JC穆尔在线

从科学的角度看时事。

众议员约翰·沙利文（的R-OK）举行市政厅会议在俄克拉荷马州塔尔萨，在那里他讨论了预算，社会保障，能源问题，EPA规定，工作，和XL管道。 文章给出了众议员沙利文的立场，意见和听众提出的问题，比较S​​ullivan的众议员提交的意见。

众议员约翰·沙利文，2012年1月26日进行的两个城市在塔尔萨大厅会议。 首先举行了塔尔萨社区学院的城域校园里，他的选民人数挑战Sullivan的意见。 这次会议是由塔尔萨世界兰迪Krehbeil的报道中，“沙利文大 ​​会堂观众赞赏奥巴马演讲”。 Hardesty图书馆南塔尔萨举行，下午的会议上，有一个多党派的人群。 很像他的那些沙泉，会议于去年十一月众议员Sullivan的开场白。 在的Hardesty会议，他并没有给人们机会赞扬奥巴马的讲话，他只是批评。 当人们试图在他的批评，指出错误，他们喊人打断了，“提问”。 沙利文是有听到他的选民认为，但显然他的支持者不想听到任何关于总统好。

困局：国会议员苏利文比喻奥巴马给出了一个伟大的更衣室谈话，但没有赢得一个足球教练。 这是一个坏的比喻，作为教练不能取胜没有从球员的合作，在国会中的很多球员似乎更感兴趣的是击败比为国家赢得教练。 每一个冠军团队需要一个合理的预算，但许多国会议员都坚持减税和206立委，沙利文包括， 已签署了诺奎斯特的承诺不加税。 他的僵局归咎于在参议院主席和民主党，说房子已派出没有颁布的法案在参议院的26。 然而，大多数这些法案中包含了“毒丸”。 例如，3630人力资源，急需的中产阶层税收减免和2011年的就业机会创造法案，也有一个规定，拖延实施医疗保险的可持续增长率，阻碍环保局，并迫使批准的Keystone XL管道。 这是不公平的指责参议院时，他们没有派出清洁法案。

能源 ：众议员沙利文说，我们需要的XL管道，创造就业机会，并声称，这将创造数百数千个就业机会，直接和间接- ，唯一的问题是只是几英里的通过内布拉斯加湿地的。 的问题，实际上是更大的。 它们涉及在加拿大的寒带森林的破坏，加拿大河流的污染，收购处理焦油砂，水和能源的需要，该项目将导致的碳排放量。 然后，它仍然是不明确多少就业机会，它会创建，他们将受益于该项目，是否大部分的石油将被运到国外，可能不被一些炼油厂征税免税区。

国会议员说，他已出台鼓励发展天然气作为燃料的立法。 他指出，天然气提供尽可能多的能源和成本比汽油机少得多的三倍。 天然气是俄克拉何马州的丰富和发展的基础设施，使用它作为燃料，将有助于俄克拉何马州的经济和减少对外国石油的依赖。 就是众议员沙利文在环境问题上作出的积极贡献。 使用天然气也将显着降低我们的碳排放量 - 但国会议员没有提到，因为他不接受关于气候变化的科学研究。 他的支持者声称自己是保守派，但很难想象他们如何能支持的人谁不是也有保育，保护选民记分卡（第52页）联盟众议员沙利文拿下了9％ 。

听众提问：一名退伍军人的妻子，告诉她的丈夫从退伍军人管理局的帮助下的问题，并问沙利文如果能帮助。 众议员沙利文说，他会看到自己能做些什么。 我希望他能帮助老将，但也不太可能，所有需要帮助的老兵将得到它作为国会议员苏利文想，如果我们削减预算。 老将肯定是一个好人，按下发言时，他说，这将真正帮助，如果人们将回收更多。 他指出，我们丢掉了很多东西仍然是有益的和通过回收，我们可以创造大量的就业机会，拯救我们的资源。

另一个女人抱怨说，氟里昂EPA的规则，使其难以得到其空调业务所需的制冷剂。 众议员沙利文把它作为一个机会来批评EPA和奥巴马政府，显然不知道这些规则已经由里根总统签署成为法律。

会计师事务所在观众带来国会议员的关注，低利率，被伤害的人有自己的积蓄，在储蓄账户和CD。 他还指出，爱尔兰共和军在70岁1/2的强制性要求取款人取款，他们可能需要保存为以后的生活中。 国会议员同意有需要作出一些改变。

