Randall Carlson

[Magda Hassan]

Well, there is a lot to be said in response to these three posts so I will have a stab at it. I am, of course, not a climate scientist, but I am certainly equipped to spot logical fallacies and dubious assumptions.

.........

Re: Magda's picture: the simple response is to ask why the ruling class should be trusted to implement any of those things in the interest of the people. Where is the historical evidence for that being a valid assumption? Why is scepticism about the intentions of Gates, Rockefeller etc. suspended over this issue alone?

The ruling class will never do anything that is not also in their interest. If the people can benefit from it as well, well all and good. But they wont do it because it is the right thing to do or because it will benefit the most people. Their class interests dictate that they will always put their interests first. Sometime our interests overlap. Survival being one. So they wont do it for us but they will do it for themselves. And in this case we can push for our mutual interests. The business of renewables is another. A better business model and new opportunities for some cappos than old fossil fuel cappos still holding on to their fading privileges and it gets the ruling class fighting against each other and not us for a change. We can support the progressive change and if the circumstances are right the change can even be pushed dialectically to something completely new and revolutionary.

[R.K. Locke]

Well, there is a lot to be said in response to these three posts so I will have a stab at it. I am, of course, not a climate scientist, but I am certainly equipped to spot logical fallacies and dubious assumptions.

.........

Re: Magda's picture: the simple response is to ask why the ruling class should be trusted to implement any of those things in the interest of the people. Where is the historical evidence for that being a valid assumption? Why is scepticism about the intentions of Gates, Rockefeller etc. suspended over this issue alone?

The ruling class will never do anything that is not also in their interest. If the people can benefit from it as well, well all and good. But they wont do it because it is the right thing to do or because it will benefit the most people. Their class interests dictate that they will always put their interests first. Sometime our interests overlap. Survival being one. So they wont do it for us but they will do it for themselves. And in this case we can push for our mutual interests. The business of renewables is another. A better business model and new opportunities for some cappos than old fossil fuel cappos still holding on to their fading privileges and it gets the ruling class fighting against each other and not us for a change. We can support the progressive change and if the circumstances are right the change can even be pushed dialectically to something completely new and revolutionary.

I hope you're right.

[R.K. Locke]

Re: Lauren's post, I don't really understand what "denying climate science" means. They aren't denying it; they are critiquing it. That is entirely healthy. If their reasoning or methodology is faulty then they should be pulled up on that, but in all the replies on this thread I have yet to see any evidence of why they are wrong. Where are they getting it wrong? There is lots of specific information in the Corbett video (with links) but nothing much in the criticisms that I'm seeing here.

RKL: No, I don't think they are critiquing it. When I hear Corbett say that changes in CO2 levels won't change global average temperatures, he is denying one of the most fundamental principles of climate science. He said this on one of his broadcasts with a dismissive tone. That is far beyond being a critique.

Secondly, he referred to his complaints of the hockey stick graph as accurate but revealing how he fundamentally once again refuting a basic understanding of global climate after decades of research. In other words, the truncated hockey stick graph in fact demonstrates what is physically happening with the planet. Small changes have big effects on life on planet earth.

So, I would be more than happy if you want to put up some of the stuff you find compelling or at least interesting here. My with my.

I'm not aware of which video you're referring to in your first paragraph. Is it the one I linked earlier? If so I will have to re-watch it.

I don't really follow what you're saying in the second paragraph. The first part of it doesn't make any sense to me. I think you're right that small changes can have big effects, but life on earth has endured through periods of warming and cooling in the past. My position is that it is hugely important to remain sceptical vis-a-vis the effects of capitalism on climate science (and all types of science for that matter), as well as the intentions of the incredibly rich and powerful people who are pushing this idea. If the science is sound then manipulations and obfuscations should not be necessary imo.

Finally, just to reiterate, I believe that we are on the same page when it comes to issues of conservation and pollution. I just think we need to make sure that we keep the bigger picture in mind.

[Lauren Johnson]

My position is that it is hugely important to remain sceptical vis-a-vis the effects of capitalism on climate science (and all types of science for that matter), as well as the intentions of the incredibly rich and powerful people who are pushing this idea. If the science is sound then manipulations and obfuscations should not be necessary imo.

I agree 100%.

My view is that AGW is very real and a major threat. My problem with well meaning people like Corbett is his ignorance disguised as skepticism.

HOWEVER, the fundamental business model of global, financial capitalism to make money breaking something, for example, countries, the planet, etc. Step two is to make money fixing it. From that POV, AGW offers endless opportunities to accumulate capital.

What global elites are not pushing is the idea that wealthy people need to be less wealthy and live in a much simpler life. They avoid and suppress the notion of a class struggle. So we are hearing how global corporations are going to save the planet. :hock::

[Magda Hassan]

What global elites are not pushing is the idea that wealthy people need to be less wealthy and live in a much simpler life.

That's right. It's not them. They are doing their bit. Some thing...Some where.......Like buying scientists to come up with great schemes like carbon sequestration. But you need to take personal responsibility for your showers which are probably too long and have you changed ALL your light bulbs? Well have you !? What have you actually done to help the planet today? It's your individual responsibility to save the planet and it is your fault if it gets fucked up. But you still have your obligations to capitalism to keep consuming. Can I interest you in these low watt globes? Or perhaps this low flow shower head?

