Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Atta girl, Leigh! You tell 'em.
That must be a helluva good post Thom wrote, to attract so much flack from fossil fuel flackies.
By the way, I love poetry.
And please don't take offense to this, but I like looking at your face a lot more than your navel. But if you decide to ignore this unsolicited comment from me, no hard feelings. - AIW
Cutting taxes to help an economy grow is like starving someone to make him gain weight. Brilliant, these neo-con douchebags... - AIW
Only another botanist, ecologist, biosystematist, zoologist, cell biologist, or bio-organic chemist would take me seriously. That's the point, and that's how seriously I take anything from an engineer who doesn't know C02 is toxic.
I am a comedienne. My name is Leigh. That is pronounced "LEEEEE." I am so beautiful that I cannot post more than my middle and last initial- I get invitations from men all over the world, men who want my full name and address and phone number.
I am also a poet. Do you love poetry?
My perspective is based on the fact that engineers don't like me just because I am in an ecological endeavor. My job assessing impacts always puts limits on their plans. I have experienced this throughout a long career.
I stopped reading the post from the anonymous "leighmf" after the following abusive remarks:
"As a botanist, the only engineer who has ever liked me was a soil engineer. Elsewise, engineers and the earth are mortal enemies"
Why would anyone take anything else he/she says seriously. Sad that the debate is poisoned like this.
There ought to be an investigation of the actual college transcripts and GPA's of some of these people.
Even if C02 emmissions did not affect climate change, we are still exposed to fallout as are all the organisms of the sea. Countries which have instituted anti-pollution measures are still exposed to what blows around the world. This is true for all air pollutants.
Carbonated beverages will dissolve bone and I am soon going to conduct, for online presentation, an experiment with Pepsi and Coke showing what they dissolve.
How is it that people breath out CO2 at a rate of 40,000 ppm and don't drop dead?
It is our position, after over a decade of climate science literature review, that the sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change - affecting atmospheric oscillations and ocean currents. There are cyclical patterns of solar variation give a very good correlation over 400 years of observations. Current climate models are diverging rapidly higher from observed temperatures - and this was noted in the last IPCC report of Setp 2013 -the Physical Sciences Working Group I. Dr. Judith Curry's testimony to the US Senate (Jan 16, 2014) outlined threee problems with current global warming theory - carbon dioxide is rising but temperatures have stagnated; human factors appear to be less influential than natural factors; the IPCC has no acceptable explanation for this divergence. As of 2002 temperature trends are declining along with TSI. Global warming stopped before Kyoto was ever ratified. These are facts - important facts. We should be able to discuss them in a calm and rational manner. One of our scientific advisors, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, prepared a report called "The Global Warming-Extreme Weather Link" and in it, he shows that the only trend toward extreme weather is an increase in cold snaps - some in tropical places; some extended as in Europe's recent long cold winters. If, as solar physicists almost unanimously predict, global cooling is imminent, we are completely unprepared. Consequently, let us discuss these matters in a way that can benefit all of us. The investment of $1.2 trillion in carbon reduction/climate change measures up to 2012 has done nothing for the environment and has helped to virtually bankrupt much of Europe and the UK which 'rushed to renewables' - only to find their people entrenched in 'heat or eat' poverty and industry staggering under the burden of heavy subsidies and an unreliable power grid. We would be pleased to answer questions on our perspective or provide additional references.
As a botanist, the only engineer who has ever liked me was a soil engineer. Elsewise, engineers and the earth are mortal enemies, and they see me coming a mile off singing "I'm a ramblin' wreck from Georgia Tech and a Hell of an Engineer. A Hell of a, Hell of a, Hell of a, Hell of a, Hell of an engineer."
