Global Warming Ideology Watch

Global Warming Ideology Watch:

Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
-- Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe.

(Notice how she makes sure to drop several notes of her own environmental goodness throughout the piece.) University of Colorado environmental journalism professor Tom Yulsman responds:

Excuse me, but being skeptical about the scientific basis for global warming is nowhere near on a par with Holocaust denial. That is an utterly offensive statement — one that seems to comes up more and more in liberal discourse about climate change. If this is reframing the issue, count me out. I'll take run-of-the-mill catastrophism, thank you very much.

Rove's Quote

Karl Rove is in trouble with some people for saying this yesterday: "I don't want my 17-year old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas." Andrew Sullivan complains that the MSM has nothing on this. I think that's because the MSM knows perfectly well what Rove means, and they don't want their 17-year olds picking tomatoes or making beds in Las Vegas either. I certainly don't--I want him in his last year of high school, making good grades, involved in extracuricular activities, and getting ready for college. I think most people do. Of course, there is more we could be doing to provide opportunities for those who are unable to make their own, and the Bush administration hasn't done much about that, but I think American's understand this quote just fine, and are mostly OK with it.

Anna Nicole Smith

Of all the images I've seen of Anna Nicole Smith in the last 24 hours, this is the saddest. Her turned around and bent over to show her ass, the photographers clamoring to take a picture of it, the look on her face that says she knows she's just a piece of meat, not intrinsically respected but wanted only for the shape of her body. Very sad.

The Sharp Knives

Belief in manmade global warming has become an ideology (for evidence of environmentalists running amok with the idea, see the Gristmill blog), and as with any ideology dissenters must be weeded out and killed. And so the sharp knives are coming out for the dozen or so global warming dissenters who are still left. Two dissenters currently in the crosshairs are Oregon's George Smith and Delaware's David Legates.

Now, I believe that humans are partly (perhaps mostly--the data isn't clear) responsible for present day global warming (January 2007 was just reported as the warmest month in recorded history), and that both Smith and Legates are mostly wrong.

But in science, it is not a crime to be wrong. Throughout science skeptics have played important roles in keeping the true believers honest, in proding and poking at their data and theories until they are water tight. The skeptics play an important role, and if they are indeed wrong they will harmlessly fade away with time, as the truth ever more forcefully emerges. The damage that skeptics do, in the long run, is virtually nil.

Of course, true global warming believers believe that the problem is so large and so overwhelming that any delay induced by the skeptics is too much to accept. But it's not the skeptics who are preventing action on global warming, it is the politicians. Nothing prevents Bush or Ted Kulongowski from taking action on global warming today--certainly not a dozen skeptics--and a majority of Congress would follow Bush if he did. Nothing prevents the majority of Americans favoring action on global warming, either, but in fact Americans reelected Bush in 2004 despite knowing full well about his almost immediately breaking his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide when he was elected in 2000. Are a dozen skeptics provoking so much doubt in the average American's mind, despite the now daily headlines that warn global warming is a big problem?

In any case, there may not be much Bush or Kulongowski or any politician can do about global warming for a long time--you should read Robert Samuelson's op-ed in today's Washington Post.

The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies -- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.

Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations. As for editorialists and pundits, there's no explanation except superficiality or herd behavior.

The only real solution to global warming is new technologies. (You rarely hear this on Gristmill.) Conservation, certainly a laudable goal, will not work--it may cut 10-20% of our emissions, but that is practically nothing compared to the 70-80% that is needed to halt global warming by about 2050.

Removing George Smith as the Oregon state climatologist will not help Kulongowski reduce Oregon emissions one iota, and to me it looks like nothing but a political move. We need a few skeptics around to keep us honest, and from what I've seen Smith is one of the more reasonable and articulate skeptics out there. But Smith is probably as good as gone. Hey, at least then the governor will be doing something.

Straight Couples and Marriage

From the state of Washington comes a proposed initiative that is truly stupid:

OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

This piece of idiocy has been proposed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. Yes, we know what point they're trying to make--marriage should not be limited just to people who can have or want to have have children. I fully support that point and I fully support same-sex marriage.

But mocking heterosexual marriage and even pretending to try and limit it is hardly the way to win converts to your side. WA-DOMA says they are just trying to promote discussion. Mockery doesn't do that. This proposed initiative does far more damage than good, and if the WA-DOMA has any sense they will back up and drop this like a hot potato. Dummies.

More on Josh Wolf

Freelance journalist Josh Wolf has now become the longest incarcerated journalist in US history, surpassing Vanessa Leggett, who served 168 days in 2001 and 2002 for refusing to surrender information in a murder case.

Majority Rights

Here's a good liberal letter from Portland, arguing that majority rights should prevail in the debate over indoor smoking on private property:

I can't wait until Oregon's workplaces are all smoke-free. It's been a long time since a majority of Americans smoked or wanted a smoking work environment.

Creating smoke-free workplaces is in the interest of the health and happiness of employees, and has the support of a majority of Oregonians. Businesses benefit from healthy employees, and Oregon will stay nationally competitive by supporting an idea whose time has come. MIKE MERRILL Northwest Portland

What do you want to bet that people like this would argue that majority rights should not be the deciding factor over same-sex marriage? It's hardly courageous to argue that majority rights ought to trump the minority's when it's an idea you're in favor of, but then argue the opposite when it isn't.

Hillary to Donors....

According to the Huffington Post,

Hillary Clinton is personally putting out the word that she has no intention of sharing the wealth: "She's calling all the big-hitter fundraisers and saying, 'I want you to understand: NO money to anybody else. You cannot play both sides of the street, in the '08 presidential race.......'"

To me this is a blatant acknowledgment that Hillary is soliciting money with the intention of rewarding those who give it to her. What else does she mean by "playing" both sides of the street? She means -- wink, wink -- that if you grease her skids she will grease yours, but only if you do not donate elsewhere. It's a blatant admission of her bribeability.

Dubious SHS Statistics

Here's the relevant part of Gio Batta Gori's recent Washington Post essay on the dubious methodology behind the determination of secondhand smoke death statistics:

Typically, the studies asked 60–70-year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures.

In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory.

Don't get me wrong. Secondhand smoke can be dangerous, especially if breathed in large quantities over long period of time. But there is some great doubt about putting precise statistics behind it.

Joshua Wolf Update

Freelance journalist Josh Wolf was just again denied release in San Francisco.

Wolf, a First Amendment hero if there ever was one, could be held through July, when the grand jury's term expires. Police recently dropped charges against the only person accused in the attacks which Wolf filmed.

Banning Indoor Smoking

You'll not find a better example of Portland's nanny-state liberalism than today's Oregonian op-ed by PSU art professor Walton Bernard Fosque. Fosque harps on the fact that there are supposedly 800 deaths a year from second-hand smoke in Oregon (a figure relying on dubious self-reporting methodologies that some dispute).

Who are these people dying of second-hand smoke? My guess is that they are primarily (1) nonsmoking spouses of smokers, and (2) people like bartenders and waitresses who choose to work in a smoke-filled environment. Both of these groups of people choose to live/work in suspect environments, as is their right. Individuals all the time choose to be in suspect/dangerous environments (driving, outdoor recreation, industrial) because they have decided the risks are worth it.

Individuals in both of these groups had other options, but presumably choose to live/work in a smoky environment because they decided the benefits outweighted their risks. Individuals in both groups could have easily avoided living/working in smoky environments if they wanted.

Indeed, I can barely even tell you the last time I was exposed to secondhand smoke. There is no smoke where I live, work, shop, or visit. None of my friends are smokers. There is the occasional waft when I walk in Tom McCall Park along the Willamette River. And while it was momentarily unpleasant, I'm sure it does me no harm. Indeed, my last exposure to concentrated secondhand smoke was probably when visiting a relative in November 2005, and that was because I decided not to make a fuss about it since I would only be there for two hours, and we shared a good bottle of wine. And before that--well, I can't even remember, my exposure is so rare.

So individuals have it well within themselves to avoid secondhand smoke. The only people who don't are children, and for them I have much more sympathy. (Of course, it is not children who are making up this 800 per year death statistic.) Both my parents smoked when I was a kid, and I grew to hate it. I have suffered no noticeable damage as a result--no cancer and no respiratory problems, so far. But if you want to ban smoking around children -- in homes and in cars -- I would probably go along with that. They do not have a choice.

But I'm not willing to ban indoor smoking to avoid secondhand smoke. Adults may choose to be exposed to secondhand smoke, just as adults may choose to smoke. The aesthetic and health effects have been well-known for a long time. People are still free to risk their health if they want. (I suspect this will be in dispute as government comes to "pay" for more and more of our health costs. Already in West Virginia Medicare is going to "prod patients towards health" by punishing those who do not join weight-loss or antismoking programs, or who miss too many appointments, by denying important services (NY Times, Dec. 1, 2006)).

Art professor Fosque has it well within him to avoid secondhand smoke. Why do we have to pass all kinds of laws and take freedoms away from others because something is dangerous? Lots of things are dangerous--driving is dangerous, as is unprotected sex, as are swimming and rock climbing. Are we going to ban all of these as well? Next--you can be sure--people like Fosque will be coming around to ban the dangerous activity that you enjoy. It will be for the common good, after all, and nothing is more important than the common good--not in their eyes, anyway.

Parents Should Provide

Today's Live Free or Die award goes to Heather Brown of Hillsboro, for her letter in today's Oregonian:

Parents should provide

I agree that health insurance for children is a basic necessity. What I don't understand is why parents cannot take responsibility for the situations they create.

Nicolle Owings says "I'm so mad . . . I'll do anything to get the government to do something to help low-income working people have health care" ("One uninsured girl puts face on crisis in Oregon," Jan. 21).

Does this family not realize that continuing to have children has put them in this situation? My husband and I have one child and can afford health insurance for her. However, if we made the choice to have two more children, we would be considered "low income" as well (as a family of five).

I think it is important for people to take responsibility for the decisions they make, and that includes having children for whom they cannot properly provide.

HEATHER BROWN, Hillsboro

More on Smoking

Lest anyone get me wrong, I should say that I despise smoking. I have never smoked and I never will. It has brought significant damage, and even death, to members of my family who did smoke.

I will not patronize an establishment that allows smoking, period.

So I do not view these kind of articles very happily: "Wall Street Finds a Lob to Like About Tobacco," NY Times, Jan 31.

Personally I wish all the tobacco companies went out of business tomorrow and that all smokers voluntarily quit today. Smokers may well be all quitting in the next couple of decades, in the US at least. I might well bet that in 20 years it will be very unusual to still see a smoker in the US. (If nothing else, they will probably penalize it heavily once government begins paying for all of our health care.) Internationally, though, is another problem, and that is going to be where tobacco companies make their money.

It is a vile habit and one of the most destructive legal practices allowed. But it is still legal, and people still do have a right to damage their health if they wish (we all do it in our own ways, anyway). As long as it is legal, it ought to be left alone to be handled by the private market, and left alone by meddling governments.

Smoking Bans and Private Market

Yesterday we saw how Oregon legislators are being forced to consider smoking bans in bars and restaurants because the free market will just not take a position on the matter.

Oops. That's wrong.

It turns out the free market is already solving the problem. At the end of yesterday's Oregonian article we read:

Some businesses aren't waiting for the Legislature to ban smoking in bars and taverns, including several brewpubs.

The latest is Jake's Famous Crawfish, a Portland landmark since 1892. Beginning Thursday, Jake's no longer will allow smoking in its bar. "The overwhelming majority of folks do not wish to have smoking in the bar," General Manager John Underhill said.

He's not afraid Jake's will lose business; he said the establishments that have banned smoking have increased their business.

"You can't go anywhere from Canada to California and smoke in a bar, except in Oregon," he said. "That's what the guests want."

So private businesses apparently are capable of making a business decision that best represents their interests, and they are banning smoking as a result. It looks like this situation is already being handled.... so what do we need the legislature for?

--

Predictably, the Oregonian opines that Oregon is too "tobacco-friendly." This after their own news reporting showed the private market can take care of the issue. But we can't have that, can we?

More: The governor is proposing that the tax on smokers be raised considerably to provide health insurance for insurance-less children in Oregon. He does not say why only smokers should pay for such what will become a new state right. (Thankfully, at least one Oregonian letter writer saw something wrong with this arrangement.) Nor does he explain why people are having children if they are unable to provide them something as crucial as health insurance.

Dressing Ecofriendly

A letter from Leslie Carlson of Portland in today's NY Times, allowing one to "dress stylishly and be eco-friendly all at the same time." Because we all must be ecofriendly when we dress.

Smoking Bans

Of course, the good nanny-state liberals of Portland, Oregon cannot stand for smoking in public places -- whatever free-willed individuals find enjoyable must be sacrificed to the alter of political correctness. And so Oregon legislators seem determined to enact an indoor smoking ban in bars and taverns, because of course the free-willed citizens of Oregon must not be required to have to choose for themselves whether or not they will patronize an establishment based on its smoking policies -- no, the smoking policies of the establishment must be bent to comply with the majority view.

Smoking has been going on in bars and restaurants for as long as tobacco has been around, which goes back thousands of years. I despise tobacco smoke as much as the next fellow--both for its horrific stink and for the health effects on those who stupidly smoke it. (I am still open on the question of haphazard exposure to second-hand smoke, except for the year-after-year complete inclusion suffered by people like waitresses, bartenders, and smoker's spouses. But, of course, all these people can chose to be elsewhere.)

But stupidity is still a right in this country, and bar and restaurant patrons should be free to excersize their stupid habit if the owner of the establishment agrees. He agrees knowing full well that it may drive nonsmoking patrons to other businesses, which is the way it ought to be in a free and capitalistic environment.

But not, not in Oregon. Here all free choice must bend to the popular will. And so, owners of private business establishments will most likely soon be required to extinguish all smoking materials, because of course we cannot trust adults to make choices for themselves -- choices of whether or not to smoke, of whether or not to allow smoking in their private establishment, and of whether or not to patronize an establishment based on their smoking policies.

No, as of right now (3:20 pm), 78.5% of the "good citizens" of Oregon would have smoking banned in bars and taverns, according to the online poll in the Oregonian (which, being an online poll, is complete scientific crapola).

Isn't it strange -- 78.5% is about equal to the percentage of nonsmokers in the state, as well. It doesn't really seem that the state's citizens really believe in rights for anyone but themselves.

This, despite doubts that the "science" of secondhand smoke it all it's been advertised to be. Most of us have been exposed to secondhand smoke at some point in our lives, and although it made our clothes smell like shit it hardly left us keeling over in tobacco-inspired cancers.

But the question remains: shouldn't free-thinking adults be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they will allow smoking in their places of business? And, shouldn't free-thinking adults be able to decide for themselves whether they will patronize a business based on its smoking policies? What's the problem with this?

Not, apparently, in Nanny-land, where we all must live the same, politically correct lives. Really, when you think about it, it's the perfect philosophy for Pretentious Portland. And for the whole pretentious state of Oregon as well.

Welcome to Pretentious Portland

Hello and welcome to "Pretentious Portland." I've lived in Portland, Oregon for a few years now, and have come to see the city for what it is -- an average American city with a huge ego problem.

Portland is better than a few cities I've known, worse than some others -- but always, it seems, Portland goes around thinking it's better than everyone else, the cream of the crop, the pick of the litter, the apple of your eye.

In fact, the opposite it mostly true.

Portland has plenty of problems, not the least of which is that it takes itself way too seriously. Hence the title of this blog.

Portland, Oregon is so convinced that it's utopia that it spares no effort to broadcast its superiority to the world at every turn, whether it's environmental consciousness, "world-status" public transportation, its vaunted arts and music and club scene, or a minor new tram that, despite constant crowing, is put to shame by most other trams in the world.

It's the purpose of this blog to show Portland as it really is, to inject some reality into the utopian mindset that affects many of the people who live here, to expose the nanny-state "we'll tell you how to live" liberalism which infects it.

So stay tuned--we're just getting started.