The church of climatology

One of the things that has always confounded me about many liberals is their arrogance. They are so darn certain they are right that they are unable to entertain any divergent views. Ever try and have a truly rational discussion with a liberal on race? On abortion? How about the war in Iraq? Or Guantanamo Bay? As they say on the Sopranos: Fuggedaboutit.

There are no areas of compromise on what I call the signal issues of the left. And even worse, if you dare to think differently, you are immediately attacked as a racist, a sexist, a fascist or just plain stupid. Using such personal attacks with such highly inflammatory labels has the effect of putting those with opposing views on the defensive, and distracting the discussion from the issue at hand. It is a very common -- and very effective -- way for the left to quell honest debate on many of the most important issues of the day. It's disingenuous. And it works.

Climate change is a perfect example of this. Bill McKibben at the left-leaning Foreign Policy magazine has a fantastically irresponsible piece on global warming where he claims without qualification that global warming is an irrefutable fact and that it might already be too late to save the planet. The science is apparently settled:

Every national academy of science, long lists of Nobel laureates, and in recent years even the science advisors of President George W. Bush have agreed that we are heating the planet. Indeed, there is a more thorough scientific process here than on almost any other issue: Two decades ago, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and charged its scientists with synthesizing the peer-reviewed science and developing broad-based conclusions. The reports have found since 1995 that warming is dangerous and caused by humans. The panel’s most recent report, in November 2007, found it is “very likely” (defined as more than 90 percent certain, or about as certain as science gets) that heat-trapping emissions from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century.

According to McKibben, the IPCC (a UN sponsored body that is rife with political considerations) has decided that humans are warming the planet -- and so it must be true. He speaks as if the science of geologic activities on the earth -- a planet billions of years old -- is settled fact because a group of scientists have been studying the issue for twenty years or so. That he speaks with such certainty of the science behind temperature change within earth's complex ecosystem is the height of arrogance. How do we know that this isn't normal change in the ebb and flow of the earth's climate process? Doesn't anyone recall that the earth was once covered in ice? And that the onslaught of the ice age happened so quickly that it wiped the dinosaurs from the face of the planet?

McKibben has no such questions, however. His article also includes a strange defense of China as a main culprit of the carbon dioxide that he blames for heating up the earth -- and herein lies a clue as to his political motivations. McKibben argues that while it is true that China has overtaken the U.S. as the main producer of carbon emissions, the only fair way to view the issue is on a per capita basis: because China has four times the population of the U.S., China is not as bad a carbon scofflaw as America is:

And by that standard, each Chinese person now emits just over a quarter of the carbon dioxide that each American does. Not only that, but carbon dioxide lives in the atmosphere for more than a century. China has been at it in a big way less than 20 years, so it will be many, many years before the Chinese are as responsible for global warming as Americans.

Starting to see the picture? China produces more carbon emissions that the U.S., but we are the bigger sinners, since they are new to the game and we've been doing it for years. And, if that isn't bad enough, McKibben actually gives credit to the Chinese political leadership for doing more about global warming than we are:

What’s more, unlike many of their counterparts in the United States, Chinese officials have begun a concerted effort to reduce emissions in the midst of their country’s staggering growth. China now leads the world in the deployment of renewable energy, and there’s barely a car made in the United States that can meet China’s much tougher fuel-economy standards.

Maybe McKibben hasn't been paying attention to the air quality issues athletes faced at the Beijing Olympics, or the tremendous air quality problems throughout China that have created serious health issues. China has one of the worst environmental records in history, and their rapid industrialization has been virtually without restraint.

But none of this matters when you worship at the Church of Climatology, where faith trumps fact every time. It is more important to punish the culture of consumption in the United States and place the blame on Americans who drive SUV's and other cars that the left finds to be a sin against their belief that everyone should ride a bike to work. We are the original sinners, after all; we are the true crucible of industry. It is because of America that the automobile is so ubiquitous in our world.

So according to McKibben we must repent and change our deadly ways. And even then, it may be too late:

The only question now is whether we’re going to hold off catastrophe. It won’t be easy, because the scientific consensus calls for roughly 5 degrees more warming this century unless we do just about everything right. And if our behavior up until now is any indication, we won’t.