When I was in college, I took my savings and opened a plant shop across from campus- a little ahead of my time. I had some visual designers make a green silk banner to hang over my upstairs window. It was very expensive. Guess who got drunk and tore it down and hung it up in his dorm room as a trophy? An engineering student. Someone ratted him out to me through the school newspaper. I called the police to get it back, and the grommets had been ripped out of the fabric, so it was essentially ruined. The police wanted me to press charges. The student begged on his knees not to press charges because he was graduating engineering school and it would ruin his career. He promised to pay for a new banner. As mad as I was, I couldn't ruin someone's career, though he had violated my attept at doing business. No charges were pressed, and he never replaced the banner. He never had the money.
The engineer and I are like two magnets repelling each other. From my point of view, those who have been wantonly de-foresting, draining, damming, mining, drilling, blasting, and excavating the earth for hundreds of years are bent on the destruction of the world.
Those who poison us are bent on the destruction of mankind.
Those who take our property and bleed us dry are bent on enslavement.
It is true we are a carbon-based planet. It is true that C02 is different than Carbon.
However to say that C02 is not toxic is not true according to U.S. National Library of Medicine Institutes of Health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16499405
"
Toxicol Rev. 2005;24(4):229-35.Carbon dioxide poisoning.Langford NJ.Author information
Abstract
Carbon dioxide is a physiologically important gas, produced by the body as a result of cellular metabolism. It is widely used in the food industry in the carbonation of beverages, in fire extinguishers as an 'inerting' agent and in the chemical industry. Its main mode of action is as an asphyxiant, although it also exerts toxic effects at cellular level. At low concentrations, gaseous carbon dioxide appears to have little toxicological effect. At higher concentrations it leads to an increased respiratory rate, tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and impaired consciousness. Concentrations >10% may cause convulsions, coma and death. Solid carbon dioxide may cause burns following direct contact. If it is warmed rapidly, large amounts of carbon dioxide are generated, which can be dangerous, particularly within confined areas. The management of carbon dioxide poisoning requires the immediate removal of the casualty from the toxic environment, the administration of oxygen and appropriate supportive care. In severe cases, assisted ventilation may be required. Dry ice burns are treated similarly to other cryogenic burns, requiring thawing of the tissue and suitable analgesia. Healing may be delayed and surgical intervention may be required in severe cases."
Further, as humans we have much greater mass than smaller to miniscule organisms. What is a relatively low concentration for human exposure is greater for invertebrates and moreso, for plankton, the base of the world's food chain.
I watched greenworld rising and think Leonardo D-C's voice and phrasing was as laden with foreboding and danger as the situation warrants. It all went perfectly with my concept of earth destroyers sucking up bucks and leaving swathes of destruction wherever they go.
Probably, this has blown his chance to be asked to run for governor of California.
Here is the interview I just reference on NewsMax: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/climate-change-Tom-Harris-restrictions-crazy/2014/09/17/id/595292/
Even if consensus did matter, there is no known consensus among climate experts who focus on the causes of climate change about the only issue that matters:
"Are carbon dioxide emissions from human activity causing, or likely to cause, dangerous climate change?" The consensus argument is simply an urban legend to keep those who disagree with political correctness on this issue afraid to speak out.
Dear Thom, nothing you have said provides the slightest bit of evidence that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming.
In many blogs like this, I have challenged people like you to produce hard evidence that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming. Without exception, they have shut down the conversation without responding to the question.
Perhaps you can provide the answer I seek? If you can, please do so: if you cannot, then I can only conclude that you have no scientific argument to support your beliefs.
Please note that you cannot use the output of climate models as "evidence". Firstly, because they are programmed to show rapid warming if carbon dioxide levels increase. So, if you use them, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Secondly, you must explain why the climate models failed to predict the lack of warming over the last 17 years. So far, there appear to be 29 different excuses for this. None of them touch on the obvious explanation: the climate changes naturally.
Note also, that you cannot use "consensus". This from Michael Crichton.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
Dear Mr. Thom (or is it Dr. Thom? I see you used to work as a psychiatrist),
Thank you for bringing our article about the many mistake in the film Carbon to your readers’ attention. Perhaps the greatest mistake of all was your labeling of carbon dioxide as "poison" in the film. Do you truly believe that CO2, the stuff of life, is "poison", or was that just a slip?
