Romney questions Brits' patriotism

Not very Anglo-Saxon of you, Mitt.

Mr Romney questioned the enthusiasm of the British public. "Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment?" he asked. "

And yesterday we found out that Romney questioned the achievement of our Olympic athletes (probably because they weren't able to buy their way into the Olympics, like Romney did). Read the rest of this post...

Romney video claims "enthusiastic reception" at NAACP where in reality he was booed

It's called Lying for the Lord.  Folks should read up on it, now that the Romney campaign has clearly adopted lying about the facts as their number one campaign strategy, including the very first ad that Romney launched in which he took a quote of John McCain's and attributed it to President Obama.

It's disturbing the degree to which the Romney campaign tries to rewrite history.  Then again, when your candidate has flip-flopped on pretty much every issue in order to convince the far right of the Republican party that he's one of them - when he's really more a liberal Democrat - all you have left is lies. Read the rest of this post...

Brit govt says no way Romney will carry Olympic Torch after today's insults

From the BBC show Newsnight's Twitter feed:

@BBCNewsnight: Will Mitt Romney carry the Olympic torch? "Certainly not after today", according to Olympics Minister Hugh Robertson on #newsnight

ThinkProgress got the video - the Minister literally laughs at the notion of Romney getting to carry the Olympic torch.

Read the rest of this post...

Romney commissioned five more official Olympics pins with his face on them

The hubris involved in commissioning an official Olympics pin OF YOURSELF is pretty huge.  We wrote about one such pin earlier.  Buzzfeed found five more. Read the rest of this post...

Romney appears to have concerns about UK austerity policy

Romney was already in enough trouble this trip, now this.

From ABC:

During a meeting with Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, a British reporter asked both Miliband and Romney for their views on current British economic policy.

"While I'm on foreign soil, I'm very careful not to be critical of my own government's policies," Romney said. "I would be even more remiss if I were to be critical to any other government's policies. I will instead look forward to an exchange of ideas."

Um, the only time you refuse to answer a question because you don't want to be critical is because you were planning on being critical.  He could have simply said "I agree with the Prime Minister."  But he didn't, because he didn't want to be critical of the conservative austerity program, which is the same thing that conservatives - Romney's own party - are pushing in the US.

In poker, we call that a "tell."

Quite the seasoned diplomat, that Romney.  I wonder if he can see London from his kitchen?

Okay I was just joking about the Palin thing, but apparently the Brits have already reached a verdict on Romney.  From the Daily Mail's political editor, James Chapman:

@jameschappers: Serious dismay in Whitehall at Romney debut. 'Worse than Sarah Palin.' 'Total car crash'. Two of the kinder verdicts #romneyshambles

Chapman has more:

Can this get any worse for Romney? Boris is now mocking him in front of 60,000 people in Hyde Park#romneyshambles

The Guardian now has a story out about all the Romney gaffes.

And LeftFootForward blog notes that Romney dissed the Brits in his 2010 book as well:

“England [sic] is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn’t make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy."

Read the rest of this post...

Union Leader newspaper blasts Romney for not releasing taxes

The Manchester Union Leader is the uber-conservative newspaper in New Hampshire that Republicans desperately seek the endorsement of. This, from them, is big.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this entire controversy is the one NOT being discussed much: How did Romney get himself into this position in the first place? He has been running for office for a long time. His presidential aspirations predate the tax returns in question.

What could he possibly have been thinking when he failed to ensure that everything contained in those documents was above reproach? Or was he simply not thinking at all? Surely he could not have arrogantly believed that he could withstand any storm that developed by bluffing his way through it? If so, it hasn’t worked.

If Romney intends to win, he is going to have to make the tax forms public. This storm won’t go away. It will distract from his policy debate with Obama — and it will distract from Obama’s failures, providing the incumbent with the smokescreen he is attempting to create.

Romney needs to end this. He needs to end this by revealing the tax documents, explaining them, explaining the legality behind his actions, and then he needs to move on.

Read the rest of this post...

Admiral who oversaw killing of bin Laden praises Obama's role

Oops.

