New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Recently I wrote a letter to the editor of the Greenwich Time regarding administrative regulation of student media at my high school, but especially of the student newspaper. Here’s a fraction of it:

The systematic, bureaucratic censorship of The Beak (the name of the paper), as well as all other student media at GHS, severely hamstrings the intellectual and informational quality of its product. A myriad of regulations are enforced on a whim by a single faculty adviser who has the pressure of school administration on his shoulders. Similarly, other publications, such as the satirical Weekling, and any organization wishing to disseminate information are unilaterally censored by the overbearing student activities office.

In the three years that I have written for the paper I have had three editorials censored–one on abortion, one on Islam, and one criticizing a myriad of invasive laws including bans on steroids, prostitution, marijuana, and the drinking age. In addition, I have witnessed a list of columns not published because of the whimsical regulations on what is “appropriate” for young adults.

The case I am trying to make is not one a moralistic, first amendment one. To the contrary, I do not think that the first amendment holds much weight in this situation. Thus, I am not disputing the Supreme Court decision from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which essentially says that because the school is essentially the property of the government, the school administration has the right to regulate student speech to their liking.

However, whether the school can and whether the school should regulate speech are two different issues. Call me a romantic, but I thought that the goal of a school was to maximize the body of knowledge and curiosity of students (although I think that makes me more rational than romantic). I do not see how schools could at once be promoting an intellectual environment when they are systematically stifling various issues and opinions.

Take the issue of teen pregnancy, for instance, which was the disputed topic in the Hazelwood case. Few would dispute that it is a touchy subject. But what audience better to address it with than teens? The article in question contained primary sources discussing the reality of the issue. I don’t see how talking about the matter in an open and honest manner could hurt students. To the contrary, I can only imagine that talking about it would inform students and prevent pregnancy for those who are informed by the newspaper article.

Similarly, one of my censored columns was a critical examination of certain aspects of Islam. While conventional wisdom tells us not to discuss religion in public, not discussing religion freely and in a philosophical manner does nothing to reduce “intolerance” (which is what my editorial was labeled). The more informed and rational people are and the more they understand that it is okay to disagree even on matters as fundamental as religion, the more rounded and tolerant our educational institutions will be.

The saddest part about the censorship, which I should also mention is not practiced nearly as much as it is practiced in colleges, is that it muffles the creativity of students. While schools should be attempting to teach their kids as much about the world as possible, they only have so much time. The greatest reflection on educators is when they can foster the creativity and passion of individual students. Such initiative is manifest in students who examine fringe and risque issues in a scholarly manner. And while these cases are rare, the last thing that should be done by in response is censor them.

Popularity: 52% [?]

Since the negative article was published on the front page of the Wednesday Times, the backlash has been overwhelming against the story. An article from today’s Daily News covered not only the backlash but also the response of the Time’s executive editor.  It sounds a lot like he is blaming readers too:

The embattled executive editor of the New York Times defended its John McCain story Friday with a novel explanation for the flood of critical e-mails the newspaper received: slow-witted readers.

“Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction,” Bill Keller wrote in a Times Web site Q&A forum. Readers posted 2,000 comments and sent in 3,700 questions.

“I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot,” Keller added.

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn’t get it. “Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

That point, he said, was that McCain, “this man who prizes his honor above all things and who appreciates the importance of appearances, also has a history of being sometimes careless about the appearance of impropriety, about his reputation.”

Not only is the paper’s top editor arrogant in his defense, he does not actually address the substantive grievances raised about the story first among those being why the article featured a completely unsubstantiated implication of sexual impropriety with a lobbyist.

The rest of the story did little more than summarize past questions about potential conflicts of interest between McCain and certain lobbied interests on no more than a few occasions. It did not break any story younger than the eight-year-old story of the female lobbyist and went all the way back to the Keating Five controversy back in the late ’80s.

The common denominator among the few of these stories is that not one iota of malfeasance has ever been brought to light in the decades they have been known to the public. The Times’ front page article did not change that–at all. And its nothing more than arrogance and wishful thinking on the part of Keller and the Grey Lady to suppose that fault over the matter lies, not with the editorializing of news, but with the readers.

