Frontline: Hot Politics

[Brian Rucker]

FRONTLINE
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/

- This Week: "Hot Politics" (60 minutes),
Tuesday, Apr. 24 at 9pm on PBS (check local listings)
Inside FRONTLINE: Some investigative history
- Live Discussion: Chat with correspondent Deborah Amos, Wed., April 25, at 11 am ET

No, "Hot Politics," our broadcast this Tuesday night, is not about the early going in the race to be the next president. Instead FRONTLINE and the Center for Investigative Reporting examine why the federal government has been slow to wake up to the challenge posed by global warming. Why, we ask, when there was a scientific consensus that the earth is warming articulated nearly 20 years ago, have Republican and Democratic administrations alike been unable to come up with a strategy to deal with the problem?

In 2008 it is possible that both major party nominees will run on platforms that call for mandatory action to do something about the nation's carbon emissions. But as correspondent Deborah Amos and producer Peter Bull reveal in our look back at what happened, such proposals have been on the table before. Powerful industries - coal, oil, mining and electric utilities - got both parties to back away from meaningful action by first attacking the scientific consensus and then raising the specter of damage to the economy. As a result, the U.S. began to go it alone in terms of the worldwide climate debate.

Former Vice President Al Gore did travel to Kyoto and pledged U.S. support for mandatory reduction standards for carbon dioxide emissions. But when he came home, the treaty to which he committed the nation was never even submitted to the Senate for ratification (where it faced almost certain defeat). One Clinton administration official, Deputy Secretary of State Eileen Claussen, quit her job in frustration. Says Claussen, "... It's better to have good rhetoric than bad rhetoric, but it's actually better still to want to do something."

When President Bush took the U.S. out of the Kyoto treaty process altogether, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency Christine Todd Whitman, tells FRONTLINE: "The way it happened was the equivalent of flipping the bird, frankly, to the rest of the world..." And the Bush administration would go one step further. Scientists within the government were told to stop talking about climate change. An important study that assessed the potential impact of global warming on different regions within the U.S. - and the need to plan for those events - was actually suppressed.

If you are interested in how 'hot' are the politics around climate change, the way the media were spun to fashion the discussion, and the orchestrated attack on the science behind global warming, you will want to see this investigative history. If you cannot join us Tuesday night, the program will be available for viewing on our Web site the day after, along with special reports, maps, the extended interviews, and the opportunity to join in the discussion about this report.

Louis Wiley, Jr.
Executive Editor

Via email.

[Bob Cherub]

Well, 30 years ago the consensus was global cooling. I think the "consensus" should make up its mind.

http://content5.clipmarks.com/image_cache/joaaron2468/512/237A1408-52C3-478C-8AB3-9D86EF1D150D.jpg

[Stroker Ace]

It did, you just didn't hear it because your head was stuck in the sand.

[Andrew Mayer]

It did, you just didn't hear it because your head was stuck in the sand.

The sand isn't around his head, it's in his head.

[Stroker Ace]

You don't say? http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/images/bubba-ho-tep.JPG

[PeterGinsberg]

Well, 30 years ago the consensus was global cooling. I think the "consensus" should make up its mind.

You might want to check the meaning of the word consensus, and then re-review your yellowed newspaper clipping and think about it.

[bigdruid]

You know, I still remember those halcyon, Bob-free days after the November elections. Too bad his hangover had to wear off eventually.

Also, just realized that this was a clip from *Readers Digest* - is that where you do all your scientific research, Bob? That explains quite a bit, pinhead.

[JeffL]

OK, guys, attack me instead. In the 70s there was a lot of discussion on global cooling in scientific circles - I had to do a paper on it in college in 1975. There was a measured global cooling trend that had been active from the early to mid 40s through the 70s, and thus environmental scientists were looking for the cause. There was a lot of concern over the large increase of particles in the atmosphere and the resulting albedo effects. It was a big enough deal at least a couple of profs at our school were getting federal funding based on global cooling, and one had a joint funded project in which he and a prof in Germany were receiving some type of international funding (not a clue today where it was coming from.)

[Enidigm]

Remember though a lot of climate science tends to sway in the wind, depending upon what particular aspect of climatology is being brought to the fore.

Because of the Cold War and the threat of Global Themermonuclear War, there was a great deal of discussion about mushroom clouds affecting global climates (aka, the doomsday shroud). At the same time, scientific evidence for a dramatic decline in the Dinasaur population due to a climatological event was making the rounds and becoming popularized.

It wouldn't be suprising that early scientists looking at global particulate effects would see them through this lense.

[bigdruid]

OK, guys, attack me instead. In the 70s there was a lot of discussion on global cooling in scientific circles - I had to do a paper on it in college in 1975.

No wonder you keep arguing against global warming - you'll be dead long before the effects hit.

[Houngan]

OK, guys, attack me instead. In the 70s there was a lot of discussion on global cooling in scientific circles - I had to do a paper on it in college in 1975. There was a measured global cooling trend that had been active from the early to mid 40s through the 70s, and thus environmental scientists were looking for the cause. There was a lot of concern over the large increase of particles in the atmosphere and the resulting albedo effects. It was a big enough deal at least a couple of profs at our school were getting federal funding based on global cooling, and one had a joint funded project in which he and a prof in Germany were receiving some type of international funding (not a clue today where it was coming from.)

My arch-conservative friend trotted this out, and it sounded fishy to me. Particularly all the talk of scientists saying that the next ice age was imminent, and a lot of other hard conjecture that just isn't a part of good science as I know it. So I did some research, and found a site that nicely sums up what happened:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth

The short version is that the media latched on to a paper, took some parts out of context, then blew the whole thing out of proportion. Eventually it got big enough that some legitimate scientists said some dumb things, but the base material never suggested any dramatic change on less than geological timeframes. And, most damning was an acknowledgement of aerosol cooling vs. CO2 warming, and wondering which would be the one that came out on top. We kinda know who we should have bet on, now.

H.

[PeterGinsberg]

OK, guys, attack me instead. In the 70s there was a lot of discussion on global cooling in scientific circles - I had to do a paper on it in college in 1975.

Sure, and in the late 80's when global warming was first being investigated seriously, there wasn't anything close to a consensus. The fact that one theory got funding and was proven wrong, and another got funding and continued to gain traction tells us what exactly?

