Simon Johnson, author of the book I am working through, “13 Bankers,” writes that he is disappointed that “after nine months of hard fighting,” an amendment proposed by Senators Jeff Merkley and Carl Levin was defeated in the Senate — without even being brought to a vote. The Merkley – Levin amendment, “would have forced big banks to get rid of their speculative proprietary trading activities.”
Johnson says that Merkley-Levin had gained momentum and, “the big banks were forced into overdrive to stop it.”
Johnson says that one good outcome of the Senate failure is that the issue for many people is now clarified. He writes, “Everyone who wants to rein in the largest banks now has a much clearer idea of what to push for, what to campaign on, and for what purpose to raise money. “
The Volcker Rule, as specifically proposed in the Merkley-Levin amendment
Constraints on the size and leverage of our largest banks, as proposed by the Brown-Kaufman amendment
According to the Dayton Daily News, a specially scheduled Democratic Primary will be held in mid-July to choose a Democratic candidate to challenge incumbent Republican Mike Turner to represent Ohio’s 3rd Congressional District. The newspaper reports that the Democrat chosen in the May 4 Democratic Primary, Dr. Mark MacNealy, has withdrawn from the race, mysteriously citing “a change in circumstance.”
MacNealy was the only Democratic candidate on the May 4 ballot. I helped Dr. Mark in his last minute petition effort and got a number of signatures for his petition from my neighbors in Kettering. Now, his sudden withdrawal comes as a surprise. When I last spoke with him, maybe ten days ago, he gave no indication that he was thinking of quitting the race.
David Esrati in his web-site reports that MacNealy’s campaign manager, Joe Roberts, has announced his intention to seek the Democratic nomination in the special July primary.
Esrati attempted to have his name on the May 4 Democratic Primary ballot, but his petitions were rejected by the Board of Elections because of his error in failing to sign and date his petitions properly. So now, he has a second chance.
Esrati writes, “My initial reaction is to turn in petitions with the correct date for this primary- however, fundraising isn’t even a remote possibility to go head-to-head with Turner, and I can think of better things for people to spend their money on than a campaign- like hiring people in OH-3. What are your thoughts?”
According to Open Secrets, Dr. Mark has raised $10,605 for his campaign, and Turner has raised $461,950.
Any Democrat who wants to run for congress, and challenge incumbent Mike Turner in the November election, only needs fifty signatures, and a few dollars for the filing fee, in order to get his or her name on the ballot for the Special July Democratic Primary. The deadline for filing will be sometime in mid June.
Recently, in a friendly conversation, my matter of fact view of the danger of CO2 pollution was disputed. I stated that, according to my understanding, there is no debate in the scientific community about how CO2 accumulation must lead to global warming. To my surprise, my POV, based on what I assumed was settled science, was vigorously contested. I was told, about the impact and long term effect of CO2 accumulation, “There is no scientific consensus.”
Wow. When there is a basic disagreement about fundamental facts, that’s a conversation stopper.
If CO2 accumulation poses a lethal threat to future generations, then it is the obligation of this generation to take the difficult and expensive measures to protect future generations. If scientists are in disagreement that CO2 is a credible threat, then maybe we should wait until scientific understanding is more certain.
My brief Goggle research shows a lot of reason to support my POV about the consensus of scientists concerning the impact of CO2 accumulation. I’ll be glad to post arguments contradicting this POV.
Checking with Wikipedia, I found this comment: “The controversy is significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where there is a consensus that recent global warming is mostly attributable to human activity.”
An article from five years ago, “World scientists urge CO2 action”states, “It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.”
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? Inevitably, there will be scientists who are skeptical about man-made global warming. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn’t publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
The video below starts with a clip of Steven Colbert interviewing a former General Motors Vice President named Bob Lutz. Colbert challenges Lutz, “You don’t believe that global warming is real.” And Lutz defends his POV by stating that 32,000 scientists agree with him that CO2 is not the problem.
This video is very professionally done and, I believe, well worth watching, and is credited to Peter Sinclair. It is part of a series, “Climate Denial, Crock of the Week.” It shows where this claim, of 32,000 dissenting scientists, cited by Lutz, comes from. The video compares global warming deniers, seeking to block new public policy concerning CO2 accumulation, to cigarette health endangerment deniers, who at one time used bogus scientific arguments to block new public policies concerning cigarette use.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
