News To Me

Daily Five Minutes: Climategate Revisited

The debate about global climate change should be considered as a bad reality show entitled "Scientists Behaving Badly"; sort of like Jersey Shore for the Ph.D. set.  From suppressed or fudged data by of the "Warmthers" (who believe that Global Warming is real, and preventable) to Gleick's recent "fake but accurate" depiction of that data (discrediting the people who would discredit the "warmthers"), the entire climate change community should be ashamed of itself.  

With that in mind I was reminded of a post that I made several years ago. In that post I referenced the opinion of Gregg Easterbrook, an author of profressive credentials who also happens to write a football column on ESPN.com. Given all that has happened since then I was surprised to find that his opinions still hold water. I repost them as a reminder that a moderate position on social hot buttons is often (usually?) a good idea.

Easterbrook says:

• There is indeed a strong scientific consensus regarding climate change. The deniers simply aren't honest about this. 
• The consensus is that in the last century, air has warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit while the oceans have warmed a little and become slightly acidic; rainfall patterns have changed in some places, and most though not all ice melting has accelerated. 
• That consensus is significant, but hardly means there is a crisis. Glaciers and sea ice, for example, have been in a melting cycle for thousands of years, while air warming has so far been good for farm yields. The doomsayers simply aren't honest about how mild the science consensus is.
• Predictions of global devastation -- climate change is a "profound emergency" that will "ravage our planet" -- are absurd exaggerations, usually motivated by political or fund-raising agendas. 
• Climate change has serious possible negative consequences, especially if rainfall shifts away from agricultural regions. 
• Global poverty, disease, dirty air and lack of clean water in developing world cities and lack of education are far higher priorities than greenhouse gas emissions. 
• Smog and acid rain turned out to be far cheaper to control than predicted; the same may happen with greenhouse gases.
• The United States must regulate greenhouse gases in order to bring American brainpower, in engineering and in business, to bear on the problem.
• A carbon tax, not some super-complex cap-and-trade scheme that mainly creates jobs for bureaucrats and lawyers, would be the best approach.
• If the United States invents technology to control greenhouse gases, no super-complex international treaty will be needed. Nations will adopt greenhouse controls on their own, because it will be in their self-interest to do so. Smog and acid rain are declining almost everywhere, though are not governed by any international treaty; nations have decided to regulate smog and acid rain emissions on their own, because it is in their self-interest to do so.

 

The Deficit, as explained by an alcoholic

If each shot of whiskey represented a BILLION dollars...

 

 

Not bad, and pretty understandable, even for someone who doesn't drink...

Daily Five Minutes 1/21/10: Is it Romney's Mass. now?

Scott Brown got elected--a liberal Republican from a very, very liberal state. He overcame a 20 point deficit in less than a month, which is fairly unprecedented in politics ("Dewey Defeats Truman"-esque).  But he owes his meteoric rise from sacrificial lamb to US Senator to one of the Bay State's favorite sons, a politician with the golden touch.

No, not one of the Kennedys. Mitt Romney.

Romney believed in Brown before any one else. He leant Brown credibility by endorsing him early on. Then he leant his considerable organizational skills to the Brown campaign, believed in him through the early dark days of polling, helped him raise money--and he did all of this while not stealing the spotlight from Brown (unlike what Obama stole from Coakley).

Some believed that Brown ran away from Romney's legacy as Mass. governor, owing to the fact Romney championed and passed the Mass. version of universal health care. Nothing could be further from the truth. In his victory speech, Brown said:

I’m grateful to all those from across Massachusetts who came through for me even when I was a long shot. I especially thank a friend who was there with encouragement from the very beginning, and helped show us the way to victory - former Governor Mitt Romney.

I am an unabashed Romney fan. I believe that he would make a wonderful President. And, with his help, Scott Brown has just proved that a Republican can win in the liberal Northeast. Brown, however, is returning the favor.

Because of Brown's win, Romney should be the GOP front runner for President in 2012.

