Rogers continues to deny the fact that global warming is a fact on behalf of Big Oil masters

After some nine years of Mike Rogers in Congress, the only thing we know for sure about the Brighton Republican is that he toes the GOP line until its no longer popular to dos so. His press release on the stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia that critics have dubiously claimed undermine the scientific consensus on climate change is just one more example.

Rogers backed every single Bush position until the approval ratings of the worst president in U.S. history plunged like a rock, and Rogers abandoned him like a rat from a sinking ship. Now, he has sunk to the role of just criticizing and blocking every solution to the problems his party created.

His press release printed almost verbatim in the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus is parroting the rightwing lie that global warming is a hoax. “He joined fellow congressional Republicans who raised questions about leaked e-mails from the researchers.”

First, they were not “leaked e-mails” they were stolen. Global warming deniers are basically taking one word out of context among 13 years of personal emails to prove their point. They ignore all the data from other agencies, like NASA, to make their case.

For years, thousands of scientists working at climate research centers throughout the world have carefully and rigorously reached a consensus on the extent of climate change, the urgency of the problem, and the role of human activity in causing it. A few distorted e-mail exchanges do not change that consensus.

In fact, last month Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, supported that claim: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way."

Rogers is a very good friend of big oil, and, in fact, he voted against ending taxpayer-funded subsidies for Big Oil and creating a Strategic Energy and Renewables Reserve. Is it any surprise he is a global warming denier? The right-wing groups leading the charge in attacking the science are the same old Big Oil-backed naysayers and their allies in Congress -like Rogers- who have been attacking climate science and fighting clean energy for decades.

The U.S. Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency have identified climate change as a threat to our national security and have developed specific efforts to combat climate change.

The real indicator is the results of global warming. How to you ignore or lie that away?

According to a recent article by the Associated Press, “Since 1997 climate change has worsened and accelerated – beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.”
The world's oceans have risen by about an inch and a half.

Droughts and wildfires have turned more severe worldwide, from the U.S. West to Australia to the Sahel desert of North Africa. Species now in trouble because of changing climate include, not just the lumbering polar bear which has become a symbol of global warming, but also fragile butterflies, colorful frogs and entire stands of North American pine forests. Temperatures over the past 12 years are 0.4 of a degree warmer than the dozen years leading up to 1997. Even the gloomiest climate models back in the 1990s didn't forecast results quite this bad so fast.

Scientists have uncovered a large expanse of "corrosive" water in the Canadian Arctic due to carbon pollution that is putting the marine food web at risk. "Unprecedented" rainfall in the United Kingdom has led to flooding of "biblical proportions" – a predicted consequence of global warming. "Unprecedented" heat, drought, and winds are causing "catastrophic" wildfires to sweep across eastern Australia – a predicted consequence of global warming.

The 2000s are on track to be nearly 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s. And that temperature jump is especially worrisome since the 1990s were only 0.14°C warmer than the 1980s. The world’s glaciers shrink for the 18th year. According to the University of Zurich ’s World Glacier Monitoring Service report in 2006 and 2007 the world’s glaciers lost 2 meters (2000 mm) of thickness on average. They note, “The new data continues the global trend in accelerated ice loss over the past few decades.” The rate of ice loss is twice as fast as a decade ago. Greenhouse gases, which are believed to be responsible for global warming, reached record highs in the Earth’s atmosphere in 2008, according to the U.N. weather agency.

The simple fact is Global Warming is real, and a few words taken out of context from thousands of stolen emails cannot change that fact. Even if you wanted to impeach the results from the CRU at the University of East Anglia, there are plenty of other respected scientists above reproach who hold the same position reached by independent and undisputed research and data. Here are a few:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Global warming of the climate system is unequivocal and most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-20th century is due to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

National Academy of Sciences: Even if carbon dioxide emissions were halted today, the world would continue warming with “irreversible” effects — including rising temperatures and sea levels—that will last for a millennium.

American Association for the Advancement of Science: The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

U.S. Global Change Research Program: Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.

American Physical Society: Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

American Meteorological Society: Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond.

American Geophysical Union: The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. . . . Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities.

American Quaternary Association: Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

The national science academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa: It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change at the UNFCCC negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009.