当国会议员是谁，他希望看到作为共和党总统候选人的要求，他说他会支持谁可以击败奥巴马总统。 观众的成员试图指​​出有其他的东西比击败奥巴马更重要，总统和他的妻子是好榜样和家庭价值观的例子。 她几乎被淹没了观众的分歧。

权利：曾经有一段时间，当共和党财政政策和环境的保守派 。 众议员沙利文说，他想减少他所称的“权利计划”，但他自己的支持者之一设置直指出那些“赢得效益”，而不是权利，他。 我希望我的孩子和孙子们有和我一样的利益，我希望他们能够有清新的空气，呼吸和干净水喝，有一个美丽的地球，享受。 他们有权了这一点。

科研学分：芭芭拉·摩尔

（三）2012年赛马摩尔

有证据表明，最近的一篇论文的作者可能gamed同侪审查制度，有偏见的气候科学论文发布。

审议过程：当一个文件被提交到出版的杂志，编辑删除作者的名字和发送稿件在该地区的一些专家，通常有三种审查。 编辑保持保密审查的名字。 如果发现错误，审阅者的意见，笔者建议更正。 这是一个良好的制度，为确保研究出版物的质量，但即使这样包含错误的，有时也发表论文。 的评论可能会错过一个错误， 偏颇的编辑出版尽管有缺陷，或作者的论文，期刊的规则可以利用漏洞获得论文发表。 有些期刊允许笔者建议评论名称和编辑往往选择从列表中的评论。 大多数科学家提交可靠审评名称，因为它是一个在他们的论文出版后发现有错误的尴尬。 然而，即使文件是正确的审查，这种做法可以使“PAL”审查的指责。 由于审阅者的名称保持机密编辑器，它是很难知道确定是否可能发生。 但是，有证据表明，最近的一篇论文的作者可能gamed评论，分享他们的偏见提出了一套系统。 看看你的想法。

纸张：去年7月25日，罗伊斯宾塞和丹尼布拉斯韦尔的创作中的一纸 而专业技术杂志，遥感 ，题为“从地球的辐射能量平衡变化的表面温度反馈误诊 ”。 该文件声称： “对气候系统的敏感性强加辐射失衡仍然是最大的不确定性在未来人为气候变化的预测源。 在这里，我们提出了进一步的证据，从观测的角度来看的不确定性，这主要是由于内部辐射的屏蔽辐射反馈信号，强迫，可能是由于自然云的变化。“看来，只有在气候专家都知道这意味着什么，或者其影响是什么，但在三天的耸人听闻的版本的文件出现在互联网网站，主要商业杂志中，并在各大报纸的新闻文章。 数以百万计的人可能阅读有关文件。

宣传：重新公众利益科学气候科学家应该高兴，但是，他们不。 下面的技术语言是气候对CO2的敏感性，由于自然云的变化，气候科学家已曲解的说法。 是否属实，这将意味着，自然的力量，而不是人，大部分观测到的全球变暖负责。 这种想法已经被审查前，发现有不一致的证据，但这个想法是，一​​些气候变化怀疑论者一直推动。 而且，他们是一个良好的投资部分管道进行有关气候科学的主要新闻媒体的误传，才可以知道所有的事实。

“福布斯”：主支一个误传管道的运行通过的哈特兰德研究所，上市作为一个资深研究员詹姆斯·泰勒。 詹姆斯·泰勒曾经写道：烟草行业，这表明二手烟是不会对人体有害的文章，他现在已经把自己的才华否认二氧化碳水平上升和全球变暖之间的关系。 令人费解的是，詹姆斯·泰勒已被聘为“福布斯”杂志写在能源和环境议题。 詹姆斯·泰勒拿起斯宾塞的文件上写了一个题为“福布斯”的文章，美国宇航局数据吹在全球变暖危言耸听漏洞。不仅是标题不准确和误导性的，但文章显然是民意的文章，作为新闻miscategorized。 福布斯“杂志的编辑会不会有被称为斯宾塞的”NASA的数据“是的，气候科学家使用达到一个非常不同的结论相同的数据，但或许他们应该已经注意到，没有合理的新闻故事会形容为”危言耸听“的15倍气候科学家。 商界人士认为，这将减少我们的碳排放量是反商业，商业报纸，如投资者商业日报“，”​​华尔街日报“，”​​福布斯“往往是向持怀疑态度的立场偏颇的立法。 偏置显示，在故事的选择，消息，一个怀疑论者看来页文章的数量不成比例，耸人听闻的标题miscategorized的意见。 从“福布斯”的文章被选中作为新闻报道的其他商业杂志，雅虎新闻，MSNBC的，持怀疑态度的博客网站的文章，其中有一个重要的日子。 这是可悲的是，数以百万计将有扭曲的文章读的，但很少人会看过的气候学家的反驳。 文章将很快沉到默默无闻，但它已经完成它的目的，这是传播有关气候变化的疑问。

