In his "quick thoughts" about the recent Bachmann cap and trade lecture series, King Banaian had this to say about silent protests staged by local college students:
Let me lead by complimenting our students. Those who disagreed with Rep. Bachmann, or with the presenter, Mr. Horner, at the St. Cloud event used their free speech rights with due respect for the speakers, were not disruptive, and made me rather proud of my university today.
However, throughout the Horner presentation those same students applauded by Professor Banaian were harassed by audience members near them AND were repeatedly approached by Bachmann staffers. It seems as though Bachmann really didn't appreciate their attendance even though she said as much in her opening remarks.
Notice though, at the end of this clip how a gentlemen from the audience (it is tough to hear him over the incoherent ramblings of Horner) came and chastised the Bachmann staffer for trying to shut down this legitimate protest. I have no idea whether he agreed with the protesters but good for him for demanding the harassment end...
From my vantage point at the Bachmann sponsored lecture series in St. Cloud, there was one young college student directing most of the silent protest. At various points he quietly held up a small sheet of paper with the words 'fact check' written on it and immediately other students would hold up corresponding signs which read 'lies'. Throughout the event there were those seated around him who tried to silence him and at times a Bachmann staffer would even approach to quell what I would consider an extremely respectful form of protest. At one point, though, an older man approached the Bachmann staffer and gave her a verbal smackdown. While I didn't catch all of it, I did overhear him ask her "isn't this what we fought for?".
Immediately following the event, I approached the young man who was the source of many of the pertinent shouted comments and questions and asked him to write up a response given that there really was only one side presented and that he appeared to have much to say on the topic. I received that response in my email inbox earlier today:
J. Erik Peterson, a writer and biology major at Saint Johns University
“We don’t need to put wind turbines on people’s huts, we need to get people out of the huts” was Chris Horner’s mistaken response to our insistence that dirty fuels will harm first and most lethally the poorest of the world’s peoples. The congregation of Congressional District 6 constituents at Saint Cloud State University bore witness to a great spectacle Thursday afternoon. District representative Michelle Bachmann brought Attorney Chris Horner back to MN for either (we’re still debating what the objective was) a tutorial on non-sequitor rhetoric or a chance to claim that Bachmann had finally faced the younger populations of Saint Cloud, Waite Park, Saint Joseph and Collegeville. While Bachmann’s hesitance to appear before the populations that so emphatically voted (and lobbied, and canvassed, and organized) against her in November is understandable, she more than made up for her lack of gall by parading Mr. Horner into SCSU’s ballroom as a veteran Global Warming-debunker. Something like 500 students, middle-classers, retirees and a smattering of reporters gathered at the foot of Horner’s stage. They tried to keep up as he sprinted through slides containing “factual” persuasions intended to dismantle theories of climate change and cap-and-trade systems. But little nuggets like his mumbling about huts and wind turbines mentioned above seemed to stick our more than any expertise on climate change and C&T. He grinned and sneered and sang and danced and duly impressed the gathering, jockeying them about at his wish, affirming their intuition that the young’ns who came to dissent had simply not lived enough to glean an appropriate level of cynicism.
A brilliant rhetor, no doubt, Horner’s litigation…er…I’m sure I meant presentation…swept the crowd off its feet with jive and jeer against names like Al Gore and Leo DeCaprio and anyone else who might be foolish enough to momentarily use their fame for good. So what information did Horner so flagrantly manipulate that students – as WCCO, MPR, and the Strib report – decided to enter into exchanges with him from the audience, requesting that he stop dancing with questions long enough to answer a couple?
Horner touched on multiple studies of European countries which have implemented emission-trading strategies or large-scale alternative energy programs. Essentially, his claim was that the attempts did not reduce emissions and that the outsourcing of jobs was as real for them as it is inevitable for the U.S. if we adopt C&T. I hope another of my web-wide reporting colleagues can rightly take him to task on this, for again his inaccuracy here was gross and most in the audience were none the wiser. What I’d like to focus on – for the off chance that someone from Stearn’s county or its neighbors to the east is reading – are three fundamental pieces of the climate debate which, if understood correctly, afford us no time to hold parties in college ballrooms at which lawyers use stories of alleged European failure to further entrench and encourage our xenophobia.
First – and its sad we have to begin here – is the virtually uncontroversial fact that CO2 both acts as a greenhouse gas and exists as a trace element in our atmosphere. Only by internalizing these two facts can we get any purchase on humans’ involvement in the global problem. Two nineteenth century scientists, Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall, respectively observed and described the mechanism by which heat from the sun does not bounce off of earth as it would be expected to, but is held close to it like a thin but effective blanket. Further, Tyndall’s study showed that its not obvious gases like nitrogen or oxygen that hold onto the heat, but water vapor and trace elements like carbon dioxide and methane. This brings me to important concept #2. Horner liked to rant about how CO2 is this inconsequential element in an atmospheric ocean of gases – how could it matter? After all, the water vapor up there is way better at trapping heat anyway. The best way I’ve heard this described is by Sir David King, the former chief science adviser to the United Kingdom and now professor of chemistry at Cambridge University. Imagine an ocean into which all of human kind is pouring buckets; the ocean is water vapor and so is the substance in our buckets – we have no effect. Now imagine the same buckets being poured into a bathtub, but the bathtub is full of carbon dioxide as are our buckets. In terms of how freak’n big the atmosphere is, yes, our contribution of carbon dioxide is quite small; but in terms of how we can effect the composition of the atmosphere, our nominal contribution becomes a huge proportional contribution. Individuals with agendas as shadowy as Mr. Chris’ seem to enjoy speaking to crowds who are plenty intelligent, but lack sufficient time to research these issues on their own. He paints himself the hero – with help from our clingy representative – to people who have no practical purpose for knowing why the emission of one gas is negligible and the emission of others will eventually change the topographical character of our planet, and drown the most coastal populations of earth.
That’s the element I want to leave you with. What Horner did Thursday does not represent a republican agenda nor a conservative one. His agenda is one of perpetual skepticism and nay-saying, sure, but worse, its pathogenic and infectious. The woman next to me at Horner’s event was whispering one-line vocalizations of support as Horner went through his slides about Europe’s failure and his argument possessed her. After the presentation she told me that she was not worried because “Jesus will save us.” Frankly, I think she could be right. But amidst discussions – and violent rejections – of possible solutions for our climate crisis a parable echoes to me. A parable about the man on the hill who – anticipating God’s salvation – rejects the canoe, the motorboat, and the helicopter as the floodwaters rise, lap at his feet, drown him, and land him at the pearly gates only to be chastised by St. Peter for rejecting God’s extended hand. Unfortunately, and with more than a bit of irony, the ultra-right-winger Bachmann hired Horner to come to district 6 Thursday, to help slap the Almighty’s Helping Hand away from her constituents (the youngest of whom still await their chance to talk with her).
After the Bachmann sponsored lecture series I was approached by someone from AM 1240 WJON for some additional comments about the presentation. It was interesting because when I asked him what HE had retained from the presentation, and keep in mind this was minutes after it had ended, he was hard pressed to offer anything.
ST. CLOUD -- Congresswoman Michele Bachmann hosted a forum today (Thursday) at St. Cloud State University on President Obama's energy proposal called "Cap and Trade". Bachmann doesn't support the idea, and says if it passes later this year, it won't created the so-called "green" jobs that's been promised.
AUDIO: Click on the audio player below to hear comments from Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
Bachmann brought with her author Chris Horner. A man who does not believe there is such a thing as man-made global warming. During his presentation, he described Cap and Trade as a hidden energy tax that will raise your energy bill.
AUDIO: Click on the audio player below, to hear comments from Chris Horner.
The presentation at times became contentious, with Obama supporters shouting at Horner, and questioning his positions.
Eric Austin describes himself as a liberal blogger. He says Horner gave a very slick presentation.
AUDIO: Click on the audio player below, to hear comments from liberal blogger Eric Austin.
President Obama wants his Cap and Trade proposal passed by the end of August.
Definition of Cap and Trade: Cap and Trade is a method of managing pollution. The government would first set a "cap" on pollution. Then companies are issued credits, essentially licenses to pollute, based on how large they are. If the company comes in below it's cap, it has extra credits which it can "trade".
The reactions continue to roll in over the Bachmann sponsored lecture series held yesterday on the campus of St. Cloud State University. They range from the rational analysis at SCSU Scholars and Minnesota Independent to the mid level sanity of Gary Gross at Let Freedom Ring to even the apoplectic lunacy of Andy Aplikowski at Residual Forces.
As I said, and as King Banaian noted, the pace at which Mr. Horner spoke made it difficult for anyone not equipped with handy dandy powerpoint notes to follow along. While it certainly doesn't make him wrong about anything, it seems to me that anyone trying desperately to have their viewpoint understood would have taken their time. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this was Mr. Horner's purpose. His purpose was to speak to his believers and overwhelm the non-believers so that they would not have adequate chance to address any one specific piece of data. Although, I will give him that it made for fantastic political theatre!
For her part, Michele Bachmann provided only the introductory remarks to an event touted as a Bachmann Forum. Those remarks, read from a piece of paper in front of her sounded remarkably similar to the already discredited Star Tribune Commentary which had been published the day before.
Here is the video (I apologize for the shakiness) of her SCSU introduction:
It is interesting that Bachmann begins her remarks by recognizing that there are two sides to this issue and thanks everyone for attending. Unfortunately, those empty thanks are followed up by a one sided presentation with no information presented from those that believe cap and trade to be effective and who believe that climate change is a real issue that needs to be addressed. For someone who wants us to be the "most educated people in America", she certainly did not demonstrate it with this presentation.
The rest of her opening statement is filled with slanted information and veiled attacks on the Democratic Party.
She begins her attacks with news that Senator Harry Reid has signaled that he may use a process known as Reconciliation to pass certain pieces of legislation. What she conveniently leaves out of this description of an "obscure parliamentary maneuver" is that Republicans used this maneuver several times during their tenure in power.
As Bachmann continues, she distances herself from the already discredited figure of a $3,128 cost to an uncited cost of "more than $2500". Where she gets this new, lower cost, is not entirely clear.
Bachmann later touts a study done in Spain which appeared to indicate that any increase in "green jobs" is offset by a greater loss in other jobs. After some digging, I found an alternate analysis of this particular study which appears to put into question the validity of these claims.
The first thing that I notice is that the study fails to establish cause and effect. In other words, there may have been 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created, but that says nothing about whether there is a causal relationship between the two variables. Just because Event A and Event B happened does not mean that Event A caused Event B. It could well be given the current economic climate that the creation of green jobs had nothing to do with the loss of 2.2 jobs because of the worldwide economic crisis. In other words, these jobs might have been lost no matter what the Spanish government did. And it could be that the creation of these jobs, given the worldwide economic recession, prevented a bad situation from getting worse.
The one possible cause that the study suggests is the cause of these lost jobs is the fact that the money could have possibly gone towards funding the creation of actual businesses through, say, tax cuts. But the problem here is that this is not a causal relationship, but an appeal to guilt. Of course there are always as many different alternatives as there are people interested in these projects. But a proper way to compare would be to study the effects of tax cuts, say, as opposed to the effects of creating green jobs. And a proper way might to be to consider the long-term implications of not creating these jobs — the possible creation of a massive humanitarian crisis that could wipe out the Straights of Gibraltar, among other low-lying Spanish areas and create more unemployment than the Western Business Roundtable’s worst nightmares for green jobs.
Bachmann goes on to ask rhetorically, "Where are the potential benefits?", although I dare to bet that she would subsequently ignore the potential benefits if they were given to her. For those who would like to read about the potential benefits, you can read this post from Environmental Economics:
The economic case for cap-and-trade (or a carbon tax) is clear. Climate change and the associated negative impacts of emissions are known in economics as negative externalities. Much theoretical and empirical research supports an environmental regulation that taxes the polluting activity (or, equivalently, capping the pollution with permits and allowing polluters to trade the permits). The additional production cost of taxes or permits causes profits to be lower in the polluting industries, the supply of the polluting product falls and price of the polluting good rises. As the price of polluting goods rise consumers use less of the polluting good. As the price of nonrenewable energy rises and the price of renewable energy falls (with technological improvement) we reach the Hotelling "switch point" and the demand for renewable energy rises. The price of nonrenewable energy is, more or less, capped at the price of the renewable subsitute and the world is a greener place.
At the end of her remarks, Bachmann touts the authority of Mr. Horner on this particular issue. I recognize that NOT being a scientist does not necessarily discredit your viewpoints about a scientific issue. However, it certainly gives him less credibility than if Bachmann had allowed an actual scientist or even an economist to address this issue.
You can find more information about Horner at Media Matters as well as at a site (Desmogblog) I rely on extensively whenever I am looking for climate change related information.
I will continue to sift through the video from the Bachmann sponsored lecture series so stay tuned for more video and more analysis...
To be fair, this really was not a Bachmann Forum at all but rather a forum sponsored by Michele Bachmann at which climate change denier, Chris Horner, held all the power and controlled the questions which could be asked.
Additionally, as an educator I would say that this was by far one of the most poorly presented lectures I have ever witnessed. Why? Because if the purpose of this forum was to inform the general public about one side of the cap and trade issue, then the pace at which Mr. Horner spoke and presented his information was well beyond what the average consumer of information could possibly retain. I dare to bet that the vast majority of those in attendance would be unable to cite anything that Mr. Horner said beyond various quips about Al Gore and leprechauns.
However, that just may be the purpose. To overwhelm those in attendance with so much data (even if that data is flawed) at a speed that outpaces our ability to process that data so that we blindly accept this individual as some sort of expert.
UPDATE: In fact, you will notice that even right wing bloggers who were LIVEBLOGGING the event couldn't see fit to add even one piece of hard data from the presentation...
I will be working on the video from this "forum" (and the aftermath which was interesting) and hope to present it soon with various rebuttals...
Welcome to Liberal in the Land of Conservative!
I, Political Muse, will be your host and my hope is to provide a dash of political commentary, a sprinkle of policy wonkishness, and a double dose of snarkiness to the blogosphere in Minnesota.
If you have any tips on local conservative foolishness or if you want to challenge me to a duel, there are a variety of ways to keep in touch:
