Americans Elect Frontrunner Buddy Roemer Has a Muddled View on Global Warming

Buddy Roemer, former governor of Louisiana and former Republican, has a commanding lead among the declared candidates in the Americans Elect nominating process for president. Ron Paul has far more votes but he is a drafted candidate and may choose not to participate in this process of nominating a candidate using the Internet. Global warming has pretty much become a toxic subject in national politics so few candidates are saying much but Roemer has responded to this question: "Are humans substantially responsible for global climate change?" His answer from a YouTube video of an interview with Skeptics Guide to Government was posted on the website ProCon.org.

"I think the globe is warming – beyond scientific curiosity now it’s a scientific fact. The cause of it is probably more than one thing. There are cycles in the Earth’s history where temperature rises and falls. We might be on one of those cycles. But I don’t think there is any question that man’s effect on his environment is also a factor. So we need to be commonsensical. We need to be – we need to plan out how to ameliorate, how to diffuse man’s effect. Maybe man has nothing to do with it. How can we take the risk?"

What are voters to make of this response? There is something for everybody. It could be due to a natural cycle, man is a factor, maybe man has nothing to do with it. His view is closer to that of scientists than the view of outright deniers, but do we really want this man whose thoughts seem to be so mixed up on this issue to be leading the country?

We Need the Justice Party

The need for a third party became much clearer to me when I read Jeffrey Sachs’ new book The Price of Civilization. The creation of a third party that is not dependent on taking large sums of money from corporations appears to be the only way to peacefully change the system so that the government primarily serves the people of the United States as it is supposed to do. It was shortly after finishing that book that I found out about the Justice Party, which was formed late last year by Rocky Anderson, a former two-term mayor of Salt Lake City. Anderson was a member of the Democratic Party until this past August. In an interview on a radio show he said "We've been voting as a nation against our own interests year after year. Most Americans — whether they consider themselves on the right, left, center, whatever — understand that their interests have been undermined by these folks in Washington, both in the White House and in Congress, who are acting as if they're on retainer with their largest campaign contributors rather than doing what's in the public's interest." That is a sentiment that seems now widespread and growing.

The Justice Party stands for economic, environmental, and social and civic justice. Since Anderson decided to make a run for president the party could have an immediate impact on this year’s election. With the window of opportunity closing on effective action to prevent dangerous climate change it is reassuring that Anderson makes a statement on the first page of his website which says “Climate Protection Leader=The Candidate You Have Been Waiting For.” He points out that he has been called “The Greenest Mayor” and “One of the 15 Greenest Politicians in the World.” With the system completely stacked against someone like that winning the presidency it would be foolish to raise expectations, but it would also be foolish to give up all hope. If we want to live on a planet that remains suitable for human habitation we cannot just submit to living in a corporatocracy which has replaced our democracy. If a third party is the only vehicle that can get us out of this quagmire then hopping aboard seems to be the way to go.

Rocky Anderson for President

The high expectations that President Obama would lead the world to a meaningful agreement to prevent dangerous climate change have been totally shattered. He has now been in office for more than three years and has yet to give even a single major speech on climate change. Even when comprehensive climate change legislation was stalled in the Senate in 2010 he said virtually nothing to move the legislation toward passage. In his State of the Union address in 2011 he didn’t even mention climate change and in his State of the Union address earlier this year he mentioned it only once, saying that it was not possible to pass such legislation at this time. In 2009 many people expected that a legally binding agreement would result from the climate summit in Copenhagen but all Obama got was an agreement for voluntary reductions. Expectations were lower in 2011 at the climate summit in Durban, South Africa and all that was achieved was a vague agreement for something legally binding beginning in 2020. While Obama has some notable accomplishments in improving the gas mileage standards for cars and trucks, and stimulating growth of renewable energy he has become an advocate for offshore oil drilling, sending large amounts of coal to China, and “clean coal.” He also seems to have a favorable attitude toward tar sands oil and shale gas obtained by fracking. All in all, Obama is not protecting the climate as he promised during his campaign and is unlikely to do so if he is elected for another four years. Of course, the Republican Party is only offering candidates for president who are professed global warming deniers. Whether or not they really don’t believe in global warming is besides the point, they have to deny it to remain viable candidates. In a two-party system that leaves us with no one to vote for who will assume a leadership role in dealing with the climate crisis. Just the way Big Oil wants it. The big bucks they have contributed to political candidates have paid off big time. The only hope in this despair-filled situation appears to be the longest of long shots, the former mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson who is running for president as the candidate of the newly formed Justice Party. By not taking any corporate money and limiting contributions from individuals to $100 Anderson provides a glimmer of hope that the plutocracy that has taken control of our government can be vanquished and democracy of the people restored. On the issue of global warming Anderson’s credentials are almost off the chart. Here is how these credentials are described on his website:

“Rocky Anderson is the only candidate who has won the EPA’s Climate Protection Award, the World Leadership Award (for climate protection programs), the Sierra Club’s Distinguished Service Award, and the Respect the Earth Planet Defender Award. Rocky was named by Business Week as one of the top twenty activists in the world on climate change and served on the Newsweek Global Environmental Leadership Advisory Committee. Anderson is the only US mayor who has presented in conjunction with the United Nations Climate Change Conferences in New Delhi, Buenos Aires, and Bali. He consulted in London with the assistants to heads of state in preparation for the 2005 G8 Conference, at which climate change was one of only two major agenda items. A founder and co-host of “Sundance Summit: A Mayors’ Gathering on Climate Protection,” Anderson has also presented at numerous conferences throughout the US, as well as in Australia, Canada, China, and Sweden.”

The choice is clear. Rocky Anderson for president.

Jimmy Carter's Solar Panel Stays off White House Roof

It is probably just as well that Bill McKibben was unsuccessful a couple of days ago in his effort to have Barack Obama place on the White House roof one of the thermal solar panels that Carter had put on the roof when he was president only to have Ronald Reagan a few years later take them down. To many Americans the association of Jimmy Carter with energy policy brings to mind having to make personal sacrifices like turning down the heat in winter and wearing thick sweaters to keep warm. Americans won’t even pay higher taxes to support costly wars so forget about lowering the thermostat. Jimmy Carter had a profound grasp of our energy problems back in the 1970s and how we should overcome them. When Ronald Reagan came into office it is was like returning to the Stone Age when it came to environmental issues, which for many Americans still seems to be the best place to be. Reagan thought trees were a major source of pollution. Now we have global warming deniers. Just because time passes doesn’t mean intellectual thought has to progress. Apparently thousands upon thousands of scientific peer-reviewed papers showing that global warming is real and that it is largely caused by humans means nothing to minds frozen in time, obsessed with denying the scientific reality. Better to believe some talk show host who never took a physics or chemistry course but claims that the vast majority of climate scientists are dead wrong. Bill McKibben and others who correctly comprehend the danger posed by global warming certainly have their work cut out for them to get this country off the suicidal path that the deniers are keeping us on.

No More Mr. Nice Guy for Bill McKibben

Bill McKibben, the environmental writer who wrote the first popular book on global warming over twenty years ago and who founded 350.org, has apparently come to the conclusion that being nice means losing the political battle over climate change against the super wealthy fossil fuel industry and that more aggressive tactics are needed to advance the climate movement. So he and leaders from two other environmental organizations have issued a letter which asks people to suggest ideas for mass climate action. The goal is to transform the climate movement so it more resembles the civil rights movement or women's suffrage movement of the past. Will asking people to put their bodies on the line work? Can they actually find enough people to do this? The first answers should start coming in next spring when it is expected that the initial mass direct actions will take place.

No Nancy Pelosi, it Isn’t about Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