重复性：在同行评审期刊的出版是不是唯一的一份文件，成为科学文献的一部分接受的要求。 研究必须站起来，在该领域的其他专家审议，它必须与其他可比的知识和技能的科学家重现。 斯宾塞的论文达到了新闻媒体之前，气候科学家有机会回应，但他们很快就发现了一些明显的错误的文件。 崔伯斯和Fasullo 总结说 ：“该模型有没有现实的海洋，没有厄尔尼诺现象，并没有水循环，并进行了调整，给它给结果。 底线是，有没有任何在本文的好处。“假以时日，曝光德斯勒详细分析了斯宾塞的文件，并发表了反驳 。 抽象在“地球物理学评论快报”报道了他的论文的关键点：

• 云不会导致气候变化;
• 观测模型在这一点上没有分歧;
• 在此以前的工作是有缺陷的;（指专门斯宾塞的遥感纸）。

显然，斯宾塞的论文有严重的方法上的缺陷，是不可再生的。 怎么遥感的同行评审过程的文件获得通过？ 答案很可能不会被发现，除了宣传。

灾难：编辑遥感 ，一直试图建立“华尔街日报”的声誉，认为宣传是一场灾难。 遥感的指示要求作者提出五项建议的评论，这是可能的，斯宾塞可以选择5个怀疑论者。 编辑器不会从那些挑，但显然在这种情况下，他做到了。 在未来的遥感问题，编辑，沃尔夫冈·瓦格纳博士，辞职，并发表了公开道歉，这篇文章说，“有了这一步我也想亲自抗议有很多作家和志同道合的气候怀疑论者如何夸张的公开声明该论文的结论。“”问题是，其他作者发表的可比性研究都已经被在公开的讨论和一些文献中的程度还，而被忽略在他们的论文由斯宾塞和布拉斯韦尔和的事实驳斥，不幸的是，没有拿起评审 。 “他总结说，”但是，视具体情况提出了自己的编辑队伍，无意中选择了三个审稿人可能分享一些作者的气候怀疑论者的概念。“

©2012赛马摩尔

如果我看得更远，只有站在巨人的肩膀上。 ...艾萨克·牛顿爵士

偏颇编辑：重大科技组织出版的期刊的编辑们选择他们的专业知识，在该地区和其公正性。 然而，任何机构都可能发布日记，并声称他们的文章是同行评审。 例如，最近运署在塔尔萨世界“的文章声称，” 气候预测必须以科学支持 “。 这是肯定的真实，但作者声称他看来，支持1“同行评审根据NOAA数据的文章这证明，二氧化碳可能不会是全球变暖的原因，但是，没有同行审查的文章达到这样的结论可能被发现。 当我接触他的消息来源的作者，他提到了我1费伦茨Miskolczi文章发表在能源和环境虽然Miskolczi的文章是NOAA的数据为基础，它认为，增加二氧化碳到大气中并没有改变其光谱特性- 。结论违反物理定律。 miskolczi的文章批评面包车多兰和福斯特， 他 ​​写道 ：“Miskolczi（2010）的理论，大气中的二氧化碳增加，不能是一个全球变暖的原因。 我们发现他的理论是不正确，都在其辐射理论中的应用，并直接大气观测。“你怎么得到这样一个文件发表吗？