Daily Five Minutes 1/19/10: Coakley Shouldn't Be Kennedy

Martha Coakley wants to be a US Senator. Martha Coakley should not be allowed to represent any part of our government, and certainly not grace the seat held for decades by the Kennedys.

I am never confused with a Democratic Party apologist. I am conservative in action, though sometimes more moderate or liberal in thought. But I wouldn't vote for Coakley even if I were to the left of James Carville.

For decades the Kennedys (mostly Teddy, though JFK before him) represented Massachusetts and the Democrats well in the US Senate.. I don't have to agree with their policies or their politics to recognize good Senators when I see them. Teddy Kennedy was never meant to hold the highest office in the land--too volatile--and he is certainly no paragon of virtue--see Chappaquiddick. But he was a good senator, and an effective representative for strong liberal values. As a conservative, one could always count on Teddy to be consistent in his liberalism.

That consistency is a virtue.

Martha Coakley is a bumbling attorney who has always looked beyond the mark. When she was a prosecutor she inherited the toxic Amirault case...and prosecuted it beyond rational limits. Her career is littered with personal grand-standing and zero political consistency.  She stands for nothing.

In this day and age is celebrity really all we care about? Martha Coakley has attempted to become a "celebrity" lawyer, and thus advanced her career. She became Attorney General. Now she wants to be a Senator. But what qualifies her to represent Massachusetts? She has decided that celebrity status in politics is what qualifies her to be a Senator. In other words, she has become the Paris Hilton of the Democratic Party.

Much has been made of this seat not being "The Kennedy Seat" but "The People's Seat." Certainly her opponent, Scott Brown, would have you believe that this is not a seat to be "held" for a Democrat.

I disagree. I believe that the most liberal state in the Union deserves a strong liberal candidate to replace the Liberal Lion himself. I believe that there must be dozens of  qualified candidates out there who can stand for liberal values and represent their constituents well.  Massachusetts deserves that kind of strong representation--someone who follows the Kennedy's strong stance, and not the Me First approach of John Kerry. And Coakley is certainly more Kerry than Kennedy.

As a Republican, I drool over the possibility of reducing the Democrats majority in the Senate. I would love to have a GOP Senator from Massachusetts sending a message of opposition to Obamacare. But Massachusetts deserves better.  And even I can see that a reasoned debate, between consistent representatives of differing points of view, is healthy for our country's future.  We just won't get that debate from Martha "Paris Hilton for Senate" Coakley.

Daily Five Minutes 12/22/09--ClimateGate

The scientists that have been researching human-effected climate change in the UK have now admitted that they witheld or downright falsified data and research in order to further their position. To some this reflects the political nature of science, while to others it is more sinister, and nothing less than "sham science" to extort more money from governments.

I have a rather eclectic opinion on climate change, a mixture of "it's human driven therefore humans must reverse it" and "it's part of nature's cycles and there isn't much we can do about it." I was interested to find a pundit whose opinions quite nearly match my own. I found his comments in, of all places, a football column. To be fair, Gregg Easterbrook is a Fulbright Scholar who happens to write a good football column, but still...

Here is an excerpt from his column that is a good summary of the whole issue:

• There is indeed a strong scientific consensus regarding climate change. The deniers simply aren't honest about this.
• The consensus is that in the last century, air has warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit while the oceans have warmed a little and become slightly acidic; rainfall patterns have changed in some places, and most though not all ice melting has accelerated.
• That consensus is significant, but hardly means there is a crisis. Glaciers and sea ice, for example, have been in a melting cycle for thousands of years, while air warming has so far been good for farm yields. The doomsayers simply aren't honest about how mild the science consensus is.
• Predictions of global devastation -- climate change is a "profound emergency" that will "ravage our planet" -- are absurd exaggerations, usually motivated by political or fund-raising agendas.
• Climate change has serious possible negative consequences, especially if rainfall shifts away from agricultural regions.
• Global poverty, disease, dirty air and lack of clean water in developing world cities and lack of education are far higher priorities than greenhouse gas emissions.
• Smog and acid rain turned out to be far cheaper to control than predicted; the same may happen with greenhouse gases.
• The United States must regulate greenhouse gases in order to bring American brainpower, in engineering and in business, to bear on the problem.
• A carbon tax, not some super-complex cap-and-trade scheme that mainly creates jobs for bureaucrats and lawyers, would be the best approach.
• If the United States invents technology to control greenhouse gases, no super-complex international treaty will be needed. Nations will adopt greenhouse controls on their own, because it will be in their self-interest to do so. Smog and acid rain are declining almost everywhere, though are not governed by any international treaty; nations have decided to regulate smog and acid rain emissions on their own, because it is in their self-interest to do so.

I find it unusual and refreshing to have someone lay out the common sense of the matter. Thanks Gregg!

Missed me? Pick my Brain!

OK, so hardly anyone follows this blog anyway.  But for the four people who have been avid followers, I have decided to come back.  The past year has been eventful, as I have experienced the cow-induced broken arm, an understanding of the legal system (and how it deals with bi-polar disorder) as it applies to a close relative, a promotion at work followed by a change of employment (from employed to "independent contractor"), the loss of a parent, and any number of ideas, frustrations, etc. 

Blogging is hard work, as many a blogger will tell you. To make it easier on myself, I have decided to do a "Pick My Brain" entry daily (well, almost daily. Well...whenever I can).  "Pick My Brain" will be five minutes on what I am thinking about, curious about, or amused by on a given day.

Today's Pick My Brain is brought to you by the Obama administration. I want to believe in Obama--I really do. I think he is intelligent and likeable and wants to improve the lives of average Americans.  However, I think that this graph speaks for itself...

If you are having trouble understanding the graph, the lower line represents the Obama administration's projections of the unemployment rate as bolstered by their $780 billion stimulus plan. The upper line represents the "Do Nothing" line, and the red dots represent the actual performance of the economy under Obama. Result: DO NOTHING WINS BY A MILE!

Just as a reminder, here is the effect on our national debt courtesy of the stimulus plan...

In other words, the 10-year projected debt as generated by the "stimulus package" will, in each and every one of the ten years, DWARF the HIGHEST debt from the Bush years.

And that's what I'm thinking about today. Sigh.

If you are new to "News to Me," my personal favorite blog entries of the past are "My War" five years ago, and "Dolly's Small Voice" from four years ago. I also kinda like my "Open Letter to Senator McCain". Hopefully I will be able to write new favorites going forward but, who knows?

Obama/McCain Round One

First: debates do not decide elections. At most, in this day and age, debates push people to look up a few more things on the Internet. At worst, people start judging candidates by their appearances, and that is bad. So don't get too worked up by this, or any other, debate.

Second: this was a clear cut case of teacher and pupil.  McCain has been in the forefront of foreign affairs for 20+ years, and knows whereof he speaks.  Obama is like the bright, well-meaning, sit-at-the-front-of-the-class student who keeps saying to the professor, "But what about this? Wouldn't this work?"

And McCain is the professor.  

If you are judging a candidate for president based on foreign affairs strength, there is no debate--well, not a rational one, anyway.  By any measure McCain understands more, has a better grasp of more issues, has greater experience in international negotiations, etc than Obama and Biden put together.  This was supposed to be a foreign affairs debate: if so, score round one for McCain (regardless of the spin from the mainstream media).

The issue in our country is foundational--what is going to be the government's role in domestic issues, such as our current financial mess.  THAT debate should be much more interesting.

Rise in Defense

I love the writing of Bill Whittle (see my sidebar). He has a way of cutting through the muck of "common" opinion for some uncommon commentary. He works in Hollywood as a film/TV editor (you can even find him on IMDB). 

National Review has tapped him to write some columns for them.  Here is his latest, with some excerpts:

A few years before Tolkien put pen to paper [to write The Fellowship of the Ring], an event took place that a man of his education would have undoubtedly been aware. On February 9, 1933, the ruling elite of the world’s great Civilization held a debate in the Oxford Union. With thunderclouds growing dark across the English Channel, at a time when resolute action could still have averted the worst catastrophe the world has ever known, these elites resolved that “This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country.”

The Resolution passed by a vote of 275 to 153. Needless to say, this vote did not avert the fight. It guaranteed it.

This is akin to saying that we should cut and run in Iraq, or sit down with terrorists with "no preconceived agenda."  Whittle continues:

If you step far enough back to look at the whole of human history, you will begin to see a very plain rhythm: a heartbeat of civilization. Steep climbs out of disease and ignorance into the light of medicine and learning — and then a sudden collapse back into darkness. And it is in that darkness that most humans have lived their lives: poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

The pattern is always the same: at the height of a civilization’s powers something catastrophic seems to occur — a loss of will, a failure of nerve, and above all an unwillingness to identify with the values and customs that have produced such wonders.

Are we facing that moment--that "loss of will" or "failure of nerve"? Certainly Michelle Obama's assertion that she had never before been proud of her country until it nominated her husband for President states clearly a disdain for, nay an absence of patriotism. Standing up to that kind of opinion about our country

we find an old warrior — an old, beat-up warhorse standing up in defense of his city one last time. And beside him: a wonder. A common person… just a regular mom who goes to work, does a difficult job with intelligence and energy and grace and every-day competence and then puts it away to go home and have dinner with the family.

Whittle makes my blood boil--not with anger but with a desire to serve my country, and stand up for all its greatness against this sea of negativity.  I agree with Whittle (when don't I?) when he says:

When all is said and done, Civilizations do not fall because of the barbarians at the gates. Nor does a great city fall from the death wish of bored and morally bankrupt stewards presumably sworn to its defense. Civilizations fall only because each citizen of the city comes to accept that nothing can be done to rally and rebuild broken walls; that ground lost may never be recovered; and that greatness lived in our grandparents but not our grandchildren. Yes, our betters tell us these things daily. But that doesn’t mean we have to believe it.

Read the whole thing.  And then decide what you are going to do to increase those things that made our country great: self-reliance, hard work, community, integrity and common sense.

The Obama Campaign Hates Women

OK, so that title is more than a little inflammatory. Still, according to research done by The National Review Online (NRO):

Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.

Obama does not do all of the hiring and firing in his Senate office, but if I were running for president, and made a statement such as this one, from his Democratic Convention speech:

Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day’s work. I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as
your sons.

...I think that I would be very careful to make sure that my staff salaries matched my campaign pledge.

As usual, bloggers are great fact checkers. Check out this matching analysis done to support the NRO.

Politics as Usual

It is a true statement that neither party can claim the "moral high ground" when it comes to campaign tactics. Without much sleuthing, die hards of either party can find plenty of examples of campaign dirty tricks, exaggerations about an opponent's record, hack jobs on pictures, etc. No surprises here: politics is often dirty business.

This seems to be news to the Obama campaign, however. Bill Burton, national press secretary for Obama, said, in an exact quote to use Charles Gibson's term, that John McCain is running "the sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern presidential history."

Sheesh. Hyperbolize much?

I loved David Harsanyi's (Denver Post) take on McCain,Obama, and the "truthery" in this year's election. Speaking of Burton's assertion, Harsanyi says:

We can attribute one of the following to this claim: 1) Burton has just landed on the planet Earth; 2) Burton is attempting to manipulate the media; 3) Burton is "lying."

I pick 2. After all, we've all heard the self-serving myth that pits helpless, meek, high-minded, issue-oriented Democrats against mendacious and mean Republicans, who not only detest America — especially children and small vulnerable creatures — but will lie and
cheat to keep all oppressed.

Read the whole thing.