Also, why do you call it "carbon"? Scientists have repeatedly explained that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which are apparently your principal concern, are neither “carbon” nor “pollution.” Carbon is a naturally occurring, non-toxic element found in all living things. Everything from medicines to trees to oil to our own bodies and those of all other creatures are made of carbon compounds. Pure carbon occurs in nature mainly in only two forms: graphite and diamonds.
Ignoring the oxygen atoms and calling CO2 merely “carbon” makes about as much sense as ignoring the oxygen in water (H2O) and calling it “hydrogen.”
Some corrections to your piece above:
1 - The points Professor Carter and I brought up are not "recycled myths", as you call them. They are easily demonstrated facts you can check out on such sites as www.climate4you.com .
2 - We never said anything like "there’s a big globalist conspiracy to hide the truth about CO2" as you said we said (here is our piece: http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/). You just made that up, or repeated it from a source that made it up.
3 - We never said "climate scientists and climate activists are actually evil." That is another thing you made up or repeated, etc.
4 - It is incorrect to say "global warming denier Gordon Fulks". He, like us, is skeptical about the causes of climate change, something all scientifically minded people should be of course, but we deny nothing, except that we are deniers. We are denial deniers.
5 - We did not write that "climate scientists and environmentalists are a bloodsucking “monster”. You must have just made that up too.
6 - You say, "if we don’t do something soon to keep this carbon monster under control, industrial civilization as we know it could vanish, maybe even forever." No one in the science community says that. In fact, science is never certain. Mathematics, yes, but science is just opinions based on observational data, the very opposite of true knowledge.
7 - You write, "There is no debate, and the science is settled." Again, this is silly. There is an immense debate in the scientific community as demonstrated by the thousands of peer reviewed science papers referenced in the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate change - see www.climatechangereconsidered.org.
8 - You write, "Global warming is real". Yes, of course, but so is sunrise, gravity and supernovas in distant galaxies (probably), but that does not mean we are causing them.
I welcome the opportunity to appear on your show about the film or any other climate topic, as I did a few minutes ago on NewsMax TV. I am neither left nor right wing overall (and, sadly, have no funding whatsoever from "Big Oil", as you suggest) and work with people from both sides of the political spectrum.
Having me on your show would be risky of course in that I might change your mind, or that of some of your listeners. But freedom of speech is all about taking risks in allowing people who disagree with you to be heard. If I am wrong, then you should have no trouble defeating me and everyone would hear it. If I am right, then people will understand the world a bit better and so do a better job at protecting the planet from real environmental problems.
Are you prepared to have me on your show? I won't attack you, or misquote you, as you have done me above because, not only is it uncivilized but it is fallacious reasoning as well.
Hope to hear from you soon,
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.)
Executive Director,
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
www.climatescienceinternational.org
613-728-9200
Note: The ICSC relies on donations from the public across the world to cover its operating expenses.
Danielle and Shano's discussion of how the Constitution should be amended is exactly the sort of thing that makes me wish I could call in. I have tons of ideas, but that's why I have blog posts.
If they'd given me one of those MacArthur grants, I could take time off work to write a book about all of them.
The religious idea that morals come from God is really just obedience to God's opinion. It's exactly as moral a choice as a slave obeying his master.
It's seems that the inclusion in religious books of scientifically inspired information (such as hygienic rules) leads religious people to think that religion gets to control science. But such rules come from the combination of church and state, and from the claim by that combination that it had a right to control every aspect of individuals' lives. As an American, I deny both.
There is a Texas phenomenon named Kinky Friedman who closes his act with the line, 'may the God of your choice bless you real good.' The question is not which God you believe in (within the Abrahamic tradition) but rather which guy(s) actually spoke for Him. Strangely, God cannot speak for Herself.
