CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › American Petroleum Inst.: "uncertainties" about climate change smells like victory
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

American Petroleum Inst.: "uncertainties" about climate change smells like victory

post #1 of 9
12/11/07 at 4:19pm
Thread Starter 
(I'm a dope and excerpted the wrong graph. Apologies to Seabass and anyone else who wandered into this thread.)

Waxman has released a report on "Systematic White House Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science" containing this passage:

Quote:
In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: “Victory will be achieved when … average citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.
Isn't it amazing that in the "conventional wisdom" of 2007, all debate and discussion ends in "uncertainties"?

Waxman's whole report is about a page long and worth reading. It also describes how only certain scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are allowed to talk to the press, by decree of the Executive Branch.
Reply
post #2 of 9
12/11/07 at 4:48pm
Why is it that people claim Democrats and Republicans are just the same? If that's the case, where's the similar report from the 109th Congress?
Reply
post #3 of 9
12/11/07 at 5:06pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Why is it that people claim Democrats and Republicans are just the same? If that's the case, where's the similar report from the 109th Congress?
It's an interesting question. I think the political climate has changed democrats in a negative way. The rhetoric Rove has pushed into the vernacular has really spooked them about their longterm goals and political futures, which is why we're not seeing people like Harriet Myers be detained when they refuse to testify etc.

That said, everything in recent memory - on either side of the political spectrum - pales in comparison to the hubris and unvarnished criminality of the Bush administration. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rummy and everyone else in their inner circle have lowered the bar for Presidential behavior so radically that you have to go a long way back to find something even remotely close. Nixon's crimes are but a tiny thread compared to the vast tapestry of Bush's transgressions.

It's very depressing when you think that the machine has been cooked so completely that a) there's no one to sound the alarm because checks and balances has become either feckless or muzzled, b) there's no one to relay the alarm on a mass scale because the press is corporate and will not bite the hand that feeds it, and c) there's evidently no authority that can enforce the law when "alleged" lawbreaker is sitting in the oval office because the Justice Dept. and the Supreme Court have been stacked with "loyal Bushies." It's a snake eating its own tail, and unless something really dramatic happens, this system of govt may be sunk (dragging all life on earth down with it thanks to Cheney and his energy industry friends).
Reply
post #4 of 9
12/11/07 at 6:17pm
Quote:
“Victory will be achieved when … average citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”
And that makes perfect sense, too, since deep down the average citizen doesn't want global warming to be true, so any possible uncertainty in the science is gratefully clung to.
Reply
post #5 of 9
12/13/07 at 9:07am
Certainties are rare, and people dont like them. It makes lying to yourself difficult, and lying to yourself is the basis for almost everything. Religion, democracy, liberty, eating at McD.
Reply
post #6 of 9
12/14/07 at 5:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
It's an interesting question. I think the political climate has changed democrats in a negative way. The rhetoric Rove has pushed into the vernacular has really spooked them about their longterm goals and political futures, which is why we're not seeing people like Harriet Myers be detained when they refuse to testify etc.
I wonder about that from time to time. The answer 'Because the Democrats have no spine' is glib and unsatisfactory. Since Bush and his associates and their actions are incredibly unpopular right now, Sending the Seargant-at-Arms (who's going to post the first picture of a Masters of the Universe toy?) to detain those who defy congressional subpoenas ought to go over just great.

Except it would make the Republicans sad, and that's what you would hear in the news. Not that Karl Rove was arrested and detained for ignoring the subpoena, but what this makes Republicans think of Democrats. That's what most of the news in the US is, isn't it? A recitation of the things that make Republicans sad?

Or maybe the Democrats don't do it because Congress is being blackmailed with trivial things that will get big ratings. I have no reason to believe this is so, but it's not as if such behaviour is beyond the Bush Administration. If it's not beneath crimes of war, if it's not beneath promoting ignorance for the sake of the votes of the ignorant, then it certainly isn't beneath blackmail.