该杂志的编辑，是几乎完全负责。 Sourcewatch看到的文章是适当的审查和决定他们是否应该公布说， 能源和环境是同行评议的社会科学杂志多科学和编辑出版，是宋佳Boehmer克里斯蒂安森，他是作为一个读者在地理描述。 许多气候变化怀疑论者如莎莉Baliunas，帕特里克·迈克尔，罗斯McKitrick，斯蒂芬·麦金太尔，小罗杰·皮尔克，威利很快，和史蒂夫麦金太尔发表的文章将不会接受在主要期刊。 sourcewatch说，编辑在网上公布的一篇文章说：“我编辑杂志试图让这次辩论[气候怀疑论]活着”承认。 她还指出：“我后，我的政治议程 - 位，反正......但是，是不是在编辑器的权利吗？”

不是真的，如果你想算得上是同行评审科学期刊。

谁愿意杀电动车呢？ 显然，很多人做。 在1920年，米尔电动车受欢迎，尤其是女士们谁不喜欢起动汽油发动机启动它们。 在1928年，通用汽车公司买下米尔本和它的踪影。 EV1的电动车在1996年，在加利福尼亚州的道路上出现。 他们安静且快速，并没有产生废气。 他们是由通用汽车制造任务，以减少车辆废气排放。 十年后，这些未来的汽车几乎完全消失了。 谁杀了电动车 ，一部纪录片，确定电池没有问题，但匪徒主要石油公司站在失去巨大的利润，如果电动车的销售起飞和通用汽车公司，谁也不会想到他们会做出足够的利润，从车。 如果通用汽车公司已制定和完善了EV1电动车，他们可能不会破产。

纸牌搭成的房子：EV1电动车损坏的大部分是由政治家，监管机构和消费者的误导。 正在使用相同的运动对电动汽车的新作物。 在寻 ​​找阿尔法的文章 ， 为什么卡的电动车府必须落在约翰·彼得森继续战术。 首先，彼得森先生决定使用电动车的价值“分析认为，美元的19,000名的汽油动力汽车开始，减去不必要的内燃机动力传动系统组件的成本，然后添加必要的电力传动系统组件的增量成本。”这分析发现了一个电动车的38,800美元的成本。 这个成本是不是不合理的，但分析是像传统烤箱，剥离，并增加部分，将其转换为一个微波的东西。 有许多混合动力车和市场上的电动车，有建议零售价远低于$ 38,800，如4乘客三菱MiEV的额定功率为112 MPGE 21,625美元上市。 车辆的价格将肯定来下来，作为朱棣文能源部长系说，在底特律车展他预计电动车电池的成本下降从1高达$ 12,000在2008年，2015和$ 1500至$ 3500到2020年。 目前轮候购买的电动车和混合动力车，因为需求高，所以价格谈判的机会不大。

文章接着，“电力驱动的支持者出售房子的基础上，什么都没有做真正的世界经济的根本缺陷的假设和闪闪发光的泛泛的卡片。 他们优雅的理论和理由不能承受的纸张，铅笔和1 4功能计算器。“不过，彼得森先生根据他的$ 38,800的成本，并从他所说的补贴名单上他的经济分析”非凡的文章“， 另类的真实成本亚历克斯飞机的能源 。 幸运的是，未来的电动车，先生飞机的真实成本是非常误导的。

补贴： 飞机说，“在能源的真实成本清醒的样子，是东西很多-包括我们的政治领导人-迫切需要”他接着说，“补贴只是支持替代能源的成本之一，但他们是值得“先生飞机使用美国能源情报署的数据， 计算出每桶石油等价的美元的补贴能源。 他来了补贴煤 ：0.39美元， 石油和天然气 ：0.28美元， 太阳能 ：63元， 风 $ 32.59。 基于自己的价值观，他说，政府的可再生能源的成本是“在某些情况下，如此之高，和实际的能量返回如此之低，它几乎似乎值得投资。 太阳能的可怜片美国电力使用 - 小于1单天的石油消费量 - 是承保足够的纳税人的钱到只需购买电源夺标，并提供免费，向纳税人“补贴1穷人的方式来估计”真。成本“，因为它们是社会资源的未来价值的指示。

真正的成本？飞机先生的文章是非常错误的原因是，他并没有真正给你的“真实成本”的化石燃料的使用。 资源的真实成本，包括不仅是价格，但也清理环境和废物处理的成本。 化石燃料释放到空气中造成损害环境和健康问题，对许多美国人来说，其废物处置。 我们实际上是让他们随意排入环境的废物的费用由化石燃料行业的补贴。 任何努力，以确定补贴“实际成本”应包括健康和环境成本。 先生的面说，他或许应该改写他的文章，包括他所说的外部成本，在他的文章的评论部分。 在此期间，很多人都在使用他的不完全分析贬低可持续能源。

