Champion of the Fight Against Climate Change

"The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington"....

"Our scientists have also seen and measured reduced snowpack, with earlier runoffs in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere. We have seen sustained drought in the Southwest, and across the world average temperatures that seem to reach new records every few years."....

"We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge."....

This is all from a speech in 2008--was it Barack Obama, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi? No, John McCain, the same John McCain who did not even mention climate change as an issue in his reelection campaign website a mere two years later.

For the speech see: http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/05/12/mccain-climate-speech/

Baker’s take on warming leaves reader cold

IF CHARLES Baker is really not smart enough to know that climate change is taking place and is caused by human activity, then he is not smart enough to be governor (“Baker ducks climate query,’’ Political Circuit, Metro, Feb. 7). Of course, when Baker claims, “I absolutely am not smart enough to believe I know the answer to that question,’’ another possibility presents itself: Perhaps Baker is smart enough after all, but lacks the courage to tell the truth to certain Republican activists.

)

So which is it: a candidate who is not smart enough or a candidate who is not honest enough?

Ben Lieberman

From the Boston Globe, February 14, 2010:http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2010/02/14/bakers_take_on_warming_leaves_reader_cold/

Ninety Seven: How can you disbelieve global warming

Why are so many Americans prepared to ignore climate change when some 97 percent of climatologists agree that human action is causing climate change? Would they ignore physicians, engineers, counter-terrorism authorities, or public health experts who brought similarly dire warnings of major threats?
1. If 97 oncologists gave you or a loved one a diagnosis of cancer and recommended treatment would you ignore them if you could find two or three who were not sure?

2. If 97 cardiologists said that you needed heart by-pass surgery would you ignore them if two or three were not sure?

3. If 97 food inspectors said that a batch of hamburger meat was tainted with e-coli bacteria would you go ahead and buy and eat the meat because two or three were not sure?

4. If 97 mechanics said the brakes on you car were shot would you gun it down the highway if you found a couple of mechanics who were not sure?

5. If 97 exterminators said that your house was in danger of collapsing from termites by a couple who were not sure would you just sit back and let the critters continue to munch away?

6. If 97 counter-terrorism officials said that terrorists were launching an imminent attack but two or three were not sure would you call for heightened security measures or would you just wait and hope for the best?

7. If 97 aircraft mechanics said that your plane was not safe to fly without deicing but two or three were not sure would you wait to deice again or would you just take off?

8. If 97 civil engineers said that a bridge in your town was on the verge of collapse would you drive a truck over it because two or three were not sure?

9. If 97 drinking water inspectors said that the water in your town was contaminated would you go ahead and give a glass of water to your kids because two or three were not certain?

10. So why is it then that when 97 percent of climate scientists who are actually active in research conclude that climate change is caused by human action do you only then call for doing nothing and attack the messenger of the bad news? (http://climaticidechronicles.org/2009/01/21/new-poll-shows-most-earth-scientists-agree-on-global-warming/)

Would you go ahead and eat tainted meat, drink contaminated water, drive a car with faulty brakes, ignore terror threats, drive over dangerous bridges, fly on an iced-up plane, let termites eat your house, and forgo cancer treatment and heart surgery because Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity told you not to worry?

Anatomy of the Coaklastrophe

As a Democrat and Massachustts resident I had the misfortune to get a close up view of the Coaklastrophe. A particular lowpoint occurred when I sent the Coakley campaign an email saying that I would contribute if they actually spent the money to pay for something like political advertising. (Here's part of my email of January 5 to the Coakley campaign: "...I am willing to make a modest contribution, but given the lack of any advertising by your campaign I am concerned that you will not spend the money. Is that the case?"

The Coaklastrophe:

1. The interpretations of the Coaklastrophe are prone to confirming a given author’s previous views: moderate Democrats wills say that Obama has been too liberal, while progressive Democrats will say that Obama has been too moderate. The economy is obviously a major factor, and voters seem mighty quick to forget where their troubles began, but the Coaklastrophe was also the product of a series of internal failings.
2. From the start the Brown campaign outworked and outhustled the Coakley campaign. Brown went everywhere there was a microphone. He was judge on community audition. He went to Fenway Park. He went to schools. He gave the appearance of being everywhere. Meanwhile days at a time would go by without any appearance by Coakley. At the same time, Coakley’s refusal to do one-o-one debates reinforced the impression that she was hiding.
3. Coakley let Brown set the agenda every day. For weeks in December news stories about the race would being by noting bills that Brown was introducing at a frantic pace or new ads he was running. That the bills had little chance of ever being passed did not matter—he was gaining attention as the proactive candidate while the Coakley campaign was passive or reactive.
4. For nearly four weeks after the primary the Coakley campaign did not advertise at all while Brown did.
5. Coakley rejected criticism that she was not visible enough by suggesting that she did not see the point to campaigning out in the cold at Fenway Park. “ Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive,” the Boston Globe reported, “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that.” (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/13/campaigns_brevity_shapes_coakley_image_on_trail/) She gave every impression that she did not want to campaign or seek the public’s support.
6. Through this inaction, the Coakley campaign created a vacuum for nearly four weeks while Brown ran hard. By the time she began to advertise he had essentially caught up with Coakley in the polls.
7. The Coakley campaign appeared unprepared for a close race. Bloggers on BlueMassGroup came up with many questionable stances by Brown that appeared to be unknown or unnoted by the Coakley campaign.
8. The Coakley campaign had counted on a financial advantage and a short calendar to win, but this strategy got turned precisely against Coakley When Brown got close he received an ocean of contributions from all over the country. She was out-advertised, outspent, and with only days to reverse her erosion Coakley had little time to counter the surge in support that Brown enjoyed, not only from “Teabaggers,” but also from some young voters and many Independents who saw him as the fresh, attractive candidate. In a longer campaign she might have staunched the bleeding, but the campaign Coakley had counted on exactly the kind of short calendar, which destroyed Coakley’s chances.
9. Were there other factors? Obviously yes, but few campaigns have ever made so many basic mistakes from beginning to end.

I only hope that health care reform and legislation to combat climate change can survive this debacle.

Impending Coaklastrophe?

It's possible all the polls are wrong (though not likely) but they're pretty much all trending south for Martha Coakley.

Hot when it's Cold

Despite the hype about some cold weather--it's not been a cold winter as the folks at the National Sow and Ice Data Center explain. It's been quite toasty (comparatively speaking all over Greenland just as there's been a cold snap further south.