Blog Action Day ‘09: Climate Change

Today, for Blog Action Day 2009, I’d like to appeal to those who may be “on the fence” to get committed and take action.

The Problem, in a nutshell:

The atmosphere is currently about 390 parts per million CO2, and the world’s best climate experts believe we need to get back to 350 ppm. It was around 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution. Our global emissions amount to about 1% of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, every year. Regardless of all other natural factors, that has to have an effect. CO2 has been known to been a greenhouse gas for 150 years.

The Solution:

The experts recommend a reduction in CO2 emissions of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. To accomplish this, we need government, business and the public all committed to taking action. We all need to demand that our governments step up to the challenge and become part of the solution not part of the problem.

I have such a bad headache that I’m going to leave it at that for now.

Understand for yourself why CO2 is a problem

Lost in all the talk about global warming, is some simple math that can help you understand the carbon dioxide (CO2) problem more intuitively. The executive summary of this post is as follows:
- Every gallon of gasoline used produces about 20 pounds of CO2.
- A car could produce 20 tonnes or more of CO2 per year.
- The world’s 500,000,000 vehicles could produce about 10,000,000,000 tonnes (10 gigatonnes) of CO2 per year.
- When you factor in all the other uses of fossil fuels, the estimate of global CO2 emissions of 27 gigatonnes per year seems reasonable.
- The entire atmosphere weighs approx 5,000,000 gigatonnes and it is currently about 390 parts per million (ppm) CO2, which would be around 2,000 to 3,000 gigatonnes CO2.
- 27 gigatonnes of human-created CO2 will actually affect the composition of the atmosphere, possibly causing the level to rise by about 1%/year.
- The pre-industrial CO2 concentration is estimated at around 270ppm, we are currently at about 390ppm, almost a 50% increase in 200 years.
- It has been known for 150 years that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, in the concentration currently found in the atmosphere. Anyone who says it’s a trace gas or a naturally-occurring by-product of life is misleading you, either deliberately lying or because of their own ignorance.

So far, you don’t need to be a scientist to comprehend the numbers, but the shock comes when you look at the number that scientists are starting to agree on that CO2 needs to stabilize at: 350ppm.

The worst part is that it’s mostly only in the US and Canada that acceptance of these numbers is split largely on political boundaries. Conservative leaders in both countries are absolutely willing to lie to the public to maintain the status quo, and regular people don’t have the ability to do the calculations for themselves. Now ask yourself why they’ve been lying to you – the answer is the same as it was for tobacco: money, politics and “free markets”.

Before the lying, astroturfing trolls get here and accuse me of incorrect science, let me say that I’m just a home dad who put this together in an afternoon of Google research. I’m sure I’ve made mistakes and it’s much more complicated than I’ve shown, but I think you’ll agree that we’re dumping CO2 at a scale that is actually capable of changing the atmosphere. Given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, even at the current “minute” level, you can see that increasing it without boundaries could have potentially catastrophic consequences.

If you haven’t seen the numbers presented this way, verify them for yourself, learn about the subject and you’ll begin to see how blatantly the misinformation has been propagated. To me, there is no other conclusion but that the people who’ve made this a political issue have miscalculated and our children and grand-children will be paying the price for decades of obstruction. This is not something I’m willing to forgive and I hold you partly responsible (assuming you are what I call a “denier” and I am what you might call an “alarmist”).

I’ll even go so far as to issue a challenge to the despicable, lying, Astroturfing frauds, similar to the one at Greenfyre’s, show me evidence that I’m substantially wrong about any of these basic numbers:
- 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas
- up to 20 tonnes or more of CO2 yearly for a single vehicle, or perhaps 10 gigatonnes for 500,000,000 vehicles.
- total global CO2 emissions of about 27 gigatonnes a year
- total CO2 in the atmosphere about 3,000 gigatonnes
- explain a natural mechanism that accounts for measured increases in atmospheric CO2 since 1959 while somehow excluding the substantial amount of man-made CO2
- provide evidence that CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas at current levels, and that doubling it (or more) will make no difference to melting ice caps and glaciers, sea level rise, climate patterns, etc.

I don’t want politics (“the lefties just want socialism”), anything about Al Gore (because I hate to tell you this, but regardless of how you feel about his politics, he has the facts on his side and all you have are lies), economics (“it’s too expensive”) or propaganda (“just a bunch of alarmists”), I want evidence, backed by scientific research, not just something that you read on someone’s blog.

However, if you don’t have any evidence, but you still just don’t see the possibility that it’s a problem we’re creating and that we have to get under control, take a stand for your position. Comment below for the rest of us to laugh at your stupidity. Who knows, maybe in 20 years I’ll be eating my words.

“Back of the envelope” calculations:

Generally, the gasoline your car uses is about 90% “octane” (that’s what the octane rating indicates, it’s more complicated than this, but for these calculations, it’s close enough) and 10% “heptane”.

The molecular formula for octane is C8H18, meaning it’s composed of 8 carbon atoms and 18 hydrogen atoms, while heptane is C7H16.

Octane combustion is given by this equation:

2C8H18 + 25O2= 16CO2 + 18H2O

which means that 2 octane molecules and 25 oxygen molecules from the atmosphere combine to produce 16 CO2 molecules and 18 water (H2O) molecules. The result of the reaction is energy released that is used to move the car.

Now, if you look at the “Periodic Table of the Elements“, you can find the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen, which I will round off to 1, 12 and 16, respectively. You can use these numbers to compare the relative mass of the inputs and the outputs:

Octane: 8 C atoms x atomic mass of 12 + 18 H atoms x atomic mass of 1 = 8 x 12 + 18 x 1 = 114
O2 (an oxygen molecule in the atmosphere): 2 O atoms x 16 = 32
CO2: 1 C atom x 12 + 2 O atoms x 16 = 44
H2O: 2 H x 1 + 1 O x 16 = 18

You can verify that the equation balances:

2 x 114 + 25 x 32 = 16 x 44 + 18 x 18
1028 = 1028

This is conservation of mass, and this is the key part that doesn’t seem intuitively obvious to us. We tend to think we put gas in, it’s burned up and “disappears” because we don’t realize the mass of the exhaust. In fact, the equation tells us if you burn 228g (2 x 114) of gasoline, you consume 800g (25 x 32) of oxygen and the result is 704g (16 x 44) of CO2 plus 324g (18 x 18) of water. Expressed another way, for every gram of gas, you consume 800 / 228 (about 3.5g) of oxygen from the atmosphere and produce 704 / 228 (about 3.1g) of CO2 and 324 / 228 (about 1.4g) water. A litre of gas weighs approximately 770g and the resultant CO2 would weigh 770 x 3.1 (about 2.4kg).

