The last gasp of the global warming movement?

Corporatism, Environment, Vulgar Politics
Share

Are the global warming climate change oh-god-we’re-all-going-to-die-unless-you-move-into-a-yurt-right-NOW activists breathing their last in their attempt to save civilization by destroying it?  Shika Dalmia seems to think so:

Future historians will pinpoint Democratic Sen. Harry Reid’s energy legislation, released last Tuesday, as the moment that the political movement of global warming entered an irreversible death spiral. It is kaput! Finito! Done!

This is not just my read of the situation; it is also that of Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate-turned-Democratic-apparatchik. In his latest column for The New York Times, Krugman laments that “all hope for action to limit climate change died” in 2010. Democrats had a brief window of opportunity before the politics of global warming changed forever in November to ram something through Congress. But the Reid bill chose not to do so for the excellent reason that Democrats want to avoid an even bigger beating than the one they already face at the polls.

Unsurprisingly the Dems’ political mortality is the primary reason for backing off from any significant global warming legislation, as opposed to the very logical conclusion that you can’t regulate people’s demand for energy by taxing its production any more than you can regulate their demand for meth by hiding the Sudafed behind the pharmacy counter.

Dalmia goes on to point out that, contra Paul Krugman’s condemnation of the greedy energy companies, they are just as hosed by the demise of global warming initiatives as the greenies:

The truth is that there never has been an environmental issue that has enjoyed greater corporate support. Early in the global warming crusade, a coalition of corporations called United States Climate Action Partnership was formed with the express purpose of lobbying Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It included major utilities (Duke Energy) and gas companies (BP) that stood to gain by hobbling the coal industry through a cap-and-trade scheme. Meanwhile, the Breakthrough Institute, a highly respected liberal outfit whose mission is to rejuvenate the progressive movement in this country, points out that environmental groups spent at least $100 million over the past two years executing what was arguably the best mobilization campaign in history. Despite all of this, notes Breakthrough, there is little evidence to suggest that cap-and-trade would have mustered more than 43 votes in the Senate.

Not only are Democrats and Republicans unwilling to touch cap-and-trade legislation, but they’re finally waking up to the fact that related boondoggles such as the ethanol subsidy, which has fattened the coffers of Big Ag for years, ain’t worth it either.

As more doubts are raised about the integrity of the science behind global warming (hint: it’s not just about Climategate), the less it seems likely that the global warming alarmists will gain the political leverage to put their disastrous economic plans into action.  But there’s always another IPCC report just around the corner, ready to stoke the flames of climate change fear once more.  Perhaps the planet would cool off for a bit, were it not for all the gas escaping from climate scientists and politicians.

The last gasp of the global warming movement? Read Post »

Look out for that bus!

Democracy, Humor, Vulgar Politics
Share

Pop quiz: What do Rod Blagojevich, Forrest Claypool, Samantha Power, Jim Johnson, Louis Farrakhan, Bernadine Dohrn, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Trinity United Church of Christ, Father Michael Pfleger, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Alice Palmer, and the Armenians all have in common?

Give up?

Answer: Barack Obama has thrown them all under the bus at some point.

Faustian Bargains: you're safer making them with the devil than with Obama.

Hey, Charles Rangel: welcome to the party, pal!

Barry and Charlie, best friends forev... DOH!

Look out for that bus! Read Post »

“Getting Past” Race

Racism, Vulgar Politics
Share

NYTimes.com has an article about, the Obama election notwithstanding, Americans’ hysterical reactions to racial issues. There have been many articles and blog postings lately about whether or not this is “post-racial America.” I think the furor over Shirley Sherrod’s speech is a clear indication that race is as much a current issue as ever. This really should come as no surprise. Race has always been a government issue in the USA. From the state-sponsored slave trade through to affirmative action, in America, race and the state have always been intimately intertwined. Considering this, it is hardly a surprise that people “never get past it.” You might as well say “why haven’t we gotten past war?”

“Getting Past” Race Read Post »

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

(Austrian) Economics, Nanny Statism, Vulgar Politics
Share

According to this Boston Globe article, How facts backfire, people are not persuaded by facts, and this does not bode well for the future of democracy as people’s perceptions (and voting decisions) are unaltered by “evidence”.  In one experiment researchers ask people to guess how much the government spends on welfare and how much they should spend.  One group is told the “correct” answer of 1% ahead of time, while the other one is not …

There are also some cases where directness works. Kuklinski’s welfare study suggested that people will actually update their beliefs if you hit them “between the eyes” with bluntly presented, objective facts that contradict their preconceived ideas. He asked one group of participants what percentage of its budget they believed the federal government spent on welfare, and what percentage they believed the government should spend. Another group was given the same questions, but the second group was immediately told the correct percentage the government spends on welfare (1 percent). They were then asked, with that in mind, what the government should spend. Regardless of how wrong they had been before receiving the information, the second group indeed adjusted their answer to reflect the correct fact.

Apparently some ideologues are unpersuaded by facts, but others manipulate them to justify their agendas. Looking at US Government Spending, lets find out what government welfare spending is …

If one excludes about $987,400,000,000.00 dollars in social security/retirement, and excludes another $1,046,600,000,000.00 dollars in education, and excludes another $1,090,200,000,000.00 dollars in health care expenses, and includes only federal spending leaving out about another $200,000,000,000.00 dollars in state spending.  That leaves about $557,000,000,000.00 dollars in the welfare category, which is about 15% of total federal-only spending, and about 8.3% of total government spending including the states.

However, if one digs down into the sub-categories of the welfare category and excludes another $194,000,000,000.00 dollars in unemployment, and excludes another $77,000,000,000.00 dollars in housing, and excludes another $186,000,000,000.00 dollars in “social exclusion” (which sure looks like welfare, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt). That leaves about $99,000,000,000.00 in the “Family and Children” category.  Which would be about 2.6% of federal-only spending, and about 1.5% of total government spending including the states, which in theory could be rounded down to 1%.

So in theory it could indeed be argued that the correct amount that government spends on welfare is 1%, but it could be better argued that facts, statistics, and semantics are being manipulated using a pointless definition of “welfare” to associate it with all entitlement spending in general and confound people who correctly and intuitively know we live in a world where entitlements have run amok.

The article is right about one thing. Some people (including the mainstream media) are not persuaded by facts, and the future does not bode well for democracy (not to be confused with liberty).

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics Read Post »

Rush half wrong, Keith half right

Racism, Vulgar Politics
Share

Keith Olbermann, pompous asininity of MSNBC, this week attacked another infamous asininity, Rush Limbaugh, for an allegedly racist rant. At the end of Olberman’s stock-in-trade worst-of-the-worse critique, he asks Oprah to “crush this schmuck.” (Consult the Huffington Post for the video, if you are interested in Olbermann’s full intellectual monty.) Rush’s offense? This:

[Obama] wouldn’t have been voted president if he weren’t black. Somebody asked me over the weekend why does somebody earn a lot of money have a lot of money, because she’s black. It was Oprah. No, it can’t be. Yes, it is. There’s a lot of guilt out there, show we’re not racists, we’ll make this person wealthy and big and famous and so forth….

This sort of rant would not be interesting if either Limbaugh or his critic, Olbermann, were wholly right or wholly wrong. But, as usual in the punditocracy, both sides appear to veer off the true Tao and embrace crude facsimiles of wisdom.

First, Rush’s contention that Oprah is a talentless beneficiary of reverse discrimination strikes me as borderline crazy. …

Rush half wrong, Keith half right Read Post »

Scroll to Top