Ezra Klein: Global Warming Dead-Enders

« Why Is Mark Penn's Company Funding Republicans? | Main | In which I self promote »

March 29, 2007

Global Warming Dead-Enders

by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math

In the contest to replace Tom DeLay as chief expounder of total nonsense, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is putting a lot of distance between himself and the pack. After needlessly haranguing Al Gore during his Senate hearings, he's now blocking—successfully—Gore's attempt to hold a concert on the National Mall. Oy.

Is there anyone we can convince to run against Inhofe? David Boren's not that old, Brad Carson did fairly well against Tom Coburn, and Brad Henry is enormously popular. Surely any one of those three could represent their state's petroleum interests without being quite so embarrassing to the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.

March 29, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Half the post seems to be missing (there is a "Read more" link, but the entire extra content is the letter "G").

Still, your (truncated?) post seems to make an excellent point.

Posted by: Warren Terra | Mar 29, 2007 12:37:04 PM

When you first start typing, Typepad gives focus to the "there's more" section, rather than the title. I just keep forgetting about that.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Mar 29, 2007 12:44:46 PM

Isn't Wes Clark from Oklahoma? I know it's the only primary he won in 2004. I think he could run a fairly successful Jim Webb-style campaign. It certainly wouldn't be any trouble to get "Macaca" moments out of Inhofe.

Posted by: Serx | Mar 29, 2007 12:50:12 PM

Clark grew up in Arkansas, which I think is where he lives now.

Posted by: Haggai | Mar 29, 2007 1:40:25 PM

D'oh! Right you are. Well, we could always "Alan Keyes" him over there...

...ugh, I'm sorry I just put that name down in writing.

Posted by: Serx | Mar 29, 2007 2:21:32 PM

Inhofe remains entrenched among voters in Oklahoma, although his support is waning in his home town of Tulsa. Much of his support comes from energy (i.e., fossil fuel extraction, refining, distribution, and allied industry) and the Christian right.

Further, he has a staff of good-deeders who field complaints from constituents and fix individual problems. This fertilizes his grass roots base, many of whom are older persons in need of help with government agencies. These older persons in turn tout Inhofe to their peers and families. Inhofe simultaneously looks like a hero, and has another chance to bash government. Brilliant.

David Boren WAS that bad-- remember back to his facilitating some of the worst of the Reagan/Bush I excesses of executive secrecy while chairing the Senate Intelligence Committee. His son, Dan Boren, elected as Democratic Congressman representing Oklahoma's Second District (and heir to the legacies of both the late and wonderful Mike Synar and *eeek* Dr. Tom Coburn) has voted almost perfectly in synchrony with the Republican Congress. Most recently, young Boren voted against the House Iraq spending bill.

Clark did well in Oklahoma in 2004. I thing that he won the primary here, if my memory serves me well (better than Gonzo's or Doan's memory, but still...).

Our entire House and Senate delegation is an embarassment to the people who live here. Worse, it's a blight on good governance for the people of the United States.

Posted by: Ereshkigal | Mar 29, 2007 2:54:40 PM

Ah-- I forgot two things:

1. "Embarrassment" has two "r"s. Red-faced, I noticed my typo right after I published my comment. Sorry.

2. Inhofe has a lot of support group from agribusiness, especially the concentrated animal production industry. Oklahoma's corporate farming presence includes those industries who wish to avoid regulation under the EPA -- e.g., pig farming in the western part of the state and the chicken industry in Arkansas.

Other "farming" interests appreciate Inhofe's presence against consumer protection measures (such as labeling food containing cloned animal and/or plant material) and enforced regulation regarding agricultural practices with harmful environmental effects.

Posted by: Ereshkigal | Mar 29, 2007 3:05:11 PM

So Al Gore wants to hold a concerts on all seven continents on the same day. Imagine all the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, littering the grounds of all theses different concert sites, using paper, plastic bottles and bags, glass, not to mention the billions of tons of carbon emissions their cars are spewing into the atmosphere to get them to these concerts. And what about the entertainment? All these rock stars flying all over the world, spewing millions of tons of carbon emissions into the air. Plus they have to get all their equipment and entourages there, imagine all the thousands or millions of tons of carbon emissions that will take.

And then there is Al Gore. I wonder if he will try to appear at each concert? How will he get to all of them? Probably in his GulfStream 5 jet. Imagine the hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon emissions that will take.

