Read Part 1 Here

Download PDF for full version (with figures and references)

Cowards in Our Democracies: Part 2

28 January 2012

Scientists are finding it difficult to persuade the public of the urgency to reduce fossil fuel CO2 emissions. This is in part because people profiting from fossil fuel business-as-usual support disinformation about the science, so that they can expand extraction of fossil fuels despite the evidence that such expansion will push the climate system beyond tipping points, assuring further climate change with impacts that are practically out of humanity’s control.

Scientists attempt to communicate, but are flummoxed by the ability of the profiteers to manipulate democracies.  The scientific method (objective analysis of all facts) is pitted against the talk-show method (selective citation of anecdotal bits supporting a predetermined position).

The tragedy is that a common sense pathway exists that would solve our energy needs, stimulate our economy and protect the future of young people.  Yet people benefiting from business-as-usual are able to block adoption of policies in the public’s interest, via the corrosive influence of money in politics and aided by corporate-dominated media.

Should scientists connect the dots all the way to policy implications?  Profiteers strongly oppose that, because scientists are trained to be objective, and profiteers want no interference with their functioning profit pathways.  Let’s consider that issue after summarizing the situation.

From Jim Hansen, Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies:



Cowards in Our Democracies, Part 1, a discussion of why I submitted a Witness Statement to an Information Rights Tribunal in the UK, is available on my web site.

~Jim

Cowards in Our Democracies: Part 1

27 January 2012

The threat of human-made climate change and the urgency of reducing fossil fuel emissions have become increasingly clear to the scientific community during the past few years.  Yet, at the same time, the public seems to have become less certain about the situation.  Indeed, many people have begun to wonder whether the climate threat has been concocted or exaggerated.

Public doubt about the science is not an accident.  People profiting from business-as-usual fossil fuel use are waging a campaign to discredit the science.  Their campaign is effective because the profiteers have learned how to manipulate democracies for their advantage.

The scientific method requires objective analysis of all data, stating evidence pro and con, before reaching conclusions.  This works well, indeed is necessary, for achieving success in science.   But science is now pitted in public debate against the talk-show method, which consists of selective citation of anecdotal bits that support a predetermined position.  

This is a great tool to get a quick glimpse of the effect of money in state legislative races. What did Bob DeLeo need $895,000 for? Well, it’s one way to funnel money around to your Democratic buddies who do your dirty work. And it’s sure gotta be nice to have $446k in the bank.

“You can’t spoil a system that is spoiled to the core.”

–Ralph Nader

As the Los Angeles Times reports, key Democrats are beginning to embrace the no-holds-barred arena of corporate influence on political elections, in which disclosures of funding are not required by law.

Democrats putting together new independent political organizations for the 2012 campaign are embracing a model that will allow them to conceal their donors – the very tactic for which they criticized Republicans in 2010.

Majority PAC, a new group aimed at electing Democrats to the Senate, and American Bridge 21st Century, which will serve as a research hub, are being organized as so-called super political action committees that can raise unlimited amounts of money from contributors whose donations are reported to the Federal Election Commission. But both are also affiliated with nonprofit 501(c)(4) social welfare groups that can raise money from undisclosed donors and give money directly to super PACs.

The same dual structure is being considered by Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney, two former White House aides who are likely to launch their own independent expenditure effort in support of President Obama’s reelection, according to people familiar with the plans.

As a spokesman for Obama, Burton repeatedly hammered Republican groups for their lack of transparency in 2010. He declined to comment.

{ Cross-posted at Blue Mass Group }

This great article in the Boston Globe by Frank Phillips exposes the blatant hypocrisy of Governor Patrick’s “self-styled political identity as a reformer”. Kudos to Phillips for summing it up beautifully in that one biting phrase.

Curran, whose client list has included such blue-chip technology companies as IBM and Cisco Systems, has arranged gatherings at Patrick’s Milton home, where Democratic heavy hitters and corporate executives – for $5,000 a piece – get to shmooze with the governor. He has set up events at trendy Boston restaurants, where executives discussed public policy issues affecting their industries. And he is listed as a cosponsor of fund-raisers for Patrick in Atlanta and Washington.

Indeed, those who have worked with him say that Curran, a hard-charging, 39-year-old lobbyist who makes more than $300,000 each year in client fees, has played a pivotal role in putting Patrick’s finance operation into high gear after several years of relative neglect by the governor, who has said he has a strong distaste for asking for money.

…

At a Finance Committee meeting in late March, Curran, whose position with the campaign is unpaid, was singled out as Patrick’s top fund-raiser of 2010 – twice as much as the second-best fund-raiser, according to a person present at the meeting, who asked for anonymity to discuss a private event.

Conveniently, they have the perfect distraction from the obvious conclusion that this lobbyist dough has any influence whatsoever on Patrick’s governing… the ethics reforms he championed into state law:

“Governor Patrick proposed and helped pass some of the strictest ethics and lobbying laws in the country, and these laws help to draw a bright line between the necessary raising of money for campaigns and the important work Governor Patrick does every day on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth,” [campaign manager Sydney Asbury] said.