更真实成本 ：这是很难拿出一个“真正的补贴”，以化石燃料行业的精确值，但它是可能的，估计其规模。 顶尖的经济学家，如英国的尼古拉斯·斯特恩，从结果正式经济模型估计，如果我们不限制碳排放，气候变化的总成本和风险将相当于每年至少 ​​失去全球GDP的5％现在和永远。 如果是考虑到更广泛的风险和影响，损失估计可能上升到GDP的20％或更多在未来，我们将运行的环境灾难的额外风险。

2010年美国国内生产总值的5％，将提供727亿美元的环境成本。 美国肺脏协会估计，EPA的建议指引微粒可以防止38000心脏病发作和过早死亡，150万例急性支气管炎和哮喘加重，错过了上班或上学的270万天。 他们估计减少暴露于烟尘达到每年高达$ 281亿美元的经济效益。 这两个加起来约为1.01万亿美元，分为油当量的煤，石油和天然气在飞机的文章先生13541万桶，相当于每桶油当量73.9美元的额外补贴。 风能和太阳能发电能源的补贴看起来不那么糟糕，如果你实际使用化石燃料 ：74元， 太阳能 ：63元，与风 ：$ 32.59。 计算不包括所有的环境和健康成本，但他们确实给了我们多少补贴，无视人民的健康和环境的损害化石燃料行业的想法。 再有就是环境灾难的风险。

披露 ：在一个明显的努力，要做到公平，Motley Fool的要求，飞机先生，然后得出结论，“风能和太阳能发电有其缺点，但继续作出显着的改善，年复一年。 然而，无论是选项，还可以提供世界需求干净，常量和方便的电源。 天然气为在短期内提供最好的机会。 它是丰富的，发达的，高效的，将更加重视以脏碳氢化合物失去市场份额。 “先生，飞机，然后为您提供的免费分析”令人兴奋的机会天然气的繁荣，发挥投资在一个小公司变成清洁燃烧的天然气机石油耗油车辆。“他透露，他认为没有天然气汽车的股票，但他不得透露对可再生能源的偏见。 他指的是罗伯特·布赖斯的书籍之一，在他的论文和他的分析听起来很像那些在布莱斯先生的“ 耗电：”绿色能源“和未来的实际燃料的神话 ”。 在布莱斯先生的5绿色能源的神话 ，他的攻击使用虚假的比较，misquotes，科学不准确，遗漏有关事实的绿色能源。 这并不奇怪，布莱斯先生是不是绿色能源的风扇，因为他是一名高级研究员在曼哈顿学院，科赫基金会和埃克森/移动接收的大捐款。

  彼得森先生，采用平面先生的分析，认为，“经济重心的法律不能被忽略，不会被嘲笑。 闪亮的新电动车，通用汽车，福特日产，丰田，特斯拉汽车公司和一个私人持有的崇拜者的主机像菲斯克汽车和幸，是注定要发生灾难性故障。 他们的零部件供应商将票价没有更好的。 有没有政治或一厢情愿的金额是可以改变的必然结果。“彼得森先生在他的文章评论的健康和环境成本的遗漏问，他回答说，他只在感兴趣的”硬的权威数字。 “

淫秽？先生 彼得森的推移，“最终淫秽的是，从汽油驱动到电力驱动的转换不会减少用于运输的能源总量。 它只是转移能源负担轻轻资助的石油和天然气更大量补贴能源来自煤炭，核能和可再生能源。“不是真的。 即使使用传统的燃煤发电厂的电力，电动车充电的能源使用量将减少。 燃煤电厂的热效率在30％左右。 电动机效率约90％的电能转换工作，并考虑摩擦时，电源线传输损耗，能量损失的电池充电时，再生制动，使用煤运行电动车的整体效率和能源获得出来的20％左右。 内燃机的热力学效率，但有15％左右，传动系统的损失减少到10％左右的整体效率。 这些效率是作为一个合理的文件，由斯坦福大学的比较“轮效率源”评为在1.145公里/ MJ电动特斯拉和汽油动力的本田思域0.515公里/ MJ。 按当年价格计算，这些数字约5美分/特斯拉公里，约12美分/公里本田。