For comparison, the combustion equation for heptane is:

C7H16+11O2 = 7CO2+8H2O

You can do the calculations yourself if you want to, but the end result for the purpose of this post is that it’s close enough to the octane equation and it’s a relatively small fraction of the gasoline, so it can be ignored.

There’s the bottom line, 1 litre of gasoline in produces about 2.4kg of CO2 out.

In gallons, 1 US gallon of gas produces almost 20 pounds of CO2!!! Here’s a separate citation for this number.

Depending on your vehicle and the number of miles you drive, you can easily produce 20 tonnes of CO2 each year (for example, assuming 15 mpg x 25,000 miles/year). Using fueleconomy.gov, you can estimate your own annual “carbon footprint”.

That’s one vehicle, multiply that by the number of cars on the road in the world, say 500,000,000 (estimates vary, but we’re looking for rough numbers here), you get 10,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2, just from vehicles, i.e. not including heating and generating electricity from fossil fuels or even burning wood. Current estimates of total CO2 emissions from human activity are about 27,000,000,000, or 27 gigatonnes, per year, so you can see that my numbers are close enough.

Now, the weight of Earth’s atmosphere is 5,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes or 5,000,000 gigatonnes, and it is approximately 390ppm CO2, which would translate to 5,000,000 x 390/1,000,000, or about 2,000 gigatonnes CO2. Here, Wikipedia says 3,000 gigatonnes, so I’ll use that number, but again you can see how close my calculations are.

So there’s currently 3,000 gigatonnes CO2 in the atmosphere, and we’re creating about 27 gigatonnes more each and every year. You might notice that’s 0.9% (27/3000), so if CO2 is increasing by that much each year, then it would seem from these calculations that it’s caused by us. In fact, it’s not even that much. In two years, from July 2007 to July 2009, CO2 went from 384.4ppm to 387.8ppm, >1.5ppm per year, but only an increase of 0.8%.

I’m not a climate scientist, but I think my methodology is close enough, and I believe it shows that the amount of CO2 we’re currently dumping into the atmosphere is actually significant enough to change its composition, which is another point that just doesn’t seem intuitive because we tend to think of the atmosphere as basically infinite. Remember that before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was relatively stable, the natural “sources” and “sinks” more or less balanced each other, the one thing that has changed is us producing almost 30,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 a year.

We’re currently at about 390ppm, and increasing by more than 1ppm each year, imagine where we’ll be in 10, 50 or 100 years.

At around 600ppm, people perceive the air as “stuffy” and CO2 poisoning starts around 1000ppm. We are in fact on a path to extinction. But the problem is not dying of CO2 poisoning, it’s the greenhouse effect, which John Tyndall discovered in 1859, exactly 150 years ago this year. It doesn’t matter whether CO2 is a naturally-occurring by-product of life or how minute the concentration of CO2 is, the point is, it does act as a greenhouse gas at the level currently in the atmosphere.

In 1896, Svante Arrhenius calculated that if CO2 were to double, it would increase the temperature by up to 6C (almost 11 degrees F).

Any talk about “natural cycles” is also invalidated by this one point: The one difference between past climate changes and the current one is the amount of CO2 we’re creating.

The pre-industrial level of CO2 has been estimated at about 270ppm, so it has already increased by almost 50%. Anyone who tells you the CO2 level hasn’t changed since pre-industrial times is assuming you’re not smart enough to follow the basic math above. They would also have to account for how CO2 went from 390ppm down to 315ppm when measurements at Mauna Kea began in 1959, then has gradually increased back to 390.

On Obama’s satisfaction numbers

I have to remind myself, as progressives express their dissatisfaction with Obama, he’s a universe better than what we would’ve had. Also, he promised “change” and I think a big part of that change is bi-partisanship. Now, the Republicans have shown they won’t work with him anyway, but at least he tried, and it’s time to take off the gloves and fight back.

Bill C-311 – Hopefully it will make the Conservatives permanently un-electable

The funny thing is, up until a few years ago, I was always a small-c conservative, and I’m still generally a fiscal conservative. But the current crop of conservatives in North America have me so enraged with both the Republican Fascist Party (that’s my new name for them) and Canada’s Neo-Con Party (led by George Bush’s lap dog, Stephen Harper) that I hope for the permanent demise of both parties.

It seems inevitable that, at least in some way, my dream is going to come true south of the border. The Republican Party is (probably) smart enough to realize that they’ll never win another election until they distance themselves from the extremist American Taliban and KKKhristian factions. I really do hope the racist, ignorant, homophobic anti-science, apocalyptic theocrats spend the next 40 years “wandering in the desert” without a political voice (or secede and become the Mexican State of “Tay-has”). The “moderate” Republicans will just pin the whole global warming denial thing on the Jesus Freaks, and move on.

Canada’s a completely different story. We have a Conservative government, who seem to have learned all their tricks from Dubya, Darth Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Phil Gramm and friends. They don’t believe in evolution, and they don’t believe in global warming. Their only reading material seems to come from Republican think tanks and they’ve already started their “elitist” attack ads and we aren’t even in an election campaign. Unfortunately, there’s no internal rift to hope will explode.

It’s the climate change issue that I think has the best potential to destroy the party and end neo-conservatism in North America forever. Recently, Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, passed first reading, since we have a minority government and the majority of our MPs actually have principles. Every single Conservative MP voted against the bill.

But things have changed quickly, I think. The public support for action on global warming has recently become overwhelming. The Conservatives will have to do the biggest flip-flop in history or risk losing support everywhere but our oil-producing areas. It is a given to me that most people in the oil business will continue to deny global warming as long as it is in their narrow short-term self-interest, regardless of future consequences. But the rest of Canada has caught on, and I hope they punish the Conservatives severely for putting short-term financial gain against the future of humanity.

BTW, a word on “flip-flopping”, before I finish. Everyone, including the media, seems to treat changing your mind as one of the worst things a politician can do, even worse than lying. Personally, I respect when someone looks at the situation in depth and says, “I was wrong.” Breaking campaign “promises” is not much different, we all know that party platforms are based on what the party thinks has the best chance of getting them elected. Once they get in power, a good politician will do what he has to do, regardless of his ideology. That’s the problem with the Conservatives, they will never let evidence get in the way of their ideology, and that’s what makes them bad for the country.

Conservatism: Where the rich get a free ride; where programs that I don’t need are wasteful; where regulations that get in the way of me making more money are evil; where liberty means I get to do the torturing to justify illegal wars and where freedom of speech means I get to push my religion in your face but everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi, a socialist, a fascist, a communist or just plain unpatriotic. In other words, it’s all about me.