A group of 18 leading scientific organizations recently sent a letter to Senators affirming that climate change is happening.

Thirteen Weeks and Two Pages to Answer a Yes or No Question about Global Warming

On February 7, 2007, I sent an email to Rep. Rogers' office asking the following question:

I would like to know how Rep. Rogers voted in this National Journal Poll about Global Warming.

Does the Congressman believe "it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?"

The poll I was referring to surveyed 113 members of Congress: 10 Senate Democrats, 48 House Democrats, 10 Senate Republicans, and 45 House Republicans (including Mike Rogers).

This is what the poll found: 95% of Democrats believe in man-made global warming, whereas 83% of Republicans do not believe the science behind global warming.



Well, after seven weeks, I finally received a response from Mike Rogers' office via snail mail today. It's almost two pages long, and lays out all the steps the Congressman has taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the House. As Mr. Rogers says, he is...

acutely sensitive to the delicate balance we must reach protecting our precious environment, while preserving the jobs that provide for our way of life.

Unfortunately, nowhere in the two-page letter does he use the term "global warming." Nowhere does he say how he voted in the National Journal poll (which is what I asked). And nowhere in the letter does he admit that there is a link between the warming of the Earth and man-made pollutants, such as carbon dioxide.

Now, I do appreciate that the folks at Mike Rogers' office took the time to send me this letter, and I'm willing to give the Congressman some credit for what efforts he has made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (trust me, his record is better than some of his Republican colleagues).

However, as we have pointed out in the past, Rep. Rogers continues to deny the fundamental science behind global warming, has accepted numerous campaign contributions from some of the country's most notorious polluters, and consistently receives failing grades from environmental groups.

Mike Rogers closed his letter to me by saying:

Rest assured, I will work tirelessly toward this important economic, environmental and national security effort.

Unfortunately, this commitment will continue to ring hollow until Mike Rogers can bring himself to answer my initial question.

Rogers on ethanol...

By Eric B.

Reprinted from MichiganLiberal, with permission.

I don't know if this is a direct transcript from yesterday's testimony by automakers before a House subcommittee on global warming and fuel standards, but if this is something Mike Rogers said...

What if we came up with a way to come up with a different kind of incentive? I'm a big ethanol guy. It's like giving a good salute to the Iranian Ayatollah every time I step on the gas. I love it.

...it might help explain the pounding headache I have this morning.

The story of ethanol is an American story, a new technology touted to be our key to giving more of our money to the American farmer (God bless his early-rising soul) and less to the nutty, crazed America-hating shieks in the Middle East.

There's just a slight problem.

There isn't enough corn in the Good Old U.S. of A. to satisfy our needs.  In fact, the total ethanol output we could get from our corn crop would barely make a dent in the nation's fuel needs, and that's if we converted all of our corn to ethanol.  (Speaking of which, Iowa is on track to use so much corn to make ethanol that eventually it'll have to import it from other states.)

That means that we, like our friends in Mexico (where food riots have already broken out over the rising cost of tortillas), will see a steady increase in the cost of food (the USDA is already predicting an increase in the cost of meat before too long).

In other words, every time Mike Rogers steps on the gas pedal, he is giving a salute to the Iranian ayathollahs, but he's also giving a different kind of salute to the American consumer.

We also know the other problem with corn-based ethanol ... as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is of questionable value (if you go with some other kind of plant -- Rogers alludes to switchgrass on his Web site -- the benefits are more evident ... as long as you don't use coal to heat your mash).

But, Rogers wasn't on about greenhouse gases.  In fact, he apparently doesn't think global warming is a problem.

"I do think there is contradictory science," Rogers said. "Rather than arguing about 'is it there or isn't it there,' the things we can agree on are emissions ... we can all agree that pollution is bad and there is much we can do and do together to eliminate pollution."

If Mike Rogers is calling carbon dioxide a pollutant, it puts him at least ahead of Antonin Scalia, who expressed reservations in calling CO2 a pollutant during testimony last year in front of the Supreme Court.  But, if he thinks there's science on "both sides" (just what this "other" side is, and what the science is that supports it is anyone's guess), it's more likely that he's after energy independence rather than environmental protection.