And the left always says that conservatives practice scare tactics!

Now, I'm not a scientist and I don't pretend to play on on the Internet. But I've done a little bit of research, and the science of climate change is not settled. Take a quick look at the informative article, for example, at the aptly named JunkScience.com, which takes you through the science of greenhouse gasses and global warming. The most interesting section is the following:

Who says it (the earth) is warming catastrophically?

Humans have only been trying to measure the temperature fairly consistently since about 1880, during which time we think the world may have warmed by about +0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C. As we've already pointed out, the estimate of warming is less than the error margin on our ability to take the Earth's temperature, generally given as 14 °C ± 0.7 °C for the average 1961-1990 while the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) suggest 13.9 °C for their average 1880-2004

We are pretty sure it was cold before the 1880 commencement of record and we would probably not handle the situation too well if such conditions returned but there has been no demonstrable catastrophic warming while people have been trying to measure the planet's temperature.

If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we think we have, then setting new records for "hottest ever in recorded history" should happen just about every year -- although half a degree over a century is hardly something to write home about -- so there's really nothing exciting about scoring the highest number when looking at such a short history.

The JunkScience.com article has lots of interesting graphs -- perhaps the most interesting is the one which shows the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature. For a full resolution image of the graph, click here.  This graph shows a slight uptick in temperature (to the tune of .5 degree centigrade over 120 years), but you see a much larger increase in carbon dioxide over the same period. Doesn't look like a clear causal relationship between the two to me -- and this is the primary foundation for both McKibben's article in Foreign Policy and almost all climate change policy.

The point here is not that the earth isn't warming -- clearly, it is to a small degree. Rather, the issue is how much and why: the left wants us to believe that the science is clear that we are to blame, and that the impact of this change will be catastrophic. These scare tactics are designed to quell open debate about climate change, and to make it impossible to discuss alternative explanations (or solutions) to the problem.

Most religions are organized around fear to a certain degree, and the Church of Climatology is no different. It's a powerful motivator for change. In this case, that change is to remake the world in a more progressive fashion -- wind, solar, electric cars, etc. The only way to get to this in a rapid fashion is to galvanize people through tales of Armageddon. How much are you willing to spend to save the earth from certain destruction? To the green movement's lasting delight the answer is plenty. And with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge, you can bet that the money will be flowing for the foreseeable future.

Nevadans, please fire Harry Reid

Once again, Sen. Harry Reid has overreached his elected authority and exposed his lack of moral authority in the Roland Burris issue. The people of Nevada could do a great service to our country in making sure that Harry Reid is defeated in 2010. He reportedly is concerned already about holding his seat and has begun interviewing campaign managers, while vacationing in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands recently, met with important campaign finance sources. Reid was quick to race to microphones declaring that Burris would not be seated in the Senate despite being legally appointed by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Yesterday he commented that the Senate chooses who is seated and who is not. This morning Reid reportedly said he'd seat Burris if he promises not to run for reelection. Dick Durbin and Barack Obama have shown the same disrespect, yet today have completed flip-flopped on the issue in hopes this latest Democrat saga quickly goes away.

In the past few weeks, the Democrats from the top leadership down, thought they would quickly destroy Gov. Blago in order to ensure there were no dots connected between him and the incoming president. Why did they cave in the last several hours? They don't want to be accused of participating in a race matter, and they want to pacify Blago because they fear there is damaging info yet to come as that investigation moves forward.

Time for Nevada to assist Harry Reid in finding other work.

Crafty like a fox

After a bit more than a month away from the partisan battles, I'm back in my blogger chair. I've had a chance to ruminate on the 2008 election results, and to my great surprise, the sun continues to rise in the East and set in the West (though I'm sure global warming alarmists will soon say that this, too, is in mortal danger). The real impact, of course, of the decisive Democrat victory won't be seen for years to come. I have to hand it to the President-elect -- he's crafty like a fox. His early appointments were designed to give him cover from attacks from the right, and reflect the sober reality he now faces in dealing with both the financial downturn and the ever-present terrorism and security threat. His appointments of Geithner and Summers were reassuring to the financial markets which are now expecting a high-level of government intervention. For those of us who still believe in free markets, its not good news, of course.