Today’s Republicans

Apologists for torture; apologists for bigots, homophobes and hate criminals; apologists for global climate disaster; apologists for any and all forms of wrongdoing by religious officials; actively working to destroy public education and reduce America’s competitiveness.

Another quiz result…

Obviously, I’m proud to have scored 309/400 on this quiz.

So, which really is the biggest threat to America?

Republicans: “The biggest threat to America is the gays… and the atheists… The two biggest threats to civilization are the gays and the atheists… and public health care… The three biggest threats to civilization are the gays, the atheists and public health care… and the Employee Free Choice Act. The four biggest threats… Amongst the biggest threats to civilization are the gays, the atheists, public health care and the Employee Free Choice Act.”

(with sincerest apologies to Monty Python)

Not to mention evolution,  climate change (you gotta love this blog’s name, “Axis of Right”, not only identifying themselves as right-wing but also implying “correct” and more patriotic than the left because of the awesomeness of their stars and stripes banner, not to mention putting the word “scientists” in air quotes and accusing the media and the UN of being in on the conspiracy.), NOT torturing, the Fairness Doctrine, pornography, gun control, a black man in the White House and of course not just Islamic terrorism, but Islam itself.

BTW, according to WorldNetDaily, Obama’s economic stimulus package “makes a deliberate – and unconstitutional – attempt to censor religious speech and worship on school campuses across the nation”, purely by prohibiting stimulus money being used to repair religious facilities.

My Thoughts on PoliticalCompass.org

To start off, I’m going to unapologetically tell you that I scored around -5 on the economic scale, which seems to indicate a pretty strong leaning toward the dreaded “communism”, and also -5 on the social scale, leaning towards what they call “libertarianism”.

Wow, I’m a libertarian communist. Never woulda known it. I just thought I was a liberal. Anyway, it turns out I’m actually in pretty good company, because my score was very close to Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama.

In fact, I think everyone in North America is in for a surprise when they take this test. Whoever’s blog I learned about PoliticalCompass.org from was horrifed to find he ranked as a libertarian, like me. Most “conservatives” will probably be shocked to find themselves categorized as “neo-liberal authoritarians”.

I’m not criticizing or disagreeing with PoliticalCompass.org at all here, I see what they’re proposing and I think they’re exactly right. The point is, it allows all of us to re-evaluate ourselves more realistically.

Most world leaders that they’ve charted seem to fall close to a diagonal line from bottom left to top right, so if you look at the International Chart with your head tilted to the left, you get the traditional, simplistic left-right continuum, with Mandela, the Dalai Lama and me on the left, and George Bush, Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy on the right. The only exceptions, where the economic value is significantly different from the social value, are: Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe, Mahmoud Abbas, Pope Benedict XVI and Milton Friedman. This would suggest that most people expect a fairly constant amount of goverment influence, the difference is to what extent we expect our government to control societal “values” or the economy.

Which brings me back to me. I can explain my results simply: I believe in the capitalist system, except where it needs to be regulated because I just don’t trust business to do the honest or ethical thing, or where it’s a service that shouldn’t be provided on a for-profit basis. I also wish government would operate more like a business, where costs are more tightly controlled. As for social freedom, I think people should have freedom to do and say as they wish, within the law, as long as they do not harm others.

Looking at that statement, you probably see that most people would agree in principle, it’s just a matter of where you draw the lines, so here’s how I differentiate myself from some other groups. The Christian Right would like to make their “family values” the law, and those who call themselves “libertarians” are really just pure capitalists. They’re the ones who own the corporations and therefore have the means to take care of themselves, so they’re dedicated only to the free market and small government because they don’t want their money going to the more vulnerable in society (which I think for most of them means black people).

I believe that abortion and homosexual marriage should be legal and that government has a responsibility to provide not only defense, education and infrastructure, but also health care, a social safety net and regulation over free enterprise to control greed and corruption.

Both sides on the family values debate accuse the other of fascism, by trying to force their views on others. I think the difference is the “family values” people have a narrow definition that they’re trying to enforce, the other side just wants freedom of religion and sexuality. The only thing they’re trying to enforce is tolerance.

Now, before you go calling me a baby killer, I have a few questions for the anti-abortion crowd:

1) If abortion were illegal what punishment would you suggest for a woman who has an abortion anyway? The same as a murderer, up to and including life imprisonment or the death sentence? Because the fact is that women were having abortions before it was legal, it’s just that many more of them were dying because of less-than-perfect conditions. If a woman really doesn’t want the baby, she’ll terminate the pregnancy, even at risk to herself.

2) I’ve read that the US Supreme Court has been dominated by Republicans continuously since Roe v. Wade. If they were going to repeal it, haven’t they had enough chance to do so? Are you really so blind that you can’t see that it’s a carrot that’s been dangled in front of you for over 35 years?

3) Can’t you see that nobody is “pro-abortion”, we would all like to see it never happen again, but the best way to stop it is to avoid the pregnancy in the first place? The best way to help Jamie Lynn Spears and Bristol Palin not to get pregnant again is sex education so they know how to keep it from happening. “Abstinence-only” does not work. At all.

I hope more and more people see the views of the “Religious Right” as I do: hypocritical, ignorant, bigoted, xenophobic and hateful.

And O’Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh are just like the vile propaganda guy from the movie “V For Vendetta”. Don’t believe me? Compare how Bill O’Reilly reacted to Jamie Lynn Spears’ and Bristol Palin’s pregnancy.

Hint: When someone tells you that something is going to “destroy the fabric of America” or that someone is the “most dangerous person ever”, realize that you’re being manipulated by propaganda.

(A bit off topic from PoliticalCompass.org, but it’s my blog.)

I’m embarrassed for the “religious right”…

… or “values voters” or the “moral majority” or whatever they call themselves nowadays.

First, all the most outspoken gay-bashing Republicans and pastors turn out to be gay themselves. For an ongoing chronicle of pastors’ betrayals, see Mojoey’s blog. On family values, Republicans are no better than Democrats, but the hypocrisy makes them worse.

A while ago I learned that the whole global warming denial thing is a Republican strategy by people like Frederick Seitz, S. Fred Singer and organizations such as the George C. Marshall Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose “About CEI” page says

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government.

Doesn’t sound very scientific, does it? Sounds more like the Republican mantra that John McCain has been parroting since his involvement in the Savings & Loan crisis of the late 1980s, until this year’s subprime meltdown, “deregulate, deregulate, deregulate”. The whole goal of global warming denial was to sow doubt about the science and delay regulation. They were such fierce believers in “free enterprise” that they created false, misleading “evidence” and succeeded in delaying meaningful action by 30 years, causing our current environmental situation to be much worse than it would have been if Reagan had acted.