使用可持续能源，为电池充电，将是理想的情况下，“能量源轮”效率是60％至80％的碳排放量将大大减少。 在能源和碳排放量将有大量的储蓄，即使使用电动车充电使用的燃煤发电厂。 电动车有额外的优势，为电池充电的基础设施已经到位。 电动车似乎并不要建这样的房子卡·彼得森先生的文章。

An article titled Investors See Climate Opportunity to Make Money, Create Jobs , reports 450 large institutional investors who control more than $20 trillion worldwide, agree “climate change is a risk to avoid and also an opportunity to make a good return on investments.” It reports “Global clean-energy investments reached $260 billion in 2011, some five times more than the $50 billion in 2005.” Our energy needs will best be served by a mixture of traditional and alternate energy sources and we should not let pessimistic analyses keep us from investing in and developing the alternate sources.

* Revised to include a more recent Stern Report on 01/22/2012.

(c) 2012 JC Moore

选举季节即将到来，我们的许多代表是，或将要举行市政厅会议。 众议员约翰·沙利文（的R-OK）2011年11月7日，他的镇沙泉大厅会议举行。 He told us that things have been crazy lately in Washington, and he illustrated that by talking about the budget.

Budget: A Supercommittee has been formed with the goal of reducing the deficit by $1.2 trillion. Congressman Sullivan said he did not think that was enough and he supports a balanced budget amendment, with the goal of cutting $4 trillion from the budget. He said that we would have to cut entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a list of other programs that mostly help the poor and the middle class. He said he supports raising the age or cutting the benefits for Social Security, but that those over 55 should not worry, as the proposed changes would only affect those younger than 55.

A member of the audience commented that he did not think that was fair, as he was just under 55. When the Congressman was asked if he would consider raising revenue rather than making such deep cuts in spending, he said he could not support raising taxes. That is not surprising as he and 276 Legislators have signed Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge, making it almost impossible for Congress to raise taxes. Any reasonable effort to balance the budget will require tax increases as well as spending cuts. Congress is trying to fight the budget battle with one hand tied behind its back.

Congressman Sullivan also criticized the budget submitted by the President, saying that no one would vote for it and even Harry Reid voted against it. A member of the audience pointed out that Harry Reid changed his vote for procedural reasons and asked what the Senate's vote was. The congressman replied he did not know. The records show that the President's budget passed the Senate by a vote of 51 to 47, but not enough to overcome a filibuster. Harry Reid changed his vote as a procedural move so that it might be brought up again later.

Banking reform: Congressman Sullivan said he could not support unneeded regulations and that the Dodd Frank law should be repealed because “it hurts small banks”. That is surprising, as the Dodd Frank bill was applauded by the Independent Community Bankers of America who said it would “level the regulatory and competitive playing field for community banks.”

Energy: The Congressman said he has introduced legislation encouraging the development of natural gas as a fuel. He pointed out that natural gas provides about three times as much energy and costs much less than gasoline. Natural gas is plentiful in Oklahoma and developing the infrastructure to use it as a fuel would help Oklahoma's economy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Using natural gas would also significantly decrease our carbon emissions – but the Congressman did not mention that as he does not accept the scientific research on climate change.

EPA: Congressman Sullivan was quite critical of the EPA and stated he has introduced legislation that would require the EPA to do a cost-benefit analysis for every rule it makes. 他的立法会创建环保局数额巨大的文书工作，将其工作不可能做到的，这似乎是他的目标。 Perhaps Congressman Sullivan could help by including a value for human life in his bill, as the EPA says slashing toxic emissions would prevent many premature deaths. The American Lung Association estimates that the EPA's proposed guidelines could prevent 38,000 heart attacks and premature deaths, 1.5 million cases of acute bronchitis and aggravated asthma, and 2.7 million days of missed work or school. The public agrees that the EPA should be setting standards to protect our health, not Congress. A recent poll found that more than two-thirds of registered voters supported EPA setting strong air pollution standards.

  Jobs : The Congressman spent considerable time criticizing the job creation efforts and the economic policies of the President, particularly the stimulus program. When he declared that the government could not create jobs, someone the audience asked him about the CCC and the WPA, which created jobs during the Great Depression and provided improvements in the infrastructure, such as creating the REA. The Congressman answered with a long criticism of the stimulus package, which he finished by claiming that the stimulus package had not created one job.