And to top it off, Al Gore's house in Nashville will be using twenty times the energy of the normal American house, and nobody will even be home.

All of this in one single day? Can the planet take it?

Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 3:51:19 PM

Toke, you still don't understand that Gore doesn't want to stop emissions; he wants to manage them at what he sees as reasonable levels. You're way too fixated on this Gore hypocrisy thing anyway. Better to address some substantive point.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 3:58:28 PM

Imagine that! A politician that is responsive to their electorate. You're just not used to seeing that. What you are used to seeing Hillary Clinton blow into New York for the sole purpose of running for president at a future date.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 29, 2007 4:00:00 PM

"Toke, you still don't understand that Gore doesn't want to stop emissions; he wants to manage them at what he sees as reasonable levels."

I believe he said he wanted a freeze in carbon emissions, then a reduction of 90% by 2050. I guess you didn't pay attention to his senate testimony.

Well, neither did he. He refuses to live by the standards he expects the rest of America to live by.

Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 4:03:57 PM

Actually Clinton is said to have very effective constituency services.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 4:04:08 PM

Toke, even you can appreciate the difference between 90% and 100%. Try something that matters.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 4:06:19 PM

Umm, Fred, I don't think that was a criticism; it reads to me like a partial explanation of Inhofe's electoral strength in his home state.
Also, while I don't know one way or another, I would guess that Clinton's large, well-funded office does an excellent job of constituent service. She may not be my preferred candidate, but she's no dummy.

Posted by: Warren Terra | Mar 29, 2007 4:08:11 PM

sanpete, what the fuck do you think would happen to the US economy if we reduced our carbon emissions by 90% and China and India and Al Gore and the rest of the world did what they are going to do (which is not listen to Al Gore)?

Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 4:10:05 PM

sanpete, if you want Al Gore to be the global warming spokesman, more power to you. But you will understand why no one will listen, right?

Why not make Michael Morre czar of health and fitness?

Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 4:17:06 PM

Gore's plan of carbon neutral by buying credits from others only shows that under his rules, only the wealthy can afford this offset. The credits have to come from somewhere which means that because of his wealth and his ability to buy them, others will do with less.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 29, 2007 4:21:14 PM

China seen topping U.S. carbon emissions in 2007

And that, my friends, is the best evidence I can offer you that this whole issue is purely political and that Gore and his followers are not serious. Any serious solution would, no doubt, include China and probably India as well since they are not far behind.

Of course, Gore has made untold millions from the Global Warming issue and elevated his stature to that of a rock star among his following, so not all is lost.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 29, 2007 4:30:37 PM

This is improvement. You each brought up a substantive issue. It would be near impossible to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 90% with current technology. By 2050 I expect it to be more realistic. And I'm sure China will also be on board by then. No one envisions leaving China out.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 4:39:48 PM

"You each brought up a substantive issue. It would be near impossible to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 90% with current technology."

Really? Forty three years from now we will be able to reduce carbon emissions by 90%? With the probable doubling of our population by then? With our modern technology, do you think we now have the capability to reduce the carbon emissions by 90% compared to what we emitted in 1964(forty three years ago)?

sanpete, don't be an akaison, think before you write.

"And I'm sure China will also be on board by then. No one envisions leaving China out."

And what do you base that on?

Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 4:48:49 PM

Toke, technology is increasing at a much faster rate now than in 1964 and will keep increasing faster and faster. I can promise you, though, that if we can't do it, we won't.

Since I get my news from sources other than Fox, I often hear those calling for reductions in greenhouse gasses acknowledging that it's necessary to have the developing world on board in the future. They point out that as the technology allows energy to be produced efficiently by other means, it won't be such a burden on those countries, and could even save them money, as well as improving health.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 5:00:26 PM

As of now, China is increasing their oil imports and building coal to oil plants. Do you think they are going to throw away the billions of dollars they are investing in fossil fuels?

In the 1960s, the US population was about one hundred and fifty million. Now it is three hundred million. And you think we will be able to reduce our carbon emissions? By 90%?

Think about it.

Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 5:10:20 PM

First of all, getting the Chinese on board with anything is like herding cats and nothing has been said about India, a very, very big player both now and in the future.