At the end of the day, however, this story may be a blessing in disguise for McCain who has trouble exciting conservative Republicans. But if the “liberal media” has it out for the presumptive nominee then he must not be so bad (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). For instance, conservative talk show hosts, who have spent the past month or so discrediting McCain’s ideological credentials, have rallied around him on this issue as have donors. Essentially, the Times story gave conservatives something to get excited about. And whereas funding for Republicans had been hard to come by of late, this controversy has been the fountainhead of new donations:

 Team McCain has parlayed The New York Times anonymous-source hit on the GOP front-runner into a cash bonanza.

A campaign fund-raising letter ripping the “particularly disgusting” Times story and pleading with contributors to fight back “was the most successful to date,” a top McCain aide said Friday.

The aide gave no numbers, but the McCain campaign reported raising $11.7 million last month - topping the $6.8 million he collected in the previous three months combined.

The Republican National Committee sought to piggyback on McCain’s success with a similar fund-raising letter of “outrage” at The Times. That prompted a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser defending The Times.

Popularity: 37% [?]

Yesterday, the New York Times broke an eight year old story announcing the possibility that McCain had an extramarital affair with a much younger DC lobbyist. The story cited former McCain aids who grew suspicious of the Senator for appearing more than usual with the woman thirty years his junior back around the time he was first running for president . Of course, the Times had no evidence of the impropriety but chose to feature the aspersion in the first paragraphs of an article entirely criticizing McCain for his involvement with wealthy and influential donors.

The thing is that some of the story may actually be relevant–regarding the “maverick” of a Senator, who is known for his battles on campaign finance and ethics reform, who may have gotten a little to cozy with some wealthy patrons–but the Times chose to relegate that story while featuring the aspersion of an allegation of McCain maybe having a crush.

Now, here is valid criticism from Megan McArdle:

McCain is not a classical liberal; he’s the product of an intensely hierarchical honor culture that he seems to think would substantially improve the rest of us if we adopted more of its values. I have no shortage of respect for the military, and their willingness to place their own lives between the rest of us and war’s desolation. But that doesn’t mean I think America would be a better place if we had a more martial state. His record bespeaks little respect for spontaneous order and individual freedom. What free-market instincts he evinces seem to have come as part of the conservative ideas combo-pack he bought because it was cheaper than buying the parts individually–all he really wanted was the national greatness and the moderately conservative social structure.

This is the most accurate description of McCain I have ever read and it goes to the heart of why I am not too fond of him. But, at the same time, I foresee myself voting for him because he is effectively less harmful to the economy and the country as a whole (”100 years in Iraq” not quite withstanding). On the other hand, Barack Obama is the image of a more rational, intelligent, thinking man’s president on the surface (juxtaposed with McCain’s traditional-patriotic image), but underneath it he will rule with a more heavy hand over the economy. My constant inclination is to vote for the political substance under the facade which is why I lean towards McCain. I don’t think there is much evidence to say that if America votes for what they perceive as a thinking man’s politician over a military-traditionalist one that it will in the long term lead to enough positive, free market reforms to necessarily outweigh Obama’s anti-market plans.

Hence, I disagree with the libertarian blogger’s assessment and endorsement of Obama, and choose to stick by McCain, who as of now appears to be the least-worst choice.

UPDATE: McCain responded to the allegations of the Times in a press conference this morning. The full video thereof can be accessed by clicking the link below:

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 43% [?]

Perusing different websites over the course of the election season has made me aware of the fact that different outlets never have the same numbers for delegates. The reason is that delegates are not officially awarded yet, and each source is projecting based on their own numerical methods. Here is a good article showing the disparities. Here is a chart showing the current counts with a small insight into methodology.

As I see it the average, including superdelegates, has Obama around 1250-1270 and Clinton around 1200.

Popularity: 30% [?]

I’ll give you a hint: it’s not “election”…

…the point is, Chris Matthews has a man crush on Obama.

Last night I almost fell out of my seat when I heard the “Hardball” anchor make the allusion that Barack Obama’s speach turned him on in, essentially. At least that’s how I interpreted, when he said “I felt this furrowing up my leg,” so tell me if I’m completely off the mark. Then again, Olberman and Brian Williams (who was on afterwards, just not on the YouTube video) seemed to pick up on it as well.

Here’s the video (you can also see it if you click “read more” at the bottom of the post). Matthews’ admission comes at 0:30.