I read that people in 34 countries were polled about their belief in evolution and only Turkey had a higher percentage of people who reject evolution. Maybe you’re even one of them, and you think you have all this brilliant “evidence”, but trust me, you’re wrong. 100% wrong. You’ve been deliberately kept ignorant by your church and the Republican Party. It’s part of their war on science and “elitism”. Or call it the assault on reason.

Why do you think Bill O’Reilly hates Daily Kos so much? He doesn’t want you to read it, because you might begin to comprehend the magnitude of the lie that’s been perpetrated on you.

Then, I find out that the Republicons were just using racist white voters, and that the Republican Party

promotes not the general welfare but the commercial interests of corporate enterprise.

How many times did you hear John McCain talk about the middle class? He just talks about tax cuts for business, it’s Reaganomics, you take care of big business and hopefully wealth will “trickle down”. We all know how well that’s worked – the gap between rich and poor has never been as big as it is now.

Then I learned that the whole idea of repealing Roe v. Wade is just red meat (a much more powerful analogy than a carrot) dangled in front of evangelicals to keep them on issue. For over 35 years since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has been dominated by Republicans – they could have overturned it at any time, but they never have and never will because then they’d lose their precious carrot.

Lee Atwater, Karl Rove and their type turned negative campaigning into an art form, hitting new lows this year. They knowingly use your racism, intolerance and ignorance to instill fear in you. They’ve succeeded so well this time that I’m afraid it will be hard to get the hatred back under control. Seriously, so what if his middle name is “Hussein”? It’s a name, he was named well before Saddam became a household name. And do you not remember the stuff about his pastor, how can he be a Muslim at the same time? They hit a new low with their smear against Rashid Khalidi. But you don’t care – he has a Muslim name, he must be a terrorist. People, your ignorance is appalling. Here’s even an article by Bill Ayers, who’s not an enemy of America as he was portrayed.

After McCain picked Palin, most reasonable Republicans were severely disappointed. But not “the base”, you guys love her, and already want her to run in 2012. In fact, many of you were secretly hoping that McCain would die so she would become President. McCain chose her in a cynical move calculated to appease “the base”, hoping it might attract some Hillary supporters, but Palin’s whacked-out ideas just drove them away.

I learned about American eliminationism, which helped me decode the veiled racism in statements such as

“You know, people are poor in America, Steve, not because they lack money; they’re poor because they lack values, morals, and ethics.” (Same guy also said they’re “fat and flatulent.”)

or

Equality, which is the primary value of the left, is a European value, not an American value. Let me tell you that right now. I know this sounds offensive to half of my fellow Americans, because they have been Europeanized in their values. The French Revolution is not the American Revolution. The French Revolution said Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. The American Revolution said Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We have lost touch with what our distinctive American values are. We have distinctive American values. … We have a better value system, and this is being protected by one of the two parties: the Republican party.

Except that the Declaration of Independence starts with the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” And Abraham Lincoln made it clear in the Gettysburg Address that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn’t apply just to whites.

And of course there’s the obsession with being “tough on crime”, which is code for “put the blacks in jail where they belong” because you’d rather just lock ‘em all up than create programs to help them help themselves. “If you work hard in America, you can succeed” just means that you think blacks are lazy and don’t deserve any help.

When McCain said that famous day, “The fundamentals of the economy are strong”, the deregulation theme he’d been repeating for so long was shown to only benefit the rich.

And of course he couldn’t separate himself from his good friend, George W. Bush, the most-disliked president in history. But many of you still support him because your pastors have been telling you to for eight years.

So between Bush, Palin, the economy and negative campaigning without any viable ideas of his own, he lost the election, and the Republican Party became a “white, rural, regional party”, who mostly voted for Palin not for McCain.

Now, the party has been taken over by the base, and Palin is your first choice for 2012. Problem is, the guys in charge know Palin will never attract the independents and democrats needed to win an election so now they’re throwing her under the bus.

Too bad, so sad.

A (Short) History of Human Rights Reform

(Yes, from an Anglo-North American point of view…)

Centuries ago, it was perfectly acceptable to “own” slaves, women had no right to vote and marriage was permanent (“What God has put together, let no man put asunder”). There was no divorce in the Catholic church; widows and widowers could remarry, but otherwise, marriage was permanent. To this day, the Catholic church does not recognize divorce, but they accommodate by granting an annulment, i.e. pretending the marriage never existed.

During the 1500s, King Henry VIII wanted a divorce, but the Pope wouldn’t give him one, so he established, and became the head of, the Church of England. Being king has its benefits, you get to write the rules.

It was still frowned upon even for a Catholic to marry a Protestant – a Christian marrying a Jew would have been almost unthinkable. Gradually, it became more acceptable for Catholics and Protestants to marry, and today, even marrying completely outside your religion doesn’t have the stigma it once did.

In 1776, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence began,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And of course, there was the struggle to end slavery. The American Civil War was literally fought over slavery. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address stressed that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness did not apply exclusively to the white race. But black people still did not have the right to vote, and “Jim Crow” laws would enforce segregation until 1965.

Similarly, women did not win the right to vote easily – it took until 1918 for women in Canada to achieve the right to vote in federal elections. In the US, the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920, while women in Switzerland had to wait until 1973. Even today, some countries do not allow women to vote, including Saudi Arabia and Vatican City. Saudi Arabia also doesn’t allow women to drive.

In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The civil rights movement in America gave finally black people full rights, but didn’t end the racism. It took over 40 years for Martin Luther King’s dream to be fulfilled by Barack Obama being elected President of the United States of America.

“Miscegenation laws” banning interracial marriage existed in America from colonial times until 1967. Similar laws were also enforced in Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa.

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, by the way, here’s an interesting quote I just found,

A 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion by a 7-2 vote. Six of the seven justices in the majority were Republican appointees. The only Democratic appointee, Byron White, voted against Roe v. Wade.

In fact, in every year since 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court has been controlled by a majority of Republican-appointed judges. There has not been a Democrat-appointed chief justice since 1953.

Currently, there are seven Republican appointees and two nominated by Democrats.

Obviously, if the Republican majority had wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade at any time since 1973, they had the votes to do so. Why haven’t they?

Or another, wondering if Roe v. Wade is the Republican Party’s carrot on a stick.

In 1978, Californians rejected Proposition 6, better known as the “Briggs Initiative”, which would have banned homosexuals form working as teachers.