You see, the Republicans, who praise anything and everything the military does, suddenly found fault with the raid to kill Osama bin Laden. It was no big deal, they said. (Probably because their guy, George Bush, couldn't kill bin Laden and he had eight years to do it.)

Anyway, Admiral Bill McRaven, the man who oversaw the bin Laden operation, had nothing but praise for President Obama's role that the GOP incessantly mocks.  From Politico:

"At the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden of this operation, that made the hard decision," McRaven said during an on-stage interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that served as the kickoff session of the Aspen Security Forum.

"The president of the United States is fantastic," the admiral said. "I'm not a political guy. I've worked in both [administrations,] very much enjoyed working with President Bush and I very much enjoy working for President Obama. This isn't about politics. This is about a Commander in Chief who I have the opportunity to engage with on a routine basis."

"I'm not a political guy, but I’ll tell you as an interested observer of this, they were magnfiicent how they handled the start-to-finish," McRaven said. "The president asked all the right questions…The president gave me ample time to prepare once the conversations were through."

Read the rest of this post...

ABC: Romney commissioned official Olympics pin in the shape of his head

Had Obama done this, the election would be over.  From ABC News:

Official 2002 Olympics pin
commemorating Mitt Romney.
(credit: ABC News)

And extra credit for Romney having the pins made in... wait for it... China! Read the rest of this post...

McKibben's Three Numbers—Measuring the march toward climate catastrophe

UPDATE: A complete list of climate series pieces is available here:
The Climate series: a reference post.
________

This continues the Climate Catastrophe series of pieces I've been doing. Most recently, these have included:

  ■ Hugging the monster: Climate scientists and the C-word
  ■ The epic heat wave: "Of course it's about climate change"
  ■ Hansen on 3°C: Quarter to half of species on earth may die from global warming
  ■ What is "climate catastrophe"?

This post starts the promised comment on Bill McKibben's seminal Rolling Stones piece — the first of five.

McKibben's Three Numbers

Bill McKibben starts his article by identifying three numbers we should be watching to know how close we've come to climate catastrophe. Those numbers are:

• 2°C (3.6°F) rise in global average temperature — Our global warming ceiling, according to the G8 and others. Of this, 0.8°C is already used up — i.e., we're 40% there.
  
  
• 565 gigatons of new carbon in the air — How much atmospheric carbon equates to a 2°C (3.6°F) global warming increase.
  
  
• 2795 gigatons of carbon in the ground — How much known carbon reserves the carbon owners can dig up and sell us.

Notice that the third number (ready reserves) is five times the second. If all that carbon gets into the air — 2795 gigatons in carbon reserves — we blow global warming right off the chart (this chart, the one showing all-time mass extinction events).

As you can see, this is a recipe for disaster. The bottom line for the carbon owners (the corporations, and nations like Venezuela that act like carbon corporations) is — how do I monetize those reserves.

If they succeed, it's over. Really over.

Let's look more closely at McKibben's numbers. He deals with them in detail in his article. In future posts we'll discuss the consequences and what options we have.

2°C — our global warming ceiling

Even though the powers-that-be (which means, the powers that own the world) can't agree on any solution to the global warming problem, they have reached an agreement that the increase in average global temperature must be kept below 2°C (3.6°F).

Even this number is disputed, but as McKibben points out in his piece, it's the only thing all of these climate conferences agree on. That makes 2°C the consensus benchmark.

From the article (my emphasis and much reparagraphing):

[The 2009 Copenhagen climate conference] failed spectacularly. ... [But the Copenhagen Accord] did contain one important number, however. In Paragraph 1, it formally recognized "the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius." And in the very next paragraph, it declared that "we agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required... so as to hold the increase in global temperature below two degrees Celsius."

By insisting on two degrees – about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – the accord ratified positions taken earlier in 2009 by the G8, and the so-called Major Economies Forum. It was as conventional as conventional wisdom gets. The number first gained prominence, in fact, at a 1995 climate conference chaired by Angela Merkel, then the German minister of the environment and now the center-right chancellor of the nation.

