 percent a year, McKinsey estimates.[/

What, if anything at all, in your opinion, should be done to prevent China or India from industrialization? And how?

If such allegations can be proven, I'd still like to know how many different organizations doing the funding for such research stand to benefit from it. Though I would like to know, in advance, the sources for all funding from every group or think tank that comments upon global warming. I'm inclined to think the results would be very interesting.

Completely agree. I would like to see all sources of funding too. Both sides are pointing fingers.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:One way or another, our assaults against global warming are likely to be symbolic, ineffective or both. But if we succeed in cutting emissions substantially, savings would probably be offset by gains in China and elsewhere. The McKinsey Global Institute projects that from 2003 to 2020, the number of China's vehicles will rise from 26 million to 120 million, average residential floor space will increase 50 percent and energy demand will grow 4.4 percent annually. Even with "best practices" energy efficiency, demand would still grow 2.8 percent a year, McKinsey estimates.[/

What, if anything at all, in your opinion, should be done to prevent China or India from industrialization? And how?

Their industrialization will happen, regardless, and not just in China and India (though I think its numbers in those two nations will tend to obscure growth in other, smaller economies). This has no effect on our own need to cut emissions, because if burgeoning Asian industrialization offsets our efforts, the problems they exacerbate would be that much worse if we ignored them, too. That said, we need to put a great deal of money and minds into researching alternate technologies and ways to apply current green technologies, so as to make them more attractive. I can't but think of what could have been done in this matter with a very small percentage of the money spent each year on invading and destabliizing Iraq.

And if we're ever going to have any moral clout again in requesting others like China or India to clean up their act, we're going to have to start by cleaning up our own. It's going to be a very long haul, requiring an acceptance that we have to change our mindset of viewing energy as infinitely available in huge quantities and the environment as eternally self-repairing (even after the cases of chronic obstructive lung disease have risen to all time highs in a few heavily industrialized cities). I'd rather see all this come about through quiet, honest discourse, appeals to reason, and a sense of shared humanity pushing such projects along, but we both know that isn't how it will play out.

Meanwhile, there's this, which at least deserved a small feature segment or an article in the news coverage of our national media. Do you recall seeing it mentioned anywhere? I don't.

I've read the claims that the global warming debate is bitterly partisan and heavily politicized. So is anything else you can think of, such as immigration, abortion, gay marriage, the so-called "war on terror", etc. Here's what I don't understand (and I'm not being facetious). Right-wingers use issues like the ones I just mentioned to rally their base, and they certainly do a lot of fear-mongering when it comes to those issues. (You should see the email chain letters that my mother forwards to me. Who the heck comes up with that crap?) If politicizing an issue and fear-mongering are evil, then conservatives take the cake. But here's what I don't understand. Let's suppose that liberals do indeed use global warming as a political issue. How does it help them win votes? I know that people are going to say that Al Gore has an "agenda", but he is not running for office. As far as I can tell, his desire to change U.S. policy is simply that--he believes that global warming will cause great harm in the near future, and he wants to do something about it. That's not politically motivated per se, even if it has political consequences. But personally, I don't think that "global warming is bad, so elect me and I will do something about it" has the same power and effect as any of the conservative counterparts such as the anti-abortion platform, which was used successfully to change Texas from a Democratically-controlled state to an all-Republican state. I can't imagine any state of affairs in which the issue of global warming could cause a similiar political sea change.

Maybe it's just the way I view liberals, but they are not the same as conservatives when it comes to political motivation. The methods that work for conservatives seeking office do not work for liberals. Generally speaking, on the one hand, conservatives are orthodox, their views do not shift easily, and they tend to stick together as a pack. On the other hand, liberals are always open to new ideas, they are skeptical if they don't have proof, and they are too busy arguing with each other to stick together on an issue. That probably came out the wrong way, but what I mean is that, given the "progressive" nature of their intellect, their struggle to find the best answer makes them less likely to agree with each other on any issue and less likely to toe a party line. Supporting a doctrine is much less important to them than constantly analyzing it and trying to come up with a better one. It's just the way that liberals think, which is why they are tagged with labels such as "moral relativists" and "fuzzy-minded pinkos" and why they are accused of not having any "values".

So I just don't see how any fear-mongering tactics, which are so effective when it comes to conservatives, are supposed to work when it comes to liberals. How does it translate to political reality?

Apropos of the Newsweek piece, I just came across this on the Washington Monthly:

DARFUR AND CLIMATE CHANGE....Over at Foreign Policy, Idean Salehyan is unhappy with people who try to blame resource wars on global warming:

Few serious individuals still contest that global climate change is among the most important challenges of our time....We are no longer arguing over the reality of climate change, but rather, its potential consequences. According to one emerging "conventional wisdom," climate change will lead to international and civil wars, a rise in the number of failed states, terrorism, crime, and a stampede of migration toward developed countries.