Canada adopted its Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.

“Civil union”, essentially gay marriage, was recognized in Denmark in 1989.

Apartheid ended in 1990.

In 2003, Ontario became the first jurisdiction in North America to recognize same-sex marriage. Today same-sex marriage is recognized in many countries.

In May 2008, the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex marriage was legal.

On November 5 2008, Proposition 8 passed in California (along with similar initiatives in other states), modifying the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Let me repeat, an existing right, that people want to remove. It is hateful, bigoted fearmongering to claim that gay marriage will destroy civilization and to use “that’s how it’s always been” as justification.

The struggle for human rights has been going on for centuries. This is just the next step we have to get over. Soon, places that don’t allow same sex marriage will be considered just as backwards as Saudi Arabia is today. And always remember who was the most vocal in supporting Proposition 8 – the “religious right”, the same people who resisted every advancement in human rights in history.

As a straight male, I think people even wonder why I’m so passionate about this. I’ve had all the same objections myself: “That’s how it’s always been”, to “Ok, but let’s not call it marriage”, to “Ok, fine, I guess”, to “Anything less is discrimination and is unacceptable”. I actually found it liberating to be free of that last vestige of bigotry, I now look at everyone as equal and I want all the same rights and privileges for everyone.

I know exactly one guy who’s in a gay relationship, and he’s such a great person that I can’t imagine denying him the same rights at everyone else. If he’s crazy enough to actually want to get married he should be allowed to (I live in Ontario, so technically, he is).

Obama 2008 – Yes We Can!!!

Good news (in my opinion):

- Obama won in a landslide (349 electoral votes to 163)

- Senate: 56 Democrats, 40 Republicans

- Congress: 254 Democrats, 173 Republicans

- Kay Hagan beat Elizabeth Dole

- one new Democratic governor (MIssouri)

Bad news:

- Proposition 8 passed in California

- Al Franken lost

- Michele Bachmann won

- James Inhofe won

Welcome to Fascist Canada

I’m furious, I’m seething, I’m enraged with what’s happening in North America right now. So I hope that if anyone’s reading this, you’ll stick with me through something that you’ll probably find uncomfortable.

The 10 steps in Naomi Wolf’s “Fascist America, in 10 easy steps” are:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

2. Create a gulag

3. Develop a thug caste

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

5. Harass citizens’ groups

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

7. Target key individuals

8. Control the press

9. Dissent equals treason

10. Suspend the rule of law

She makes a pretty good case that America has met each of those, that *some* comparisons can be made between Nazi Germany and current-day USA, and that America is undergoing a “fascist shift” that endangers democracy. I have to quote a longer bit than I’d like,

Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing-down of the system that followed Mussolini’s march on Rome or Hitler’s roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that.

Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion.

It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere – while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing: “dogs go on with their doggy life … How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster.”

As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded. Something has changed profoundly that weakens us unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions, independent judiciary and free press do their work today in a context in which we are “at war” in a “long war” – a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe, in a context that gives the president – without US citizens realising it yet – the power over US citizens of freedom or long solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone.

Or “George W Bush and the 14 points of fascism”,

1.)  Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

2.)  Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

3.)  Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

4.)  Supremacy of the Military

5.)  Rampant Sexism

6.)  Controlled Mass Media

7.)  Obsession with National Security

8.)  Religion and Government are Intertwined

9.)  Corporate Power is Protected

10.)  Labor Power is Suppressed

11.)  Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

12.)  Obsession with Crime and Punishment

13.)  Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

14.)  Fraudulent Elections

If you think some of these things aren’t happening, to some degree, in America right now, you are seriously delusional. Google “fascist america” yourself to see other stories. I think many “liberals” in both countries will immediately recognize the truth in this.

I imagine the mood in Germany after World War I was surprisingly similar to post-9/11 America. Hitler seized on the hatred, ignorance and intolerance to murder 6 million Jews and cause World War II. As I understand it, Germans during the 1930s were bombarded with so many messages of anti-semitism that it ended up making reasonable people do completely unreasonable things.

In 2008, the perceived enemy is Islam, and to a slightly lesser degree, homosexuality or anyone who doesn’t meet your idea of “Christian” and “patriotic”.

Recently, after the right-wing Clarion Fund distributed a hate DVD entitled “Obsession”, somebody gassed a mosque in Dayton, Ohio, sending innocent people to hospital. This was intended to do one thing: terrify innocent people, i.e. “terrorism”, but I’ll bet you the whack-job that did it thought he was striking a blow for his country (just like Al Qaeda does). You’ve got plenty more agents of hate: the entire “religious right”, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, I could go on and on…

Now, in Toronto, we’re feeling the effects of a coordinated anti-liberal campaign. We have Michael Coren on CFRB spewing a message of hatred and intolerance of homosexuals, blacks, liberals and non-catholics. He literally (and frequently) uses the word “liberal” as an insult. And we have a terror campaign all our own – people with Liberal election signs are having the brake lines cut on their cars, some are families with car seats. I don’t know whether I call this a “hate crime”, “political terrorism” or just attempted murder, but THIS IS NOT THE CANADA I BELIEVE IN!!!!

In America, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute and a multitude of other conservative think tanks have done such a good job of lying about global warming that many reasonable North Americans doubt whether it’s real or whether we’re causing it. They use the same strategy as big tobacco used – confuse the people about the consensus to delay any meaningful action. Their ultimate goal – avoiding regulation.

In Canada, we have Lawrence Solomon at the National Post. Together, Canada and the US were among the biggest obstacles to any deal happening at the recent global warming talks in Bali.

In the US, you have an increasingly desperate McCain/Palin team that are perfectly willing to let the implication circulate that Barrack Obama is a muslim, a terrorist or even the dreaded “unpatriotic”. Apparently, only the Republican party can keep America safe. It seems to me they barely even bother trying to tell the truth at all anymore, they just keep ratcheting up the lies.

Meanwhile, we have Bush’s lap-dog, Stephen Harper, treating all the other parties in our current election as if they’re actively trying to destroy the country, that he and only he is capable of leading Canada. He seems to have taken lessons from Karl Rove.

You have a war in Iraq that we all know should never have been started.

We have a Prime Minister who was ashamed of his country because it didn’t want to join in.

More than us, you have media that don’t do enough to hold politicians truly accountable. You allow John McCain to run a campaign based mostly on fabrications, distortions and outright lies, while media “pundits” debate whether Joe Biden or Sarah Palin won the debate. Seriously!

