Kerry smacks down shills from AEI and oil-funded think tanks. (updated)

[ProSense]

Baucus Committed to 'Balanced' Climate Legislation; Kerry Takes Think Tanks to Task

Once opening statements were over, the hearing quickly morphed into a debate between Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and two witnesses over the accuracy of conservative think tanks' studies on the bills’ economic effects.

Margo Thorning, chief economist with ACCF, a think tank that has received more than $1.6 million in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998, pointed to a survey her organization produced with the National Association of Manufacturers that says the U.S. would lose up to 2.4 million jobs by 2030 and that “household income would be about $1,200 less than it otherwise would be.”

She said the study relied on macroeconomic models, which “are able to capture the dynamic impact of changes in energy prices,” as opposed to input-output models, which “are not able to capture the impact of higher energy prices on the U.S. economy.”

Kerry jumped on the claim.

“The question of assumptions is really fundamental to this,” he said.

Numerous studies have been done by academic and progressive think tanks as well as environmental groups that have found a net reduction in household costs and growth in jobs, Kerry said.

A University of Massachusetts Amherst study, for example, concluded that the clean energy boost provide House-passed American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) bill, in conjunction with the stimulus package, would provide a net increase of about 1.7 million jobs. A cost analysis by the EPA projected an increase in annual costs of about $80 to $111 per household, but that didn't factor in the economic benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A University of California, Berkeley assessment concluded that the number of jobs, GDP and household income would rise with the legislation because energy efficiency would reduce costs.

"You don't take into account the cost of inaction," Kerry added.

As Thorning began to mention the unwillingness of India and China to take action on climate change, Kerry interrupted her, saying,

“That’s not accurate. That’s not accurate. You need to be accurate.”

“The changes that have been taking place are taking place in the rest of the world; not in the U.S.,” Kerry said. “China, India and others are going to clean our clock if we don't act.”

AEI’s Kenneth Green drew Kerry’s ire when he contended that “economists, EarthFirst and people like me at AEI say cap-and-trade doesn't work … cap and trade hasn't worked in Europe and it will not work here.”

Kerry countered:

“Europe’s trading system didn’t fail; its working”

“They began a two year initial phase in which they acknowledge they made some mistakes,” Kerry said. “They've reduced emissions. They're growing their economies. Germany today has created more jobs in the (renewable energy sector) than in their vaunted automobile industry.”

Green, however, sees structural problems with Europe's cap-and-trade program. "We will see many of the same problems here" only on a much larger scale, he said.

Kerry, an author of the Senate's Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, told Green he was “seeing something that thousands of others don’t.”

Those others, said Kerry, presumable referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “won a Nobel Prize; we didn’t.”

“If all these people are over here and you’re over there, the (burden) is pretty heavy (on you) to tell me we need to exercise the precautionary principle,” said Kerry. After asking whether AEI’s studies have been peer-reviewed, Kerry added, “You realize there are two or three thousand peer-reviewed studies that contradict your findings.”

<...>

Updated to add: C-Span video (starts about 51:00)

[BeFree]

1. Good ol' Kerry

You know he's having to fight from calling out those liars and telling them just what he thinks about them.

It is good to know someone is still fighting the good fight. I've all but given up. And were I to ever be in the position Kerry is, half the world would hate my guts for telling the truth and shoving it down their throats.

Better for me to just try and stay happy even as the behemoth gas-guzzlers take up more and more space on the highways.

[ProSense]

2. Kerry kills them with facts.

They sit there spinning away as if no one understands their distortions. Whatever the issue, if Kerry is the questioner, come with facts or be prepared to get schooled.

[jasi2006]

43. He should have nothing to fear now that he is not running for Pres.

He should tell them all to KHA, including AIPAC.

[karynnj]

47. Not sure what KHA is, but Kerry gave a great speech at AIPAC this year

He spoke immediately before Biden and he spoke of no more settlements and allowing movement for Arabs on the West Bank. He also spoke of having seen Gaza, where he and Teresa went on a trip early this year. They went even though they were not allowed to take their security - they were just with the UN.

[ohtransplant]

3. He's just so well informed. He rarely gets surprised.

I get a kick out of the positive press he's been getting. There was a piece on NPR yesterday going on about how he's really coming into his own. They acted link he ame out of nowhere.

In my mind he's been kicking ass for a long time. People are really just catching on.

He probably gets a higher profile because of the SFRC chairmanship but he's been an expert there for a long time.

Thank you again Senator.