It is Labor Day so the topic is jobs or at least promises of jobs. This brings to mind a very short but memorable speech by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi just before voting took place last year on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey bill), the comprehensive climate bill passed by the House. The debate that took place before the vote was somewhat surreal with few House members referring to the changes in the physics, chemistry, and biology that are taking place on our planet due to greenhouse gas emissions. Because of these changes we are heading toward disaster. Many Democrats argued that it was a job-creating bill and many Republicans argued that it was a job-killing bill. Some House members said it was all about achieving energy independence. When Nancy Pelosi spoke at the end of the debate she said it was about one thing, creating jobs, jobs, jobs. Is that true?
A climate bill should create a large number of jobs in a number of industries such a solar, wind, and home insulation. But it should also wipe out a large a number of jobs in the coal industry and oil industry. In should cause a major disruption with winners and losers. There doesn’t seem to be any alternative.
Whether to adopt a strategy of frightening people about climate change or adopt a strategy that is aimed to what people really care about, having better lives now, has divided climate activists. The great conundrum is that neither strategy appears to have any chance of success. The general experience is that most people don’t want to listen to the scientific facts about climate change. These facts should create a sense of urgency but they just tune out messages about parts per million in the atmosphere, etc, not caring whether the target is 450 ppm or 350 ppm or staying below 2C or 3C or getting down to 1 or 2 tons of carbon per capita, etc. Most people will listen to messages about creating jobs or achieving energy independence but these goals do not convey the sense of urgency that is needed and are too limted, for example, many people do not need jobs and energy independence only addresses oil, saying nothing about coal, the most important source of greenhouse gases. So no strong political moment has been created to counter the filthy rich fossil fuel industry that has spent vast sums of money to protect their profits from climate legislation and as a result we drift onward toward catastrophic climate change.

Where Is Obama’s Climate Change Speech?

Many of us who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 expected him to give a major speech on global warming during the first year of his presidency. Well here we are toward the end of his second year in office and so far there has been no speech. Even with a comprehensive climate bill stalled in the Senate there was no speech. What gives Mr. President who promised change we can believe in? We are still mainly relying on greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels for most of our energy needs and an end to this madness is nowhere in sight.
Is a major speech on global warming really necessary? With domestic and international efforts to fight global warming going nowhere it would seem the only way to break the stalemate would be for the President of the United States to take a political risk and give a major speech on global warming followed by many other speeches the way he did to push through healthcare legislation. There doesn’t seem to be any other way to convince the public about the dangers of global warming and the need for urgent action. All other attempts to get out the message have been successfully countered by climate change deniers. For all the books, articles, talk shows, blogs, etc. on why urgent action is needed there are books, articles, talk shows and blogs by deniers claiming that global warming is a hoax or is based on bad science or some other nonsense.
The government has a website on climate change where the scientific facts are readily available. The days of George W. Bush trying to hide the scientific facts are behind us. But that really hasn’t changed anything. The fossil fuel industry still seems to call the shots. The House did pass a climate bill but it was woefully weak and at best could have been viewed as a first step forward, coming nowhere close to what the climate scientists say is needed. So far, the Senate has been unable to even get a climate bill to the floor for a vote and apparently it will not happen at all this year.
So as we watch the volume of ice in the Arctic get smaller each summer, and the melting of ice on Greenland accelerate, and record high temperatures outnumber record lows by a two to one margin, and global temperature trends upward, and the oceans acidify, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere steadily increase from one year to the next, and climate computer models spin out disastrous predictions which are almost hard to believe there is still no big speech by Obama, no major push to try to break the political stalemate that is preventing needed action to stop a threat that many say could ultimately result in the demise of modern civilization.

Seal the Climate Deal or Face Disaster Warns UN Secretary-General

As the countdown to the December climate meeting in Copenhagen continues, Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, issued a stern warming in Seoul, South Korea that failure to reach an agreement will result in numerous devastating consequences. Reuters reports that Ban labeled climate change as a “fundamental threat to mankind.” The UN chief is so concerned about the lack of progress in negotiations so far that he has called for a special meeting of world leaders at the UN in New York City on September 22. This week the negotiators are at it again in Bonn, Germany trying to make progress on what appears to be a negotiation going nowhere. This negotiating process has been going on for almost 2 years now and so far there has been no breakthrough to bridge the gap in demands between the developed and developing countries. The two most important countries in this process, the US and China which presently account for almost one half of global warming pollution, remain far apart with China demanding that unless the US agrees to cut its emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 it will not agree to reduce its emissions and the US saying that it cannot reduce its emissions that much but that China must agree to reduce its emissions. The next most important country, India, has been saying that it will not agree to reduce its emissions under any circumstances but on a per capita basis its emissions will not rise above those of developed countries. With the Kyoto Protocol agreement ending in 2012 there is little time left to reach an agreement, ratify it, and then begin implementation. The scientists say that global emissions need to peak by 2015 to have any realistic chance of avoiding going over the warming threshold for catastrophic climate change. Under normal economic conditions global emissions increase by about 3%-4% annually so to level off by 2015 will take some doing. The good news is that in the past the world was able to reach an agreement to fix the problem of the ozone hole. The bad news is that the problem this time appears to be infinitely more complicated than finding substitute chemicals to keep air conditioners and refrigerators running.