Also more than us, you have the enemies of rational thought, the creationists. But don’t think the problem doesn’t exist in Canada – the last Ontario provincial election was lost almost exclusively over John Tory’s stand on faith-based schools, thank god (I use that only as the best expression I can find).

Ok, enough anger for now…

I’ve always used relatively simple criteria for deciding who to vote for:

1. Is the candidate qualified?

2. Can I trust him/her (as much as you can trust any politician)?

3. Is this someone that I would respect as a leader and that I think would represent me well?

4. Do I generally agree with their message and issues? This one’s always the hardest, because there are so many issues.

Here’s my take on the current bunch of politicians, using these criteria:

Barrack Obama: I know many Americans are too racist to vote for a black man, even if they camouflage it under more PC terms, and I fear for his life if he’s elected. I don’t condone what his pastor said, but I understand the anger that black Americans feel. I also know how much that offends many white people because it challenges their perception of their country as the greatest in the world. I don’t like any association with Weather Underground, but it sounds pretty slim, the guy seems to have mellowed and anyway I see no hint of that in Obama, so it’s a non-issue. I think he has enough experience, after all, it’s not like he has to run the entire country himself. But I think he wants the job out of a commitment to service to his country, that he’s a leader who can unite the country and represent it well on the world stage.

Joe Biden: Qualified, trustworthy, respectable, fine on the issues. He’d probably be able to take over as President if Obama does get shot.

John McCain: Qualified, but I can’t believe a word he says anymore. I think he’s misogynistic (sp?), has a volcanic temper, is not a “maverick” and is not at all the person I would want representing me. On the issues, he has been dead wrong about de-regulation, dead wrong about Iraq, he’s not “change” at all.

Sarah Palin: Qualified to be a hockey mom or a beauty queen, would be ashamed to have her as VP, can’t even imagine her as PUSA. I believe the history of firing people, trying to ban books, using private email for government business, husband involved in government business, etc. I’m against almost everything she stands for.

What I’d like to see them say…

The Republican party – We’re sorry we have deliberately engaged in a decades-long anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-truth, anti-democracy campaign which has caused America to lose its status as a world leader, making us into a fascist Third World country. We’re also sorry for using 9/11 ads, homosexuals, fake patriotism, taxes, etc to scare you into voting for us. Terrorism is defined on Wikipedia as the “systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion”. By that definition, the Republicans are the terrorists.

The media – We’re sorry that we allowed so many to be so dishonest for so long without calling them on it. People have mis-used our instinct to provide “balanced” coverage to cause a country which is paralyzed with hatred, ignorance and religious extremism.

The religious right – We’re sorry we have taken advantage of gullible Americans for our own personal power and financial gain, we have lied to you about evolution and made science and expertise into a bad thing. We have promoted “faith healing” over real medicine, and people have died because of it. We have deliberately kept Americans ignorant to advance our own political agendas.

Some stats:

- The US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world (over 1 in 100 as of 2008, with 5% of the world’s population, the US has 25% of the world’s inmates) (another source).

- In 2007, only China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan carried out more executions, and Iraq trailed close behind. Most civilized countries have abolished the death penalty.

- America is the only industrialized country in the world without universal health care.

- In a 2006 poll of 34 countries, the only country with a higher percentage of the population that reject evolution is Turkey.

- Among 18 countries ranked in the UN Human Poverty Index, the US ranks 3rd from the bottom (and has a policy of “welfare racism”).

- In 2003, Reporters Without Borders ranked the US in a tie for 31st place in press freedom.

Isn’t it ironic, dontcha think?

Just this week, we’ve seen the “collapse” of American and global markets, widely attributed to a failure of deregulation.

Also this week, I’ve launched my own very insignificant attack on systemic conservative lying.

And just today, I saw this video, “American Denial of Global Warming”, where science historian Naomi Oreskes outlines the parts of a few players, including Fred Seitz and Fred Singer of the George Marshall Institute. If you don’t have time to watch the whole thing, I’ll give you my best summary:

The George Marshall Institute is a conservative think tank established to counter scientific resistance to the Strategic Defense Initiative (Reagan’s “Star Wars” missile defense plan). Their strategy was simple, confuse the issue by claiming that not all scientists are united in opposition to SDI. They subsequently used the same tactic with the second-hand smoke and global warming issues.

Don’t take my word for it, do your own research, google “marshall seitz singer jastrow nierenberg” and note that Singer’s Science & Environmental Policy Project website is alive and well as of Sept 20, 2008.

Oreskes makes it clear that Seitz, Singer et al were fiercely anti-communist, anti-regulation conservatives, and that there’s nothing inherently wrong with that political view (although this week is a bad week for that point of view). The problem is that they’ve used fake science to promote their political views. And they used the media to do it. This has confused Americans, eroded their faith in science & media, and has delayed meaningful action on global warming.

I say again, reasonable Republicans have a responsibility to reject this type of strategy, which is leading America down the path, not just away from global leadership, but actually to irrelevance.

They really make it too easy…

In my post, “Why should McCain’s lies surprise anyone?”, a commenter actually has the nerve to post a link to a YouTube video that features a voiced-over Obama. If you’re gonna fabricate video, you should do a lot better job. Here’s the video link, you judge for yourself. Meanwhile, Glenn, you really should shut up, you’re not doing your side any favours…

More on yesterday’s post…

I know this is supposed to be a blog about atheism, but global warming is (obviously!) another of my main concerns. It actually all fits together perfectly: Christians, Republicans, liars, deniers.

Here’s another reference about skeptics being paid to disagree with global warming…

More about Lawrence Solomon, apologizing for falsely calling scientists deniers. His book, “The Deniers”, is promoted as a “must’read” on freedominion.com, with no disclaimers. And he even admits that his subjects aren’t really deniers, from DeSmogBlog,

Solomon even says so. He says that while reflecting on his own research, “I … noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers.”

Nigel Weiss, among others, objected to being used, Solomon and the National Post eventually had to apologize to him. But the series has been publicized on at least one right-wing site, freerepublic.com.

Let’s be clear, many of the deniers are status quo, small-government, right wingers with their own agenda. Many call themselves “Christians”, although there’s nothing Christian about their beliefs. They use the same techniques that Big Tobacco used (Fred Singer attacked a 1993 EPA  report on the dangers of smoking, calling it ‘junk science’) and they have successfully stalled action for over 25 years (if you’re skeptical of this story, here’s a reference to the 1979 report, JSR-78-07). They still have lots of believers, for example, Sarah Palin and junkscience.com. It all goes to reinforce the right’s war on science and the “elite”. They even shamelessly promote “Carbon Belch Day”, while Exxon and Peabody are committing crimes against humanity.