None of this is a serious effort. When you get China ON BOARD, maybe someone will listen to you. Changing the temp .06 of ONE DEGREE by the year 2050 while creating hardships for the poor and placing the US at a serious disadvantage is not the kind of treaty I mind seeing shot shot down.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 29, 2007 5:23:00 PM

Toke, we're also increasing our oil imports and building coal plants. China will join up when they get tired enough of asthma, cancer and so on, are facing international sanctions, and/or the newer energy sources are cheaper. The same things apply to India and the other countries.

How many computers were there in 1964, and what could they do?

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 5:32:37 PM

"China will join up when they get tired enough of asthma, cancer and so on, are facing international sanctions, and/or the newer energy sources are cheaper."

China still has political prisoners and restricts speech. Do you think asthma will be an issue with them in fifty years? Maybe in a few hundred years. Do you think they are going to hurt their economy just cuz a there is more cancer or asthma among the pee-ons who can't vote? If a statesman or his relative got cancer or asthma and tried to do something, he'd end up in a gulag.

China is a permanant member of the security council. Do you think they will approve sanctions against themselves?

"How many computers were there in 1964, and what could they do?"

Not very many and not very much.

Can computers today reduce global warming? I personally have brought up ways computers could help Al Gore get his message out and reduce his carbon emissions, but I doubt Al Gore would implement any of those ideas. It is too much fun jetting around the world, carbon emissions be damned.

With all these new computers and their capability, has carbon emissions gone down since 1964?

Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 5:49:38 PM

Do you think asthma will be an issue with them in fifty years?

Of course. Besides the officials themselves living in the one of the most polluted cities on earth, there are real and large public costs to disease.

"International sanctions" doesn't reduce to "UN sanctions."

The efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses are at roughly the same place computers were in 1964.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 6:22:03 PM

"Really? Forty three years from now we will be able to reduce carbon emissions by 90%? With the probable doubling of our population by then? With our modern technology, do you think we now have the capability to reduce the carbon emissions by 90% compared to what we emitted in 1964(forty three years ago)?"

Right now, with current technology, if we wanted to pony up the bucks, we could put plans into place to sequestrate our CO2 from power plants. Given a decade or so to plan and build power plants capable of capture and sequestration, that's ~30% drop in emissions in a decade from one technology alone.

"Maybe in a few hundred years. Do you think they are going to hurt their economy just cuz a there is more cancer or asthma among the pee-ons who can't vote?"

There was an article in that pink rag th eFT today about the central Chinese gubmint being concerned about the impact of AGW on their coastal regions, which is where their economic infrastructure is concentrated. They're a damn sight more open to cap-and-trade than you think. Of course, if we do nothing, they'll do nothing.

Kyoto was negotiated in 1992, was modeled on the highly successful Montreal Protocol and and on the success with acid gas emissions trading in North America and the EU. It was intended as a stepping stone, with a subsequent agreement to include the developing world. If you're peeved 'cos we've dicked around for a decade-and-a-half while China and India have industrialized, then you know who to blame for that: after all, they took our signature off the Protocol. Hint: their current street address has the number "1600".

Posted by: No Longer a Urinated State of America | Mar 29, 2007 6:34:18 PM

But Inhofe's approval rating is really low, and he's the less popular of the two Oklahoma Senators.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Mar 29, 2007 7:33:48 PM

Gore and his followers are not serious. Any serious solution would, no doubt, include China and probably India as well since they are not far behind.

I was going to say that for best effect you should follow this by attacking Al Gore's trips to China. I see Cap'n Toke has stepped up to the plate.

Posted by: hf | Mar 30, 2007 1:07:23 AM

If Rush Limpdick were to say that Global Warming is real, a few million more people would believe in it.
The frightwingers are in denial because a filthy dirty "Liberal" believes in it.

Posted by: merlallen | Mar 30, 2007 7:37:59 AM

Please stop arguing with cap'n joke. He's a househusband with nothing else to do but post annoying crap on this site.
His 'wife' needs to make him get a job or something.

Posted by: merlallen | Mar 30, 2007 7:47:14 AM

How much would we have to pay Rush to get him to admit that global warming is a real and serious problem - in fact, to push this message? Up to a certain point, that would probably be a fairly cost-effective investment . . .

Posted by: Dan S. | Mar 30, 2007 9:35:29 AM

The issue is not whether the earth is warming or not. The issue is all about the role of humans and whether they play a major role in that warming.