Media Blamed for Public’s Lack of Concern about Global Warming

While the world’s leading climate scientists paint increasingly grim scenarios about where global warming is leading, various polls confirm that the public is relatively unconcerned. The blame for this apathy in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that human civilization seems to be heading for almost certain disaster on a scale that is unprecedented is attributable to the media according to Dr. Neil Gavin from the School of Politics and Communications Studies at Liverpool University. Science Daily reports that Dr. Gavin and his research colleagues found fewer articles published in the media on climate change over a 3-year period than are published on health matters during a period of one month. Dr. Gavin concludes that “Climate change…may not be high enough on the media agenda to stimulate the sort of public concern that prompts concerted political action.” It is difficult to know what it would take for the media to cover global warming for this type of political action to result. Most parameters of global warming are incremental. Global temperatures are increasing as predicted but the rate is only about .2C per decade. Sea level is rising as predicted but the increase is only about 3 to 4 mm per year. The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have gone off the charts compared with the previous thousands of years but it only has been increasing by about 2 parts per million annually. These trends projected into the next several decades are ominous to say the least according to almost all climate scientists but it is difficult for these dire projections about the future to compete with a collapsing economy, wars and threats of terrorism, new information of the risks of heart disease and cancer, etc. The day that the media provides adequate coverage of global warming in time to provoke concerted political action to avert catastrophic climate change may just never arrive.

Emergency Meeting of Climate Scientists Scheduled to Break Political Logjam

In what almost sounds like something out of a Hollywood disaster movie, the Guardian reports that climate scientists from around the world will hold an emergency meeting in Denmark next month to try to get the politicians moving on fighting global warming. An update will be published on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report of two years ago which will be more specific on some issues such as prediction of sea level rise. It would seem that there is already far and away enough information about the climate change crisis to warrant all-out action to stop global warming, so it is a little hard to fathom what this meeting will accomplish. The public doesn’t seem concerned enough to take to the streets and demand action so most politicians seem content to fiddle away as the disaster unfolds. Gradual warming with lag times of decades isn’t the type of crisis that will arouse the masses. The past two decades of mostly apathy is evidence of that.

McCain’s Big Speech Omits Climate Change

First John McCain picks a vice presidential running mate that doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming and then at his big speech at the Republican National Convention he doesn’t even mention global warming or climate change. I guess mentioning either of these two terms to his base supporters of religious fundamentalists and ideologues opposed to government regulation of corporations would have reminded them that only a few days ago they were not too crazy about John McCain. Having recently reversed course on offshore oil drilling will he now reverse himself on mandatory caps for carbon emissions? With regard to the environment it seems unclear what he stands for, if anything. With reductions in carbon emissions being needed to begin almost immediately to avoid a climate catastrophe down the road the US voters only have one more chance to get it right. McCain’s recent behavior is making the choice pretty much a no brainer.

McCain VP Pick a Global Warming Denier

Since John McCain is one of the few Republican leaders who has defied President Bush by supporting a mandatory cap on carbon emissions to fight global warming his pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for a running make is surprising, not only because she is a woman and has no experience in foreign policy but based on a statement to Newsmax Magazine she denies that global warming is being caused by human sources. When asked “What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?” she replied, “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.” Okay, then what would you attribute it to? To bad there was no follow-up question. And, so much for science. Even Bush is no longer that far out. Apparently McCain, who is 72 years old, not only hopes to survive his term in office if he wins but is sure that he will. Given his views on global warming he must know that if Palin ever became president it would be a disaster. How could she work with the Europeans who are frantic over the looming catastrophe that climate change poses? Who would be left to convince the Chinese, who now lead the world in greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce their emissions? As the Arctic ice cap melts away to water and Greenland begins to live up to its name it is clear that George Bush’s victory (if you can call it that) in the 2000 election has spelled disaster in the effort to fight climate change. Perhaps it is already too late to reverse course, but if we really have one last chance that reprieve seems certain to go down the tube if Sarah Palin were to become president.