A school administrator in the audience said that there were a number of jobs saved in education by the stimulus money and that the cuts to the school budget would've been much worse without it. Interestingly, the records show that District 1 in Oklahoma, Congressman Sullivan's district, received $463 million in stimulus money which directly created 280 jobs. That did not include jobs indirectly created or jobs that were saved, such as the teaching jobs.

Services : When asked about cuts to mental health services, the Congressman rather surprised us all by saying that one fourth of all Oklahomans have some form of mental illness. The Congressman said he supports mental health programs, efforts to help soldiers with PTSD, and programs that help those with substance abuse. However, it is rather difficult to see where money would come from to support those programs if the budget were cut by $4 trillion.

2012: The 1 ^st District covers the population centers in the northeast part of Oklahoma, mostly Tulsa and north to Bartlesville. We certainly appreciate Congressman Sullivan taking time to share his comments with us and answer our questions. Some of the things the Congressman said were of concern to the author, as you can discern from his comments. As the 2012 elections near, Oklahoma voters need to weigh carefully what Congressman Sullivan says and how he votes in order to decide if we should return him to Washington.

Co-authorship credit: Barbara Moore

(c) 2011 JC Moore

What will the weather be like in the future? Dr. Heidi Cullen, noted climatologists and author of the book, The Weather of the Future , gave a public talk in Tulsa explaining how global warming is causing the weather to be more extreme. She explained that our future holds an increasing number of extreme weather events unless we act to reduce our carbon emissions. There was an article in the local Tulsa World newspaper announcing the talk; however, there was no follow-up article describing the talk or her research on climate change. Tulsa Oklahoma was once considered the oil capital of the world and many of the local politicians and oil company executives that live there do not have a favorable opinion of climate change, so her message was one many Oklahomans needed to hear. To correct the newspaper's oversight, the author sent the following letter to the editor, which outlined the main points of her talk. The letter generated some controvery and there were a number of comments on the letter .

In her talk, Dr. Cullen explained how global warming is changing our climate. Climate describes the average weather, and research shows the Earth's average weather has been changing. It is difficult to recognize the pattern of change and only by analyzing millions of weather and temperature records is it possible to see the pattern. Over the last century, NASA's temperature records show that the Earth's temperature has increased by about 1°F. That has increased the energy in the atmosphere and the moisture in the air over the oceans. That combination is causing our weather to become more extreme, as you have probably noticed from the events that have happened lately.

Dr.Cullen explained that climate is complex, made up of both natural and man-made factors, and the scientific research has been directed toward identifying the contributions of each. Carbon dioxide was identified in the 19th century as one component of the atmosphere that helps warm the Earth. Our activities have increased the CO2 concentration in the air by 37% since then, and undoubtedly much of the recent warming has been caused by man. Detailed studies of extreme weather events have shown that global warming contributed to their severity. Although that may seem bad news, the upside of that is that if we are responsible for it, we can change it.

The first step in that process is to immediately begin to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel energy sources. Dr. Cullen outlined what our energy needs will be by 2050 and showed how we can reduce our carbon emissions and meet our energy needs by then with mostly renewable sources. She explained that building the infrastructure for renewable energy will create jobs and contribute to our economy. Rather than considering the cost of doing so a mortgage on future generations, we should consider reducing pollution and developing sustainable energy sources as an investment in our future.

(c) 2011 JC Moore

Tax Cuts: Though it sounds good to be against taxes, fiscal responsibility may require that taxes be raised, particularly after they have been cut beyond what is prudent. Because of the reduced revenue in Oklahoma caused by the 2004 state tax cuts, it has become very difficult for the state to meet its financial obligations. In spite of that, another tax cut that was set to be triggered when state revenues improved by 4%, will go into effect in 2012. Astoundingly, that tax cut was triggered only because the state revenue had fallen far below the amount needed to fund the state's needs adequately. Oklahoma is not able to adequately fund K-12 education, higher education, infrastructure, transportation, public health services, public safety, and other services. Oklahoma ranks near the bottom of all the states in poverty, public health, education, crime, and infrastructure repair, yet the legislature has engineered another tax cut . While the tax cuts were touted as a way to lure businesses to the state, it is difficult to see why a business would want to move to a state where its management and employees would have to live in substandard conditions.