[Lauren Johnson]

That's right. It's not them. They are doing their bit. Some thing...Some where.......Like buying scientists to come up with great schemes like carbon sequestration. But you need to take personal responsibility for your showers which are probably too long and have you changed ALL your light bulbs? Well have you !? What have you actually done to help the planet today? It's your individual responsibility to save the planet and it is your fault if it gets fucked up. But you still have your obligations to capitalism to keep consuming. Can I interest you in these low watt globes? Or perhaps this low flow shower head?

We're all in this together!!! ::

[Peter Lemkin]

AMY GOODMAN: As we turn right now to the oil giant Exxon Mobil. It's under criminal investigation in New York over claims it lied to the public and investors about the risks of climate change. Now Exxon is fighting back against the journalists who exposed how Exxon concealed its own findings dating back to the 1970s that fossil fuels cause global warming, alter the climate, and melt the Arctic ice. Students at Columbia Journalism School collaborated with The Los Angeles Times on two of the exposés. Exxon accused the students of producing inaccurate and misleading articles. In its complaint, Exxon also referred to the "numerous and productive relationships" Exxon Mobil has with Columbia. Exxon has donated nearly $220,000 to the school. On Tuesday, Steve Coll, the Dean of the Columbia Journalism School, responded to Exxon's critique written to Columbia's president after an extensive review. Coll wrote, "Your letter disputes the substance of the two articles in a number of respects, but consists largely of attacks on the project's journalists. I have concluded that your allegations are unsupported by evidence. More than that, I have been troubled to discover you have made serious allegations of professional misconduct in your letter against members of the project even though you or your media relations colleagues possess email records showing your allegations are false," Coll wrote.
Well, our guest Bill McKibben, cofounder of 350.org. He was arrested after staging a one-man protest at his local Exxon station in Vermont. He held a sign reading, "This pump temporarily closed because ExxonMobil lied about climate." Bill McKibbon, you are a journalist yourself. Talk about the significance of ExxonMobil writing this letter of complaint to the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, who then turned the letter over to Steve Coll, also a leading journalist, who did an investigation of Columbia Journalism School students.
BILL MCKIBBEN: So, Exxon is never very subtle and this was a particularly heavy-handed instance of it. Their letter to Columbia can only be described as thuggish. It carried every kind of implication about how they would do one thing or another to them if they did not get satisfaction. But I think they might think twice before they do it again. The letter that came back from Steve Coll at Columbia was a six page masterpiece of dissection. It sort of shows what happens when real reporters go up against PR people. It was remarkable, Amy.
These stories, I mean, this is just Exxon trying to kick up smoke around the edges. There's no problem with the stories. They're incredibly powerful and incredibly true, and so salient to where we sit today. If Exxon had told the truth about what it knew 25 years ago, we would not be needing to have COP21. We would have sometime around COP3 or four really got down to work as a planet. And this problem wouldn't be solved yet, but we would not have wasted 25 years in funny debate.
AMY GOODMAN: And we did an extensive look at this on Democracy Now! on the investigation of both Inside Climate News, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalistic organization and The Los Angeles Times, which, of course, has won many Pulitzers. But the evidence that - they had top scientists. They were deeply concerned about this, doing very good work, and saw climate change as real. But then what happened?
BILL MCKIBBEN: Well, then they, instead of acting on their knowledge, they instead set up the architecture of denial and disinformation. There was a remarkable piece that came out, a study that came out in Nature, yesterday, documenting the fact that money from Exxon and the Koch brothers constituted the sort of epicenter of denial. This was one of those big data analyses that traced the links between thousands of different organizations and newsletters and front groups and they traced it back to Exxon. That's why the Secretary of State, yesterday, John Kerry, in a pretty rare moment, in Rolling Stone really let loose on Exxon and said that it was - if these allegations were true, it was worse than the tobacco industry and a betrayal of everything it meant to be a responsible corporation.
AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of the New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launching a criminal probe into ExxonMobil?
BILL MCKIBBEN: Well, you can be sure that Exxon is taking it seriously because, yesterday, they hired one of the most expensive lawyers in the country, Theodore Wells, most recently famous for having written the Deflategate report about the New England patriots in last year's football season. Theodore Wells, from Paul Weiss Rifkind in New York, is now Exxon's - on retainer for Exxon to try and battle these allegations. But, good luck to them because the evidence, down there black and white, is pretty stunning. Remember, at the best, no one is saying - the best that anyone is saying that Exxon was merely reprehensible, not outright criminal. That is the best defense that anyone has mounted for them so far.
AMY GOODMAN: So we're not talking about a civil probe, we're talking about a criminal probe. This good land Exxon officials in jail?
BILL MCKIBBEN: Well, who knows? At the moment, they're just subpoenaing documents. We're still at the beginning stages of this. And of course, the great hope is that other attorney generals, Kamala Harris in California, for instance, will, we hope join in at some point and that the department of justice - 360,000 American's have petitioned the Department of Justice, asking them to investigate Exxon.
AMY GOODMAN: And on the issue of ExxonMobil writing the letter to the president of Columbia University, in it mentioning the amount of money they have given to Columbia, do you see this as attack on freedom of the press?
BILL MCKIBBEN: Oh, I mean, who knows what precisely they had in mind, but Exxon has attacked the freedom of thought of an entire planet for 25 years. They knew the truth and they did it. They told people things that they knew not to be true. There is no more devastating attack on the freedom of thought than that.