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 Mark MacNealy, has withdrawn from the race, mysteriously citing “a change in circumstance.”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.
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.
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.