Consensus is the word we are discussing here, yet you and Bob seem to be conflating that with "They said" or "Some scientists were talking about". At this point, you'd be very hard pressed to find a reputable scientist who doesn't believe in global climate change and human impact. The debate at this point is about what the actual effect will be and what to do about it.

You want to argue that people are being hysterical in their predictions, fine, I think it's easy to that. But this denial really does make you sound like a flat earther.

[JeffL]

Sure, and in the late 80's when global warming was first being investigated seriously, there wasn't anything close to a consensus. The fact that one theory got funding and was proven wrong, and another got funding and continued to gain traction tells us what exactly?

Consensus is the word we are discussing here, yet you and Bob seem to be conflating that with "They said" or "Some scientists were talking about". At this point, you'd be very hard pressed to find a reputable scientist who doesn't believe in global climate change and human impact. The debate at this point is about what the actual effect will be and what to do about it.

You want to argue that people are being hysterical in their predictions, fine, I think it's easy to that. But this denial really does make you sound like a flat earther.

All I was responding to were the personal attacks against someone who said that global cooling was considered by many to be the serious issue in the 70s. Here's a relatively shallow but reflective recent article that talks about the kinds of things that were being written about in magazines, etc. back then:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

Pointing out that people were hyped about global cooling back then doesn't make anyone a "flat earther." At the time, scientists had a trend of 30 years of data and drew the curves to extrapolate. None of the scientists who were claiming global cooling were working for (hmmm, there must have been some big bad companies who would gain from that, don't know who though.) And actually, some of that led to some environmental controls that were good for the world, in getting rid of the crap in the air that contributed to that effect.

The only thing you'll see me argue is that we need more quantitative data in order to determine most effective steps, and what will actually make a difference from what is just "feel-good." ABC News had a show tonight featuring a company that sells carbon credits - they've figured out how to make a good business by getting an SUV owner to send them a few hundred bucks and they'll get some trees planted (that was one of the actual examples used.) I personally don't think that, if this is the serious problem it is being declared to be, telling people they can keep doing whatever they're doing but send a company a hundred bucks to plant some trees is going to reverse or even slow anything down.

[bigdruid]

All I was responding to were the personal attacks against a tool who does nothing but troll on this board
Fixed.

Understand that if anyone *other* than Bob started this discussion, they'd have gotten a more reasonable response.

But Bob doesn't want discussion, he just likes to get under people's skin. He's just like the teenager who used to poke his head into my church and yell "Jesus Sucks!" then run away. Bob's conservatism is actually just the public expression of his own self-loathing, reflected on whoever the target du jour is (environmentalists, muslims, liberals, whatever). I could almost feel sorry for him.



The only thing you'll see me argue is that we need more quantitative data in order to determine most effective steps, and what will actually make a difference from what is just "feel-good."
Yeah, we got that from the last global warming thread last week. And you make a good point, but again, while we figure out precisely what is required, there's no reason not to freeze our production of greenhouse gases.

It's analogous to someone who just found out that he's walked out on thin ice - he doesn't know how thin the ice is, and he doesn't know whether he needs to go all the way back to shore or not, but while he's figuring it out the safe thing to do is *not go further out into the lake*.

[Jason McCullough]

Jeff, I recall you previously warned us at length, multiple times, about using media portrayals of the state of scientific research as an estimate of what the science says. Now, the opinions of a few scientists back then, with no consensus, plus a couple articles in newsweek and time, turns in to:


Pointing out that people were hyped about global cooling back then doesn't make anyone a "flat earther." At the time, scientists had a trend of 30 years of data and drew the curves to extrapolate. None of the scientists who were claiming global cooling were working for (hmmm, there must have been some big bad companies who would gain from that, don't know who though.) And actually, some of that led to some environmental controls that were good for the world, in getting rid of the crap in the air that contributed to that effect.

[Brian Rucker]

It's analogous to someone who just found out that he's walked out on thin ice - he doesn't know how thin the ice is, and he doesn't know whether he needs to go all the way back to shore or not, but while he's figuring it out the safe thing to do is *not go further out into the lake*.

I am so stealing that.

[JeffL]

Jeff, I recall you previously warned us at length, multiple times, about using media portrayals of the state of scientific research as an estimate of what the science says. Now, the opinions of a few scientists back then, with no consensus, plus a couple articles in newsweek and time, turns in to:

Actually, at the time, there was more consensus (and by the way, it seems the term consensus is used much more in climate discussions than any other field, but I assume that is because it is so media driven) than what I read today in hindsight articles. There was a lot of pollution that was putting a lot of stuff in the air that was causing the measurable effects. It wasn't as big a media and political issue back then, but it wasn't just two articles in a couple of magazines. Actually, IIRC, the acid rain issue (from some of the same pollutant sources) got more media traction and was at least as much a driver in some of the changes.

I didn't say, by the way, that the scientists back then were correct. And my belief is as strong as ever that when a scientific issue becomes a central tool for politicians and the media people need to do their homework and be more questioning than ever, since the media will indeed do what the media does. If you rely on the mass media as your analysis tool for complex technical issues, particularly those that have massive political overtones, you're on a weak foundation, IMO.

[JeffL]

Yeah, we got that from the last global warming thread last week. And you make a good point, but again, while we figure out precisely what is required, there's no reason not to freeze our production of greenhouse gases.


I have no argument with trying to minimize the gases in question. None at all. My argument is that that is not sufficient. And I find it odd that the people who are screaming the loudest about how big a threat this is to the world seem to get so defensive or attack someone who is saying we need to do MORE.

Everyone seems very satisfied that a UN committee has released a summary that concludes human contributions to climate warming is significant, and Sheryl Crow is having concerts urging people to give up toilet paper and companies are forming to make money on this by selling you a bumper sticker and certificate saying your SUV is OK because you gave them a hundred bucks to plant a tree somewhere. Do you guys really and truly think this is a threat to the world? If so, why aren't you the ones who are perturbed by the lack of any real data saying what will be effective and what won't be? I read everything on all sides of this, including the technical papers, and I just don't see any real drive to a data driven solution, just "well, all life on earth is going to end, and humans are causing it, and it can't hurt to plant more trees and carpool."

[Jason McCullough]

Actually, at the time, there was more consensus (and by the way, it seems the term consensus is used much more in climate discussions than any other field, but I assume that is because it is so media driven) than what I read today in hindsight articles.