Here’s an excellent series, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.

On the point of lying, conservatives even have their own version of Wikipedia (with charming entries on homosexuality, Creation Science and lots more), here’s just one nice example of right wing hatred. The hard right is in a major battle all over the country to have creationism taught in schools (no reference needed, look it up if you don’t believe me).

I do still think there are reasonable people with legitimate reasons for voting Republican, however, I also think until the lying, hating, ignorant, largely “Christian” extreme right is marginalized to the point of irrelevance, voting Republican is voting to continue America’s loss of international credibility. Hatred and war are not the solution to terrorism, especially when America is mortgaging its future to the Middle East for oil. The US should take a good look at itself, and realize that they have a serious problem with the way they treat their poor and sick, the small-government model of capitalism is in tatters (dragging the rest of the world down with it) and the world needs the US to take a strong position on the environment. Four more years of right-wing hatred and ignorance

We all know America is extremely polarized, I believe that until reasonable Republicans disavow the tactics of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Phil Gramm, Dick Cheney and so many others, they are not acting in the interest of promoting an America that is a leader on the world stage. John McCain is no “maverick” to me and Sarah Palin is part of the scary right wing that should never get close to power.

Why should McCain’s lies surprise anyone?

As far as I’m concerned, that’s what Republicans do, and they do it very well.

They lie about the environment. Look at this story, The Deniers are winning, but only with the GOP. Conservatives have a long, glorious tradition of not only denying the global warming problem, but virulently attacking it, here’s just one example, from newsbusters.org, where the writer repeatedly uses emotionally-charged words like ‘disgraceful’, ‘disgusting’, and ‘despicable’ (I hesitate to even link to it, but I hope rational people will see through the lies and distortions).

Or how ’bout this one, where Fred Singer, a prominent denier, is shot down for claims he never worked for Big Tobacco or Big Oil, with plenty of irrefutable evidence that he did. There’s one document on tobaccodocuments.org that I found particularly fascinating.

Of course, we can’t forget James Inhofe’s 400 deniers, thoroughly debunked.

Here’s a scientific study, “The Organization of Denial”, of 141 “environmentally sceptical” books published between 1972 and 2005, finding that over 92% were published in the US by conservative think tanks. And scientists have been offered cash to dissent.

Sometimes they make it too easy to see through, like when the Conservative Book Club features Lawrence Solomon’s The Deniers, or our friend Fred Singer’s Unstoppable Global Warming. I can’t resist quoting from the opening paragraph of each,

Al Gore and the mainstream media tell us constantly that it’s all settled: global warming is an established fact…

and,

To Al Gore and his disciples, global warming is man-made and dangerous…

This is actually one of the problems, part of the reason these people can’t accept the truth is because Al Gore is so visible in the issue. It remains to be seen if Republicans can change their minds, as one did in this story, Generational Test for Republicans.

(The Conservative Book Club doesn’t stop there, it has entire sections on Global Warming, Radical Islam and The Clintons, appealing directly to the haters.)

Here’s a cleverly-disguised one from globalwarming.org, discussing Lawrence Solomon’s above-mentioned book. By the way, it turns out globalwarming.org is sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose website actually reveals a lot,

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace.

Translation: they’re a conservative group working for old-fashioned, hands-off government. This week, we all know how well that has worked out!

Here’s a question, Climate change deniers – stupid or just dishonest? DeSmogBlog has a searchable database on global warming deniers, check it out (of course Fred Singer is there). Or see Exxon Secrets, for info on the individuals and organizations working to keep America ignorant, such as CEI and the Heartland Institute. At least the Rockefeller family tried to stand up to Exxon.

They lie about evolution, which is not up for debate. For example, Ben Stein’s “Expelled” (see “Flunked, not expelled, what Ben Stein isn’t telling you about ID”).  Scientists spend so much time and effort fighting back. At least my favourite Young Earth Creationist felon, Kent Hovind, who lied about his taxes is doing time for his crime (Not Safe For Work, but there’s a hilarious video on YouTube). Oh, speaking of YouTube, in 2007, his goons used fraud to remove critical YouTube videos.

We all know they lie about the economy, which McCain says is fundamentally strong. Maybe it is for these 3 Merrill Lynch officials who may get up to $200,000,000, but meanwhile the World Bank is shovelling up to $250,000,000,000 (!!!) into global money markets.

The US is clearly headed in the wrong way, consider these:

The Republican War on Science, Fascist America (where she forgot one, destroy the integrity of the electoral system), Idiot America, The Assault on Reason by Al Gore, a poll of Americans themselves, a poll outside the US, Making America Stupid,

Don’t forget the famous right-wing lying hypocrites Troy King, Mark Foley, Ed Schrock, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard or the haters Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. Check out these blogs which largely feature Christians who get caught in their crimes and Republicons.

They even lie to their evangelical Christian base, as evidenced by this 2006 article, Christian Evangelicals: Enablers of the Wayward Republicans, even as the Religious Right is taking over the GOP.

They lie because it’s the only way they think they can beat Obama.

I can’t summarize it any better that the hard-hitting opening line from the “Exact Opposite” by Baron Dave Romm series,

A standard conservative Big Brother technique is to make wild random claims, sling mud and repeat lies until some of the mud sticks or one of the wild claims has a small germ of truth.

So I appeal to all reasonable Americans who are considering voting Republican – If you continue to elect these people, they’ll never learn. I can understand wanting fiscally-responsible spending, but I’m not convinced they’re the ones to do it.

Women Deserve Better

Nothing to add…

[h/t Blue Linchpin]

More Lawrence Solomon fabrications…

In his piece, Wikipedia’s zealots, Lawrence Solomon says,

The Wikipedia page is entitled Naomi Oreskes, after a professor of history and science studies at the University of California San Diego, but the page offers only sketchy details about Oreskes. The page is mostly devoted to a notorious 2004 paper that she wrote, and that Science journal published, called “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” This paper analyzed articles in peer-reviewed journals to see if any disagreed with the alarming positions on global warming taken by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position,” Oreskes concluded.

Oreskes’s paper — which claimed to comprehensively examine all articles in a scientific database with the keywords “climate change” — is nonsense. As FP readers know, for the last 18 months I have been profiling scientists who disagree with the UN panel’s position. My Deniers series, which now runs to some 40 columns, describes many of the world’s most prominent scientists. They include authors or reviewers for the UN panel (before they quit in disgust). They even include the scientist known as the father of scientific climatology, who is recognized as being the most cited climatologist in the world. Yet somehow Oreskes missed every last one of these exceptions to the presumed consensus, and somehow so did the peer reviewers that Science chose to evaluate Oreskes’s work.

