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.”

A web-site called skepticalscience.com provides this chart,

The article accompanying the chart explains:

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.

On his web-site, Sinclair writes,

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.

Democrat John Doll is seeking election to the Ohio House to represent the 38th Ohio House District. Mr. Doll spoke at the South of Dayton Democratic Club on May 12, at the Wright Library, and I recorded his speech. (See below.)

Mr. Doll is an attorney and has been a member of the Centerville Board of Education for 19 years. He is a graduate of the Ohio State University and played football for the legendary Woody Hayes.

In 2008, Doll was the Democratic Candidate for the Ohio Senate for the 6th District and was defeated by Jon Husted. In that contest, Doll received 38.6% of the votes.

Mr. Doll’s opponent in this contest, Republican incumbent, Terry Blair, was first elected to the Ohio House in 2008. Blair’s Democratic opponent was Centerville Council member, Susan Lienesch. In spite of the fact that Ms Lienesh didn’t attempt a campaign, amazingly spending zero dollars, she still received 39.2% of the vote.

In the 2008 race, the DDN slammed Republican Blair, and endorsed Ms Lienesch. The newspaper wrote:

Mr. Blair has been a Washington Twp. trustee for 20 years. He ran for re-election last year, knowing full well that he didn’t intend to finish his term and that he would be running for this House seat. The local Republican Party screening committee recommended Tom Young for this seat, but Mr. Blair challenged that decision, and a bigger group of Republicans overruled the screening committee.

In short, some Republicans aren’t keen on Mr. Blair being their person in Columbus.

Mr. Blair makes no bones about the fact that his main focus is reducing taxes. But Ohio has cut income tax rates by 21 percent, and the new commercial activity tax for businesses also represents a tax cut for most companies. You get the feeling that he is a one-string violin and that his votes would be purely ideological.

Mr. Doll feels that he 38th District contest gives a realistic opportunity for a Democrat to defeat Mr. Blair. He feels Mr. Blair is vulnerable because of his radical conservative stands on many issues such as charter schools, that puts him outside of the mainstream of values held by voters in the 38th District. Doll says that Blair has an unrealistic view, not in keeping with the view of his constituents — that proposes that “no government,” not just “less government,” is the answer.

Steve Byington is the Democratic candidate seeking election to the Ohio House of Representatives from the 37th District. Mr. Byington spoke at the South of Dayton Democratic Club on May 12, held at Wright Library, and I recorded his short speech on my video camera. (See below.).

Byington is an architect. He is an active Oakwood citizen, a member of Oakwood Rotary, Oakwood Planning Commission, and Oakwood City Council. At the Council’s January meeting, Byington was chosen Vice-Mayor of Oakwood.

On his web-site, Byington writes, “I’m not sure people know, or ask, what my party affiliation is. They just know me as someone who’s willing to listen to all sides and work hard for solutions that will best serve all the stakeholders. That’s the kind of bipartisan approach—not just lip service, but real, practical outreach—I believe Ohioans want and deserve from their legislators. As I campaign, I want to hear from everyone in the District, regardless of party affiliation.”

In order to win the 37th District, Byington must convince a big block of voters who previously have sent Republicans to the State House to switch their vote. In 2008, the 37th was an open district because the incumbent, John Husted, was term limited. Byington’s opponent in this contest, Republican Peggy Lehner, in 2008, received 65% of the vote and her Democratic opponent, Andi Eveslage, received 35%.

Byington says his campaign will emphasize three topics: job creation, education, and “government itself.” He says, “i’m frustrated with everyone’s frustration with government.” He says the current Ohio Assembly is not focused on solving problems and he will go to Columbus “to get something done.”