McCain’s Seven-Home Carbon Footprint

Can someone who owns seven homes lead the world in taking on the global warming crisis? Thanks to an inquisitive reporter we now know that John McCain owns six more homes than the average American. Of course the big story was that when asked by a reporter how many homes he owns McCain amazingly didn’t know and referred the reporter to his staff. Certainly the carbon emissions associated with his seven homes are no doubt only a small fraction of McCain’s carbon footprint. All the flying around the country he has done while running for president probably has a larger carbon footprint than a small African nation. But overall, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions flying only accounts for a small percentage of carbon emissions whereas operating buildings accounts for about half, at least in the US. Owning seven homes may not be fatal to the task of leading the world against global warming but it certainly doesn’t help.

Obama and Clinton Still Calling for More Biofuels

So far it appears that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton have adjusted their policies on biofuels to the new scientific realization that large scale production of both ethanol and biodiesel are contributing to global warming rather than being a partial solution. The other major presidential candidate, John McCain, doesn’t seem to have any policy on biofuels or for that matter on how to reduce greenhouse gases from transportation as his website simply says that he offers to limit carbon emissions “by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share.” At least Obama and Clinton do get down to some specifics.

Barack Obama’s website says that he “will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.”

Hillary Clinton’s website says that she will have “60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030.”

That’s a lot of biofuels to be promising considering that so far the use of biofuels has led to increasing food prices around the world and increased emissions of greenhouse gases in instances where land was cleared for planting. Cellulosic ethanol at this point remains unproven as a source of fuel and hardly something to count on.

What we should be hearing from all three candidates is that they want to put a halt to large scale production of ethanol and biodiesel and carefully review whether the using these fuels in place of petroleum-based fuels at this time makes any sense. Unfortunately that is not what they want to hear in Iowa or neighboring farm states so there is little if any chance anyone will be hearing it from the candidates very soon.

Bill McKibben Calls for 350ppm Carbon Dioxide Target

Environmental author and activist Bill McKibben, who launched the Step It Up campaign last year, has revealed the next phase of his plan to fight global warming with local activism. The Brattleboro Reformer reports that McKibben told a group of local activists that this next phase will call for a target of 350 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As things stand now we are at about 385ppm and heading upward at about 2ppm per year. He is calling his plan 350. McKibben said that “What we need is people in their own communities to take that number and spread it, with music, with art, and take pictures and get it back into that centralized area.” Unlike his Step It Up campaign which was limited to the United States, this new 350 campaign he envisions as international. McKibben clearly understands the precarious situation that excessive emissions of greenhouse gases from human sources has caused saying that “We are in a big, freaking hole and there’s absolutely no guarantee that we are going to get out of it.” So, it is on to 350.

Big Name Reporters Ask Presidential Candidates Little About Global Warming

It is no secret that the so-called “corporate media” has been criticized for years about lack of coverage on global warming. Although there has been some recent improvement on this score, probably largely thanks to having dramatic pictures of melting ice to hold the attention of viewers, this new attention to global warming apparently hasn’t gravitated to the coverage of the presidential election. Evidence that the top reporters are ignoring global warming when they interview candidates has been circulated by the Sierra Club with a petition.
According to the Sierra Club, Tim Russert asked 755 questions on Meet the Press and never mentioned global warming, Wolf Blitzer asked 329 questions on the Situation Room and mentioned global warming once, George Stephanopoulus asked 726 questions on This Week and never mentioned global warming, Chris Wallace asked 436 questions on Fox News and mentioned global warming twice, and Bob Schieffer asked 238 questions on Face the Nation and never mentioned global warming. There seems to be a pattern here.
It seems unlikely global warming will get much more attention as the campaigns move forward because the media has never really conveyed the urgency of the situation. If a candidate without a real global warming policy such as Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney wins the presidency we will know that the corporate media should receive much of the blame. Unfortunately of course it will be too late for the Earth.