In all seriousness, the point is the media in general, but specifically MSNBC, seems to be particularly kind to Barack Obama (and on a side note, particularly unfavorable to Hillary Clinton). I am a regular watcher of MSNBC–that is, I tend to watch them for my election coverage–but I had to switch the channel after hearing so much sycophantic babble from Matthews, Olberman, and even Williams, the NBC anchor. This was a particular circumstance, but I’ve noticed the trend before.

And, to be sure, my accusation could be disparaged as particular and unsubstantial, but it seems to be agreed upon by others as well as independent studies on election coverage. Here is a recently released study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. The CMPA enumerates their methods:

These results are from CMPA’s 2008 ElectionNewsWatch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of 765 election news stories (22 hours 15 minutes of airtime) that aired on the flagship evening news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX (the first 30 minutes of “Special Report with Brit Hume”, which is most like the network news shows in content and presentation) from December 16, 2007 through January 27, 2008.

Here is the overarching finding:

Hillary Clinton is getting the worst press and Barack Obama the best press of any major presidential candidate, and Bill Clinton is also getting negative reviews, while the gap in good press between John McCain and Mitt Romney is narrowing, according to a new study of TV news election coverage by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. The study also finds that FOX’s evening news show had the most coverage of policy issues and the least coverage of the campaign horse race.

And finally, the most telling statistic:

Sen. Barack Obama has led the race for good press and Sen. Hillary Clinton has lagged the farthest behind. From Dec 16 through Jan 27 five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84%) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51%) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton…NBC’s coverage has been the most critical of Clinton – nearly 2 to 1 negative (36% positive and to 64% negative)

No wonder I find it astounding that Matthews chose the adjective “objective” to describe his verdict on Obama.

Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 28% [?]

While President Bush may be “the Decider” of American politics, Super Tuesday may have been the crucial decider in the race for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations. As candidates traversed the country in a rapid attempt to get out the vote, Americans turned out in record numbers to support their candidates. Candidates that appeal to the youth, like Barack Obama, helped to make the 2008 primaries one of the most trafficked in recent history. Tsunami Tuesday, as some called it this year, featured the highest density of primaries in one day in the history of the political system in the United States.

The Straight Talk Steamroller

John McCain, favored by most as the future Republican nominee, scored big wins across the country. The surprise of the day, however, came as Mike Huckabee swept across the South with dozens of victories, blocking a viable candidacy from Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. In prior debates, and throughout the news media, Romney and McCain had attempted to transform the Republican race into a two candidate contest. Romney, however, may be squeezed out of a system of his own doing as Huckabee’s victories catapulted him back to the spotlight he basked in following the Iowa caucuses. Pundits like FOX News’ Sean Hannity believe that the McCain campaign transpired to throw Huckabee back into the limelight by throwing some of their delegates to him in crucial states. West Virginia, for example, was handed to Mitt Romney after the first round of caucusing. The second round, however, produced markedly different results. Huckabee, bolstered by the support of McCain’s voters, quickly became the victor. It’s tactics like these that seem to have blocked Mitt Romney from successfully winning the conservative votes he needed.

  Republican Frontrunner John McCain

  [Photo Credit: VictoryNH]

As McCain wins victory after victory across the country, conservatives keep attempting to block the Straight Talk Express on its route to the Republican presidential nomination. Dr. James Dobson, director of the conservative organization Focus on the Family, said in a statement yesterday that he would never support a McCain candidacy. Similar statements by conservative pundits like Ann Coulter (who said she’d actively campaign for Hillary Clinton in the general election if McCain was the Republican nominee) haven’t quite put a dent in the perceived viability of a McCain presidency. Commentator Sean Hannity remarked upon McCain’s reported party flip-flops in prior years, noting that he debated running with John Kerry in 2004. McCain is reminiscent of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, the Independent Democrat who has endorsed his run for President.

  Does Anyone Else?

  [Photo Credit: jaquina]

Romney’s withdrawal from the race the other day truly makes McCain the only viable candidate. The Huckabee campaign is still active, even if it may be fighting a race it cannot win. When asked why he was going to stay in the race the other day, Governor Huckabee made some comments typical of his candidacy thus far,

I didn’t major in math. I majored in miracles.

Luckily, that’s what Huckabee will need to win the Republican nominations. McCain has a tough task ahead of him in uniting the Republican party, but he has months to do it.