[karynnj]

5. I agree with you - great that he is getting the good press, but it doesn't make up for their

blindness in 2004. The funny thing is that some of the "new skills" they credit it him with were obvious even in his leadership in 1971. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=127952&mesg_id=127962 )

Had Kerry used his leadership, eloquence and intelligence on issues completely in the mainstream, he likely would have been President years ago. But, who would have taken on the hard issues - like Vietnam, the Contras, BCCI. Issues that powerful interests didn't want examined. It may be his bravery in following his intelligence and investigations where they led him that meant that he never got the praise that many who did less routinely get.

[RepublicanElephant]

27. yep. and the idiot whore media called him stiff and pedantic. nt

[karynnj]

32. To me, that is strange because as soon as I started watching the SFRC

Kerry was clearly the most personable and the most able to laugh even in very deary meetings. (In 2007, when Crocker was in Pakistan and was having a hearing to become ambassador to Iraq, at the beginning, Crocker mentioned that when Kerry visited Pakistan, Senator Kerry and his aides were the only DC people ever to take them up on their challenge of a snowball fight. Kerry laughed and aske dif he wanted it in the record who won. Crocker at that point laughed and pointed out that Kerry had been badly outnumbered.

As to pedantic, he can be speak at a very high level in situations where that is appropriate - he is clearly very knowledgeable and very smart, but in person, informally on his book tour or in rallies he is neither. He is though very very serious when he speaks on issues, which I think we should want in a political leader. I have always been impressed how well he can explain complicated things especially in how he could relate everything to a bigger picture.

[YvonneCa]

13. I absolutely agree with you. I'm glad people are...

...finally waking up and catching on...but geeez! :) Nothing like taking FOREVER! :7


And to the Senator...I add my thanks to yours. :patriot:

[blm]

33. I agree with you - media HAS to pretend he only just started speaking out because they were part of

keeping his most serious work uncovering IranContra, BCCI, S&L problems, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning from the American people by keeping essential information downplayed or ignored.

Many excused their inaction by complaining those matters were 'too complicated' for the American people to understand. Insulting. They ignored the most serious matters involved because their corporate masters were on board to protect the secrecy and privilege of GHWBush and his global cronies.

[karynnj]

4. Kerry really does counter the two negative witness very well

Thorning was a picture of hautiness, in describing how her model was superior. The fact is that a later Kerry asking if she modelled the move to efficiencies, for which there already is substantial history. She hadn't. Now, given that she has a dynamic model - that she is so proud of - one would think that she could have modelled in the efficiencies by making them a function of the price of energy - as the raising price would move companies and people to achieve them. (Basic economics would suggest this and there is ample history to show it can and did happen. For people, just look at the late 1970s - people did move to more energy efficient cars and bought programmable thermostats. For companies, Kerry cited many.)

Here, she is hiding behind a complex model, but the model is only as good as the input variables and the relationships written to model a very complex interactive process. Kerry attacked both - her input variables are out of line with others and she did not include what should have been a pretty obvious relationship.

[Hutzpa]

6. This is the fight. n/t

[karynnj]

7. Here is a wonderful summary and youtube of that smack down

(that Beachmom put on DU JK)

I hope this link gets used every time, Green is sent out as an expert in the future. http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/10/kenneth-green-american-enterprise-institute-aei

[karynnj]

8. Sad that this gets less attention than any Grayson comment

when it is far more powerful.

[ProSense]

9. Must-see video of Sen. Kerry grilling AEI’s Kenneth Green:

Must-see video of Sen. Kerry grilling AEI’s Kenneth Green: “You just can’t just throw that stuff out there.”

Smack!

[ClarkUSA]

10. Nice. President Obama is fortunate to have Senator Kerry as a good friend, ally, and advisor. nt

[ellie]

11. Hahahaha

Good for Kerry.

[karynnj]

12. Green and another AEI fellow may have tried to buy scientists to write against the IPCC (UN) results

Caveat - this was found by google and I know nothing of the source. If true, it is seedy and this smug guy, who was in the middle of it, is about on the Rush Limbaugh level of integrity.

Here is an article in the Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange#article_continue

There is more information including AEI's response to the Guradian.

They are accused of sending a letter to a University scientist that concludes with:

"If you and Prof. North are agreeable to being authors, AEI will offer an honoraria of $10,000. The essay should be in the range of 7,500 to 10,000 words, though it can be longer. The deadline for a complete draft will be December 15, 2007. We intend to hold a series of small conferences and seminars in Washington and elsewhere to coincide with the release of both the FAR and our assessment in the spring or summer of 2007, for which we can provide travel expenses and additional honoraria if you are able to participate."

http://volokh.com/posts/1170541963.shtml

Now, $10,000 for 7,500 to 10,000 words is pretty steep.