Ok, so the Oreskes paper is “nonsense” because she didn’t include any of the scientists that he’s featured.

Solomon continues, explaining how Oreskes’ paper was challenged by Benny Peiser of CCNet.

When Oreskes’s paper came out, it was immediately challenged by science writers and scientists alike, one of them being Benny Peiser, a prominent U.K. scientist and publisher of CCNet, an electronic newsletter to which I and thousands of others subscribe. CCNet daily circulates articles disputing the conventional wisdom on climate change. No publication better informs readers about climate-change controversies, and no person is better placed to judge informed dissent on climate change than Benny Peiser.

(In all cases, above and below the emphasis is mine, illustrating Solomon’s habit of creating “credibility” with words). Let’s continue,

For this reason, when visiting Oreskes’s page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes’s correctness.

Here’s some sources for the Peiser v. Oreskes issue:

Gristmill

DeSmogBlog

MediaWatch

Wikipedia on Bebby Peiser

I think Peiser’s position can fairly be summarized by this quote from his October 2006 email to Media Watch:

“I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.”

The rest of Solomon’s article detail his attempts to update the Wikipedia entry on Oreskes, only to be continually thwarted by someone named “TableTop”,

By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda vehicle for global warming alarmists. But unlike government propaganda, its source is not self-evident.

and concluding,

Wikipedia is in the hands of the zealots.

Okay, Solomon says  (see above) “… no person is better placed to judge informed dissent on climate change than Benny Peiser.” Let’s see, his Wikipedia entry says,

Benny Peiser is a member of the Faculty of Science at Liverpool’s John Moores University. He was born in Israel and educated in West Germany and previously was an historian of ancient sport at the University of Frankfort/M. He is a social anthropologist with particular research interest in human and cultural evolution. His research focuses on the effects of environmental change and catastrophic events on contemporary thought and societal evolution.

Peiser is a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and a member of Spaceguard UK. He has written extensively on neo-catastrophism and the potential risk posed by near-Earth objects. He is the editor of CCNet, an electronic science and science policy network with more than 3,000 subscribers from around the world. It is in this capacity that a 10km-wide asteroid, Minor Planet (7107) Peiser, was named in his honour by the International Astronomical Union.

Peiser is a member of the editorial board of Energy and Environment and a scientific advisor to the Lifeboat Foundation.

all of which gives him zero credibility for addressing climate change. What else can we find?

DeSmogBlog says he is

an advising member of the “Scientific Alliance,” an organization formed by a UK businessman who was fed up with “all this environmental stuff.”

and surprise, surprise:

In December 2004, the Scientific Alliance teamed up with ExxonMobil funded George C. Marshall Institute to produce a paper titled “Climate Issues and Questions.”

In January 2005, the Scientific Alliance held a half-day seminar on the “alarmism” around the issue of climate change. Speakers included Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen.

So, Peiser is a social anthropologist in a “denier” organization, who in short, believes in anthropogenic global warming.

The fact that Lawrence Solomon can’t get his version of the truth into Wikipedia speaks more for the credibility of Wikipedia than it being controlled by zealots.

The fact that the National Post continues to allow Solomon to spout his crap speaks volumes for the credibility of that newspaper.

Lawrence Solomon is at it again…

First, here’s a science story from June 2003 that seems to conclude that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are allowing plants to grow faster. I’m not a scientist, I haven’t read the full study, I don’t know where the authors stand on global warming, but I do know that it’s only one study and it certainly doesn’t lead me to the conclusion that global warming is a good thing. That’s all I’m going to say about this study.

Except to point out that Lawrence Solomon, noted climate skeptic and liar, uses it “and other more recent ones” to conclude that higher levels of CO2 are beneficial to the Earth, in his column “In Praise Of CO2″.

But he doesn’t stop there. He goes on to reference a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2. Easy enough to find his original story, where he poses the question

How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?

then mentioning the original Oregon Petition’s 17,800 signatures

Then came the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s Petition Project of 2001, which far surpassed all previous efforts and by all rights should have settled the issue of whether the science was settled on climate change. To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the effort was spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, and as reputable as they come.

The Oregon petition garnered an astounding 17,800 signatures, a number all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stance that these scientists took: Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because “increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

(the emphasis is mine, showing how he confers credibility just by his use of words)

What he didn’t mention is that Frederick Seitz, “as reputable as they come”,

has admitted to helping tobacco giant RJ Reynolds spread out million of dollars in health research grants during the 1970’s and 80’s. Seitz’s role was to assist Big Tobacco in creating the illusion that there was still some debate over whether tobacco was a proven danger to health.

(from DeSmogBlog). According to Wikipedia, Seitz has also published reports for the George C. Marshall Institute, and was chair of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, founded by none other than Fred Singer.

Solomon then mentions a renewed Oregon Petition, whose 32,000 signatories were “outraged at the way Al Gore and company were abusing the science to their own ends.” and concludes with,

At one level, Robinson, a PhD scientist himself, recoils at his petition. Science shouldn’t be done by poll, he explains. “The numbers shouldn’t matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them.”

Some 32,000 scientists is more than the number of environmentalists that descended on Rio in 1992. Is this enough to establish that the science is not settled on global warming? The press conference releasing these names occurs on Monday at the National Press Club in Washington.

Apparently, the debate is over because, even if science shouldn’t be done by poll, the deniers got more signatures… I also find it interesting that Solomon is reporting on this before the press conference even occurred, is it possible that there’s some sort of network of these people?

The new Oregon petition has been thoroughly discredited. In short, it’s based on an article published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (what credibility do physicians and surgeons have in issues of climatology?), which is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, who among lots of other things, claims that HIV does not cause AIDS. Quackwatch lists the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as “fundamentally flawed”.

Another attempt to distort the picture tries to compare celebrities with the 32,000 scientists, but leads to an entire website of disinformation, typical of this type of site.

American Thinker Blog, overtly Republican, praises Solomon’s “great piece”, then sums it all up quite revealingly:

Will today’s official announcement of 32,000 men and women of science who, by their physical signature, reject mankind’s guilt capture any media attention at all?

Or, for that matter, that of climate experts Gore, Boxer, Lieberman, Warner, Clinton, Obama, or, most despicably — McCain?

As the science no longer appears to concern any of them — don’t hold your CO2 polluted breath.

Yet their denials change nothing – the wheels continue to fall off the warmist dungwagon.

This is about old-style politics, Republican v. Democrat, and McCain is the most despicable of all, because he’s a Republican who claims to be concerned, but I’m not fooled.