Decision Time for Democrats

The Democrats, meanwhile, have no such candidate. Opinion polls are locked between the two candidates, and the primaries show similar results. When contrasted with John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, Barack Obama is the candidate who fares far better. Yet within the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton still maintains a large following. So, come the Democratic Convention, will Democrats choose the candidate who fares better nationally, or better within their own party?

Retribution for Republicans?

The Bush Presidency will leave the next president with a mess to clean up. Yet it seems as if most Americans aren’t taking out their anger on Republicans. McCain, it seems, is able to separate himself far enough from President Bush. Super Tuesday painted Obama as viable, Hillary as beatable, and McCain as the inevitable candidate. Still, Americans are indecisive. The coming weeks, and coming primaries, will help to narrow the field for the inevitable two person campaign coming for November.

Popularity: 49% [?]

As January comes to a close, the Obama campaign has easily surpassed a fundraising goal set earlier today. In a mass e-mail from the Obama campaign earlier today, the campaign stated that they were looking for more donors to boost their current 242,000 individual donor count above 250,000. Tonight, their website shows that they surpassed that milestone and had approximately 253,198 supporters [as of this writing] during the month of January. Obama’s e-mail touts the wide variety of donors, and mentions the fact that Obama has received donations from more than 500,000 individual donators [a figure he surpassed in the hours before the Iowa caucuses]. Obama, ever the politician, attributes this “unprecedented base of individual donors” to his rejection of special interest money.

We rejected donations from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs and relied on ordinary people to take ownership of this campaign — and the result was more donors than any presidential primary campaign has had in history.

During the last three months of 2007, Obama raised approximately $23.5 million. In January alone, however, the candidate has raised in excess of $32 million. This is a record for candidates still faced with a primary challenge. For all those who thought Hillary was sure to win the nomination following her victory in New Hampshire, Obama’s fundraising successes should give them second thoughts. Obama may not have the richest supporters, but he has among the widest networks of individual donors, and it’s the number of people, not the size of their donations, that counts when the Democrats will be picking a presidential candidate. MSNBC is reporting that the Republican candidates didn’t even come close to the massive figure released by the Obama campaign, and the Clinton camp has yet to release their figures for January.

Scores of Obama Supporters Have Rallied Around Their Candidate

Obama’s “Yes We Can” slogan seems to be convincing America that he’s electable as well, as he’s been victorious in several early primaries. With Edwards out of the race, it will be interesting to see where his supporters end up. Both candidates are vying for his endorsement, and many unions and organizations that once backed Edwards have now switched their affiliation to Obama. Whether or not Edwards will endorse either Democrat before Super Tuesday remains to be seen.Tonight’s Democratic debate, called a “love movie” by the Agence France-Presse, saw the start of cordial relationships between the two candidates. This is a marked difference between the finger pointing and negative comments circulating between John McCain and Mitt Romney, who still have other candidates to worry about. Both Democrats made it clear that they’d like to see the Republicans out of the White House in 2009. While their platforms differ only slightly, the CNN-sponsored debate focused on three main areas, healthcare, Iraq, and illegal immigration. CNN’s catalog of quotes from the debate provides a window into the platforms of each candidate, while their Election Center provides further information for undecided voters.

Cordial Relations Marked Tonight’s Democratic Debate

Most pundits, including CNN’s Bruce Schneider, are calling the debate a draw. Schneider said that Democrats are “happy with their choice this year, but they don’t want to have to make it.” Fortunately for the undecided, the coming weeks will shed more light on the records and positions of both candidates. Unfortunately, however, many will have to make their decisions in short order for the primaries on February 5th. Join us for live, broadcasted video coverage of Super Tuesday next week on February 5th for more about the candidates and the status of the race.

Popularity: 65% [?]

