Climate Change Denier "Scientist" on Industry Payroll

Years ago the tobacco industry funded "researchers" who generated "studies" to show the evidence was still inconclusive on the harmful effects of smoking. This fed their narrative that nothing ought to be done until more "conclusive" results were available. It has long been suspected that the fossil fuel industry has been operating the same way regarding greenhouse gas accumulations and the rising temperature of the atmosphere. Now there's proof.

It turns out a prominent global warming "skeptic," often quoted by conservative politicians and pundits, has been paid $1.2 million by oil industry sources, including the Koch brothers. Wie-Hock (Willie) Soon, an aerospace engineer and part-time employee at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has published 11 papers since 2008 claiming that the sun is heating up and that is the main cause of earth's warming climate. The Nobel Prize-winning U.N. International Panel on Climate Change has studied the data and finds changes in the sun account for less than one percent of the effect of greenhouse gases.

Soon's papers were published without mention of this funding, in violation of academic ethics guidelines. The facts came out thanks to a Freedom of Information request by the environmental group Greenpeace. In communications with his corporate paymasters Soon even referred to his writings for them as "deliverables."

     

Record is Clear: Economy Thrives Under Democratic Governance

Democrats need to do a better job of touting their economic record. If the American people knew the truth about the effectiveness of the two parties in office it's hard to see how the GOP would win many elections. Let’s compare the economic results of the past 80-plus years under Republican and Democratic administrations. First, the Republicans. From Hoover to George W. Bush Republican administrations produced an anemic average growth rate of only 1.68% a year, with an unemployment rate of 7.3% and an average inflation rate of 3.9%.* Under the Democrats from Roosevelt to Obama economic growth averaged 5.1% a year, unemployment averaged 7.2% and inflation averaged 3.4%.  The Democrats, the more liberal party, outperformed the Republicans, the more conservative party, in all three areas, as you can graphically see in the figures below.  

All Administrations, 1929-2014, including the Great Depression.

                        Years      Growth  Unemployment  Inflation

Republicans       40        1.68%           7.3%            3.9%*

Democrats         46         5.07%           7.2%            3.4%

But what if we exclude the Great Depression as an anomaly? Even without Hoover, the other 36 years under GOP control from Eisenhower to George W. Bush have produced the following stats: an average growth rate of 2.53%, unemployment rate of 6.1%, and inflation rate of 3.9 %. If you don’t count the first four years of Roosevelt’s time in office, when the country was digging out from under massive unemployment figures accumulated by his Republican predecessor, the Democrats averaged a 4.22% growth rate (and remember, we’re not counting the excellent growth rates Roosevelt compiled in the New Deal years) with only 5.1% unemployment and a lower 3.7% inflation rate than under the Republicans. Put another way, for the last 73 years, the economy has grown 68.8% faster and unemployment has been 19.6% lower when a Democrat ran the country. Whichever way you slice it, liberal policies have produced consistently and decisively better results for the American people over a very lengthy period of time. The figures below make it clear.   

Administrations, 1942-2014, not including the Great Depression.

                          Growth            Unemployment           Inflation

Republicans       2.53%                    6.1%                       3.9%

Democrats          4.22%                   5.1%                       3.7%

Top Republican 2016 Contenders

It looks as though there may be a very large field of Republican presidential aspirants for the 2016 nomination. Quite a few will be able to make headlines and five or six could win primaries or caucuses in particular states. Much could happen to change existing dynamics, such as devastating gaffes or disqualifying revelations. But at this early stage I feel there are only two to really watch: Jeb Bush and Scott Walker.

Bush has name recognition, family political organization and a nearly inexhaustible fundraising network going for him. The former Florida governor (1999-2007) can point to executive experience outside of Washington, which in the world of Republican politics could help make this dynastic insider an appealing "outsider" in the minds of GOP primary voters. The money angle is a very powerful determinant in Republican primary politics. Mitt Romney had that advantage in 2012 and used it to bury Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in negative ads on his way to the nomination that year. This time, it was the realization that the big money was going for Bush that led to Romney's abrupt abandonment of his developing third White House run. 

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is the challenger most likely to wrest the nomination away from Bush, if anyone can. Walker has three things going for him that make him very attractive to the base GOP primary voter. First, he's won three elections in a normally Democratic state. He was elected governor in 2010, survived a recall attempt in 2012 and was re-elected in 2014. Second, the recall took place over his success in gutting union rights in his state, another feather in his cap to conservatives. And third, he subscribes to the full range of conservative social issues positions on things like abortion, contraception, marriage equality and voting restrictions.  While he may not have pockets quite as deep as Bush, Walker is a major favorite of the Koch machine, and their resources are plenty.

All kinds of potential candidates will certainly make things interesting on the Republican side. Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz and even Ben Carson have their followings. But in my early handicapping, Bush and Walker are the ones to watch. Bush is the preeminent establishment candidate, with positioning suited to the national electorate and great resources to back up his run. Walker has the resources to compete and though less well-positioned for the general election voter, is dearer to the heart of the typical Republican primary electorate. Watch the polls to see how this starts shaking out. Bush is ahead in the early national surveys, while Walker has gained an early lead in New Hampshire.