Oklahoma Taxes: Although it is easy to cut taxes in Oklahoma, it is very difficult to raise them. Raising taxes requires either a three fourths majority in both houses of the legislature or approval by a referendum. It is very difficult to convince voters that they should vote to increase taxes upon themselves. Tax decisions are best decided by the legislatures, who are charged by the Constitution with budgeting adequately for the needs of the state. However, it is unlikely that Oklahoma would ever get a three fourths majority to raise taxes as Oklahoma's Governor, Lt. Governor, 7 Senators( of 48), and 26 House members( of 101) have pledged away their responsibility to raise needed revenue by signing Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform Pledge.

Norquist's Pledge is not as much about reform as one might expect. The true nature of the anti-tax organization was revealed when Norquist claimed it was a violation of the Pledge to close tax loopholes for companies that outsource American jobs overseas. Apparently, Norquist has set himself up as the sole interpreter of what the Pledge means, and he uses it to intimidate those who have signed the pledge into following his wishes. He first said that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire was not really a tax increase, then reversed his position, claimed he misspoke earlier, then claimed anyone voting to let the cuts expire would be violating the Pledge. He also claimed that Sen. Tom Coburn violated the Pledge when he supported ending the subsidies for ethanol, which have raised food prices and been disadvantageous to Oklahoma farmers. Grover Norquist, who was not elected, and whose name many would not even not recognize, has become a power broker in our national and state governments.

Oklahoma's Constitution: Still, the responsibility rests with the elected representatives. In Oklahoma, there is a prohibition against our elected Representatives signing such a pledge. The Oklahoma Constitution, says in Article X, Section 5: under Surrender of Power of Taxation :

“ A. Except as otherwise provided by this section, the power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended, or contracted away. “

There are no provisions in the section exempting Oklahoma's elected representatives from abiding by the restriction stated in “A.” Clearly, signing the Pledge is a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution, which the legislators have sworn to uphold.

Your Representatives: US Senators and Congressmen are important at the state level as they are considered to be leaders in our respective states. Norquist claims 235 US Representatives and 41 US Senators have signed his Pledge. In doing so, they have clearly given up their responsibility as our elected representatives. If your state is unable to meet its financial obligations, those at the state level who have taken the anti-tax pledge are listed in this article . Also, those in the US Legislature who have signed the pledge are listed here . You may wish to check see who from your state has signed the pledge and contact them. Since Norquist claims that signing the pledge is binding into perpetuity, I would suggest that we make sure none of the signers are re-elected.

The Oklahoma Lists: Below is a list of those who have signed the pledge in Oklahoma. If anyone is listed who has not signed the pledge or has had their name removed, please notify the author in a comment on this article.

Oklahoma:

Gov. Mary Fallin

Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb

7 Senators (of 48)

Cliff Aldridge (S-42)

Josh Brecheen (S-6)

Bill Brown (S-36)

Sean Burrage (S-2)

Kim David (S-18)

David Holt (S-30)

Jonathan Nichols (S-15)

26 House members (of 101)

Gus Blackwell (H-61)

Mike Christian (H-93)

Josh Cockroft (H-27)

David Dank (H-85)

Lee R. Denny (H-33)

David Derby (H-74)

George Faught (H-14)

Corey Holland (H-51)

Charlie Joyner (H-95)

Sally Kern (H-84)

Charles Key (H-90)

Randy McDaniel (H-83)

Jason W. Murphey (H-31)

Charles Ortega (H-52)

Leslie Osborn (H-47)

Mike Reynolds (H-91)

Mike Ritze (H-80)

Dustin Roberts (H-21)

Sean Roberts (H-36)

Mike Sanders (H-59)

Earl Sears (H-11)

Colby Schwartz (H-43)

Randy Terrill (H-53)

Sue Tibbs (H-23)

约翰Trebilcock（H 98）

Paul Wesselhoft (H-54)

Six of Oklahoma's seven US Legislators have signed Norquist's Pledge. Those are:

Senators : Sen. Tom Coburn* (R), Sen Jim Inhofe (R)

Representatives: John Sullivan (R), Frank Lucas (R), Tom Cole (R), and James Lankford (R).

* In all fairness, Senator Coburn has worked on a bi-partisan budget solution and recently drew Grover Norquist's ire by suggesting we might have to raise revenue.

(c) 2011 JC Moore

Research credit: Barbara Moore