Quote:
That said, everything in recent memory - on either side of the political spectrum - pales in comparison to the hubris and unvarnished criminality of the Bush administration.
Quote:
It's very depressing when you think that the machine has been cooked so completely that a) there's no one to sound the alarm because checks and balances has become either feckless or muzzled, b) there's no one to relay the alarm on a mass scale because the press is corporate and will not bite the hand that feeds it, and c) there's evidently no authority that can enforce the law when "alleged" lawbreaker is sitting in the oval office because the Justice Dept. and the Supreme Court have been stacked with "loyal Bushies."
Yes. It's an interesting situation when the criminals make the laws.


Quote:
It's a snake eating its own tail, and unless something really dramatic happens, this system of govt may be sunk (dragging all life on earth down with it thanks to Cheney and his energy industry friends).
'All life on earth'? I'm sure we'll survive. The United States won't be the first fallen empire, and it won't be the last.
Reply
post #7 of 9
12/14/07 at 5:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Jones
And that makes perfect sense, too, since deep down the average citizen doesn't want global warming to be true, so any possible uncertainty in the science is gratefully clung to.
Only by people desperate to poison the public discourse for their own ends.
Reply
post #8 of 9
12/14/07 at 8:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
'All life on earth'? I'm sure we'll survive. The United States won't be the first fallen empire, and it won't be the last.
If the seas turn to acid and all calcium-based life goes away, if the ice caps and ocean are no longer able to absorb CO2, if the temperatures and water levels rise, food sources decline and cataclysmic weather intensifies, it'll be like the last days of the dinosaurs for the human race.

Anything other than drastic changes to our energy policy is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The problem is that THIS government, for the most part, is for sale, and the highest bidder is the oil industry. So, as long as Bush, Cheney and the friends of Big Oil (not to mention Big Coal) are in power, they will kill any legislation that cuts into that closed market. An energy bill was just sh*tcanned (with 59 votes in the Senate) that would have rolled back tax breaks for the oil companies to fund, among other things, renewable energy development. Even if it had made it, Bush would have vetoed it (but seriously, why does the most profitable business in history need to be subsidized by taxpayers anyway?)

That relationship is standing in the way of any legislation that would attempt to fix the climate change crisis.
Reply
post #9 of 9
12/14/07 at 9:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
If the seas turn to acid and all calcium-based life goes away, if the ice caps and ocean are no longer able to absorb CO2, if the temperatures and water levels rise, food sources decline and cataclysmic weather intensifies, it'll be like the last days of the dinosaurs for the human race.
We shall see. There are lots of predictions, some more dire than others. Civilization will certainly have to change, and it will probably be forced to slow down, but the race will do fine.

I include a world population of 10 million living in small agrarian communities in my definition of 'fine', by the way.

Quote:
Anything other than drastic changes to our energy policy is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.


Quote:
The problem is that THIS government, for the most part, is for sale, and the highest bidder is the oil industry.
Yeah, we joined that club a while back. Stephen Harper sponsored our membership.

Quote:
So, as long as Bush, Cheney and the friends of Big Oil (not to mention Big Coal) are in power, they will kill any legislation that cuts into that closed market.
Been there, done that. This is Alberta, after all. I don't have to put up with the fearmongering and the God-bothering but I do live under a government that exists to serve the oil companies at the expense of the people it works for, and have for decades. Now the Federal government is of the same stripe; my country's PM is an evangelical Christian who built his career as an accountant in the Calgary oil offices.


Quote:
An energy bill was just sh*tcanned (with 59 votes in the Senate) that would have rolled back tax breaks for the oil companies to fund, among other things, renewable energy development. Even if it had made it, Bush would have vetoed it (but seriously, why does the most profitable business in history need to be subsidized by taxpayers anyway?)
Take heart, grasshopper. I don't see the Dems taking a lot of losses in the house or senate in 2008, so if a Democrat wins the White House as well, bills like this will rear their heads again.

Maybe.

If they win.

Which they won't.


Quote:
That relationship is standing in the way of any legislation that would attempt to fix the climate change crisis.
And people wonder why campaign financing is an issue.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › American Petroleum Inst.: "uncertainties" about climate change smells like victory