....Dire scenarios like these may sound convincing, but they are misleading. Even worse, they are irresponsible, for they shift liability for wars and human rights abuses away from oppressive, corrupt governments....Arguing that climate change is a root cause of conflict lets tyrannical governments off the hook. If the environment drives conflict, then governments bear little responsibility for bad outcomes. That's why Ban Ki-moon's case about Darfur was music to Khartoum's ears. The Sudanese government would love to blame the West for creating the climate change problem in the first place. True, desertification is a serious concern, but it's preposterous to suggest that poor rainfall — rather than deliberate actions taken by the Sudanese government and the various combatant factions — ultimately caused the genocidal violence in Sudan. Yet by Moon's perverse logic, consumers in Chicago and Paris are at least as culpable for Darfur as the regime in Khartoum.

Salehyan highlights a problem here, though perhaps not quite the one he thinks: namely, how do you talk about underlying causes without making the causes into excuses? As a matter of empirical fact, it's arguable (though not proven, I think) that a rise in temperatures in the Indian Ocean has disrupted seasonal monsoons for the past couple of decades, leading to a decrease in rainfall in sub-Saharan Africa. And there's not much question that drought and its associated changes in land use patterns — however caused — have been among the underlying drivers of the violence in Darfur.

As a research matter, this ought to be a legitimate topic. But what happens when a politician like Ban Ki-moon talks about it? His intentions might be good (warning about the ill effects of climate change), and God knows it would be nice for Westerners to understand that global warming is about more than just endangered polar bears. At the same time, as Salehyan points out, once this enters the realm of politics it can also be used as a convenient excuse for political action (or inaction) by genocidal regimes.

It also leads to oversimplification. After all, "plausible" is not "proven." Alex de Waal, author of Famine That Kills, provides the missing details here.

Both the piece and the linked piece are thoughtful, logical considerations. The former is particularly germane to our discussion, because it shows how a context as simple as putting an argument in a politician's mouth can change the way something is viewed.

<SNIP>Anyone who expresses a doubt is either a part of the well oiled "denial machine" or a victim of the malicious "paralyzing fog".<SNIP>

Now I admit that I could be accused of quoting out of context here, but this is the bit that needs to be addressed.

After my previous post the issue of bought bias has come up again. Taking a personal stance; I have green credentials that will clearly show I not only talk the talk, I walk the walk. I'm not easily swayed by either the media or the herd. I have a relevant tertiary qualification and as I outlined in my previous post some pretty strong priviledged contacts with people who should know something.

And yet I am still not convinced of the science. Please show me the paper that details the link, or the one that details the science behind a proposed solution. I don't care whether it was Greenpeace or Exon who funded it. The science, if indeed it is science, will stand up.

Without this now highly politicised issue the economics of large scale forrest clearance have been shown (without carbon credits) to be folly yet the practice has actually accelerated. If we all gave up eating meat, greenhouse gas production for food would reduce immediately by 90%. The petro-chemical slaughter house agri-sector is an abomination of waste and we shouldn't need greenhouse politics to do something about it. Yes I know all of the above clearly show me to be out of touch with reality. - Curdis !

@Fable

I am all for the clean renewable energy. But not because of any "man-made" global warming.
And yes, we should start in our own backyard.

I can't but think of what could have been done in this matter with a very small percentage of the money spent each year on invading and destabliizing Iraq.

As if they spend the real money. It is a credit card debt, and the creditor is China. Of course, $600 billion is "only" one percent of America's annual $13 trillion GDP, but we are not done yet. Oh no.

I'd rather see all this come about through quiet, honest discourse, appeals to reason, and a sense of shared humanity pushing such projects along, but we both know that isn't how it will play out.

Honest discourse? Appeals to reason? Not in our lobbying culture. And probably not in the culture of corrupt authoritarian regimes in the Third World.
However, I believe that eventually the cost-effective alternative fuel will be available to all nations.

Both the piece and the linked piece are thoughtful, logical considerations. The former is particularly germane to our discussion, because it shows how a context as simple as putting an argument in a politician's mouth can change the way something is viewed.

An excellent point. A politician can twist everything to serve his own ends. Even the weather. And people would believe.
I suppose a lot of people also believe that The Day After Tomorrow, a politically charged pseudo-scientific nonsense is true as well.


@VonDondu

I know that people are going to say that Al Gore has an "agenda", but he is not running for office.

Neither is John Kerry. But I still get tons of e-mails from him and other Dems, asking me to call my senator in protest or support or vote for a particular candidate. Hell, I even got an email from Al Gore promoting This Moment on Earth by John and Teresa Kerry and urging me to join forces.

Al Gore: "Dear <my name>, Today I want to invite you to join our movement to solve the climate crisis."

That's not politically motivated per se, even if it has political consequences. But personally, I don't think that "global warming is bad, so elect me and I will do something about it" has the same power and effect as any of the conservative counterparts such as the anti-abortion platform, which was used successfully to change Texas from a Democratically-controlled state to an all-Republican state. I can't imagine any state of affairs in which the issue of global warming could cause a similiar political sea change.