Maybe you should refer to said scientific consensus, then, rather than media articles. These (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94) guys disagree with you on the "consensus."

Jeff, on what planet of Cyclons would the public calmly react by asking for more data on what's effective, rather than flipping out and adopting a lot of feel good pointless measures like toilet paper and green-heavy advertising? This is people you're talking about here. The median United States citizen is not a graduate student. The drive to a data-driven solution with come from scientists and politicians, not anyone else. We have a big green Earth Day symbol for the public, not a giant spreadsheet of coefficients.

By the way, what's the downside to planting trees and carpooling?

[Elton]

By the way, what's the downside to planting trees and carpooling?

The downside (if I'm reading jeff's intent correctly) is that car-pooling and tree-planting people will say "Gosh, I'm doing loads to stop global warming. There's no way we need carbon taxes on top of that -- that's going to cost me real money!"

[Jason McCullough]

Sure, if that's the case, but who is saying that? :)

[bigdruid]

Well, there's that one SUV driver that Jeff heard about on TV :)

BTW, Jeff - I re-read your replies to the previous global warming thread, and I have to say I see them in a very different and much more reasonable light now. I thought your "we need to push harder to figure out exactly what remedies are needed" was just doublespeak for "we don't have conclusive proof that any remedies are needed", but I see now that you were speaking in earnest.

[JeffL]

Maybe you should refer to said scientific consensus, then, rather than media articles. These (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94) guys disagree with you on the "consensus."

Jeff, on what planet of Cyclons would the public calmly react by asking for more data on what's effective, rather than flipping out and adopting a lot of feel good pointless measures like toilet paper and green-heavy advertising? This is people you're talking about here. The median United States citizen is not a graduate student. The drive to a data-driven solution with come from scientists and politicians, not anyone else. We have a big green Earth Day symbol for the public, not a giant spreadsheet of coefficients.

By the way, what's the downside to planting trees and carpooling?


Yeah, there are a lot of people very threatened by any comments that we have been wrong in the past, and thus people go out of there way to state how there was no real consensus (whatever the hell that means) on global cooling. Fine. I was there, I'm not relying on google, I was beginning my science education and surrounded by scientists and in the library reading the papers every night. But whatever.

I don't see politicians pushing for better data. I see the posturing for votes and attacks. And what really bothers me is, in the last two international conferences I attended in which climate change was a topic, I saw precious little discussion or presentations or proposals for more specific "this is the data we need to determine what is required to turn things around." But, this is not my area of technical expertise, and I admit I probably only scan and read the technical literature in this area once a week or so, so perhaps it's there and I'm missing it.

But yeah, as stated above, the problem with paying someone to plant a tree so you can keep driving your Hummer and using a billion KW in your house is that this is what is being proclaimed by every media source and celebrity and politicians as the solution. When we don't have a frikken clue if that's even the right approach. CO2 apparently, from the best data I've seen (but I may be wrong,) remains in the atmosphere for about 100 years. Vehicles (cars, trucks) are only about 20% of the CO2 source. How much CO2 in the atmosphere creates how much warming? How much is there now? How much would it have to be reduced to get to a steady state, and how much to reduce average temps (and how much variability is in the calculations?) Is a "global average temperature" really a valid measure? How much should we focus on CO2 and how much on methane and how sure are we that there isn't some other contributor that may be at much lower levels but much more effective at impacting change? Can we afford to let nations such as India and China do whatever they want and still make up the difference? There are just a lot of questions that people don't seem interested in getting hard answers to, yet they claim the world is ending.

[Charles]

What does any of this really matter? The bees are dying, so we only have four years left.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, there are a lot of people very threatened by any comments that we have been wrong in the past, and thus people go out of there way to state how there was no real consensus (whatever the hell that means) on global cooling. Fine. I was there, I'm not relying on google, I was beginning my science education and surrounded by scientists and in the library reading the papers every night. But whatever.

In other words, I should trust your opinion because you claim to be free of ideology, were working in generic "science" back in college, claim to be non-partisan, love industry, and you've conveniently never adopted a single left of center opinion in your entire time here?


I don't see politicians pushing for better data. I see the posturing for votes and attacks.

That's because the only politicians that can really do much about this - namely, future Presidents - are currently running for office. What do you expect them to do? Issue rousing calls for more study?


But yeah, as stated above, the problem with paying someone to plant a tree so you can keep driving your Hummer and using a billion KW in your house is that this is what is being proclaimed by every media source and celebrity and politicians as the solution.

Please quote a celebrity, politician, or media source stating that planting a tree will solve global warming.

[JeffL]

In other words, I should trust your opinion because you claim to be free of ideology, were working in generic "science" back in college, claim to be non-partisan, love industry, and you've conveniently never adopted a single left of center opinion in your entire time here?



That's because the only politicians that can really do much about this - namely, future Presidents - are currently running for office. What do you expect them to do? Issue rousing calls for more study?



Please quote a celebrity, politician, or media source stating that planting a tree will solve global warming.

Actually, you should choose to believe whoever you want - I'm not telling you my opinion, I'm telling you what I observed and experienced in 1975. You can add that to your database or ignore it. I'm also far from free of ideology - I'm pretty passionate on a lot of stuff. When it comes to the analysis of scientific data, I try to actually be a scientist and see what the data says. My entire life and career has been filled with me changing my opinion on things when the data said otherwise. I tell the groups who work for me, when they get into arguments with people inside or out of the company, "just show the data and let the data speak."

Jason, you are so consumed by ideology that everything to you has to be a right vs. left thing. I've never had or expressed a left of center opinion? My passion for some type of national health program? My passion and work both in the U.S. and in Africa on world hunger? My couple of years working for Jimmy Carter's campaign? But frankly, I don't look at things in such a polar right vs. left view. I don't even understand why or how you can take such umbrage at someone saying that scientists had a widespread view of cooling back in the 70s - why do you care?

You said that the "people" are idiots not capable of understanding data so we shouldn't expect them to be more analytical and demanding, that we should expect "them" to simply swallow the shallowness of the media, and then said that politicians and scientists are the only ones who can do anything, then you make an excuse as to why we shouldn't expect anything from politicians?

You really want me to google up the stupid things being said by celebrities saying planting trees will solve global warming? C'mon, Sheryl Crow is saying using one sheet of toilet paper instead of 3 will make a big difference. The whole carbon credits things is companies selling the idea that they'll have a tree planted for you to make up for your inefficient use of energy, and these are being touted as a solution.

