EFFin’ Unsound

So I guess Bruce Chapman thinks that totally disproves global warming.

What Happened to Global Warming Issue?

It’s still there. It’s still worrisome. It’s still urgent.

The strange life of policy issues has one replacing another as the two year presidential marathon campaign closes. Supposedly vital issues aren’t resolved, just shed. Global warming, for example, was on every TV screen this time a year ago - Climate change ‘Cold War’ looms, Climate change a ‘mega disaster’, Climate outlook ‘beyond grim’ - but now come back of the newspaper stories of record early snows from the Alps to the Cascades (of the Pacific Northwest). The October cold snap in Florida beats a 150 year record (though I must suspiciously wonder who was keeping accurate modern records in 1858).

It’s been really cold in Alaska this year. The glaciers are filling up. What does that mean? Apparently, definable global warming slowed or stopped a decade ago. Is that true? Why aren’t we hearing about the reasons?

Yes, of course we shouldn’t look to daily or even yearly figures for support for macro-climate theories. But, if that is so, why were they used to explain the significance of hurricanes and warming weather phenomena only a couple of years ago–until the temperatures dropped?

In general, I support many policies that also are backed by people alarmed by global warming. Plug-in hybrid cars. Experiments with algae as an alternate fuel. Government encouragement of solar. Certainly nuclear power and natural gas. (However, I also support “clean coal” and drilling off-shore, in Alaska and in shale to help us replace imported oil.) Yet the global warming analysis is a separate matter. It has been used to harass people and make them feel guilty for a lifestyle of abundance and to promote increased government control over people’s lives. In other words, it has an element of liberal ideology about it. If the assumptions behind the global warming analysis are wrong, we risk losing common ground for policies that would promote greater energy conservation, developing new fuel sources and holding down costs for consumers. It would be nice therefore to see greater skepticism–and honesty–on this topic.

- posted by demo kid

…I give you David Brooks, newest convert to behavioral economics. Very good antidote to the pablum from Chicago School drones that the free market will solve everything.

Also a much better discussion than making fun of some sad fellow asking, “Why does goverment [sic] refuse to reveal secrets about UFOs?”

– posted by thehim

Haven’t checked out The Closet in a while. Gary Randall is still up to his usual routine:

Recently, Senator Ed Murray, D-Seattle, openly gay and leader of the gay agenda in the Washington State Legislature, sent a message to Faith and Freedom, telling us that he was going to present a bill for gay marriage in the 2009 legislative session. His message was posted on our website comments.

I love the internet.

Several years ago, I, along with a couple of Christian lawyers, was mocked for saying that the homosexual agenda was in fact not about “equality” and” fairness,” but was a slippery slope that would lead to so-called “gay marriage.”

You were mocked because, as a rule, “slippery slopes” are supposed to lead to bad places.

(more…)

Michael Medved is clinging to the myth of the values voters.

Values issues, prominently including the defense of marriage and the right to life, may end up playing an unexpectedly large role in this election. Those issues are important — not even at a time of economic crisis, but especially at a time of economic crisis.

“Well, we might lose the house. And Joey’s off to his third tour in Iraq. Our last decades’ worth of retirement money was wiped out in this terrible market, and I just lost my insurance at work. Let’s vote McCain/Palin, there are gays marrying somewhere.”

Controversies regarding the future of the family aren’t a distraction from financial challenges; for most Americans, there’s an inescapable connection between economic and values issues. Nothing brings long-term security and prosperity more reliably than a stable, traditional family life and nothing predisposes people for life of poverty more than out-of-wedlock birth and marital chaos. The educational success of our children, which directly determines their future financial future, depends more on the values they learn at home than the quality of their schools. Learning to work hard, to save money and to live within your means remains a dependable path to economic advancement and the failure to learn those lessons (especially by political and business leaders) helped to create the current crisis.

George H.W. Bush is an awful parent.

If McCain and Palin can rally social conservatives, and speak clearly and persuasively about the connection between moral and economic issues, they can still claim an upset victory on election day.

Keep believing that, at least until November 5th.

- posted by demo kid

An addendum to my post about the Mormons: just as you can criticize Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic, you can respect the Mormon faith while being up front about how the LDS is biased and blatantly right-wing. (And before anyone goes on a “big tent” rant, the threats of excommunication should resolve that.)

Later, I’ll discuss FWC’s recent post about why poor people should thank God that they’re poor and getting poorer. Maybe I’ll relate it in with why I think that the economic ideology of folks like Gardner and Manweller are not just wrong, but dangerous and foolish.

– posted by thehim

I was thinking of asking Pudge if he supported I-1000 because some people who have philosophies related to small government are actually consistent about those philosophies. But as we’ve long known about our friend Pudge, intellectual consistency is not one of his strengths. As a result, he’s been out there cheering on big government, and as always, making a complete ass of himself:

Amazing, but true: I-1000 requires doctors to write down a false cause of death. In a sane society where we value truth from our government and public documents, this would be enough to kill the initiative.

The attending physician may sign the patient’s death certificate which shall list the underlying terminal disease as the cause of death.

Yes, it means what it says: the death certificate shall — must — have the underlying disease as the cause of death, even though it wasn’t the actual cause of death. The government requires doctors to lie about how people died.

This is pretty simple folks; if you have a terminal illness and you decide that, instead of suffering through the last stages of the illness, you die on your own terms, the cause of the death is still the underlying terminal disease.

Think about what happened on 9/11 for a second. If you remember, there were people trapped on the highest floors of the second World Trade Center building who decided that instead of perishing in the inferno behind them, they decided to jump to their deaths. Should their death certificates say that they committed suicide?

Hell, fucking, no.

The reason that that’s true is because a death certificate should list the root cause of why the person died. In the case of I-1000 and the related law in Oregon which does things exactly the same way, suicide is never the root cause of the death. If the underlying terminal illness is not there, there’s no reason to take the prescription. Therefore, the underlying terminal illness is the cause. Dying with dignity is a personal choice that stems from that cause.

- posted by demo kid

Harrassing the Mormons is bad, but harrassing the gays? A-OK! I mean, as long as it’s institutionalized discrimination, of course.

I was going to write more but I just couldn’t stop laughing when Mr. Gardner tried to compare people protesting the Mormon Church funneling money into California to stop Proposition 8 to the Spanish Inquisition. I really, REALLY chuckled when I read this choice quote:

I understand that the vast majority of this country wants nothing to do with the vitriol and hatred that is spewing like raw sewage from the mouths of certain TV personalities and political activists on the left. No, there is no similar spewing from the right, despite the leftist hater’s best attempts to project.

Calling Sarah Palin a “fine governor” definitely is quite the sidesplitter too. But while all of the unintentional humor is a great distraction, I’m so glad he’ll be spending some well-earned time in the political wilderness for a while.

Oh, and Mr. Gardner? When you state:

When you’ve earned American votes, you tend to get all the campaign cash you need and then some.

I guess you understand now why Obama is winning in the polls, and receiving record contributions too, eh?

Seriously, Eric Earling’s tooliest post evar.

Tonight…

…I ran the table in the Jeopardy! category on “Economics.”

I don’t drink and I’ve run the table on potent potables (sad but true). I think Harvard is a bit tougher than Jeopardy!

Can I claim a degree on the subject now if I run for Congress…or do I have to stay at a Holiday Inn Express first?

No: First you have to enroll at Harvard. Then, take over a half dozen econ and related math courses as required by the degree program you’ve chosen. Then you can claim your degree in econ. Jesus. Oh and then hopefully get the head of your program to back you up.

– posted by thehim

As I was hearing over email about how Dori Monson was going after Darcy Burner for the Seattle Times’ bullshit attempts to claim that she’s lying about having an economics degree, all I could think of was last week’s South Park…

Wow, you thought Eric Earling’s Snohomish County inside baseball was tiresome? How about recycled Snohomish County inside baseball?