Joe for President!!!!! Nuff said??

J. Bastardi's frustration with the current state of affairs is justified. Unfortunately I am not sanguine that it will be relieved any time soon. Stupid public policy is still being proposed and, worse, implemented. That we may possibly be denied access to a national stategic resource because it may slightly reduce one segment of the polar bear population would pass as farce if it were not so regrettable.

Joe Bastardi:
I think your idea of putting scientists together to make it clear to the President the relative facts is essential. As far as Alaska is concerned, the oil there will not amount to much. George Bush just came back from begging the Saud i's for more production, but they told him that they had just boosted their production last month, and the real problem here is a week dollar and our inability to refine what we need. I think if truth be told this AGW although not presently a threat to Americans, is starting to effect our planet. I also think we are at the beginning edge of what we call the tipping point,and that we should act now, if we are not to late already. I appreciate the universality of your paper, and the realities that you covered.
Thank's KIPP

While I agree that the fourth paragraph contains the best (and only good) advice in the letter, it will be difficult to find five SCIENTISTS on the "skeptic" side of the issue (at least who are not in the pay of Corporate America), since there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that AGW is real and we need to do something about it, soon. The only debate should be about what we need to do.

I agree that the fate of polar bears is not the overriding issue, since there are much more compelling reasons to take action against AGW.

Mr. Bastardi cannot possibly be more wrong about the solution to our current oil crisis. The only conscionable long-term solution to our dependence on foreign oil is to reduce demand. Put a scientist or two on the panel to detail what measures we can take with regard to our profligate use of gigantic motor vehicles. Tougher fuel economy standards are a good start. However, we need to think in the long term: our goal must be to wean ourselves of fossil fuels at the earliest possible time.

The letter is riddled with spelling and grammatical errors, which does not help Mr. Bastardi's case.

No problem as long as they have all published at least 6 peer reviewed papers in major science journals (if I remember correctly, no denying scientists meet this standard).

So, what is your opinion of Joe's letter?

I think Bastardi is an embarrassment to Accuweather.

Perhaps it's time for Accuweather to demonstrate the same integrity that Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory displayed in their handling of similarly embarrassing outbursts of Dr. James Watson.

If, that is, Accuweather has the same integrity as Cold Spring.

Wow,
I didn't have much of an opinion on Joe B. before...but now I do: Awesome!! Great message that cuts to the chase.
Keep it up Joe!!

This is a little sad. While Joe's science as pugilism metaphor is creative and (as far as I can tell) completely original, it would be very strange if he actually thinks the letter will get attention from any of the candidates as opposed to just being passed around the campaign staffs as a joke. OTOH if Hillary reads it I doubt she'll see much humor in his implication that all of the relevant leading scientists are men.

Brett, you say you like his idea about opposing teams of scientists. Do you think there are five denialist scientists with anything approaching the qualifications of the top five on the consensus side? (Reply: Not sure, but there certainly could be.) How would it not be giving the denialists way too much credit since they are so much less qualified?

In any case, such a debate won't happen. While there are many details and mplications that remain open for discussion, the debate over whether AGW is happening and needs to be a governmental priority is over. Do you disagree?

Anyone who hasn't perused the IPCCs reports is doomed to misrepresent them at every turn; misrepresenting the process, the detail, the evidence, the uncertainty, the claims and the time frame. Get reading,candidates, and don't delegate. George Bush's incumbency has been a sad example on how not to run science and energy policy. Joe's definitely right that the candidates should stop watching people who aren't the main event, and he's demonstrated why he's one of those people.

It is as an interesting idea. The only problem is that according to Al Gore and the head of the IPCC, there aren't five scientists in existence with any serious doubt about catastrophic global warming.

Anyone who says they have doubts is clearly on the payroll of Exxon, and can't be trusted. They can talk all they want, but if sea level keeps rising at the current rate Manhattan will be submerged within 20,000 years. Only a huge gas tax, immediate implementation of spectacularly repressive government regulation, and buying carbon credits from Al Gore can prevent this tragedy.

Deja vu - Jimmy Carter 1978

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

I didn't realize that I needed the permission of any other country to set my thermostat. Maybe I should plead my case to the EU or the UN?

Joe should've just stuck to the last paragraph and left out the silly boxing analogy.

I don't bother to visit Bastardi's blog and didn't read the letter.
I'm familiar with a presentation he makes and has posted online.

It is a collection of favorite misleading climate skeptic points, some disproven 50 years ago. That is probably about the time his education ceased.

I've better uses for my time than wasting it reading his opinions.

This letter looks confused and confusing. The global warming is not a boxing issue. The experts of the IPCC represent the scientific consensus on this issue.
The question is, is our society able to perform the huge change we need to cut our CO2 emissions?
Such a move needs a tool a lot of you dislike: a carbon tax tu put a price on this pollution.

ANWR is not likely to make a significant dent in US dependence on imported oil. The most optimistic estimates put the total reserve at about 10 billion bbls with a maximum annual production of roughly 375 million bbls. But the US consumes over 20 million bbls per day so ANWR would only cover about 5% of annual US consumption. Simple conservation practices, restoration to previous levels of govt investment in transportation infrastructure - roads and bridges as well as mass transit (things we need to spend on anyway), upgrading the power grid to make it more reliable and efficient (again, something we need to do anyway), perhaps a tax rebate program to provide an incentive for consumers to trade in gas-guzzlers on existing model vehicles that get 30+mpg -- all of these things combined would cost the US govt and economy far less while reducing US consumption far more. ANWR is a red herring.