The New York Times, one of the world’s most highly respected newspapers, just announced their editorial board’s decision to endorse Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the upcoming primaries. While the endorsement of McCain isn’t such a surprise, the NYT’s endorsement seemingly could have gone to Obama or Clinton. Luckily, the Times doesn’t fall down on the typical “experience” excuse that Obama has refuted in the past. Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for the Times, shoots down Clinton’s “experience” argument today as well in a new editorial. Kristof notes that the politician that is “most experienced today in the classic sense” is Dick Cheney, and he succeeds in proving that the most experienced candidates aren’t always the ones we’d like to run our country. The stark differences in tone between the Republican and Democratic endorsements from the Times seem to echo the feelings of America today.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton, who received the endorsements of the New York Times today

Hopeful for the future, the Times “strongly recommends” that voters select Hillary Clinton from what is, luckily, not “an uninspiring pack.” While the Times focuses mainly on Clinton and Obama, they make a point of noting that Edwards has “enlivened the race with his own brand of populism,” which may, according to analysts, help to make him a kingmaker at the Democratic Convention later in the year. They do, however, temper their admiration of his dedication by saying that they’re “not sure shere he stands,” effectively making Edwards’ the Democratic flip-flopper, like his 2004 running mate John Kerry.The recommendation to vote for Clinton doesn’t mean the Times doesn’t recognize the strength and benefits of an Obama candidacy, and they draw attention to his successes as well. A key point the Times makes, however, is the fact that “Firstness” is not a reason to choose a certain candidate in this election. Despite what the mainstream media may say, many voters do delve deep into issues and are not voting for candidates superficially. CNN ran a horrendous story last week on the subject, mentioning what they basically call the plight of black women voters. It’s not a question of whether or not to vote for the first woman or first black man. It’s instead a question of who’s going to run the country better.

Barack Obama, Clinton’s main adversary in the quest for the Democratic nomination

The New York Times has decided that Clinton is that candidate. Both candidates, they feel, can repair the “grievous harm” Bush has done to the United States’ image around the world. As I have said in the past, Clinton and Obama really don’t have that much separating them in terms of major issues, and the Times agrees. While Obama highlights change in his candidacy, Hillary has recently taken his message and reiterated it with her own spin, garnering praise from pundits after she “found her voice” after victory in New Hampshire. Key reasons the Times mentions for selecting Clinton include “the depth of her knowledge, …the force of her intellect, and..the breadth of, yes, her experience.” They go even further, praising Clinton and saying she would be a “strong commander in chief.” The problem with Obama’s campaign is that he deals in abstracts, and Clinton seems instead to be equipped with in-depth answers and a clear plan for America’s future. The ideals held by both candidates - the elimination of No Child Left Behind, broadened health coverage, and more - are music to the majority of Americans’ ears. The Times critiques Clinton’s camp as well, explaining that while they support her candidacy, they’d prefer that she abandon the divisive and negative attacks she has pursued against Obama and other competitors. That didn’t stop them, however, from calling Clinton the “best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.”The tone of the McCain endorsement is strikingly different, but the liberal slant of the New York Times means it isn’t quite a surprise. McCain’s bipartisan efforts in the past have led the Times, and much of America, to conclude that he is America’s best hope at uniting the two parties, a contrast to Hillary’s often divisive politics. The editorial begins, “We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president,” and then proceeds to lampoon them for a laundry list of failures in the campaigning season, including a lack of a plan for Iraq, clinging to discredited economic theories, and more. McCain received the endorsement because of his ability to stand on principles, battle global warming, and stand up for the ethical treatment of detainees.

Rudy Giuliani, former NYC Mayor and current Republican candidate

The remainder of the endorsement, however, focuses on Rudolph Giuliani, the onetime mayor and also-ran presidential contender in 2008. His candidacy depends largely on success in Florida, which he is unlikely to achieve. The Times claims that the mayor they endorsed in 1997 for reelection is not “the man..running for president.” We’ll be analyzing Giuliani’s campaign in an upcoming feature article as well. The Times closes their editorial by claiming that McCain is not a “moderate,” but still is “the best choice for the party’s presidential nomination.”New School Politics will publish our official endorsements later in the month, but I believe that those of The New York Times should be a valuable resource to voters in their quest to find an adequate candidate for the 2008 election. They should, however, be taken with a grain of salt as well, as Obama’s endorsement by New Hampshire papers like the Nashua Telegraph failed to produce results for him in that crucial early primary. We’ll have more on the presidential election, including the aforementioned piece on Giuliani, tomorrow.

Popularity: 43% [?]