The financial bailout undertaken by the Bush Administration and Paulson/Geithner before the election has ushered in a whole new era of government intrusion into the private sector. And Barack Obama, with his predilection for "spreading the wealth around" is just the guy to take maximum advantage of it. The government will own banks, auto makers and insurance companies before it is all through -- and tax payers will be on the hook for it all in the end.

Of course, Obama's early appointments don't give a full picture of what is yet come -- for his next appointments will surely be grist for the far left of the party, still smarting over Obama's decision to keep Bush Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Interior, Energy, EPA -- all of these will be given to a left-wing ideologue who will seek to roll back environmental regulations in pursuit of greenhouse gas restrictions. All that "Drill here, Drill now"? You can forget about all that; now that gas is back to $1.50 a gallon, you can bet we'll be returning to the days of alternative energy investments and ever stricter emission standards -- all just as the auto makers are seeking a multi-billion bailout. Makes no sense -- but, then again, the global warming religion is based on faith, not facts.

Take a look at this piece in the Wall Street Journal -- a great example of the above:

Mr. Obama...(is) a student of the late radical thinker Saul Alinsky, who argued that you do or say what's necessary in a democracy to gain power, while keeping your true aims to yourself. Mr. Obama's novel contribution has been to turn this exploitation on his supporters on the left (who admittedly are so wedded to their hero that, so far, they don't seem to mind).

His next big challenge is an upcoming conference updating the Kyoto targets. Mr. Obama has not backed off his overwrought climate rhetoric, but listen carefully to Al Gore. Now that Democrats are on the verge of power, he's backing off cap-and-trade and carbon-tax proposals (i.e. visible energy price hikes for consumers) in favor of a new approach -- massive government subsidies for 'green technology'.

That's right -- open up the spigot. As long as we're spending a few $Trillion on the banks, bad mortgages and all, why not throw a few tens-of-billions at alternative energy? Start the presses! It's only paper, after all!!

In the end, of course, there will be a limit to all this largesse -- and it will come when taxes rise to support the massive debt we are now taking on for our children to deal with. Remember when "balanced budget" was the cry in Washington? Those days are long, long gone. In its place we have socialism in all its European glory.

And of course, don't forget health care -- the next great socialist experiment that is coming your way, like it or not. As the WSJ again shows in a brilliant editorial today, Tom Daschle is going to reform your health care -- like it or not:

Tom Daschle, the former Senate Majority Leader who Barack Obama has tapped to run Health and Human Services. "I think that ideological differences and disputes over policy weren't really to blame," he writes of 1994 in his book "Critical," published earlier this year. Despite "a general agreement on basic reform principles," the Clintons botched the political timing by focusing on the budget, trade and other priorities before HillaryCare.

President-elect Obama will not make the same mistake. Congressional Democrats are already deep into the legislative weeds, while Mr. Daschle is organizing the interest groups and a grassroots lobbying effort. Mr. Obama may be gesturing at a more centrist direction in economics and national security, but health care is where he seems bent on pleasing the political left.

According to Mr. Daschle, because of the Clintons' hesitation, "reform opponents succeeded in confusing and even frightening Americans about what change might mean," and this time the Democrats mean to define the debate. Consider the December 2 letter to us from Senator Max Baucus, who is upset that a recent editorial on his health-care plan did not use his favorite terms of art (his style being surrealism). "It will require affordability, but premiums will not be set," he writes. So the government will merely determine "affordability" -- which might as well be the same thing.