Translation:

An open letter to the Presidential Candidates:

YOU CAN'T CONTROL THE WEATHER, THE CLIMATE,OR THE EARTH'S NATURAL CYCLES WITH YOUR MARXIST TAX AND MADATES AGENDAS.

Good Job Joe. But I am sure our leftist friends on here will come right out and say "stick to forecasting the weather, Joe (you philistine)." In their infinite arrogance as well.

Does anyone care to joint me in joining the Constitution Party so we can TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY????

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!

On reflection, I don't think this approach makes a lot of sense. Assuming the range of scientific views is a bell curve, what Bastardi is proposing is that a non-scientist sit down with a small group from each end of the curve and come up with an intelligent synthesis or an intelligent choice between the two. The IPCC, with 2500 scientists from around the world with a wide range of expertise and perspectives, focused untold hours on forming a synthesis that hits somewhere in the fat part of the bell curve based on intense review of the available data. Does this approach present the Truth from the Mountaintop? No, but it's clearly better to form policy based on this kind of synthesis than on making a choice between the two extremes.

Awesome!

Speaking of Obama, he dropped this bombshell...

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

So what is he going to do? Any of you supporters care to chime in on what his plans are?

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w

My opinion? I like it, but it has about as much chance of happening as I do of being voted to the NFL Pro Bowl as a Quarterback.

None of the current crop of candidates has demonstrated ANY interest in making a policy decision based on a factual analysis. ALL are simply pandering to what makes them sound the most concerned, caring, and valiantly 'fighting for the common person'.

Sen McCain's desire to 'reduce CO2 to 65% below 1990 levels by 2050' demonstrates his total lack of caring about any form of analysis based policy.

Sen Clinton's desire to go Sen McCain one better by promising to reduce CO2 to 80% below 1990 levels is demonstrative proof of the same.

Sen Obama's calling of Sen Clinton's CO2 reduction bet and his recent statement implying that the US is a bad, greedy country because we use 25% of the world's energy production with only 3% of the population (as idiotic a statement as I have heard on the campaign trail to date) and implying that the cost of gasoline is due entirely to the oil companies 'jacking up the price' shows that he has no interest or desire to base his policies in analysis. I'd like to let the good senator know that energy production is NOT a zero sum game and that if the US produces X energy it is not taking X energy from someone else. In the long run (even though competition for oil does limit energy production to some extent) in the final analysis all nations can produce as much energy as they wish, the production of one country does not affect the production of another. I'd also like to let him know that energy use/capita is not a good metric for measuring the 'right of countries to % of energy use' (not that I think this is a meaningful concept in the first place), the proper metric would be energy use/% unit goods produced. If you measure the US energy use this way the rest of the world comes off wasteful and greedy, not the US.

LOL! Never happen!
Answering a letter like that would involve the ability to actually make decision based on logic and science. Obviously expecting a decision based on real science instead of obtuse political pandering is totally out of the question. Politicians by vocation and definition lack vertebrae and the ability so see past getting elected. Two of the three candidates lack ANY science/math background and all three just don’t want to offend ANY voting block because after they win, their next priority will be re-election.
Getting elected and then reelected is what being a Presidential candidate is all about.

It's a fine letter. It amuses me the way the AGW crowd tries to link their agenda with that of energy independence for America; in fact, the two are often opposed, as Dr. Bastardi points out. That being said, there is no chance that what he proposes will ever happen.

Kinda fanatical?

Nice try but ........all these candidates have shown that they are willing to pander to attract votes or media attention.

This position, on this topic, is neither popular nor politically correct.

It will probably suffer the same fate as the heretics who tried to show that the world was not flat.

I'm sure Joe is a nice guy and sure hope that he doesn't get tar and feathered or burned at the stake in the public square .........LOL

I used to think our elected Republican & Democrat officials were too extreme in their views for the average American. Now my opinion is that the sides are not strong enough in their conservative/liberal roots for most people, because they are trying to win fans and voters on both sides of the aisle. I agree with what Bastardi says in the first part of his letter. Please choose a side and fight for it. I realize this is not the most popular view because of the current administration (would you call it stubbornness, or conviction? Depends on how you look at it.)

I would love to see paragraph 4 myself, but I'm afraid that, of the three candidates left, they will be more worried making decisions based on what the polls say, rather than what is right. I feel that the media runs this country more than the government right now. The government as a whole used to be relatively unchecked, and few questioned what they did, at least outwardly. Now, fortunately, we have the media, which keeps the government in check, but there are few checks on the media. The media tells the people how to think, and the people tell the government what to do.

It's difficult to do, but I try to remember the words of my grandma, years ago: "Don't believe everything you read (or hear)". What is most difficult is not believing what you *want* to hear. If we can stay open minded about issues, we can - as individuals - determine what the polls tell our next president, rather than the media.

Time to get off the soap box, I think I'm getting vertigo...

Stay cool

As one who truly believes the " science " is not settled I would support a true review of the facts but you only have to look at the weaving & ducking that has gone on over Micheal Mann's hockey stick & it is obvious the Global warning crew don't want to know the truth. Far too many careers are now based on this house of cards for the promoters to willingly under go a scrutiny.
Has anyone else noticed that the peer review process never finds the faults in the papers or the process & that is left to the skeptics like Anthony Watts or Steve M.
Brett, the leaves are just opening on the trees in Calgary, I don't recall a spring this cool & late in the 28 years I've lived here. At least we've lucked into a spell of nice weather for the long weekend & temps are well into the 20's but cooling off nicely at night.