Because there is no similarity in the issues. Abortion for millions of people, and not only religious fanatics, as many would like to think, is a deeply moral issue connected to the very core of people’s beliefs. It is also something that can be understood by anyone, and people assume it can be easily legislated (for whatever end). The man-made global warming, on the other hand, is out of control. The “science” is obscure and there is a controversy. There is no real way for an average person (such as myself) to verify the accuracy of the computer-generated data, even if I would really care to try. It is all about whose side of the story is more compelling, and maybe what car I am driving.

Maybe it's just the way I view liberals, but they are not the same as conservatives when it comes to political motivation. The methods that work for conservatives seeking office do not work for liberals.

I would try to avoid such generalization and labeling, as a rule.
The platforms and agendas may differ, but the rhetoric and methodology are similar.

So I just don't see how any fear-mongering tactics, which are so effective when it comes to conservatives, are supposed to work when it comes to liberals. How does it translate to political reality?

If you get voters scared enough by the terrifying images of the impeding Doom caused by rich people driving SUV’s, and keep pointing the accusatory finger at the Other Party, the perceptions and, eventually, the outcome of elections might be skewed in your favor.
I suppose a lot of people also believe that The Day After Tomorrow, a politically charged pseudo-scientific nonsense is true as well.

EDIT:
@Curdis

Read the Newsweek article by Sharon Begley (link provided by Fable). The phrase you quote is sarcastic, in case you did not notice.

Lady Dragonfly wrote:@Curdis

Read the Newsweek article by Sharon Begley (link provided by Fable). The phrase you quote is sarcastic, in case you did not notice.

Oh I read the linked article and noted the sarcasm (partly what prompted my comment about quoting out of context).

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

I'm pointing out that there is a strong Us/Them Democrate/Republican Green/Business false dicotomy going that is actually getting in the way of the factual case.

I can see people eyes glaze over whenever I try and get to the heart of the science. It seems you have to be a believer or a non-believer, the facts have no role what-so-ever in it. Which brings us back to the topic: Two 'documentaries' that have little to do with their subject matter and a lot to do with trying to sway opinion/belief.

And we all know that there is no better validated source of factual information than an angry mob. - Curdis !

Lady Dragonfly wrote:I am all for the clean renewable energy. But not because of any "man-made" global warming. And yes, we should start in our own backyard.

Let me see if I can express this well. I do believe that there are climate changes in occurence, and severe global warming is a fact; but some of the evidence being presented is blatant snake oil medicine by zealous advocates. Some of that in turn may have been prompted as replies to the wholesale campaign of denial paid for by the fuel industries, and supported by powerful people who stand to gain much by backing them. The AAPG, whom you brought up, is a good example of the kind of organization whose statements are compromised by their career dependence upon oil exploration, and by an agenda that drives their conclusions.

That noted, the rest of the bad science being offered to support severe global warming (and not generic global warming, which could well be expected based on regular climatic changes) is an effort to persuade others through emotion, without reliance on fact. But then, for any action to be taken on these issues, governmental involvement is required; and the only way to get this kind of support is to convince the average citizen emotionally. Emotions drive politics, not, unfortunately, intelligent, honest dialog. So perhaps those throwing out bad science in support of severe global warming can be justified to that extent.

On the other hand, for those like you or I seeking genuine information, this only muddies the water greatly, and further, makes it appear that adocates of severe climate change are just as unprincipled in their selective arrangement of facts as many of those opposing it. They do nobody any good, in my opinion. There is science enough to justify their concerns.

Unfortunately, none of this matters. There are entrenched interests that deny severe climate change, and a religion of those who insist upon it. The weapons of choice on both sides are emotional, and will only get worse until wealthy governments start actually putting a lot of money into research. Which they'd better do, soon, because even though the screams of climatological horrors hitting in 20 years or less are pure panic button stuff, the facts of depleting fossil fuels, endangered enviornments being targeted for "fuel exploration," dramatically increasing energy consumption, and international political power clout being blunted wielded by a few nations would require instant and heavy investment in research of alternative energy sources. Carter, to his far-sighted credit, gave this more money. Reagan axed it. Bush I restored a bit, Clinton did nothing to advance it, and Bush II axed it while clamiing to be interested.

As if they spend the real money. It is a credit card debt, and the creditor is China. Of course, $600 billion is "only" one percent of America's annual $13 trillion GDP, but we are not done yet. Oh no.

Too much paper credit has a history of killing economies, true, And the problems with the mortgage market, a matter of paper credit, has aced the US dollar against the Euro over the last week. To be honest, I'm less concerned about the severe economic imbalance between China and the US than I am the fuel monopolies of the MidEast (which makes them a target for interfering outside nations, no names, please) and Russia. The latter having already effectively created fuel-based satellite nations after cutting off oil and gas supplies to its smaller neighbors several times.

Honest discourse? Appeals to reason? Not in our lobbying culture. And probably not in the culture of corrupt authoritarian regimes in the Third World. However, I believe that eventually the cost-effective alternative fuel will be available to all nations.

Complete agreement. Except that I don't think we can sit back to wait on "eventually," but must pressure governments to acknowledge problems and throw enough money at them to achieve some advances, if not answers, more expeditiously.