The conversation below occurred over a period of a few weeks, with an otherwise intelligent individual (We'll call him John Denier or John D. for short) who would obviously do anything to try and make himself believe that global warming was not a fact that we have to deal with.

I publish this transcript here in hopes that others can expand upon these arguments when faced with similar situations, as well as give me alternative, hopefully better ways of getting through to these people. Your comments are, as always, encouraged and appreciated.

This conversation started as an almost offhand comment he made at lunch about the "...big-lie that is global warming..." and continued into an email exchange. I suspect that the comment was intended to see if I would let him get away with it. As I have said in the past however, we have let the lies get away from us. We can no longer stand silently by while the right-wing nut-jobs propagate their deceit. It must be challenged wherever it is found, especially when the lies are said publicly.

My initial response to his assertion that it was all a "big-lie" was to ask for documentation, which he claimed existed, that showed that global warming was not our doing. He did not deny that there was much evidence that global warming was our fault; he just claimed there was plenty of evidence that "proves it isn't". The conversation continued in email...

• John D.

  Jeff, here is just one of many… http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1176974192195090.xml&coll=1 I agree, we all need to do our part to help reduce our footprint on the earth, but to jump to catastrophic overreactions will not be helpful especially to the people living in developing countries. Peace. jd

• Jeff F.

  Where is his study? Making unscientific jabs at legitimate research is not evidence; its conjecture, or worse, wishful thinking. Where is his research showing the absence of a correlation between humans and global warming? Besides, a "scientist" who is a vocal supporter of intelligent design (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I) has very little credibility with me. Please show me something based on research, not bought-and-paid-for opinion.

  Remember, what I said was that "100% of published, peer-reviewed studies show that global warming exists and we are the cause." You have shown me nothing that in any way refutes that. A few self-published articles on the subject does not make one an expert, even if he or she works for a major University.

  Making the planet unlivable would be far worse for people living in developing countries than any changes to environmental policy… Even minor changes to our environment, which have already happened, are causing very severe effects, in many cases involving people in those developing countries that you cite. If you really want to help them, help stop the drying-up of fresh water sources and the rising of the oceans that are going on right now. If you really want to help all of us, let's spend the little money we'll need to spend now on this problem before we have to spend orders-of-magnitude more in the future because we waited too long. An ounce of prevention…

  Just because we can't quantify the effect that global warming will have, cannot mean we turn a blind-eye to the problem. It is real and we caused it. We need to fix it… Please keep trying…

• John D.

  Jeff, when you have a full hour to available, please watch the following movie… http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170 This has the names, interviews, and commentary from the professors you want to discredit. As a matter of fact, several of the scientists/professors are a few of the first who were used by Margaret Thatcher's IPCC initiative to sway public into going nuclear (she forced the miners back to work- remember that? I do). Included is an interesting commentary from a co-founder of Greenpeace. Enjoy. jd

• Jeff F.

  I'll be happy to watch the video, but I won't support your case for you, you need to do that for yourself. If you feel the video has pointed out one or more legitimate scientists with studies that support your assertions, do the research and state your case. I believe that what you will find, at first contact with any actual research, is that these people are nothing more than Roy Spencer who you previously referenced. These are people who are using good, unrelated work in the past to establish credentials for an invented counter-argument to a real problem so they can cash-in on the corporate payouts.

  Understand something, it is very clear from your actions that you do not actually believe this garbage yourself. Do us all a favor and do the research, then try and support your case to yourself. If you do the groundwork, and you still feel the same way, then I'll be glad to look at it too. Convince yourself first, then convince me. What you'll find is that you can't convince yourself. You are a smart guy, you don't need me to play nanny for you.

• John D.

  So what you're saying is I shouldn't watch anything unless it's coming from Al Gore. Additionally, schools that mandate watching his movie should not view the other side of the story? I guess the same is true with Michael Moore.

  Come on Jeff, there are many previous scientist that were thought to have discovered this or that, while their peers disagreed with them only to find one side was completely wrong. So, why the hysteria to do one thing or another? Fear causes action which fuels budgets! Do you really trust governments that much? Have you ever worked for government?

  Watch the movie and understand why it is so important the public is being fooled. I want you to see and hear the scientists. We can discuss after, if you want.

  By the way, Roy Spencer is not in the movie.

• Jeff F.

  I'm saying, do your own research. Don't believe a movie, don't believe Al Gore, don't believe the government, and don't believe me. Find out for yourself!

  Question: Should people who say that the earth is flat get equal time in science class as those who believe the earth is round?

  Before you say it is an invalid comparison, be prepared to support that argument. I'm prepared to support that it is a valid comparison, because that is the case I've been making all along… If you would only do the research for yourself you would know it too.

  The corporations have much to gain by not spending any money to fix this problem and they are throwing all of their media influence behind the disinformation campaign trying to convince us that the problem isn't real. Who gains if the problem actually is real? You are asking me to not believe all legitimate scientists and instead believe the corporations and the media. No way, no how. I have done the research for myself and I know what is going on. If you look for yourself, you'll know too.

• John D.

  I have always doubted on my own. I didn't need a movie. It's too convenient to blame the industrial world, especially the west and deprive the developing countries their right to develop. You and I, I am sure, agree on many things regarding the conservation and respectful uses of natural resources. However, I think scare tactics by a UN body cannot be trusted.

  The movie confirmed what I had suspected. However, there are some things I didn't realize. Thatcher and Tri laterals want to enslave you and I. Bush is one of them. Greed is more important than our national health. But you already knew that, from a different prospective.

• Jeff F.

  So let me get this straight, you are claiming that global warming is some kind of scam by the UN for some unknown, obviously nefarious purpose, utilizing scientists the world over who are completely distinct and gain nothing from it, and you deny that the corporations, who control (own) the mass media and who have much to lose if this threat is widely known and understood, are simply looking out for their own interests by telling us that it is fake.

  It really sounds like you are saying "I know Global Warming is a fact, but I don't want to spend the money and time to do anything about it, and since I hate the UN, and they have issued warnings about the problem, I can just say I don't trust them and have an excuse for doing nothing. Then, when we really have to spend a lot more money down the road to fix a problem we could have prevented, we'll just blame the UN, saying it was their conservation efforts that prevented businesses from doing anything about it."

  I certainly agree that it is greed that is at issue here. Corporations putting profit over the nation, the world, and the people who inhabit them is unfortunately, not a new concept.

• John D.

  None of the scientists dispute the climate goes thru changes. The IPCC report has scientists' names on it who do not have anything to do with the report. They took upon themselves to add people for credibility. Watch the video, one scientist had to threaten to take legal action before they removed his name.

  What it comes down to is this. Yes, we are experiencing climate change. No, CO2 is not the cause. The change in solar spots on the sun is the cause (studies show this). The amount of water vapor(clouds) in the atmosphere is what traps the heat. I saw a study on PBS where temps were compared before and after 9/11. Temps were up by a significant factor across the nation when all the planes where grounded. I'm sure you see the moisture clouds trailing aircraft at high altitudes.

  CO2 levels trail the warming of the planet, it does not lead like Gore claims. See the historical records done by geological scientists (carbon dating). The source of CO2 is the oceans. Ocean temps response to environment factors takes hundreds even thousands of years to respond (i.e. level of CO2 release).

  Bottom line – nothing we can do. It's a natural cycle.

  Maybe I should start selling Global Warming apparel or lotion. I'll jump on the $$$ band wagon.

  We should have lunch sometime to discuss.

• Jeff F.

  Now we are starting to get somewhere…

  You cite studies that show the following:

  • The change in solar spots on the sun is the cause of global warming
  • Air traffic has an impact on temperature
  • CO2 increases are not a cause of global warming (but are actually a result of it?)

  (If I have misstated any of these, please correct me)

  Please show me these studies and let me see for myself (you'll forgive me if your claims are not enough to convince me). But first, you must read them for yourself and convince yourself of their validity. Watching a movie or show that mentions it is no substitute for actual research.

• John D.

  Yes, sure. As soon as I have time. Very busy.

That, of course, was the end of the conversation. John D. has since moved-on, I guess looking for a place to infect where his lies go unchallenged.

In a press conference this morning, John Kerry blasted the President and Republicans for trying to divert attention away from the real issues and mischaracterize his statements:

…I apologize to no-one for my criticism of the President and his broken policy.  If anyone owes our troops in the field an apology, it is the President and his failed teams, and the Republican majority of the congress that has been willing to rubber-stamp policies that have done injuries to our troops and their families.

What our troops deserve is a winning strategy.  What they deserve is leadership that is up to the sacrifice that they are making.

They have a "stand still and lose" policy in Iraq, and a "cut and run" policy in Afghanistan.

I can’t help but think that if George W. Bush and his cronies in Congress like Jon Kyl and J.D. Hayworth put half as much effort into attacking our enemies like Osama bin Laden as they put into attacking our heroes like John Kerry, John Murtha, and Jim Webb; Osama would have been killed or captured by now.  Republicans, having full control of the government, have failed to protect America and now we will see what can be accomplished when both parties share some of the power.

Under normal circumstances, I would say that there is no way to know, with a shift in power, that the incoming power structure will do a better job of protecting America or not, but this situation is an exception.  I can state unequivocally, and with 100% confidence, that the Congress will do a much better job at defending this country than the Republicans have with full control.  My reasoning for such confidence is simple; the job cannot be done worse than it has been over the last 6 years.  We are now far less-safe and less-free than we were when President Bush took-over, and we are less-safe and less-free then we were on 9-11.  The task ahead is difficult, but as long as the Democrats take control of at least one house of Congress, single-party rule will be over and reasonable compromises will have to be reached.  The job of Congress to oversee the President will resume and the country will be both safer and freer for it.

President Bush's veto of the Stem Cell Research Bill yesterday was a reprehensible and indefensible act that once again put politics over people.

For those who haven’t heard me rant in person, remember the following:

* Animals have no rights
* Businesses have no rights
* Cloth has no rights
* Cells have no rights

That is correct; none of the above have any rights at all. Only people can have rights. For President Bush to put the "well-being" of groups of cells above that of millions of people worldwide whose lives could be saved or greatly improved by the results of stem-cell research is disgusting. That he would do it to pander to his political base and thus consolidate his power is morally indefensible.

I often talk to people who are excited, for one reason or another, about the results of a particular online poll or another. I am not referring to scientific opinion polls conducted by Gallup, USA Today, and others. I am referring to the online polls that any webmaster can easily put up on his or her website, often asking the "question of the day". The people who comment on these polls, who are usually very intelligent and very well informed compared to the average American, realize that these are not scientific surveys, but are simply reflections of the opinions of those who chose to respond. Nonetheless, they feel relieved or angry, nervous or comforted by the results of these polls. They say "I know it is not scientific, but it is an indication of what people are thinking."

NO IT IS NOT!!!

It is very important for everyone to understand that the results of those polls mean that somewhere between 0% and 100% of people believe what was stated in the poll. That is it, some number between 0% and 100%. Nothing more can be taken from these surveys. MSNBC does a reasonably good job of explaining some of the science in layman's terms. But this article leads to an equally important question: If these surveys are unscientific, why are they included on "news" websites? Certainly these polls have there place on fan-club and non-news organizations websites. Why however, would something that is entirely not news, and not based on anything relating to fact, be included on a legitimate news organization's website?

The answer, in my mind, is an indicator of another sort, it is an indicator of how complacent and lazy we have allowed the news media to become. Rather than seeking out real news based on fact, these "reporters" put a meaningless online poll on the web, and then write a story about it, complete with caveats about it not being scientific. This is absolutely not to say that all reporters are like this, my complaint is that we allow any legitimate news source to get away with it. To pick on MSNBC (because I found the article linked to above on their website) the fact that they have something on their website that they feel needs to be explained as they did, should tell them that it doesn't belong on their site. Not that I would want them to not explain it, better that they explain the fact that it is based on nothing and might as well be completely made-up, it just shouldn't be there to begin with.

In the article linked above, MSNBC says "...MSNBC’s Live Votes are not intended to be a scientific sample of national opinion. Instead, they are part of the same interactive dialogue that takes place in our online chat sessions: a way to share your views on the news with MSNBC writers and editors and with your fellow users." These claims that these polls are somehow similar to allowing people to express their individual opinions in a chat room or discussion is pure garbage. These polls do not express individual opinion and by MSNBC's own admission, do not express any valid community opinion either. So what do they express?

These polls express only one thing, that 0% - 100% of people believe that true news sources would never allow their name to be associated with such non-newsworthy garbage.

I think this Non Sequitur cartoon makes the point I have been trying to make about language fairly well. Remember, it isn't the collection of audible vibrations that matter, it is the meaning of the words that we should care about.

See our other commentary on the subject of censorship here.

A decision of the US Supreme Court was handed down today in the case of Hamdi v Rumsfeld (03-6696). This case is extremely important because it addresses the issue of whether or not a US citizen can be held indefinitely without charges, a hearing, access to a lawyer, or a judicial review if the President declares him or her to be an "enemy combatant". There were four opinions written about this case amongst the nine Supreme Court Justices. I feel it is important to summarize the arguments found in these opinions so that we can better understand the thinking of the Administrative and Judicial branches of our government on this crucial matter.

Background: The petitioner, an American citizen, was turned over to US forces in Afghanistan by soldiers of the Northern Alliance as a prisoner of war. Despite being a US citizen, Mr. Hamdi was held without hearing or trial, without charges having been filed, and without access to an attorney. Lawyers on behalf of Hamdi's father argued that as an American citizen he is entitled to all the protections provided by the Constitution, the circumstances of his arrest notwithstanding. Administration lawyers, on the other hand, argued that since he was captured in a combat zone, and was declared an "enemy combatant" by the President, he can be held without regard to Constitutional protections until such time as the threat of terrorism has passed. The administration cites the congressional declaration that followed the events of 9/11/2001 authorizing the use of "...necessary and appropriate force..." as congressional authorization for this action. It is important to note that the Supreme Court does not address the factual aspects of this case. That is, they make no determination as to whether or not Mr. Hamdi was in fact an "enemy combatant". It doesn't matter whether or not he actually was a combatant, the issue at hand is whether or not he has any remedies to appeal the decision that he is such a combatant and can be held indefinitely without trial.

Justice O'Connor wrote the opinion of the plurality and was joined by Justices Renquist, Kennedy and Breyer: " We hold that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker." This decision allows for the indefinite detention of an "enemy combatant" so long as Congress has authorized the military action and that his or her "enemy combatant" status has been established by a "neutral decisionmaker". Justice O'Connor also wrote that the petitioner "...unquestionably has the right to access to counsel in connection with the proceedings on remand" guaranteeing that a US citizen will have access to legal counsel despite the administration's claims that such Constitutional protections are not granted to "enemy combatants". Thus, the decision of the court is that Mr. Hamdi has the right to counsel, and to a hearing before a "neutral decisionmaker" on his status as an "enemy combatant" and that if his status as such a combatant is upheld by the "neutral decisionmaker" (which according to O'Connor, "...could be met by an appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal"), he may be held indefinitely without charges or trial.

Justice Souter, who was joined by Justice Ginsburg, wrote: "The plurality rejects any such limit on the exercise of habeas jurisdiction and so far I agree with its opinion. The plurality does, however, accept the Government’s position that if Hamdi’s designation as an enemy combatant is correct, his detention (at least as to some period) is authorized by an Act of Congress as required by §4001(a), that is, by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, 115 Stat. 224 (hereinafter Force Resolution). Ante, at 9–14. Here, I disagree and respectfully dissent. The Government has failed to demonstrate that the Force Resolution authorizes the detention complained of here even on the facts the Government claims. If the Government raises nothing further than the record now shows, the Non-Detention Act entitles Hamdi to be released." Justice Souter, while agreeing that Mr. Hamdi is entitled to intervention by the Supreme Court, would take it one step further because he feels that the post 9/11 Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force is not enough to allow a US citizen to be held without trial.

Justice Scalia, who was joined by Justice Stevens in dissenting with the majority, wrote: "If the situation demands it, the Executive can ask Congress to authorize suspension of the writ (of Habeas Corpus)—which can be made subject to whatever conditions Congress deems appropriate, including even the procedural novelties invented by the plurality today." Interestingly, Justice Scalia agrees with Justice Souter that in order for a US citizen to be held without trial, the Congress must suspend the right of Habeas Corpus. However, Justice Scalia along with Justice Stevens decided to vote against granting remedy to the petitioner, apparently because they don't like the procedures proscribed in the ruling by Justices O'Connor, Renquist, Kennedy and Breyer.

Justice Thomas dissented and wrote: "The Executive Branch, acting pursuant to the powers vested in the President by the Constitution and with explicit congressional approval, has determined that Yaser Hamdi is an enemy combatant and should be detained. This detention falls squarely within the Federal Government’s war powers, and we lack the expertise and capacity to second-guess that decision. As such, petitioners’ habeas challenge should fail, and there is no reason to remand the case." Justice Thomas has believes that since the President is acting on Congressional Authority to wage war, he also has ultimate authority to hold prisoners, even US citizens, indeterminately, and without benefit of counsel or judicial review. Justice Thomas continued, "Undeniably, Hamdi has been deprived of a serious interest, one actually protected by the Due Process Clause. Against this, however, is the Government’s overriding interest in protecting the Nation."

Clearly, eight of the nine Justices agree that some judicial oversight is required when detaining US Citizens, even in times of war. Four of the Justices believe that indefinite detention is acceptable with this judicial review, while another four believe that even judicial review is not enough to detain a US Citizen without trial (two who voted for the petitioner's writ, two who voted against it). Finally, one Justice believes that the President, based on the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force, has the authority to detain US Citizens indefinitely, and without judicial review.

Vice President Dick Cheney, in a heated exchange with Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, told the Senator to "...go fuck himself..." CNN.com 6/24/2004. This exchange seems to be news only because a number of people are still unable to comprehend the fact that it is the meaning of words that matter, not the collection of vibrations they make in the air. Dick Cheney said the word "fuck" in his retort, but his response was the same as if he had said "...go to hell..." or even "...get away from me...". It is the meaning of words that matter, not the sounds they are comprised of (see our other commentary here).

In fact, it is not the Vice President's choice of words that matter here, but his inability to have a discussion on the issues. This is the way politics are under the Great Divider, George W. Bush. Cheney, when he saw Leahy on the Senate floor, became incensed about Leahy's calls for an independent investigation of the allegations against Cheney's once and future company, Halliburton. Cheney verbally lashed out at Leahy, the actual words of which are unimportant. When Leahy reminded the Vice President that he had referred to Senator Leahy as a "...bad catholic...", bringing religion into a political debate where it had no place being, the Vice President lost control and ended the "conversation" with his now infamous tirade. There can no longer be a "frank exchange of views" in the Senate, or anywhere else for that matter, without people being labeled as "bad Catholics" or "un-American", or someone just getting mad and storming out.

It is time for us to return to civilized politics, where people who do not get what they want, or think is best, fight the good fight to fix the perceived injustice, but always accept the outcome as the result of our imperfect, but best possible system. Dick Cheney has clearly lost site of that. He has become unwilling to accept anything other than complete victory for him and the administration and has become part of the greatest dividing force in Washington since the Civil War. Remember, this is America. People have the right and the responsibility to disagree and still co-exist peacefully. If we can not have a civilized debate, then it is Democracy that is the casualty. We must be able to make informed decisions based on as much information as we can get. One of the keys to that is an informed dialog amongst politicians, and amongst us average Americans.

Cheney's response to this incident included "...after he'd done so, then he wanted to act like everything was peaches and cream." Of course he did Mr. Vice President. Senator Leahy is a civilized American who understands the importance of debate on the issues facing us. You need to grow up Mr. Vice President, learn to accept criticism, whether you feel it is fair or not, and get on with the task of running this country. Temper tantrums only hurt that ability and are not appropriate, no matter if there is profanity involved or not.

I hope that this incident will help spark a return to that civilized debate. I fear however that it will only serve to highlight for many the fact that Dick Cheney has a "potty-mouth".