You see the pattern here: the issue in health care reform is style, not substance. Forget any discussion of the merits, the 1993 initiative failed because it wasn't sold properly, not because there are any inherent flaws in the concept. And lest you think that there will be proper study and debate before such a bill reaches the President's desk for signature, think again -- for the Democrats, so sure are they in the righteous of their cause, aren't wasting any time:

Most disturbingly, Democrats are talking up "budget reconciliation" to pass a health overhaul. This process was created in 1974 and allows legislation dealing with government finances to be whisked through Congress on a simple majority after 20 hours of debate. In other words, it cuts out the minority by precluding a filibuster. Mr. Daschle writes that reform "is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol," and Mr. Baucus has said he's open to the option.

Any taxpayer commitment this large ought to require a social consensus reflected in large majorities, but Democrats are determined to plow ahead anyway. They know that a health-care entitlement for the middle class will never be removed once it is in place; and that government will then dominate American health-care choices for decades to come. That's all the more reason for the recumbent GOP to get its act together.

Like Saul Alinsky and the other radicals in Obama's background, the ends always justifies the means. Ram it through at all costs -- the goal of social justice can't be hung up on the niceties of dissent and debate.

Yes, elections have repercussions. And this one more than most.

As I've said many times, folks: Hang on to your wallets!

Sore winners should lay off Musgrave

Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, targeted five years ago by the Tim Gill machine for the crime of defending traditional marriage and finally brought down last month, is the most relentlessly and unjustly smeared public figure I can recall in 35 years of Colorado politics. Since the election, amazingly, the smears have continued from the Democrat who defeated her, Betsy Markey, aided by biased or lazy reporting from the state and national media. The rap against Musgrave now is that she hasn't made a courtesy phone call to Markey, hasn't spoken to her supporters, and hasn't even thanked her own staff -- making her one of America's sorest losers, according to no less an authority than Newsweek.

These heinous offenses have been repeatedly alleged in the Denver papers, most recently this week with stories in the Post and the Rocky occasioned by Musgrave's campaign efforts in the Georgia Senate runoff. But they are baloney three times over. A stronger term occurs to me, but this is a family website.

First as to the allegation of ungrateful and ungracious behavior to her own side, longtime staffer Guy Short assures me that employees for both the campaign and the congressional office have been not only generously thanked but also financially looked out for. To the charge (quoting the Denver Post, but originated by the Fort Collins Coloradoan) that "she has yet to... publicly address her supporters or volunteers, many of whom had gathered at a restaurant on election night," Short told the Coloradoan editor in an email:

"I don't know where you heard that Marilyn didn't thank her supporters but that is simply not true. She thanked her supporters election night at Jackson's Hole in Greeley and at the Fairfield Hotel in Greeley. She has made hundreds of phone calls thanking supporters and has written hundreds of letters thanking supporters."

But the most damning piece of spin against Musgrave, reflecting political ignorance and naivete at best or sore-winner spite and conscious falsehood at worst, is the suggestion from Markey's camp that the losing candidate has committed some unheard-of pettiness and snub by not getting in touch with the winner.

As Ben Marter, spokesman for the congresswoman-elect, told the Post: "The voters have spoken and it's customary to call your opponent to concede the race, but we're moving forward."

Wrong. I can find no evidence of any such Colorado custom in congressional and legislative races. Tom Tancredo, retiring this year from Congress, says no Democrat ever called him to concede or extend congratulations after his two state House and five US House victories stretching back to the 1970s.

Mike Coffman, newly elected to succeed Tancredo, received no call or contact of any kind from Hank Eng, the Democrat he defeated. I received no call from the Democrat who pummeled me with negative mailers but lost anyway, in our state Senate race of 2000.

Musgrave herself, according to Guy Short, is in the same situation as Tancredo -- never in a long string of elections for state House, state Senate, and Congress has her defeated Democrat opponent bothered to call.

You see, it's just not done that way. Presidential combatants do the concede-and-congratulate thing because it's in glare of national and world attention. I don't know what happens in all governor's races, but I personally went to see Gov. Roy Romer after he beat me on election night 1990. But at the congressional and legislative level -- memo to Ben Marter and Betsy Markey -- to say it's "customary" is just not so.

Formal declarations of conceding or refusing-to-concede have relevance only in disputed races with razor-thin margins, such as the month-long 2002 duel in CD-7 between Dem Mike Feeley and eventual Republican winner Bob Beauprez, or this year's drawn-out SD-26 contest where Republican Lauri Clapp was finally edged out by Democrat Linda Newell.

If the new 4th CD congresslady wants to show some class, she can give this subject a rest and tell her cheering section to do the same. Instead of the sly statement "we're moving forward" while fanning the grievance in same breath, they need to lay off the victim thing, give a no-comment, and move forward.

In other words, Betsy, get over yourself. Where is it written that the campaign's not over until you're genuflected to? Didn't mom teach you not to kick someone when they're down? Isn't the victory enough in itself?

Disclosure: I am a longtime donor and endorser for Musgrave's congressional races.

Merrifield bedevils parental hopes

Writing from a special place in Hell where I rent a small office, I’d like to congratulate state Rep. Mike Merrifield on his reappointment to chair the House Education Committee. Why the soon-to-be-Speaker of the House, Rep. Terrance Carroll, himself a school choice advocate, would allow Merrifield to remain in this powerful position is a good question. Carroll has been critical of Merrifield’s attempts to weaken the Charter School Institute and his notorious email claiming “There must be a special place in Hell for these Privatizers, Charterizers, and Voucherizers! They deserve it!”

Perhaps Carroll thinks the Manitou Springs Democrat has reformed his ways. After all, he has managed to stay out of the papers. After Face The State exposed the infamous email in March 2007, Merrifield stepped down from the chairmanship. He resumed his leadership position in the 2008 session and the year went by quietly. I guess Merrifield learned a lesson; if you want to condemn your opponents to the fires of Hell, don't do it over email.

Fellow proponents of school choice, us denizens of brimstone acres, have reason to be concerned about Merrifield’s continued leadership. Emboldened by the last election, liberal politicians have no reason to feign moderation. Last year’s attacks on charter schools will be nothing compared to this year’s. As long as Merrifield is at the helm, we can expect anti-school choice legislation to pass through the committee while pro-school choice legislation languishes.

As both a charterizer and a voucherizer (no doubt doomed to the inferno’s ninth circle), I feel compelled to define the terms of parental choice in education for the reader who may not know what’s at stake. When I was a kid, parents had one choice—send their kids to a designated neighborhood school or pony up for a private school. Parents who could not afford a home in a desirable neighborhood or private school tuition simply had no other options. Thanks to untiring grassroots advocates and a courageous bipartisan group of leaders, today’s parents have a few more options than we had growing up.

Colorado parents can choose any public school that has seats available. They can educate their children at home. Families can also choose from over 140 public charter schools. Like other public schools, charter schools are free public schools open to all students. Unlike other public schools, charter schools have their own governing boards and may adopt their own curriculum and personnel procedures. No two charter schools are the same. There are college preparatory schools, schools that emphasize the arts, on-line schools, schools that encourage hands-on learning, and back-to-basics schools, to name but a few. Charter schools can be authorized by school districts or by the Charter School Institute, a statewide public authorizer.

Making a choice has become easier thanks to school report cards and parent-friendly Web sites that provide information about schools. Even so there are still too many families in areas without good public schools either traditional or charter. Even though private schools typically operate at a fraction of the public per-pupil funding level, for some families, even modest tuition is still out of their reach. In 14 states and the District of Columbia, parents can choose from among private schools with the help of a scholarship or tax credit/deduction. In Colorado, parents do not have this option. Tenacious school choice proponents in Colorado have tried to try to expand options for parents but as long as politicians like Merrifield remain in leadership, their efforts will be blocked every time.

How can the Speaker-to-Be believe Merrifield will act any differently in 2009? How likely is it that we’ll see a kinder, gentler chairman? About a snowball’s chance, I’d say. According to Colorado Capitol Watch, Merrifield received thousands of dollars from unions and other anti-school choice advocacy groups this past election. He isn’t likely to bite the hand that feeds. This is bad news for families seeking new school options and even those trying to hold on to the ones they have. It is difficult to predict exactly where the school choice movement will go next session, but I’m certain Merrifield has a special place in mind.