I just don't get your insistence at categorizing everything and everyone as black and white "Right vs. Left" unless its just a way to simplify things.

[Athryn]

The whole "Carbon Credits" payments and stuff make me feel as if it is some modern form of simony, where those who can afford it can pay for their "sin."

[tromik]

Well, 30 years ago the consensus was global cooling. I think the "consensus" should make up its mind.

http://content5.clipmarks.com/image_cache/joaaron2468/512/237A1408-52C3-478C-8AB3-9D86EF1D150D.jpg
So in thirty years you'll believe today's consensus?

[shift6]

jeff lackey. We hardly knew him. He dared to suggest that before most posters on QT3 were out of diapers, science held a theory which has since been updated though the self-correction mechanism that science relies on. Good luck in your new endeavor, jeff lackey. Hopefully you have learned where your place is when it comes to blogs and media consensus.

A moment of silence please.

[Bob Cherub]

The short version is that the media latched on to a paper, took some parts out of context, then blew the whole thing out of proportion. Eventually it got big enough that some legitimate scientists said some dumb things, but the base material never suggested any dramatic change on less than geological timeframes. And, most damning was an acknowledgement of aerosol cooling vs. CO2 warming, and wondering which would be the one that came out on top. We kinda know who we should have bet on, now.


Hey, I have an idea. Let's memorialize your little diatribe here and 30 years down the road when global temps are lower than today we can all have a big laugh how this statement applied to 2007 and not 1977.

Lollercopters!

[Bob Cherub]

Understand that if anyone *other* than Bob started this discussion, they'd have gotten a more reasonable response.

But Bob doesn't want discussion, he just likes to get under people's skin. He's just like the teenager who used to poke his head into my church and yell "Jesus Sucks!" then run away. Bob's conservatism is actually just the public expression of his own self-loathing, reflected on whoever the target du jour is (environmentalists, muslims, liberals, whatever). I could almost feel sorry for him.


Awww.. I almost teared up there.

It's funny how my "trolling" became Jeff Lackey's actual response. And I think it's really telling how you treat someone with a differing opinion than your own, especially a guy who agrees with almost everything else.

This isn't the first time the hivemind attacked Jeff. I seem to remember Rucker saying how he "thought" Jeff was a good guy...until he had the AUDACITY to post an alternate viewpoint. OMFG HOW DARE HE.

Pretty sad really. Almost as sad as my self-loathing.

*points to tear on cheek*

[Bob Cherub]

The whole "Carbon Credits" payments and stuff make me feel as if it is some modern form of simony, where those who can afford it can pay for their "sin."

Exactly. Carbon credits are so hypocrites like John Edwards (THERE ARE TWO AMERICAS) with his gigabyte square foot home or John Travolta with his commercial jet parked on his property or any of the other environmental blowhards that preach what the common man can do to stop global warming (Only use one square of toilet paper guys!) while standing in front of a huge formation of plasma TV screens that are sucking power...where was I...oh yeah, so these hypocrites can pretend like they're doing something for the planet.

Here's a fucking idea if you wanna save the planet. Move out of your power sucking mansion or stop flying your private jet and go plant trees cause you care not cause you're doing to offset your wasteful, hypocritical bullshit self.

[Stroker Ace]

It's neat how being rich - pretty much guaranteed of all policiticans in modern america - automatically excludes one from being an environmentalist, which hence debunks global warming. The sad thing is that Bob didn't even come up with that illogic himself.

[Quaro]

How do you guys think we can get massive CO reductions without a carbon credit/tax? Do you really think companies are going to put dollars into reducing emissions if there's no economic incentive?

I was reading 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' the other day. I'm not sure it's exactly connected, but I thought of global cooling when reading about Continental drift/Plate tectonics -- just a theory into the late 60s, and objections to the theory were still presented in textbooks into the 70s. It's funny to think something that seems so fundamental and obvious now wasn't common knowledge until the 60s.

[Jason McCullough]

Jason, you are so consumed by ideology that everything to you has to be a right vs. left thing. I've never had or expressed a left of center opinion? My passion for some type of national health program? My passion and work both in the U.S. and in Africa on world hunger? My couple of years working for Jimmy Carter's campaign? But frankly, I don't look at things in such a polar right vs. left view. I don't even understand why or how you can take such umbrage at someone saying that scientists had a widespread view of cooling back in the 70s - why do you care?

Whatever you did for Jimmy Carter, it's a remarkable coincidence that every single opinion you've expressed on this board is "aww shucks, pox on both houses, but the Democratic/left opinion is clearly not going to work." I'm just saying maybe you're more ideological than you think.

As to my opinions, I'm consumed with finding the right answer. I don't particularly give a goddamn who's making oh-deary-me-I have a case of the vapors exaggerations. It's mistaking media coverage for substance. To hear you talk, the biggest global warming problem we have is people who care about it enough to not sit back and wait for scientists to meet whatever your personal level of confidence is in the solution. This also applies to what you've said about health care policy, and I remember some pretty entertaining confusion of appearances for substance back when Al Gore was the topic.


You said that the "people" are idiots not capable of understanding data so we shouldn't expect them to be more analytical and demanding, that we should expect "them" to simply swallow the shallowness of the media, and then said that politicians and scientists are the only ones who can do anything, then you make an excuse as to why we shouldn't expect anything from politicians?

Really, I called them idiots? It's amazing the things that people think you say.

People aren't graduate students with a lot of time to spend understanding the issues of the day. They want explanatory short hand of plausible solutions. They're not going to suddenly become a reasonable data-driven public because you want them to. Not that this is really an issue; they're normally pretty good at this stuff.


You really want me to google up the stupid things being said by celebrities saying planting trees will solve global warming? C'mon, Sheryl Crow is saying using one sheet of toilet paper instead of 3 will make a big difference. The whole carbon credits things is companies selling the idea that they'll have a tree planted for you to make up for your inefficient use of energy, and these are being touted as a solution.

Sheryl Crow says she was joking (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david-and-sheryl-crow/lets-wrap-it-up_b_46620.html). If you hadn't already decided every single person that cares about global warming was a misinformed, illogical PR hound who should be publishing peer-reviewed papers in Science rather than discussing the issue it would be pretty obvious she was joking. For someone who thinks the media is full of it, you're remarkably eager to believe them.

To summarize, you write like Mickey Kaus, and it's exasperating. :)

[bigdruid]

Jesus Sucks! YAAAAAAAA!
Thanks for stopping by, Bob.

[Huzurdaddi]

How do you guys think we can get massive CO reductions without a carbon credit/tax? Do you really think companies are going to put dollars into reducing emissions if there's no economic incentive?


I think that everyone agrees that in the presence of large externalities the free market is unable to efficiently solve for price/production. The problem is how to fix the market. For local externalities the common solution is some form of tax. However, greenhouse gases are a global problem and we do not have a global tax structure. Kyoto attempted to address this problem. However since there is no global governement it has been plagued with problems. Unless nations are willing to take drastic action (eg: trade sanctions with major economies like the US and China ) to enforce participation in schemes like Kyoto I doubt that they will be effective.


I was reading 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' the other day. I'm not sure it's exactly connected, but I thought of global cooling when reading about Continental drift/Plate tectonics -- just a theory into the late 60s, and objections to the theory were still presented in textbooks into the 70s. It's funny to think something that seems so fundamental and obvious now wasn't common knowledge until the 60s.

Small world. I was just reading that section yesterday.

[JeffL]

Whatever you did for Jimmy Carter, it's a remarkable coincidence that every single opinion you've expressed on this board is "aww shucks, pox on both houses, but the Democratic/left opinion is clearly not going to work." I'm just saying maybe you're more ideological than you think.

As to my opinions, I'm consumed with finding the right answer. I don't particularly give a goddamn who's making oh-deary-me-I have a case of the vapors exaggerations. It's mistaking media coverage for substance. To hear you talk, the biggest global warming problem we have is people who care about it enough to not sit back and wait for scientists to meet whatever your personal level of confidence is in the solution. This also applies to what you've said about health care policy, and I remember some pretty entertaining confusion of appearances for substance back when Al Gore was the topic.



Really, I called them idiots? It's amazing the things that people think you say.

People aren't graduate students with a lot of time to spend understanding the issues of the day. They want explanatory short hand of plausible solutions. They're not going to suddenly become a reasonable data-driven public because you want them to. Not that this is really an issue; they're normally pretty good at this stuff.



Sheryl Crow says she was joking (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david-and-sheryl-crow/lets-wrap-it-up_b_46620.html). If you hadn't already decided every single person that cares about global warming was a misinformed, illogical PR hound who should be publishing peer-reviewed papers in Science rather than discussing the issue it would be pretty obvious she was joking. For someone who thinks the media is full of it, you're remarkably eager to believe them.

To summarize, you write like Mickey Kaus, and it's exasperating. :)

Well, then we're pretty good at exasperating each other! ;)

First - I really have no problem if someone here thinks I'm a right wing conservative. Any more than I have a problem on the one other political discussion board on which I post if they think I'm a left wing liberal. I don't consider either a "bad" thing. Don't let the people in Obama's campaign know that, though, or they'll stop taking my money. I AM idealogical. Absolutely. They're not as neatly packaged on one side as yours are (has there ever been a Democrat you thought was bad, or a Republican you thought was great?)

The biggest problem I have is NOT people buying carbon credits or changing their light bulbs. That isn't what I've been saying at all. Read closer. The biggest problem is the perception that it is sufficient. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but we don't know. The biggest problem is the speed and urgency with which we find out what is required.

Health care? Again, doing it wrong for feel good get votes is disastrous. Sorry if that amuses you. I've said repeatedly we don't need the entire answer now, we need to start by saying no one will be refused top of the line health care because of lack of money, and no one will be bankrupted because of a health care crisis (severe injury, cancer, etc.) and then we can work out the details of the rest. We could do that in a very short time frame. Hilarious, huh?

People aren't graduate students with a lot of time to understand the issues of the day. I think you underestimate what most people are capable of.

[JeffL]

How do you guys think we can get massive CO reductions without a carbon credit/tax? Do you really think companies are going to put dollars into reducing emissions if there's no economic incentive?

I was reading 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' the other day. I'm not sure it's exactly connected, but I thought of global cooling when reading about Continental drift/Plate tectonics -- just a theory into the late 60s, and objections to the theory were still presented in textbooks into the 70s. It's funny to think something that seems so fundamental and obvious now wasn't common knowledge until the 60s.

If we have the data that says it's required and the levels required, you have what you need to simply pass the regulations the way we did with pollution in the 70s. I think the concern people have is the effectiveness of carbon credits - do you really achieve a net loss in greenhouse emissions globally if you allow a company to put out tons of gas and pay some form of tax? There are people who are very committed to correcting warming who are skeptical of the effectiveness of this approach.

Ideally, you determine a level that you need to achieve, and then pass the regulations that require companies to comply with the resulting levels. It will hurt some businesses harder than others, since some products currently require the production of CO2, e.g., for their manufacture while others don't. And costs will probably be passed on to consumers. But in an open market, the smarter companies will see this as a new opportunity for a competitive advantage for whoever can come up with alternative cheaper processes. The company to which I am moving in a couple of weeks is trying to get ahead of the game by developing greener products and processes ahead of any future regulations.

[Jason McCullough]

The biggest problem is the perception that it is sufficient.

That's why I was asking for some evidence that people actually think the decorative measures proposed so far are sufficient. Who are these people?

Like on health care, I think the biggest problem in the global warming thing is a lack of will to actually change something, or active resistance by the nutjobs. Until a couple months ago when party control changed sides, the chair of the Senate environment committee was of the opinion global warming was a hoax.

Handwringing about how we haven't hit X confidence level on a solution is a problem for after you're elected.

[JeffL]

That's why I was asking for some evidence that people actually think the decorative measures proposed so far are sufficient. Who are these people?


Its more of a matter of looking at where is the publicity, papers, concerns, hue and cry that we desperately need to figure this out. I don't see anyone pushing hard for the answers of what is required; instead, just a lot of lets pass laws to make you change your light bulbs, carbon credit companies, etc. To use a bad analogy, if a meteor was on track to hit the earth and wipe out life on earth, I would expect more urgency and concern over figuring out what, specifically, needs to be done to head it off. The last conference I attended (last year, Australia) there was the beginning of a discussion on what to do, and the answer from the panel (including people on the UN panel) was basically we need to really cut back on CO2. A woman from Germany asked why the focus on C02, when Nitrous Oxide is almost 300 times worse and methane is about 30 times worse, and there was no good answer, other than industry produces most of the CO2 while the others are being produced primarily from agricultural processes and thus it would be tough to reduce them. When asked what levels need to be at in the atmosphere to have a measurable impact, the answer was basically we don't know and we may not be able to reverse it. Some discussion on HFCs and PFCs, which are also much worse. But no real discussions, in the two days of papers, on how we'll figure out what is really required. The IPCC summary (I still haven't been able to track down the actual report) very specifically says they will not recommend specific strategies for reducing/reversing the problem (much of which they say is already irreversible.)

I'll turn it around - am I missing the evidence that shows people think they're not making a significant impact on reversing the problem by what they're doing? All the sites and quotes and orgs I see talk about "here's what we can do to reverse global warming." Typical quote from one of the sites: "Global warming can be slowed and stopped with practical actions that yield a healthier atmosphere" (eartheasy.com) A magazine ad: "Turn off the lights and reverse global warming." Do people who pick from the 60 plus companies you can easily find who will sell you carbon offsets not think what they are doing is stopping global warming?

I can accept that I'm missing the big, urgent push to figure out what's required - I'm looking for it, maybe I'm missing it, and the media is just choosing to not show it. And please don't take the kneejerk reaction that because I don't think we're emphasizing the push to figure out what's required means that I think its wrong or dumb to cut back on CO2, methane, nox, HFCs, PFCs, etc. I just think a lot of people think this is as simple as reducing pollution, when it is vastly more complex.

[Jason McCullough]

I have to actively disprove now that magazine ads saying you can reverse global warming by buying a Gap sweater have convinced people that's all they have to do, or that the people buying carbon offsets think that's all they have to do? Do you normally assess people opinions by the advertising that's sold to them and the first round of legislative proposals politicians haven't actually proposed in an election cycle? You're the one proposing here.

You're right, there isn't a big push to figure out what's required to resolve the issue. That's because it's still completely politically impossible to shove through any changes, even if you knew exactly what to do. I'd estimate we're about 5 years from a solution drive showing up; people aren't concerned enough yet to budge the retrograde politicians. Only in the last year have the polls on global warming actually existing firmed up. We have Exxon's wall of PR denial and media hand-wringing that treats the industry shill and the mainstream scientists as equivalent to thank for that.

[MikeJ]

Ideally, you determine a level that you need to achieve, and then pass the regulations that require companies to comply with the resulting levels. It will hurt some businesses harder than others, since some products currently require the production of CO2, e.g., for their manufacture while others don't.

But this is easier to do if you allow a carbon market. Say gizmos and widgets currently require the same CO2 emissions to manufacture, and you want to drop emissions by 50%. You could require both the gizmo makers and the widget manufacturers to each drop emissions by 50%. That increases the cost of gizmos from $1 to $1.10, while increasing the cost of gadgets from $1 to $10, because it's much harder to reduce emissions in gadget-making. Yet the atmosphere doesn't care very much which smokestack the CO2 comes from, so any combination that results in a 50% drop overall has the same effect. So instead, you could have gizmos drop by 90% (new cost $1.25) and gadgets drop by 10% (new cost $1.15).

You can do this by setting an emissions market, with only a fixed number of emissions to go around. Then the cost of an emission credit should equal the marginal cost of reducing emissions at your target emissions level. This means investment in emissions-reducing technology is focused where it gets the most bang for the buck.

The only problem I see if how you deal with cheaters, especially in an international carbon market. Country Y will just claim that their industries are so clean they have extra credits to sell. Depending on the cost of emissions credits, the pressure to fudge the numbers would be huge. The other thing is it could be very hard to calculate emissions in some cases and the calculations could be very politicized (though that would happen under any emissions-limiting scenario).

[bigdruid]

And please don't take the kneejerk reaction that because I don't think we're emphasizing the push to figure out what's required means that I think its wrong or dumb to cut back on CO2, methane, nox, HFCs, PFCs, etc. I just think a lot of people think this is as simple as reducing pollution, when it is vastly more complex.

BTW, Jeff - I think you've gotten the reaction you did, because you are leading with your skepticism. And the environmental movement is *extremely* gunshy of "skeptics" with hidden agendas.

For example, I'll quote your post in the other thread:



Which is why I get so hung up on actual causal data. Everyone gets hung up on how much the climate is warming, etc. and then simply says "well, it must be human caused" and cite some fairly non-rigorous data. When you try to push for the actual measurements and data to track back to quantitative relationships, the answer you most often get is "well, it can't hurt to cut back on CO2 emissions (it was other things back in the 80s) so we should just do it!"


This looks suspiciously like "I don't actually believe global warming is caused by humans".

Had you posted instead "Man, I'm really concerned that we're not doing *enough* to stop global warming - what if implementing the Kyoto protocols isn't enough? Is anyone pushing for some hard science to figure out exactly how far we need to go?" you would have gotten a much different reaction.

The fact that you chose to instead cast aspersions on whether global warming is actually human caused, leaves me either wondering whether you are being slightly disingenuous, or whether perhaps you just aren't really good at communicating how fully you've embraced the current efforts to stop global warming.

I'm taking you at your word, but understand that you are passing the Turing test for someone with a secret anti-environmental bias, which is why you keep getting this reaction from people.

[Linoleum]

I'm taking you at your word, but understand that you are passing the Turing test for someone with a secret anti-environmental bias, which is why you keep getting this reaction from people.

Some of us aren't convinced that the majority of global warming is due to man-made causes yet at the same time feel that continuing to dump CO2 into the atmosphere willy-nilly is unwise.

Continued global warming will have adverse effects on much of the global economy. Extreme measures to curb global emissions may also have a adverse effect on the global economy. Unfortunately, when things are in the shitter, concepts like conservation or environmentalism tend to go out the window. I don't see how being concerned with that makes one 'anti-environmental'. My moral calculus involves finding the sweet spot between minimizing human deaths and minimizing ecological devastation. I don't think it's irrational to fear things taking a bent into a religious crusade and ending up in a situation where we have continued warming and a lack of resources to help mitigate the effects. The results would not be pretty.

[bigdruid]

Extreme measures to curb global emissions may also have a adverse effect on the global economy.
I would like to live in your parallel universe where the environmental movement is so powerful that they are able to enact "extreme measures" over the objections of industry.

Because in the universe where *I* come from, the environmental lobby has had to fight tooth and nail for every inch of progress it has made.

So, yeah, I think in the overall scheme of things, having our GDP gutted by runaway environmental restrictions is pretty farfetched - there's just too much money and power pushing back.

Edit: I'd also add that there's this unwritten assumption that the cost of reducing greenhouse emissions is somehow greater than the savings from not having to restructure our economy in the wake of climate change - an assumption I don't necessarily agree with.

And, no, having skepticism or wanting balance is not *necessarily* anti-environmental. Just realize that the rhetoric you use is shared with people that *are* anti-environmental, so you're going to get a similar response.

[Linoleum]

I would like to live in your parallel universe where the environmental movement is so powerful that they are able to enact "extreme measures" over the objections of industry.

I'm sure the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, detainee torture and Camp X-Ray would have sounded like parallel universe stuff in 1998 too.

Of course future administrations regardless of party are just going to give up all those expansions of executive power the Bush Adminstration carved out, especially if they control Congress. Is it really so much to believe there might not be drastic action in a future administration if someone takes Gore's "90% by 2050" dear to heart? (I'm going to need to start a thread on what that would take at some point)


Edit: I'd also add that there's this unwritten assumption that the cost of reducing greenhouse emissions is somehow greater than the savings from not having to restructure our economy in the wake of climate change - an assumption I don't necessarily agree with.

There's a model for any scenario you want to promote. None of them solid.


And, no, having skepticism or wanting balance is not *necessarily* anti-environmental. Just realize that the rhetoric you use is shared with people that *are* anti-environmental, so you're going to get a similar response.

A frequent and convenient excuse to ignore anything said that doesn't mesh with dogma/party line. Oh, I thought you were one of those people.

[bigdruid]

Is it really so much to believe there might not be drastic action in a future administration if someone takes Gore's "90% by 2050" dear to heart? (I'm going to need to start a thread on what that would take at some point)

Oh, please let me live to see the day... There's been exactly...one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaqu%C3%ADn_Balaguer) pro-environment dictator in modern history. I'll give you 100:1 odds that a Christian dictator takes over the US before a pro-environment one does. And even higher odds that a puppet for multinational corporations comes into power....oh wait, already happened.

Anyhow, I have to wonder exactly what's driving your mistrust of the environmental movement?



A frequent and convenient excuse to ignore anything said that doesn't mesh with dogma/party line. Oh, I thought you were one of those people.
Sure, I'll grant you that.

Of course, when you hear a dozen people with a hidden agenda make the same seemingly innocuous statement, you tend to mistrust the 13th person to make that statement. I was just pointing out that there are more constructive ways to express *the same opinion* that aren't instantly going to get people's defenses up.

But you and Jeff would rather highlight your edgy disagreements with the new conventional wisdom, which is cool, but don't then complain that people respond to you in a knee-jerk manner.

[Linoleum]

Anyhow, I have to wonder exactly what's driving your mistrust of the environmental movement?

Oh, there are plenty of good environmentalists, just like there are plenty of good christians. Unfortunately, you also have the hypocrites, the messiah complexers, the ignorant and superstitious, just like, well, you know!

Sadly they can't all be Sangamon Taylor (http://www.amazon.com/Zodiac-Neal-Stephenson/dp/0802143156)

[JeffL]

BTW, Jeff - I think you've gotten the reaction you did, because you are leading with your skepticism. And the environmental movement is *extremely* gunshy of "skeptics" with hidden agendas.

For example, I'll quote your post in the other thread:



This looks suspiciously like "I don't actually believe global warming is caused by humans".

Had you posted instead "Man, I'm really concerned that we're not doing *enough* to stop global warming - what if implementing the Kyoto protocols isn't enough? Is anyone pushing for some hard science to figure out exactly how far we need to go?" you would have gotten a much different reaction.

The fact that you chose to instead cast aspersions on whether global warming is actually human caused, leaves me either wondering whether you are being slightly disingenuous, or whether perhaps you just aren't really good at communicating how fully you've embraced the current efforts to stop global warming.

I'm taking you at your word, but understand that you are passing the Turing test for someone with a secret anti-environmental bias, which is why you keep getting this reaction from people.

I appreciate your non-emotive responses, and I'm not yet 100% sure that the global warming from the last 100 - 200 years being cited by the UN committee, etc. is majority human caused. I know that will get me labeled an "anti-environmentalist" because people are, as you noted, EXTREMELY defensive at any questioning of the data analysis. I do, at this point, think it is more likely than not that human contributions are the most significant factor (and I didn't a year ago.) And I really wouldn't be worried about trying to hide any agenda - I'm not sure why anyone on a forum like this would feel compelled to hide their true feelings on any issue.

I do believe, today, that the potential seriousness of the issue is such that we need to be pushing a lot harder on figuring out exactly what's required. When the U.N. committee says we're already at a point where there isn't much we can do to reverse the impact in the next 100 years, and then specifically avoided giving specific recommendations on what should be done, it doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

[bigdruid]

I'm not sure why anyone on a forum like this would feel compelled to hide their true feelings on any issue.

Because Jason is taking down all dissenter's names, and when our pro-environment Super Dictator comes into power, they'll all be sent off to Gitmo for re-education, or until they've worked off our country's carbon debt, whichever comes first.

[MikeSofaer]

or until they've worked off our country's carbon debt, whichever comes first.
Well, it's better than carbon debtor's prison.

[Jason McCullough]

And I really wouldn't be worried about trying to hide any agenda - I'm not sure why anyone on a forum like this would feel compelled to hide their true feelings on any issue.

Oh, I don't think you're hiding anything. I hadn't realized it, but bigdruid's diagnosis of why I get so exasperated reading your stuff is pretty much dead on - the style sets off the hindbrain "any minute now he'll start going on about how it's a conspiracy" reaction.

The environmentalist movement destroying the world economy is a pretty goddamn funny scenario. You should hook up with Larry Niven, Lino.

[Enidigm]

The super-secret way to save the environment and the world is reduce the total population of the Earth to 1/10s of it's current level.

You think environmentalism is hard? Try telling people they can't have babies.

[edit for clarity]

[JeffL]

By the way, if you would like some insight on why some older farts like me start out skeptical on "the world will be destroyed in xx years and people will die off" etc. scenarios, it's not just a skeptical by training scientist thing. It's the fact that, ever since I've been in college, starting in 74, we have never had a time in which scientists have not claimed an urgent crisis that will end life as we know it in 20 years. The first Fortran program I built, in the punch card days, was in a class where we were proving that the combination of the population boom and the inability of the world to feed and sustain that many people would result in billions dying by the year 1995. As a young, idealist, politically active (and very liberal, BTW!) kid this was scary and exciting stuff! Very energizing. The Fortran program was an undeniable proof, fed by "best" data. It's been one world ending crisis after another, non-stop. At the time, the data looks good, the scientists are sincere, good scientists, and in every case to date its been proven untrue. So the natural first reaction of anyone over 40 years old is usually "here we go again" - there's a crying wolf inoculation that has to be overcome.

[Enidigm]

I think the only big difference though, Jeff, is that climate change is being documented on a pretty widescale basis. Many of those 70's style runaway disasters were simple predictions based on then-contemporary scalers and dynamics. Sort of like the ongoing fear of peak-oil supercrises events that lead to total systemic collapse that's still making the rounds.

OTOH, when you can see satellite images year after year of the ice packs retreating, it seems less like a cause fearing an effect in the not-so-distant future, as an effect happening today looking for a cause.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Sadly they can't all be Sangamon Taylor (http://www.amazon.com/Zodiac-Neal-Stephenson/dp/0802143156)

On this, we can agree.

[bigdruid]

So the natural first reaction of anyone over 40 years old is usually "here we go again" - there's a crying wolf inoculation that has to be overcome.
Interesting insight - I can definitely see where you are coming from. Luckily, I've got 6 more months before the skepticism sets in :)

Of course, the fact that the world *wasn't* destroyed by ICBMs doesn't mean that the threat of nuclear war was overblown. Likewise, the whole "population bomb" scenario was averted (or at least postponed) by the draconian birth control measures enacted by China, and the still-poorly-understood drop in birth rates in first world countries. Likewise, we banned ozone-damaging chemicals (as you are aware) and that's yet another success.

So the fact that we dodged a few bullets doesn't mean the danger wasn't real.

[Mordrak]

I appreciate your non-emotive responses, and I'm not yet 100% sure that the global warming from the last 100 - 200 years being cited by the UN committee, etc. is majority human caused.


At what percentage of confidence should we be willing to hedge our bet?

[JeffL]

At what percentage of confidence should we be willing to hedge our bet?

Well, my comments have been that we should be pushing harder for the most effective corrective measures, so in my opinion we're past that point.

[JeffL]

Interesting insight - I can definitely see where you are coming from. Luckily, I've got 6 more months before the skepticism sets in :)

Of course, the fact that the world *wasn't* destroyed by ICBMs doesn't mean that the threat of nuclear war was overblown. Likewise, the whole "population bomb" scenario was averted (or at least postponed) by the draconian birth control measures enacted by China, and the still-poorly-understood drop in birth rates in first world countries. Likewise, we banned ozone-damaging chemicals (as you are aware) and that's yet another success.

So the fact that we dodged a few bullets doesn't mean the danger wasn't real.

Oh, no doubt. Just explaining the human nature emotive response that many have, since in many cases the fervor was at least as great as it is today. One day the boy cries wolf and there is a wolf.

And, as you point out, some of the sky is falling cries resulted in good things. I remember pollution and littering that was so bad I can't believe we lived with it back then.

[bigdruid]

You and me both, bruddah:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/CryingIndian.jpg

[Elton]

In today's NYT:
Public Remains Split on Response to Warming (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27poll.html?hp=&pagewanted=all)

The majority of Americans said "immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere".
But check this shit out:


When it comes to specific steps to foster conservation or produce more energy, the public is deeply torn, the poll found. Respondents said they would support higher gasoline prices to reduce dependence on foreign oil but would oppose higher prices to combat global warming.

By large margins, respondents opposed an increase in pump prices of $2 a gallon, or even $1, to deal with environmental and energy-supply concerns. Three-quarters said they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources like solar or wind energy.

...

Nearly half of those polled also said they did not believe that their fellow Americans would be willing to change driving habits to save gasoline or reduce the production of heat-trapping gases, which most scientists say contribute to the warming.

...

Although respondents split almost evenly on whether Washington can effectively address global warming, they almost unanimously (92 percent to 6 percent) supported requiring automobile manufacturers to make more fuel-efficient cars.


Maybe it's just me, but it seems like people are way too obsessed with gas prices (and also where the oil comes from, as if America cutting back on driving will hamstring the terrorists), and way too accepting of new government regs. But that's just me.

I also liked this bit. America is apparently a nation of climatologists and loonies:


A big majority, 75 percent, said recent weather had been stranger than usual, an increase of almost 10 percentage points from 1997. Of those who said the weather had turned weird, 43 percent attributed it to global warming and 15 percent to pollution or other environmental damage. Four percent cited the coming end of the world or biblical prophecy, and 2 percent blamed space junk.

[Jason McCullough]

Gas prices are very strange. Check out how correlated they are with presdential approval ratings (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/04/gasoline_prices.html), for example.

[Talisker]

2 percent blamed space junk.
Fucking space junk.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Do you realize how much space junk is constantly crossing international borders, unrestricted by law?

[Glenn]

Likewise, the whole "population bomb" scenario was averted (or at least postponed) by the draconian birth control measures enacted by China, and the still-poorly-understood drop in birth rates in first world countries.NORMAN FUCKING BORLAUG. He's the reason you're not eating soylent right now, you could at least learn his name.

[Ed Solomon]

NORMAN FUCKING BORLAUG. He's the reason you're not eating soylent right now, you could at least learn his name.
Uhh...I'm pretty sure his middle name's Ernest.

[Glenn]

Don't dispute me.

[Ed Solomon]

Oh, yeah, what are you gonna do? Release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?

[Glenn]

PREPARE TO BE IGNORED, MOTHERFUCKER


This message cannot be displayed because Ed Solomon is being shunned by you.

Let's see you get around that, smart guy.

[Ed Solomon]

Shun away. I fear no Amish man but Alexander Godunov.

[shift6]

Oh, yeah, what are you gonna do? Release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?
Dammit Glenn, are you the one who let the dogs out?

[Glenn]

Dammit Glenn, are you the one who let the dogs out?No, I just closed the metaphorical door by shunning Him. Please don't quote Him in the future, as I might accidentally read one of his posts.