The end of the week is a happy time for most, and I felt like we at NSP could share some of the things we’ve enjoyed this week with our readers. Those of you who read Ryan’s objectivist content tag will notice that he’s a big fan of Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul. While Paul may make sense to the more economically inclined and intelligent parts of the electorate, he largely what amounts to gibberish to the average voter. His economic policies and opposition to governmental growth are often ridiculed by fellow presidential candidates, both in the debates and out on the campaign trail. College Humor has captured the essence of America’s understanding of Ron Paul by utilizing the music of Sean Paul. It’s a video well worth watching after the jump, along with more humor from the Onion. Lire le reste de cet article »

Popularity: 33% [?]

Here is an eye-popping link enumerating scores of different trends which have been linked to global warming.

Some of my personal favorites: rape, suicide, teen drinking, terrorism, child insomnia, less circumcision, polar bear cannibalism, poisonous spiders invading Scotland, rainfall increase, rainfall decrease, more colorful trees, less colorful trees, taller mountains, smaller mountains, and, best of all, another ice age.

The climate change sensation is prevalent in contemporary culture, and while the pressure is strong to hop on the band-wagon, any independent and rational thinker will notice it wreaks of dubious logic and claims. For instance, the current Secretary-General of the UN blames global warming as the primary culprit in the Darfur conflict. And, while the Sudanese campaign has been motivated in part by desertification of land in the north, it is giant leap to blame global warming for local weather trends. Not to mention the fact that by blaming climate change you are invariably evading the real issue which is that no government or people have the right to systematically violate people’s lives and property in the manner that the Sudanese government is doing.

An articulate editorial in the WSJ today posits how mob mentality may be perpetuating the matter:

How this honor has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on “availability bias,” roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.

Their insight has been fruitful and multiplied: “Availability cascade” has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; “informational cascade” for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd’s beliefs; and “reputational cascade” for the rational incentive to do so.

Mr. Gore clearly understands the game he’s playing, judging by his resort to such nondispositive arguments as: “The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona.”

Two things to remember are, a) its bad when open, rational debate is not tolerated and people blindly follow the leader and b) environmentalist politics are consequential and if people truly accept the idea that there are catastrophic warming trends, logically, regulations will follow that could severely hamstring the economy by attacking both its energy sources and its related price system.

The fact remains that the scientific data does not add up to the earth melting. For one, humans contribute a very small fraction of the greenhouse effect (try less than 2%). Moreover, the earth warmed more during the first half of the twentieth century then the second half and actually cooled for much of the period from the 50s-80s (hence, the “global cooling” scare), all the while industrial emissions were increasing steadily.

Such inconsistencies, among others, are not addressed in the mainstream. A documentary released in the UK in the past year called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is a very informative source. Ultimately it demonstrates that “the debate” is not over–as a matter of fact, it has never even started–and that before we do anything too crazy the world should start openly and freely discussing the issue.

ADDENDUM: In a comment, Simmons said he did not believe me when I said that human contribution to the Greenhouse effect was just about 2% of the total greenhouse effect. While it is difficult to measure the exact contribution of humans, even what I consider generous estimates, measure human contribution at no more that 2 and a fraction %. From Junk Science:

Humans can only claim responsibility, if that’s the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural (you can see the IPCC representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation here or a simple schematic from Woods Hole here).

Half our estimated emissions fail to accumulate in the atmosphere, “disappearing” into sinks as yet undetermined. Humans’ total accumulated carbon contribution could account for perhaps a quarter of the total non-water greenhouse gases (that is, accounting for all the increase since the Industrial Revolution regardless of source and irrespective of whether warming from any cause might result in an increase in natural emission to atmosphere — we’re simply claiming the lot as anthropogenic or human-caused here).

Assuming that water vapor accounts for about 70% and clouds (mostly water droplets) accounts for another 20%, thus water in it’s various forms is 90% of the total greenhouse effect, leaving 10% for non-water greenhouse effect (we know we cited 95% above — see “important distinction“). Of this remaining 10%, mainly atmospheric carbon, humans might be responsible for 25% of the total accumulated atmospheric carbon, meaning 0.25 x 0.1 = 0.025 x 100 = 2.5% of the total greenhouse effect.

Within the given range, 2.5% is the maximum estimation because  it used the maximum estimates of CO2’s greenhouse composition and human emmisions of C02. Being that CO2 may be as little as 4 or 5% of the greenhouse effect, and humans may contribute as little as 3.4% of CO2, a reasonable estimate would also pin human greenhouse effect as low as (.034 x .05) .17%.

Popularity: 57% [?]