[Poptech]

14. 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Sen. Kerry apparently never got the memo…

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Oh and a blog post about a paper does not debunk it, the reply has to be peer-reviewed in the journal so the author has a chance to respond.

[ProSense]

15. Your link isn't working, but

it's likely bogus anyway.

[Poptech]

18. 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

Fixed

[ProSense]

19. Bogus

Not only those not studies, they're the repetitive opinions of the same group of gobal warming deniers. Lectures aren't studies.

[Poptech]

24. They are peer-reviewed papers

They are not lectures but actual peer-reviewed papers.

[GOTV]

34. This one, the first one I looked at, is not ....

http://nome.colorado.edu/HARC/Readings/Boehmer.pdf

it is clearly marked as commentary. It is not a study or a paper. Not a good start.

Plus the site itself is very dubious. Their effort to push irrelevant facts such as CO2 is not a pollutant tips their adgenda.

[ProSense]

37. It's a wingnut site

The Anti Nationalized Health Care Resource

[karynnj]

39. It really is - that is awful

Our "new poster" is also posting here - http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/john-kerry-climate-change-denying-scholar.php

There he says more about himself, which makes me wonder if he is "Andrew" at the site he linked to. If this is true, he really should be identifying himself as being one of a handfull of people who created and run a RW site.

He completely misses the point here on what Senator Kerry contradicted Green on. The first thing was a pompous statement explaining how the US takes treaties more seriously than the rest of the world and always lives up to them. This was of course explained to the Chair of the SFRC, a committee that could not possibly have anything to do with treaties. Kerry's counter of the treaty signed in 1992 contradicts that pompous piece of xenophobia.

In addition, Green disagrees with the world - saying that 3 degrees is the limit not 2 degrees. His source - I read the paper and this is my field. (I guess no country bothered to consult someone as smart as he is.) His idea that we should become more "resilent", which he wrote one of his papers on is silly. In the first place, even if it worked, the problem continues to worsen. In the second place, imagine the cost to strengthen the infrastructure everywhere.

It was on BIG SUBSTANTIVE issues that Kerry caught him. If the loony right managed to get groups of scientists to produce papers that they could review for each other, it changes nothing on the relative proportion of scientists who believe like Kerry and like Green. In addition, as Kerry has said in many speeches, the downside of him being wrong is a cleaner healthier country - and the downside of no doing it is catastrophe.

[Poptech]

50. There is no catastrophy

I was not commenting on the treaty but the fallacious statement that no skeptical peer-reviewed papers exist.

There is no catastrophy...

Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min) (ABC News)

[Poptech]

49. No it is not, read carefully

The Case Against Sarah Palin (2012)

[Poptech]

48. Commentary is not included in the paper count

You missed the note at the bottom "Comments, Erratum, Replies and Responses are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count."

[karynnj]

23. A cursory examination of the beginning of this list

shows that it is pretty shoddy. Looking just at the first 10, several are simply comments and corrections to other papers. There is also nothing that says the first one (the only one I looked at) is peer reviewed.

I would actually EXPECT that there should be peered reviewed papers by now - people have pointed to the lack of them for years. I would assume that some of the deniers would be able to get their allies to review their papers.

The fact is that even if the scientific community were equally divided,which it isn't, the fact is that a simple analysis would tell you that we need to listen to the those who fear that 2 degrees is near the tipping point.

Senator Kerry put it brilliantly in his speech at the CFR,

"This is a critical moment, and I'd just leave you with one question: Supposing Al Gore, and John Kerry, and John Holdren, and thousands of scientists, and Tom Brokaw, and everybody are wrong? Suppose we're wrong, and it isn't going to be as bad as we believe the scientists are telling us it will be, but we do things we need to do to respond? What's the -- what's the worst that would happen if we do the things that we're proposing?

Well, if we respond adequately, we would change our energy habits; provide new technologies; solve problems on a global basis. The worst that would happen is: We would be healthier because we'd have cleaner air; we would have transformed our economies and created millions of clean energy jobs; we'd be more competitive; we'd have created high-value added, sustainable jobs that are here at home, not abroad; we would have lived up to our environmental responsibility; create sustainable development policies; planted and saved forests; reduced disease and toxic poisoning that comes from antiquated industrial practices; we would have lived up to our humanitarian responsibilities to help developing countries avoid disease and dislocation; we would have hugely enhanced our security by becoming less fossil fuel and foreign oil dependent.