The reason why this is still a controversial issue is instead of evidence, an opinion poll is offered up instead.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 30, 2007 10:04:29 AM

No Fred, the evidence has been presentede to you. You just haven't bothered to read it.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 30, 2007 11:28:50 AM

I guess all those other climatologists just didn't get the fax.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 30, 2007 2:32:25 PM

Fred, you don't know what you're talking about. The vast consensus of science is against you, Rush and Ihhofe. Not that this seems to bother you. It didn't bother you in relation to the harms of homosexuality and same-sex marriage either.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 30, 2007 5:08:41 PM

Fred - this "opinion poll" talking point (from denialists in general) is really getting kind of old. Do you actually not understand that we're not talking about some Gallup poll of random citizens, or even of scientists without any relevant expertise, but the considered position of the overwhelming majority of scientists in relevant fields and engaged in relevant research, many of which began as skeptics and were won over by the accumulating evidence? I don't expect you to agree with them - your side has been cultivating a mocking distaste of intellectual expertise for some time now - but do you in fact understand this?

Posted by: Dan S. | Mar 30, 2007 6:07:26 PM

Hey, all I'm asking is to see the evidence that all of those esteemed scientists are basing their opinions on.

Why is that such a problem? Oh, yeah, I forgot. There is none. That was also the case when all of the scientists bought into Eugenics as well.

For those who promote the scientific method when it comes to discussion religion, you sure have different requirements when it comes to global warming. In fact, it looks very similar to a religion when you think about it.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 31, 2007 9:27:59 AM

Fred, all you're doing is showing that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. There is more than plenty of evidence, some of which you have been linked to but didn't bother to read.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 31, 2007 12:22:17 PM

No, what you linked is studies that show charts of the warming temps. The earth has been warmer in the past and it has been cooler.

What you *still* avoid is the elusive evidence. Ya' know, the evidence produced by the scientific method that show that man is the big player in global warming. Then there's the evidence that man can do anything to stop it.

Evidence. It's what's for dinner.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 31, 2007 7:04:01 PM

Fred, you were given a link to the IPCC report, which has plenty of evidence and references for it. You just didn't bother to look at it. You can get more evidence than you'll be able to read just by doing a few simple searches. If you had any real interest in evidence you wouldn't be saying the ignorant stuff you do about this. You'd be looking at the evidence.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 31, 2007 8:04:02 PM

What a lemming.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 31, 2007 9:33:26 PM

Yeah, Fred. The people who actually investigate the facts are lemmings.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 31, 2007 10:44:53 PM

I read the IPCC report. There was no evidence, dumbass, of man's major role in global warming. What was offered up was a poll. No scientific method. No scientific evidence.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 1, 2007 10:15:43 AM

I don't agree with Sanpete on a lot of things, but they're certainly not a dumbass. On the other hand, someone who apparently assumes - off the bat and without any relevant knowledge or expertise - that the overwhelming majority of scientists are engaged in a hoax or simply wrong = well, that's arguably a kind of dumbassery. But it is true that just because pretty much all the scientists who have examined the issue think that anthropogenic gw is a real and serious problem (with the exact details still a matter of study and debate) doesn't automatically mean they're right, and it's not absurd to ask for evidence, even though most of us will simply stare at it without comprehension, unless we have the appropriate background and/or a lot of time and effort. So, Fred, here's the old-school answer. Go to your local college or university library (or, depending where you are, possibly even a major/specialized public library) and tell the librarian that you're interested in finding out about the science behind global warming. Indeed, you might want to start at a regular library or bookstore, and have a look at some popular works before you start digging into the bound periodicals,

Posted by: Dan S. | Apr 1, 2007 11:39:00 AM

You read this (pdf), Fred? This is just a summary, by the way. More is coming later this year.

You may be interested in this report on NPR this morning. According to two scientists involved in drafting the IPCC report, the meetings at which the report has been assembled have been marked by drunkenness and use of marijuana. At one meeting there was an impromptu game of darts using Dick Cheney's photo as a target. The scientists fear that this and other inappropriate activities they wouldn't elaborate on have compromised the report. Grist for the Rushes.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 1, 2007 12:48:45 PM

liqingchao 07年09月03日
google排名
 google排名
 wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
Crm
Crm
光盘刻录
 光盘刻录
 光盘制作
 光盘制作
 光盘印刷
 光盘印刷
 呼叫中心
 呼叫中心
 客户关系管理
 客户关系管理
 北京月嫂
 北京月嫂
 rolex replica
rolex replica
china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour