2008

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's proposal Saturday to make expanded offshore drilling part of a new Democratic energy bill got a skeptical reaction from Republicans, who said they suspect it will contain other provisions unacceptable to the minority. The result may be that Congress remains deadlocked on the potent election issue.

Russia's invasion of Georgian territory last week, in addition to reasserting Moscow's military strength, has complicated Europe's effort to diversify its oil and gas supplies away from the growing dominance of Kremlin-controlled energy giant Gazprom.

According to Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y., living within two miles of a wind turbine causes serious health problems, including headaches; difficulty sleeping; tinnitus, or ringing in the ears; learning and mood disorders; panic attacks; irritability; disruption of equilibrium, concentration and memory; and childhood behavior problems. Dr. Pierpont has coined the phrase "wind turbine syndrome" to describe these effects, which are caused by the low-frequency noise and vibration generated by wind machines.

With Congress out all month, not much is happening in Washington, which is always a good thing.  But the debate is shifting noticeably.  For evidence, read this editorial in the Washington Post.  The Post has not said anything reasonable or even factually correct on energy for over a decade (they used to support oil production in ANWR).  In this editorial, however, the Post corrects ads being run by the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund on three key points about offshore oil production.  This is remarkable and to my knowledge unprecedented.  It isn’t an earthquake yet, but you can see the ground moving.

Republicans may be planning a crude surprise for Democrats this October. I mean crude in the sense that it will involve unrefined petroleum.

Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

Ever read a story and think, "I can't believe what I'm reading?" I had that experience this morning when I read this report in USA Today, with the headline 'Psychologists determine what it means to think 'green:'

Armed with new research into what makes some people environmentally conscious and others less so, the 148,000-member American Psychological Association is stepping up efforts to foster a broader sense of eco-sensitivity that the group believes will translate into more public action to protect the planet.

"We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do," says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. "We know what messages will work and what will not."

During a four-day meeting that begins today in Boston, an expected 16,000 attendees will hear presentations, including studies that explore how people experience the environment, their attitudes about climate change and what social barriers prevent conservation of resources….

From one research presentation:

News stories that provided a balanced view of climate change reduced people's beliefs that humans are at fault and also reduced the number of people who thought climate change would be bad, according to research by Stanford social psychologist Jon Krosnick.

His presentation will detail a decade of American attitudes about climate change. His new experiment, conducted in May, illustrates what he says is a public misperception about global warming. He says there is scientific consensus among experts that climate change is occurring, but the nationwide online poll of 2,600 adults asked whether they believe scientists agree or disagree about it.

By editing CNN and PBS news stories so that some saw a skeptic included in the report, others saw a story in which the skeptic was edited out and another group saw no video, Krosnick found that adding 45 seconds of a skeptic to one news story caused 11% of Americans to shift their opinions about the scientific consensus. Rather than 58% believing a perceived scientific agreement, inclusion of the skeptic caused the perceived amount of agreement to drop to 47%.

American Psychological Association leaders say they want to launch a national initiative specifically targeting behavior changes, including developing media messages that will help people reduce their carbon footprint and pay more attention to ways they can conserve. They want to work with other organizations and enlist congressional support to help fund the effort….

I don't think I really need to add any other commentary other than that now the "greening of education" doesn't stop at the grade school-through-college vehicles — it can be legitimately called an all-out propaganda effort that will include brainwashing by psychoanalysts.