Sarah Palin, George Will, and Potemkin Debates
While I was away on vacation (it was wonderful, thanks for asking), the Washington Post editorial page featured opinion pieces from Sarah Palin and George Will, two of conservatism's leading leading, um, thinkers, revealing a great deal about the WaPo editorial page and the quality of conservative thinking.
Rebuttal has been ably carried out by many others, including Joe Romm (whose bald pate is belied by his youthful energy!). He demolishes Palin here and Will here.
Rather, a somewhat meta point. The debate over climate/energy legislation, at least as carried out between conservatives and everyone else, has taken on a surreal tinge. One might expect the media to respond, or notice, or react in some way, but outlets like the WaPo just keep carrying on as if the debate is perfectly normal.
The surreality comes from a simple fact: institutionally, as a movement and as a party, conservatives do not believe anthropogenic climate change exists. They don't think the problem the legislation is designed to solve is actually a problem.
You might think this would make for short debates. Conservatives could collectively sign on to a one-line op-ed:
"We do not believe in anthropogenic climate change, thus we do not support legislation to address it."
Period. Done. Right? But that doesn't happen. Instead you get peculiarities like Palin, droning on for 700 words about how the legislation is flawed because it doesn't promote domestic fossil fuel without once mentioning carbon emissions or climate change. You get Will analyzing the challenges of international climate negotiations and then mentioning, almost casually, at the end of his piece, "by the way, climate change isn't real."
But if climate change isn't real, of course we shouldn't be going through the wrenching process of trying to get off fossil fuels in a few short decades. Of course we shouldn't be beating our heads against a wall trying to get China and India to agree to constrain their growth. It's pointless even discussing those things.
If I simply refused to acknowledge the federal deficit, would Fred Hiatt have me on the WaPo editorial page analyzing the merits of deficit reduction proposals? Of course not. I don't believe the $%*# thing exists! Of course I don't support policies to reduce it.
By greenlighting Potemkin arguments about this or that climate policy from the likes of Palin and Will, the WaPo is giving conservatives a pass. Rejection of settled science is treated as a footnote. But without a shared set of facts, there are no rules, no constraints. Republicans can cavalierly demagogue anything Democrats offer, because hell, it's all just funny talk, a game of make believe.
There will never be a policy proposal sensible enough to gain support from people who do not acknowledge the problem the proposal is meant to address. You'd think that fact would merit notice!
So here's my modest proposal for Fred Hiatt and his ilk: Any conservative who writes about climate/energy legislation should be required to begin by stating clearly whether he or she believes the scientific consensus on warming. That fundamental fact colors everything else, so put it up front.
If they do not accept the science, then fine, let them tell us their preferred carbon-insensitive energy policy. Their fellow non-believers can debate the merits.
If they do accept the science, they can't simply reject the moderate (and inadequate) Democratic proposals for addressing the problem contained in ACES. They have to tell us how they would solve the problem. That's the benchmark.
That simple proposal won't make the climate debate sensible -- let's be realistic about our ambitions -- but it would move beyond the pretense that people like Palin and Will are involved in a good-faith debate.
Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/david_h_roberts
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Today's Republican: Global warming is a myth, evolution never happened, God regularly intervenes in human affairs, America is God's chosen nation on Earth, the Universe is only 6,000 years old, ACORN, Al Sharpton and George Soros control the Obama Administration, and unregulated free market principles make everything wonderful. Oh, and Republicans can say anything they want about Democrats and liberals, but not the other way around, because that would be mean.
Clavis, you got it exactly right!!
Today's polital conservatives: I got mine. I want more. Everyone else be damned.
As my high school Latin teacher used to say of such types, "Hoist the ladder, Jack - I'm aboard!"
weather or not you believe in global warming, it seems to me, you should care about the quality of the air you breath. remember when gas had lead? Kids in some urban areas had alarmingly high levels of lead in their blood. we basically poisoned a whole generation. That was totally man made.
i believe in global warming, and i believe despite whatever background variations occure, human beings are behind the bulk of this warming, but.....
I'm quite honestly allot more worried about PEAK OIL then climate change.
I somtimes wonder if some members of the climate change crowed are using it as a way to get us to deal with depletion...??????
????
Actually, some scientists are starting to have a different view-not the conservitive "pretend the problem doesn't exist or we didn't cause it so we can make money for one more year," view, of course.
Rather, "It is too late, we should start looking at mitigating the effects, not trying to stop it."
Congrats deniers, you muddled the water so long that it is too late now, we will all just have to see the changes, and remember the effects of letting short term profit trump long term good.
Anyone who wants to know why we are hosed, look up permafrost. Basically, a lot of peat is frozen, trapping CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses), in Alaska, Canada, etc. Once that peat warms up, it releases all the greenhouse gasses it holds.
There is no consensus among scientists concerning global warming, man-made or otherwise. In fact, most of those scientists who are not on the take by virtue of creating global warming hysteria and the resultant "research"jobs funded by the taxpayer, acknowledge that there is no reliable evidence supporting the claims. You call this "settled science"? Have you ever actually read arguments to the contrary? Doubtful. Sarah Palin and George Will are not scientists. Neither are you. But at least they have the courage to speak the truth and expose the lies.
And I bet no matter how many birth certificates you see from Hawaii, nothing will convince you they are valid.
By the way, when the overwhelming number of respected scientists say one thing, and a (very) few other scientists say the contrary, that means THERE IS A CONSENSUS. A few dissenting voices does not mean there is a serious debate.
Using glacier cores we can see the CO2 concentrations of the air for millions of years. Today's levels are the highest ever. The next highest year? Last year. The 3rd highest year ever? 2 years ago.
And this isn't small numbers either, CO2 levels are about 35% higher than they were before the industrial revolution.
So we suddenly start pumping out CO2, and CO2 levels reach the highest level ever, but you doubt we caused it? How does that work?
stick 458s mind is made up and nothing can change it.
he's a true scientist!
Sources please?
The glacier ice cores you refer to give us data only about 400,000 years back. However, they show that CO2 levels were slightly higher than now in the previous interglacial period, some 100K+ years ago.
If you want to talk about millions or hundreds of millions of years back, CO2 levels were *much* higher than today, up to 7,000 ppm:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm
OK, I believe the earth has warmed.
I am not convinced mankind has had
anything to do with it. Where does
that leave us. My bet would be that
you could not convince an unpredisposed
jury that mankind had caused it either.
For to do so, you would have to
bring out climate models and computer
programs that model the climate.
These are similar to weather prediction
programs and hurricane prediction
programs. Their accuracy falls off
the farther into the future you go.
Beyond a few days or weeks, they
produce no reliable informaiton.
The way the programs are created
is with an almost limitless number
of "parameters". These parameters
are adjusted until the program
accurately predicts the past. In other
words, the programs are
adjusted until they are reasonably
close in predicting the past known
weather and climates. They are then
turned lose on the future.
We are half way through spending
an enormous amount of money to
address a problem (we're not solving
it, just addressing it) defined
by these computer programs. This is
right up there with the Dutch folks that
bought all those tulips in 1637.
Most people believe it is time to move
beyond oil, but Pelosi's Cap and
Tax America bill is not the way to
do it. After reading most of it, the bill
is a very bad law and should simply
be forgotten or shevled forever. There
is almost nothing in it of any value to
America or the world.
why would you ask a jury to decide the validity of something like this?
that's literally like polling random people you meet on the street about how to treat your cancer. it makes no sense. not everything is a poll.
here's the way common sense works. if you are interested in addressing a topic, than get professionals in the field to form a consensus and evaluate the validity of those who disagree.
but choosing uninformed people to decide the direction of something most of them know nothing about is ludicrous. on top of that, choosing average Americans, who are known world wide for their ignorance, arrogance, and lack of any intellectual curiosity is a horrible ideas. if you absolutely must, at least go to a country where the average IQ is greater than my shoe size. don't agree. case in point - your comment.
and the rest of your prattle was devoid of any links or sources supporting you. they were all I-believe, take-my-word-for-it, and ya-everyone-knows-this-is-true rational.
thanks for your OPINION. it was useless.
Excellent reply!
do you believe in evolution?
At least you recognize the warming. Good start. Now recognize that we can either accept the exponential growth of greenhouse gases until earth becomes a dust bowl and life is obliterated, or we can try to do something about it.
The US produces 1/4 of the world's CO2 emmissions. We have the greatest responsibility to do what is humanly possible to slow the warming and what we have the greatest control over is the production of CO2.
I believe every country should have the right to produce a per-capita quantity of CO2 and no more. (India should be the baseline, as the lowest per-capita producer). All excess CO2 over the allowed quantity should be severely taxed, with the money going into global renewable energy research, development and implementation.
Great piece!
Are you joking?
Let's see. If antropological Global Warming is true, then as the amount of manmade CO2 increases, the earth's temperature should change in a similar fashion.
The recent evidence: The amount of manmade CO2 released each year has actually increased more than anyone expected. On the other hand, the earth's temperature has not increased over the past 12 years.
Yes it has!
Here is the data. You can look it up and plot it yourself. We are still warming. You can use other global temperature data sets and get the same result. I took the yearly average temperature and averaged it each decade starting in 1880. The last point is 2000 to 2008. Results in degrees.
-0.26 1880 to 1889
-0.27 1890 to 1899
-0.26 1900 to 1909
-0.29 1910 to 1919
-0.15 1920 to 1929
-0.03 1930 to 1939
0.06 1940 to 1949
-0.03 1950 to 1959
-0.02 1960 to 1969
-0.01 1970 to 1979
0.18 1980 to 1989
0.32 1990 to 1999
0.51 2000 to 2008
SOURCE GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in .01 C base period: 1951-1980 sources: GHCN 1880-01/2009 + SST: 1880-11/1981 HadISST1 12/1981-01/2009 Reynolds v2 using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment Notes: 1950 DJF = Dec 1949 - Feb 1950 ; ***** = missing
I admire your fortitude in beating your head against this wall, but please bear in mind that the denialist is impervious to data.
damn liberals and their numbers.
it hurts my brain thingy. my eyes are watering. are you happy now?
and everyone knows that this warming is due to the Care Bear stare. All that love be generating some heat. so it's really the Care Bears' fault. I bet you they're liberals. With all that love and caring. They're definitely not conservatives, who love only money.
Take a close look at the sources of temperature readings that produce the data. 69% of the temperature sensors audited to date fail to meet the standard criteria for valid temperature measurement, because they are too close to external heat sources.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Yes, the Conservatives lie, deceive and distract.
And ACES is one of the Bait and Switch Lies!
ACES is a derivative trading bill, the largest in history.
ACES gives 60B$ subsidies to the very worst polluter: Coal.
Aces does nothing for rooftop solar which is 3 cents per KWH NOW. even a billion dollar to NanoSolar would allow them to build 300 Factories for 3 million$ each, allow the production of 300GW of super low cost solar panels PER YEAR.
And BioFUels , BioChar gets nothing.
How can you fall for this deception, this Trojan horse of a "Climate" Bill?
See my profile for proof.
Well said.
A lot of the problem is lack of a broad vision.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/07/disparate-or-equal-climate-change.html
Can we please stop pretending this woman has any credentials whatsoever? She is clearly only discussed by Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan + any business associates they convince to join them in pretending she is any kind of potential candidate just to get her a good price on her book contract, which will be entirely written by someone else.
but she's cute. like a wild and savage bear is before it rips of your face and feeds on your carcass.
she's hot? maybe? but it really is hard to see past all the evil.
she's amusing? like a clown. she makes me laugh. she's amusing, much like a train wreck. it's horrible and scary, but you just can't look away.
Palin/Jindal 2012. Jindal/some random dude 2014 and 1/2.
Who cares what benighted and sellout Sarah and George Will think? They are not scientists.
Sarah painfully finished a journalism degree spread over five universities.
If you don't believe in climate change, you MIGHT want to read the Newsweek article linked here:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/208164
The title is "Climate Change. Why It's Worse Than We Feared.
What I know is this. When I was in the Navy in the early 1970's, my ship came back from Yokosuka via the northern route along the Aleutians passing through Glacier Bay down west of the Inland Passage. At that time, the glacier the bay was named for was abutting right on the bay. I went back there on an Alaskan Cruise in 2007. By that time, the glacier had receded 5 miles up the fjord. That meant it was no longer Glacier Bay, but Glacier Fjord. This in just 35 years. What the article also mentions is the estimates of carbon trapped in the world's permafrost had to be trebled to 1.6 Trillion Metric tons.
It's beginning to look like any human attempts to forstall climate change are futile and that we have already passed the tipping point. If Ms. Palin or Mr. Will still don't believe in it, I suggest they put their money where their mouths are and buy land in the Florida Keys. I'm sure they would find quite a few willing sellers.
Please spare us... it only takes a small amount of common sense to understand that no one can accurately predict global weather decades from now, our science can't even tell if it's going to rain next month! The globe may indeed be warming and it may be caused by man but no one knows with any degree of accuracy what the outcome will be. You are dreaming if you think Americans are going to spend billions of dollars in self inflicted taxes and other costs to switch off carbon because some lefty weather witch doctors say the sky is falling. And even if we did, China, India, and the rest of the world have different priorities and our billions worth of pain will have no effect.
If you Cap & Tax fans could look past your hatred of Oil Companies and your preconceived notions of some hippie green utopia you could see that what we need is a new cleaner, and cheaper source of energy... before we trash the system we have! We need a clean base power system that works 24/7, costs less than coal and will not poison our grandchildren or be possible to make weapons with it's waste. We would not need any taxes or protests to get the world to switch over, they will beat a path to our door. The clean solution needs to come first to have any hope of being widely adopted by the world. Deal with it, and let's get to work!
Your facts are wrong. There is a difference between weather and climate.
"While variations occur throughout the temperature record, shorter-term variations do not contradict the overwhelming long-term increase in global surface temperatures since 1850, when reliable meteorological recordkeeping began. Year to year, we may observe in some parts of the world colder or warmer episodes than in other parts, leading to record low or high temperatures. This regional climate variability does not disprove long-term climate change. While 2008 was slightly cooler than 2007, partially due to a La Niña event, it was nonetheless the 10th-warmest year on record."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032003191.html?sub=AR
yes, let's use common sense. good idea.
conservative common sense hasn't led us wrong yet. what could possibly go wrong?
"it only takes a small amount of common sense to understand that no one can accurately predict global weather decades from now, our science can't even tell if it's going to rain next month!" And this is why science is not based on initial impressions or "common sense", but by accepting what the data says, even if it is decidedly counterintuitive. "Hey, the doctor wasn't able to tell me precisely what day my cancer will kill me -- so I must not have cancer!" Is that how you think?
"If you Cap & Tax fans could look past your hatred of Oil Companies..." Ah, I see. You suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome. You're so unhinged by your irrational hatred of President Obama that you're incapable of thinking clearly. I pity you. Please go get some therapy.
Thank you for your suggestion, I can see therapy will always be a big part of your life. Your scientists have done a great job of fixing this whole cancer thing so I'm sure they have the answer to this problem. Let's put a stiff tax on cancer and make it higher every year. This will discourage people from getting cancer?
For the record I voted for President Obama and I support him on many other issues, but wishing something will happen (Single Payer?) is not going to make it happen. Trillions of dollars worth of cheap coal that is easily available all around the world and oil that can be extracted at a cost to the producers of less than $10 a barrel will not go away anytime in the next 100 years just because you don't like it. And if they have it, they will burn it! Taxing ourselves will not change the worlds need for massive and increasing amounts of cheap energy. So you can spend your day fact checking and arguing about weather vs climate, it will not change anything. No matter how high American energy taxes are, the world will find tax free cheap energy somewhere else. And that is where our jobs will end up!
Oh, I see you have written over 2400 comments? Please take off your star trek pajamas and go outside once in a while. That's called the real world air head.
Potemkin village strategy?
1. Invoke the abhorred "Palin" or Cheney or other bete noire. Invoke "conservative" labeling in hopes of silencing debate by shaming.
2. Pretend there is no wide debate outside insider non-scientific publishers like "George Will", tear down strawman.
3. Do not mention "cap and trade" and its utter failure in Europe.
I do not think it is working any more.
Cap and trade isn't ideal legislation, but you can't pretent it's a failure. Cap and trade has been in place in the U.S. for twenty years for sulfur dioxide emisisons. The world hasn't ended yet.
huge difference, quill. SO2 involved a much smaller area, a subset of the US, and few industries. The current cap and trade will involve ALL the energy sector.
conservative strategy?
1. invoke socialism and God.
2. pretend everything is alright and pray to God. then don't forget to mention that the Godless scientists can't be right. Pray to God some more. also pray to Palin.
3. don't forget to mention that although cap and trade is NOT ideal, it does help and at least we're not going down the same blighted path set by conservatives who want to do NOTHING.
4. pray to God.
5. if global warming is real, it's Gods will and it's OK. the rapture is supposed to come soon anyway. why not hurry it up a little. God's kinda fickle that way. he really needs to make up his mind. set a date for the rapture already. I'm not getting any younger. what the deal-yo?
bring on this rapture thing. it's like when you have sex for the first time. you wait, and wait, and wait. isn't the rapture supposed to be all fire and brim stone? so I guess global warming really is God's plan.
pfrogger, although it doesn't fit with your narrow view of the world, the conservative strategy is posted below. There are common sense approaches to the problem that do not involve larger government bureaucracy, nor a trading scheme for Wall Street. I don't understand the liberal anger at the big Banks, and then the slobbering desire to make them even richer with cap and trade, especially when there is virtually no environmental impact with the bill for years. Conversion to NG immediately would do all that you want: why not start with that? See Robt. Kennedy's article about conversion of coal plants to natural gas posted today: Maybe if the idea comes from a liberal you can get behind it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