There's a problem with that 2°C — we've already used up 40% of it, and that 40% has done a lot more damage than anyone has anticipated. In fact, the mark of this climate crisis has been under-anticipating both its speed and severity. A word to the wise; this one needs to be over-estimated to compensate.

McKibben on that surprising severity:

Some context: So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected.

(A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.)

Think now. We learned here that a 3°C rise in global warming is likely to cause a world-historical extinction event (20–50% of species gone). The frightened-to-act world elites are focused on a 2°C number (of which we're already "spent" 0.8°C).

And even that is too generous, according to those nations that will be hit hardest by famines and other effects.

Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target.

"Any number much above one degree involves a gamble," writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, "and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up."

Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank's chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: "If we're seeing what we're seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much." NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet's most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: "The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster."

At the Copenhagen summit, a spokesman for small island nations warned that many would not survive a two-degree rise: "Some countries will flat-out disappear."

When delegates from developing nations were warned that two degrees would represent a "suicide pact" for drought-stricken Africa, many of them started chanting, "One degree, one Africa."

So keep that in mind as you read this and my subsequent posts. Two degrees is what we use as a benchmark. But only because it's what the timid elites will admit to.

For many, global warming of 1°C and it's all over; only the consequences remain. (And again, 0.8°C has already been baked in. Those continuing consequences are assured.)

565 gigatons gets us to 2°C; Big Gas & Oil has 2795 to sell

Here's where the financial rubber meets the road. According to McKibben, if we add 565 gigatons of carbon to the air, we get our 2°C rise.

Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. ("Reasonable," in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)

This idea of a global "carbon budget" emerged about a decade ago, as scientists began to calculate how much oil, coal and gas could still safely be burned. Since we've increased the Earth's temperature by 0.8 degrees so far, we're currently less than halfway to the target. But, in fact, computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO2 now, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere. That means we're already three-quarters of the way to the two-degree target.

Don't let the numbers dazzle you. All you need to know — we've used up 0.8°C of our 2°C "budget" and if we do nothing we'll be handed another 0.8°C which is already in the pipeline. As Bill says, we're already 3/4 of the way there.

Do check the article for more on the 565 gigaton number. There's good support and an interesting discussion.

I want to pass to the other gigaton number — 2795 gigatons.

This number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios.

The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher. ...

We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We'd have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate.

The "job creators" (read "personal wealth creators") need to sell you five times what it takes to keep the planet human-habitable, 'cause, you know, their wealth trumps (heh) your lives ... and then they're comfortably dead — winners all.

Bottom line

Let's stop here for now, with a walk through the numbers. McKibben gives us a nice clean problem statement — stay below 2°C. We're cooking the planet — note, the victim isn't the planet, it's us; the planet will do just fine — and in order to stop the crisis, we have to keep the oil-and-gas owners from selling their product.

His bottom line is — watch those three numbers, or rather, watch that 2°C number. (Don't worry; I'll watch it with you. I'm an interested party too.)

Then watch to see if the guys with the psychopathic greed (sorry, I mean "job creators") get their way. In my view, it's actually not over. There are means at our disposal. Job one, of course, is to hug the monster — recognize the problem in order to "incentivize" a solution. Stay tuned.

In that effort, I remain,

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

"Bachmann's concept of Christian love brims with hate"

NYT's Frank Bruni on GOP House member, and former Republican presidential hopeful, Michele Bachmann:

Bachmann’s concept of Christian love brims with hate, and she has a deep satchel of stones to throw. From what kind of messiah did she learn that?

I know many progressive, big-hearted Christians who rise to that challenge, and it’s wrong for a single Christian label — without asterisk or annotation — to be attached both to them and to the likes of Bachmann.

So maybe it’s time for annotations. Most of us distinguish, rightly, between Muslim extremists and other followers of Islam. Perhaps we should start noting the difference between Christians of real compassion and those of exclusionary spite.

Bachmann’s on to something: dangerous fundamentalists have indeed set up camp deep inside the capital. She can find one in her office. She need only look in the mirror.

Read the rest of this post...