Dems Debate Cap-and-Trade Versus Carbon Tax

Watching the Republicans and Democrats who are running for president debate last night it looked like once again the critical issue of global warming would be all but ignored, but near the end of the debate by the Democrats the issue of cap-and-trade versus carbon tax actually was debated. As reported by Reuters both New Mexico governor Bill Richardson and Illinois Senator Barack Obama said they favored the cap-and-trade system over the carbon tax. Richardson claimed that only the carbon tax would cost American citizens money but Obama then correctly pointed out that costs of the cap-and-trade system would be passed along to consumers.

In the Republican debate Arizona Senator John McCain raised the issue of global warming but not surprisingly none of the other candidates really addressed the issue at all. The Republicans, except for McCain, seem to be operating in a post 9-11 world but a pre-An Inconvenient Truth World as if they are hoping people wouldn’t notice that the Al Gore film on global warming had ever been shown or that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had ever issued their fourth report stating that if greenhouse gas emissions do not peak globally by 2015 catastrophic climate change probably can not be avoided. Hopefully enough people have noticed and will make this know at the ballot box in November.

Should Step It Up Give It Up?

Where are all the planned Step It Up events for A National Day of Climate Action on November 3rd? With 35 days left it looks like there are less than 200 events planned. I say looks like because the grand total is no longer available for viewing. I guess the events were adding up so slowly that it was thought that showing the total would lead to discouragement. It seems almost hard to believe but back in February with 45 days left before A National Day of Climate Action on April 14th there were already 753 planned events listed on the Step It Up website. Looking back, I guess that was the Golden Age of Step It Up.

Maybe the Civil Rights movement is not a good model for a global warming movement. Maybe we really don’t need a global warming movement. Maybe just doing what needs to be done without gathering in large groups for demonstrations is the way to go. In any case, I plan to attend one or two Step It Up events but it seems like it won’t be the same as those heady days last spring when tens of thousands of people gathered at over 1,400 events to ask Congress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. How did Bill Mckibben pull that off? He is probably wondering himself.

Is Step It Up Losing Momentum?

To keep the momentum of their global warming movement going following the success of the first day of Step It Up events on April 14th author Bill McKibben and company have called for another day of Step It Up events on November 3rd. Unfortunately it appears there is less enthusiasm for this second go-around. Forty-five days before April 14th there were only two states, North Dakota and South Dakota, in which events were not planned. Well here we are only 42 days before November 3rd and the list of states without events planned is rather long. The list includes Nevada, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama. Not only does there appear to be a lack of enthusiasm among event planners, but politicians do not seem to be accepting invitations to attend the events. Among 221 members of Congress who have been invited only two have to this date accepted. Among 14 presidential candidates who have been invited none have so far said they would go. Since I think it fair to say that momentum for fighting global warming is not on the wane in the US and if anything it has picked up, it is likely that the reduced enthusiasm for Step It Up events has more to do with Step It Up than the issue per se. Perhaps the problem is that the novelty of showing up at global warming protest events has worn off. We’ve done that, now what? Perhaps people have concluded that the first round of Step It Up events had no effect on politicians so why go through all the bother of doing it again. In any case, if this truly is a political movement it appears to be somewhat in trouble.

Is Fred Thompson Going After the Sun is the Cause of Global Warming Vote?

Now that Fred Thompson has declared that he is running for president a statement of his on global warming that he wrote on the ABC Radio Networks website back in April is receiving a lot of attention. Here is the statement:

Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto. NASA says the Martian South Pole's ice cap has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter's caught the same cold, because it's warming up too, like Pluto. This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non-signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle. Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn't even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There's a consensus. Ask Galileo.

The statement seems to suggest that Thompson is a global warming denier blaming increased solar activity for the rise in mean global temperature on Earth rather than greenhouse gases from human sources. Perhaps he is? On the other hand there are huge numbers of American voters who believe that increased solar activity is the culprit even though scientists have found not a shred of evidence to support this notion. If I had to make a guess I think that Thompson believes that “the science is absolutely decided” and “there’s a consensus.” The other stuff is probably to get votes by sticking it to liberals. His comments are amusing but for those of us who think that that facts presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals carry more weight than flip remarks by conservative politicians and that taking quick action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is absolutely urgent there is more reason to laugh at Thompson rather than with him.