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.