Month: December 2009

An AGW skeptic explains how he rationalizes the oyster guy:

Your question for "climate denialists", as to how we can explain the work of conscientious scientists detailing how a warming climate changes ecosystems, is incredibly simple. The world's climate has always been changing, and it has always represented a stressful environment for the ecosystem. In fact, that's one of the main sources of evolution – changing climate conditions. It's no accident that the the last three million years of human evolution, in which we developed our intelligence and culture, all occurred during a time of large climate instability. These stresses forced us to evolve in order to survive. So let's not presume that all climate change is bad for us, even when it's difficult.

More importantly, the "denial" in the anti-AGW crowd is not in relation to the "GW" (global warming), it's in relation to the "A" (anthropomorphic anthropogenic). Denialists don't question that warming has occurred over the last 150 years. They question the cause of it, and the implication that it will worsen if humans continue to burn fossil fuels. Scientists working on oysters have no idea what causes the temperature to go up, they only document the changes that occur in the ecosystem. Nothing in their work lends even the slightest support to the notion that human beings have caused these changes by burning greenhouse gases. I'm sure when the next ice age begins, the stress on the ecosystem will be even greater, just as it has been at many times in the recent past, but the cause won't be reflected in these kinds of studies.

One of the insidious aspects of switching from the term "global warming" to "climate change" to define this controversy is the notion that any form of change in our climate is unnatural and wrong. This is simply false. Climate has always changed, and it has always put stress on ecosystems. Ecosystems have always changed in response. That's what evolution is all about. It's ugly, messy, even cruel. We don't live in a temperature-controlled bubble. The real world changes all the time. That's part of what the email controversy is about – the attempt by a small group of climate scientists to massage the data about our recent past to make it seem that our climate has been an unchanging constant for a very long time, when it simply has not. Sympathies for polar bears and oysters not-withstanding, none of these studies has any bearing on the central claim that these changes primarily or significantly due to human activity. The group of scientists whose work supports this notion is actually quite small, and their methods and conclusions are the ones that "denialists" are addressing.

The Dish doesn't endorse all of these opinions, but we asked the question and it is only fair to post a response. Yglesias had some tangentally related thoughts about David Koch, climate change, and evolution a few days ago.

Frum is frustrated by the GOP failing to negotiate over health care or a carbon tax:

We’re getting worse and less conservative results out of Washington than we could have negotiated, if we had negotiated.

As is, we’re betting heavily that a bad economy will collapse Democratic support without us having to lift a finger. Maybe that will happen. But existing party strategy has to be reckoned a terrible failure. Most Republicans will shrug off that news. If polls are right, rank-and-file Republicans feel little regard for the Washington party, and don’t expect much from it. But it’s the rank-and-file who are the problem here! Republican leaders do not dare try deals for fear of being branded sell-outs by a party base that wants war to the knife. So we got war. And we’re losing. Even if we gain seats in 2010, the actions of this congressional session will not be reversed. Shrink Medicare after it has expanded? Hey- we said we’d never do that.

I hear a lot of talk about the importance of “principle.” But what’s the principle that obliges us to be stupid?

Kathleen Parker uncritically quotes Rick Santorum calling himself a "limited government" conservative. David Boaz points to an old NPR interview of Santorum:

He declared himself against individualism, against libertarianism, against “this whole idea of personal autonomy, . . . this idea that people should be left alone.” Andrew Sullivan [in 2006] directed our attention to a television interview in which the senator from the home state of Benjamin Franklin and James Wilson denounced America’s Founding idea of “the pursuit of happiness.” If you watch the video, you can hear these classic hits: “This is the mantra of the left: I have a right to do what I want to do” and “We have a whole culture that is focused on immediate gratification and the pursuit of happiness . . . and it is harming America.”

Parker says that Santorum is “sometimes referred to as the conscience of Senate Republicans.” Really? By whom? Surely not by Reaganites, or by people who believe in limited government.

Senators Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg have teamed up to create a bipartisan commission to reduce the federal budget deficit. Chait scrutinizes the plan:

Let me get this straight. You have a commission proposing a package of highly unpopular legislative changes. And, in addition to having to surmount the 60-vote barrier in the Senate, which is nearly insurmountable for major legislation and which was avoided for both of the last two major deficit-reducing bills, it's also going to impose a new supermajority requirement in the House and a 78% threshold in the commission itself?

To say that this procedure "is designed to get results" shows a very odd understanding of American political institutions. Conrad and Gregg seem to think that instituting major reforms in the public interest is rare because the threshold for passing legislation is too low.

The former attorney general tells Esquire:

All the internal investigations are over with, no finding of wrongdoing, no finding that I misled Congress.* So I'm gratified by that, but I'm certainly not surprised by it. But anyway, it creates impressions. And yeah, it takes some time to work through that. And that's what I'm trying to do now.

And that asterisk?

*Editor's note: A 2008 Department of Justice investigation was referred to a federal prosecutor and remains ongoing.

Keep "trying," Alberto.

The Pew Center on Climate Change digs into (pdf) the Climategate scandal.

A reader writes:

Greenwald is in error when he states that people like me who don't identify with the left anymore (I now consider myself an open-minded moderate) want no criticism of Obama. By all means, dissent and dialogue on every issue. That is what brings a deeper understanding to all. What I object to is the nutty dogmatism, the "Obama is a liar!," "Obama is Bush/Cheney," "Obama is… whatever." It's those folks screaming about what Obama isn't doing and what he should do who seem to have invested him with Godlike qualities, not the more pragmatic of us.

They do seem to have seen him as the savior that the right was constantly suggesting many viewed him as. That he would wave his magic wand and all our problems would just evaporate. It's a very immature view with a lot of foot-stopping that seems more emotionally invested than those of us who thought he was smart, thoughtful, compassionate, and broad-minded, and would bring those qualities into all his decision-making. That's what I was looking for and that's what I'm getting.

Another reader adds:

Greenwald seems to be writing off personality traits like they are irrelevant and secondary to policy decisions, but while they may be secondary they are far from irrelevant. The point is that most of us on the outside have to form our opinions with relatively little to go on (that’s why there are so many reflexive warmongers or reflexive peaceniks.) I am not privy to most of the information the president has when making his Afghanistan decisions. I’m am also not former military, and don’t have in depth knowledge of military strategy and logistics, so while I do have an opinion on Afghanistan, I think it is most important that the president (the person with access to that knowledge) have certain personality traits that I think are conducive to finding the best solution. I think this is far more important than him reflexively supporting my uninformed opinion.

Today on the Dish we covered some residual protests out of Iran and watched a unsettling clip of Basji brutality. Maddow tackled gay conversion and Uganda, Noah Pollak shared Andrew's view of the US-Israeli fissure, Yglesias talked about outspending the Taliban, and DiA and a Dish reader shared their thoughts on the suicide bomber interview.

On the domestic front, Ambinder fisked Palin on climate-gate, a reader corrected her view of history, Jon Stewart called out the condescension of "Fox and Friends," Ezra was optimistic about Medicare expansion, Chait added his thoughts, Radley Balko discussed the Huckabee scandal, Ross followed up Rosin on divorce rates, and Greenwald targeted some Dish readers. Steven Teles talked cap and trade while Free Exchange and a reader considered carbon tariffs. This viral video was most amusing.

In home news, we're proud to announce that all 3,000 books printed for the holiday launch have been sold. A big thanks to all the Dish readers who helped make it happen. You can still purchase "The View From Your Window" at the regular Blurb price here.

— C.B.

This Maddow clip has been getting some deserved attention:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bloomberg reports that the death penalty and life imprisonment may be stripped from the Ugandan bill in favor of forcing gays into “counseling.” Jim Burroway keeps in mind the other sections of the bill. It would:

* Criminalize all speech and peaceful assembly for those who advocate on behalf of LGBT citizens in Uganda with fines and imprisonment of between five and seven years.

* Criminalize the act of obtaining a same-sex marriage abroad with lifetime imprisonment. This penalty may be reduced in the new version, but the act still appears to be criminalized to some extent.

* Add a clause which forces friends or family members to report LGBT persons to police within 24-hours of learning about that individual’s homosexuality or face fines or imprisonment of up to three years.

* Add an extra-territorial and extradition provisions, allowing Uganda to prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad.

* Void all international treaties, agreements and human rights obligations which conflict with this bill.

One of his readers asks:

I wonder if they didn’t initially include the death penalty in this bill as a ploy, knowing they would bargain it away so that once it was gone the rest of the bill wouldn’t seem so extreme.

Jonathan Chait rubs his crystal ball:

The one real landmine here is that the Medicare buy-in provision for people aged 55-65 raises a lot of hackles among medical providers. They could mount a last-minute lobbying campaign to pressure Democrats to abandon this. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that happen. If that happens, you probably lose the Medicare buy-in but keep the trigger. Either way, the outcome is a historic health care bill.