Energy independence is a good idea, but it isn't the same thing as reducing greenhouse gas emissions to reduce our impact on the world's climate.  You could, for instance, become totally energy independent if you started transforming our very abundant supply of coal to synthetic fuels (the technology for this has been around since World War II), but the entire manufacturing process releases even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than simply burning gasoline.

Politicians keen to win points by giving struggling farmers a cash crop to revive agriculture aren't the only folks guilty of conflating the two.  During yesterday's testimony, the automakers did it, too.

"New vehicle efficiency improvements alone will never result in the overall decline in petroleum consumption and the greenhouse gas emissions we need," said Chrysler Group President Tom LaSorda.

Of course, not, but let's not confuse the two goals.  They might eventually have a similar solution, and they might both be rooted in a long-standing overdependence on OPEC oil, but they are still very different things.

The problem, if both the testimony and the News story got it right, is that the focus is solely on E85 and flex-fuel engines (if Congress both raised mileage requirements and encouraged flex fuel engines, they'd have to adopt two sets of standards for two types of engines, since the lower-powered ethanol provides fewer miles per gallon).  Yet, there is not even a nod in the direction of ethanol's pressing availability issues.  Not only can we not grow enough corn to supplant gasoline, but it's also highly corrosive, creating substantial problems in transporting it efficiently from agricultural areas to population centers.

These are hardly state secrets.  In fact, Rogers introduced legislation meant to help gas stations install ethanol pumping equipment (how the ethanol would get from Iowa to Florida is another story).  So, it's hard to imagine that he and the Big Three are unaware of the serious limitations of their proposed alternative.

But, the real problem isn't with ethanol.  It's a matter of leadership.  So far no one in elected office has come clean with the American people ... ethanol could very well be part of the solution (I've seen references to the possibilities of fueling farm vehicles with ethanol, which seems reasonable), but to play it up like a silver bullet solution is to misguide the American people.

Rogers decides pollution is bad but there is no such thing as global warming

Apparently Mike Rogers has added scientist to his long and growing list of expertise and subject matter expert.

In a story in the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus on the special slide show on Al Gore’s Academy Award nominated movie "Inconvenient Truth" making an appearance in Republican-Livingston County on March 10 in Brighton, Rogers said pollution is bad, but the 400 scientists from 113 nations who say humans are causing global warming do not know what they are talking about. If pollution is bad, then how is it bad, Professor Rogers?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just released an authoritative and disturbingly scientific report in Paris a few weeks ago that said global warming is “very likely” caused by mankind and that climate change will continue for centuries even if heat-trapping gases are reduced. It was the strongest language ever used by the panel. The document was a collaboration of hundreds of scientists and government officials, and it was approved by 113 nations, including the United States.

Evidence is mounting every day, and more and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that humans are causing climate change. The words “very likely" means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that global warming is caused by humans. The report issued in 2001, said global warming was "likely" caused by human activity. What will it take to convince Mike Rogers; the disappearance the Alpine glaciers?

Just a few days after the IPCC report came out, 45 nations answered France's call for a new environmental body to slow inevitable global warming and protect the planet. However, the world's heavyweight polluter, the United States, and booming nations on the same path as the U.S. — China and India - declined. Even though the U.S. agrees humans are causing global warming, they do not want to do anything to address it.

To show you the level of misinformation, lies and the political pressure that is trying to force scientists to alter their findings that global warming is occurring the article offers up one fountain of right wing propaganda: Dan Wholihan, who runs the Republican Michigander blog. Anyone who has ever read this guy’s misinformation knows he would not believe man landed on the moon if a Republican told him it never happened. He says Gore “…has an agenda and he wants to implement his agenda.” Of course he does, and so do the millions of other concerned people all across the world that care about the planet and do not want to see it disappear or be fouled.

Gore personally trained some 1,000 presenters last year in Nashville who are traveling across the country with copies of his 330-slide climate slide show customized to the state the presentation is held in. The unpaid volunteers are setting up projectors in living rooms, church sanctuaries and VFW halls to show the presentation.

Dr. Kathryn Savoie, environmental program director with the Dearborn-based Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS), will present the slide show at 2 p.m. March 10 at the Brighton Education Center, 125 S. Church St., located just a couple of blocks south of downtown Brighton and about a quarter mile from the I-96 Spencer Road Exit.