And those are the worst things that would happen to us if we did this.

What happens if they're wrong? What happens if John Boehner and all the rest of those folks who are in denial and who want to stay with the status quo are wrong? Irreversible, catastrophic downside on a global basis."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/19639/climate_change_and_american_foreign_policy.html

(The link has the test and video of the speech)

[Poptech]

25. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)


The comments and replies are not included in the 450 count.

No paper you look at will say it is peer-reviewed, it is based on the journal it was published in, all the papers counted are peer-reviewed.

I don't know how you can point to the lack of years when you have papers listed from the '90s.

Sen. Kerry is lying by stating no papers exist as I have just proven.

Global warming has nothing to do with air pollution because Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution!

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

(snip)

[karynnj]

28. Senator Kerry is not lying

He said that he did not know of any. Unless you have proof that Kerry did know this, you are absolutely wrong that he lied. The fact is he asked Green to provide them - a completely reasonable thing to do. the fact that you, with no posts anywhere but in this article, opts to call Senator Kerry a liar - rather than calmly stating he is wrong - suggests that you may not be in your real home. Is "poptech" related to the web site you link to - with a very similar name Popular Technology? If you have a relationship, the standard here is that you are suppose to have that in a disclaimer.

As to CO2, no one has said that it, in normal amounts is a pollutant. What they are saying is in excessive amounts it is a problem. Here is a direct analogy. Sugar is not toxic or bad, in fact I appreciate its existence if just for the sake of chocolate bars. The fact though is that most people consuming truly excessive amounts of sugar over a long period of time will develop health problems. In addition, in the case of CO2 from power plants, there are many other chemicals released that cause problems.

Now, if you count anyone defending that CO2 is a naturally occuring substance that has important uses as something that disproves global warming, you (or the people collecting them) have set the bar too low. Kerry did not say that CO2 was a pollutant.

Not to mention, you ignore the more important question - how do you answer Senator Kerry's question? He, in his question and even in the comments in the SFRC, allowed for the possibility that he and the scientists he has listened to are wrong. How do you answer his statement in the hearings that as a legislator he has to take the precautionary position? It seems arrogant on your part and Green's part that they are willing to risk life as we know it on the assumption that you are right. I think Senator Kerry made the more sensible decision.

[Poptech]

53. Carbon Dioxide has not remote chance of reaching toxic levels in the atmosphere

..and thus is not pollution.

- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.038% (380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration (Source)

There is no remote chance of us reaching those levels.

As for the "precautionary principle":

Precautionary Tale (Reason)

[GOTV]

35. Water is also not a pollutant. That doesn't mean floods are not dangerous.

You are out of your depth.

[blm]

31. HAHAH....you can say that about peer-reviewed Intelligent Design. Creationists make great peers, eh?

Apparently YOU got the memo - - from your polluting, fascist advertisers?

[Poptech]

51. Intelligent Design/Creationists are clueless

I don't know of any peer-reviewed papers from them BTW. Your comments are bizarres because I support economic freedom not economic fascism like Bush.

[GOTV]

36. Why is nearly 25% of that list from one publication ....

... and why does "Energy and Environment" have such a poor reputation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment

Your list is very easy to poke holes in. But of course that's usually the case when someone tries to overwhelm with quantity instead of quality.

You had your fingers crossed that no one would actually look through your list didn't you.

[karynnj]

46. It sounds like Senator Inhofe's favorite site -

poor might be kind given the description there.

[Poptech]

52. An academic peer-reviewed journal? 135 Journals cited

Why not?

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and SCOPUS
- EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)

You failed to mention the rest...

Journal Citation List:

AAPG Bulletin
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Space Research
Ambio
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
Central European Journal of Physics
Chemical Innovation
Climate Dynamics
Climate of the Past
Climate Research
Climatic Change
Comptes Rendus Geosciences
Contemporary South Asia
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Ecological Complexity
Ecological Monographs
Ecology
Economics Bulletin
Emerging Infectious Diseases
Energy & Environment *
Energy Fuels
Energy Sources
Energy The International Journal
Environmental Geology
Environmental Geosciences
Environmental Health Perspectives
Environmental Research
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Environmental Software
Environmetrics
Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union
Futures
Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
GeoJournal
Geology
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
Geophysical Research Letters
Geoscience Canada
Global and Planetary Change
GSA Today
Holocene
Hydrological Sciences Journal
Il Nuovo Cimento C
Interfaces
International Journal of Biometeorology
International Journal of Climatology
International Journal of Environmental Studies
International Journal of Forecasting
International Journal of Global Warming
International Journal of Modern Physics
International Journal of Remote Sensing
International Quarterly for Asian Studies
Irish Astronomical Journal
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Climate
Journal of Coastal Research
Journal of Fusion Energy
Journal of Geophysical Research
Journal of Information Ethics
Journal of Lake Sciences
Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
Lancet Infectious Diseases
Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
Malaria Journal
Marine Geology
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
Meteorologische Zeitschrift
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Natural Hazards Review
Nature
Nature Geoscience
New Astronomy
New Concepts In Global Tectonics
New Phytologist
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
Oceanologica Acta
Paleontological Journal
Paleoceanography
Physical Geography
Physical Review Letters
Physics Letters A
Planetary and Space Science
PLoS Biology
Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the Royal Society
Progress in Physical Geography
Public Administration Review
Pure and Applied Geophysics
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Quaternary Research
Quaternary Science Reviews
Regulation *
Russian Journal of Earth Sciences
Science
Science of the Total Environment
Science, Technology & Human Values
Social Studies of Science
Society
Solar Physics
South African Journal of Science
Space Science Reviews
Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
Surveys in Geophysics
Technology
The Cato Journal *
The Independent Review
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
Topics in Catalysis
Weather
Weather and Forecasting
World Economics Journal

[mitchum]

38. Wingnut

[ProSense]

40. Its post count isn't growing, which is bizarre. n/t

[GOTV]

42. There's a bug on DU right now ...

... all of my posts are met with an error. The post still happens but when I look at MyDU none of my posts appear there. My guess is that no one's post count is increasing today.

[karynnj]

22. What a nice video - makes you want LOTS more CO2 - lol

Not to mention, the co2 we breathe into the air is a tad bit cleaner than what comes out of coal power plants!

[karynnj]

21. Your link is not working - I guess it is still looking for the 450 studies

The fact is Senator Kerry asked him to send him any peer reviewed articles there were. He said only that he has received none, though he has made the same point in the past, as have many others.

I would kind of believe you more if your link worked.

[Poptech]

26. 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

[Cha]

16. Thanks,

PS~

[ShortnFiery]

17. I saw that exchange live. It was a smack-down of beauty.

Kerry is one highly intelligent legislator with a sound moral compass. Too bad his opponent has NO SOUL. She was a bitter and pissy as they come.

[annabanana]

20. Kerry is a smart dude. He's been at it a long time, he knows the

players and all the ins & outs of the games & sleight of hand tricks they regularly pull out of their hats.

They can not fool him.

[ieoeja]

29. Why argue with this?

"Margo Thorning, chief economist with ACCF, a think tank that has received more than $1.6 million in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998, pointed to a survey her organization produced with the National Association of Manufacturers that says the U.S. would lose up to 2.4 million jobs by 2030 and that 'household income would be about $1,200 less than it otherwise would be.'"


If her statements are correct, then this is an amazingly low cost! Argue against her? Heck, I'll be *quoting* her low numbers.

[karynnj]

30. Good point on the household income figure

Not as convinced on the jobs number - 2.4 million is pretty steep and is actually counterintuitive. The one clear thing is that by 2030 we will have replaced oil that is drilled overseas and transported here. Unless the maintenance jobs in alternative energy are around as high, she is simply pointing out how wasteful oil is and you would expect that the technologies that require fewer people should long term be lower in cost.

The fact is those jobs are likely coming from estimates of cut backs as the cost of energy rises that are in her model - yet she told Kerry there was no attempt to include any shift to more efficient technologies if energy costs rise. This is a very glaring omission because it is something that did happen in the 1970s and many companies have found that when an effort is made there are savings there.

[Phx_Dem]

41. I sure do dig the new John Kerry.

I've always liked him, but the new, more aggressive him rocks!

[blm]

44. Corpmedia wouldn't give him fair coverage for his heroic doggedness as senator -

now they need to act as if he only started making a difference since Kennedy died.

There isn't a lawmaker in DC who uncovered more government corruption than Kerry has as senator or who has effected this nation's historic record more positively than Kerry has the last 35 years.

The corpmedia, establishment DC powerplayers, and many establishment Dems never wanted voting Americans to know that.

[politicasista]

45. Kick

:kick: :patriot: