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
Today's polital conservatives: I got mine. I want more. Everyone else be damned.
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...??????
????
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.
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.
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?
he's a true scientist!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
A lot of the problem is lack of a broad vision.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/07/disparate-or-equal-climate-change.html
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.
Sarah painfully finished a journalism degree spread over five universities.
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.
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!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032003191.html?sub=AR
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.
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.