Corporate-logo flags:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-logo-flag-us-flag/
http://www.photomagnets.com/corporateamericanflag.html
http://subscribe.adbusters.org/products/corporate-america-flag
None of these Republicans care about the people in this country. They just want to FILL their pockets with Corporate Money and say whatever the Big Companies want to hear. None of them have the Courage of their Convictions. Oh yeah They have No CONVICTIONS. Only GREED
Great interview!
well-paid employees = monied consumers = long-term business (that pays its taxes) profit = thriving economy = strong country
It's as simple as that, folks.
Or they can be brought to justice, like Louis & Marie were -- just kidding
The Neo-con Reagan, just like his buddy, Nixon, sold himself out to the fat cat corporations. The rest of their Neo-con followers simply followed suit. They are not representing the people, they are representing the rich. That is totally un-American and with the judges that they poisoned our SCOTUS with, it makes it just that much harder to correct what is wrong with our economic policies. How did we get here? The answer is simple, it all happened because of lie filled propaganda that allowed them to exploit the most uninformed among us via hate, bigotry and class warfare.
If corporations have the same rights as individuals, then why do they receive tax relief for IRS tax debts that sole proprietors and general partners do not? Sole proprietors and general partners are responsible for all employee taxes, AS INDIVIDUALS. Corporations that shut down are not responsible for employee taxes, and the trust fund recovery penalty may be assessed only for the trust fund portion of the taxes on individual officers, or other responsible parties (often these responsible parties get by without this assessment due to the complex and time-consuming process of assessing this penalty by the IRS). THEN, IT IS EASY FOR THE SAME OFFICERS TO START NEW CORPORATIONS, AND NEVER PAY THEIR EMPLOYEE TAX DEBTS (If one attempts to equate a corporation going out of business with the death of an individual, consider the fallacy of this, in that an individual who dies cannot start another business).
The Trust Fund Recovery Penalty is the portion of employee taxes the business pays over to the IRS (federal withholding, 1/2 of the social security & medicare taxes). Individual owners of sole props and general partnerships are responsible for all employee taxes as individuals, with liens on them individually against their assets, but not the officers of corporations. If corps have the rights of individuals, then officers of corps should be held responsible for all employee taxes immediately when not paid. There should be no reason for a Trust Fund Recovery Penalty.
Here is a good question for your representatives. If corporations have the same rights as individuals, then why does the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty exist? How can the IRS make corporations responsible for employee taxes in the same way as individuals are? They can't, because corporations are not individuals.
Noteworthy from above (five years, 3+ months later):
Obama is right of center, banking buddies, health care campaign promises appear to be being broken. Bill Moyers Friday night.
"The news is boiling over with claims of conservative anger or hatred. Those on the right are depicted as knuckle-dragging savages eager to pick up their guns to shoot police or attack others they disagree with.
North Korea supplied Syria, acting like a rogue actor, in defiance of treaties.
The more it circulates among humans, the more it adapts to their receptors. Nobody can predict, but it is unlikely that it will not come back. prepare for the worst, hope you are crying wolf. Ebola.
The Center For Constitutional Rights and other constitutional groups went to the White House the day before Obama's speech about "precrime". Obama is setting aside pieces of the Constitution to satisfy the right wing. FISA. Thom is very concerned. Obama and the rest swore an oath to the Constitution. Bruce Fein was on the show echoing Howard Zinn, and he is saying president Obama is wrong on this.
-------- my emphasis above
Another way to double-check our memories is to listen to recordings from a prior period.
When I get people telling me that I am misremembering something - I like to go to the WhiteRoseSociety site where they have (free) archived old radio broadcasts.
For those that have been brainwashed (by hearing repetitive falsehoods) and would like to see if they are being lied to today or not - go and listen to the 2009 radio shows (any of them) and refresh your memory before you blindly commit to anything.
What could it hurt?
The cure for the biggest lie ever told is simply return to the Pre Reagan tax rates and pass the Employee Free Choice Act. Another option would be the billionaires continuing with their Fascism...... disconnected like Louis and Marie, pretending nothing is wrong .......good luck with that. Either way there will be a cure.