The Best Of The Drifts - Valentines Day 2007

Originally Published February 14, 2007

Happy Valentines Day, Screw You

You stepped on my ass

You're breaking my glasses too

You won't drive my car, might be a star

I've had enough of you

There no one to blame, so f*ck you

Be my Valentine, Rep. Steve Davis. It warms the cockles of my heart to know there are still people in the world who believe the only image of family is Leave It To Beaver. Love obviously runs deep in your household and neighborhood where the "wifes" handle the chilluns, the gays keep their love that shall not be named in the closet and poor people are limited to cheery hobos who ride the rails and dream of the big rock candy mountain. Be my Valentine Rep. Davis, screw you.

Be my Valentine, John McCain. Now not only do you vaguely look like a Pander bear but you actually act like one. Your love holds no bounds as your give a big ol' expedient bear hug to religious nuts like Jerry Falwell and Jonathan Wells. My blood warms at the sight of brave politicians who will blatantly take the easy road to power. In an age of cowardly leaders chasing publicity whoredom by going against the grain, you are the epitome of the Hemingway hero, quietly showing true leadership by demonstrating good ol' fashioned pandering as the new radical. Be my Valentine Sen. McCain, screw you.

Be my Valentine, Glenn Reynolds. When I first read the Libertarian Party platform regarding war back in 1992, I was puzzled by its stance of defensive war only. My heart remained cold for over a decade until you and other "libertarians" explained it's a new world and we didn't really mean all that about defensive war. Pre-emptive war is the new libertarianism! Many called you stealth Republicans but you remained strong in your conviction to support President Bush even as the Iraq venture spiraled into doom. And when people accused you of being Republican shills, you quickly responded nuh-uh, I'm a libertarian! It makes me think of Valentine's Day back in elementary school when little boys were asked if they liked certain girls and they responded, nuh-uh, girls are icky! Be my Valentine Glen Reynolds, screw you.

Be my Valentine, Jim Wooten. Your proclivity to pass along rumors and straight out lies shows you are truly one of the libertine "new media" lotharios. You understand that fact checking, editorial filters and any possible validity of dissent are as stale as a 20 year old "Be Mine" candy heart. The love practically spews forth daily as you call out the unpatriotic, the anti-capitalist and all those dirty, smelly hippies who dare associate themselves with the Democratic Party. With so much affection pouring out of the Thinking Right column, it's surprising the AJC even needs Dear Abby! Be my Valentine Jim, screw you.

Be my Valentine, Christopher Horner. I was impressed with your appearance last night on The Daily Show. I was astounded at the quality of your jacket. I wonder if you have to shop at a special store to find pockets so big they can hold all that Exxon money. Your denial of global warming was not enough to cool the heat in my heart for your glib stories of attacking icebergs and thieving socialists. Since you are a lawyer, I immediately call to mind creationist Phillip Johnson who is also a lawyer that plays a scientist on tv. Then again, your sly manner and coy glances mostly reminded my of nutjob Kent Hovind. Be my Valentine Chris, screw you.

More Valentines to come as the love fills my heart. Feel free to add your own in the comments.

Winging On Kyle

Kyle Wingfield had such a promising start.

Oh well.

One aspect of the climate-change debate which we ignore too often is the potential benefits — and whether they might outweigh the potential consequences.

The benefit here is the potential economic development of Greenland. What Kyle ignores in his "weighing" is Greenland has a population of 57,600, whereas Bangladesh, already the victim of massive flooding during the monsoon season, has a population of 162 milllion.

How long before Kyle turns into a silver haired know nothing who petulantly spouts half truths every friday?

Winging On Kyle

Global warming. Again. Kyle is in a froth over the stolen CRU emails currently causing the "we don't need no stinking global warming" crowd to spasm in orgasmic glee.

Instead of going point by point over Kyle's rehashing of tired arguments (we're cooling, Al Gore exaggerates, blah blah blah), I would point out that his frame of reference for a good summary is Powerline. Enough said.

But I will take a moment to point out a comment which shows why I think global warming "skeptics" should pause about whose company they keep.

It’s good to see someone at the AJC paying attention to this. AGW, as John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel put it, is the “greatest scam in history.” (Personally I believe that title belongs to Darwinian Evolution, but that’s just me.)

If it walks like a creationist and talks like a creationist...it's hard to avoid the reality that the tactics of people like Lord Christopher Monckton (also lauded by Kyle) mirrors those used for the past 40 years by creationists.

And I have to take a friend to task.

As someone who remembers “dangerous global cooling” that was forced on my elementary school class in the late 70’s – and for the same reason that global warming was pushed in the 90’s – and global “change” is pushed today – I very much doubt the arguments from the left on this topic.

My dear friend, Icarus. It's been covered thousands of times including several on this blog but the only way to defeat this zombiefied myth is to keep beating it back into its grave.

There was no global cooling threat. The entire myth is based on an article in a mainstream magazine. The magazine based their screed on a single paper that was explaining the cooling period in the 40s. When they saw the popular version of their research, the paper's authors were horrified and quick to point out that in no way were the predicting an imminent ice age.

Global warming on the other hand is backed by reams of peer reviewed work and the consensus of 10,000+ climatologist.

Big difference. So until the next time this little nasty pops up its head...

Winging On Kyle

Finally, Wingfield gives me something to work with!

Of course, it would be a denial of global warming.

The latest sign that the “consensus” about global warming is falling apart: The BBC is finally reporting that global temperatures have leveled off since 1998, and that there maybe, possibly, perhaps, conceivably, theoretically, hypothetically, probably-not-but-you-never-know, could be explanations for changes in temperature that don’t involve mankind and carbon dioxide.

Welcome to the right's favorite stalking horse. The tactic goes a little like this - you can't trust the press/science because they have an agenda, therefore you must trust us, because unlike them, we only care about the truth.

It works so well with the press because arguably the press does have an agenda (that agenda, however, does not match the conservative mythos, but let's set that aside for the moment). But when it's applied to science, it becomes a little nutty. These "conservatives" would have you believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists are jury rigging (thereby essentially destroying) their life's work in order to implement some sinister world-wide socio-economic plan.

The consensus is nowhere near falling apart. Yes, there has been some data recently which indicates we could be in for a decade or two long cooling period. Just as we were from the late 40s to the early 70s. Does that mean we were wrong about anthropogenic global warming? Absolutely not.

Let me provide you with a part of the article, Kyle would like you to ignore.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling...What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

Global warming (and indeed science itself) is not based on individual pieces of evidence. It is always based on the story all the evidence tells. Scientists look at everything and they usually look at it over a long time. Pundits, on the other hand cherry pick what is convenient, spin up a tale of fancy, then move on to the next target.

If we're picking between pundits and scientists on truth-telling, I believe I'll stick with the boys and girls in the pocket protected white lab coats.

My Wingfield Something Something

Have you heard? There's a new kid in town. His name is Kyle Wingfield. He's Wooten's replacement and he's put me into a terrible dilemma. He's reasonable and doesn't provide me much ammunition. Also, I can't think of a clever name for a series about him.

Until today.

I have one firm rule in life. If you tell me you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, I will stop listening to you as I will assume anything which comes next will be just as insane.

I have a more flexible rule regarding logical fallacies - if you use them frequently, I'll probably stop listening to you. I need flexibility on this one because if it were applied rigidly, I'd have to stop paying attention to politics.

Kyle Wingfield tackles Cap and Trade today and shockingly, I agree with most of his points.

Cap and Trade is a Rube Goldberg affair which likely won't accomplish its goal - can't disagree there.

It will likely be used for nefarious gain by greedy politicians - if it can be leveraged, a politician will grab the nearest lever.

A straight carbon tax would be fairer - A conservative calling for a tax? Both shocking and correct.

Unfortunately, to get to these meaty and worthy topics, you have to traverse the following:

One does not have to doubt, as I do, claims that the complex science of the Earth’s climate is “settled” to see that this bill is a sham.

Well, hello Mr. Strawman wrapped in a cloak of incredulity.

Climate science is certainly not settled and no one claims it is. What has been described in layman's terms as "settled" is the overwhelming evidence that man is impacting the climate in an adverse manner.

And that leads us to the argument of incredulity. It's a personal favorite since it is so frequently used by creationists. The simple version is someone states something is so complex it can never be understood therefore any conclusions must be wrong.

Life is so diverse, therefore we can never understand it, so evolution cannot possibly explain it. The weather, atmosphere or whatever trope of the month is used to describe climatology is so complicated, climate scientists could never explain its actions.

Any scientist, if he or she didn't immediately apply my 6,000 year old rule, would reply, of course it is complex but that does not mean we cannot understand it nor should we stop trying.

Kyle, your writing reminds me of the old Jim I so frequently miss. It is well reasoned, worthy of conversation and certainly on the track of "common sense conservatism".

It would be a shame if so early in your run you decide fast fallacy is necessary to amplify steady reason.

Now about that name...maybe something with Winging in the title?

Triumph and Jack Kingston

How did I miss this?

My Morning Wooten

Don' worry. I haven't forsaken, Jim. The AJC moved Thinking Right and didn't tell anyone. Eli!

But the frequency of My Morning Wooten will likely decrease in the future. Frankly, there's only so much lather, rinse, repeat I can take.

Here we go.

Billionaire Warren Buffett advises Congress to stop using the economic downturn as an excuse to push through other policy changes. The nation’s engaged in economic war, he said. “What is required is a commander in chief that’s looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war.” But where would we find one?

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and guess this is taken completely out of context. Considering Warren Buffet is an Obama fan and approves of his tactics for economic recovery, I imagine he, like Obama, was criticizing congress for using the crisis to push through pet projects. But we'll never know since Jim doesn't provide anything but the punchline. Now, I'll go back to my blogs with their worthless links which allow readers to see the original work and judge the context for themselves.

President Obama is the front man radicals have long needed. In putting the nation on the slippery slope, where life is created for the purpose of destroying it, he declares that reversing the existing constraints on the use of taxpayer money for embryonic stem cell research is essential. “It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” Unless, of course, it’s the ideology of global warming.

In Jim's version of conservativism: The promise of stem cells and global warming = junk; a 6000 year old earth and exorcism = worthy of consideration. What was I thinking? So called conservatives aren't anti-science at all.

That's it. I can't take any more. Feel free to follow my worthless link at the top and judge the rest for yourself. Honestly, the remainder isn't nearly as crazy as those first two but your mileage may vary.

A Question To Ask

Here we go again.

I really wanted to attend the most recent hearings at the State Capitol on Global Warming. Unfortunately, I could not but if I had been present there is one question I would like to have posed.

Dr. Harold Brown, professor emeritus from the University of Georgia, urged caution, saying that the human impact on climate is difficult to ascertain. He also pointed out that climate experts were predicting a new Ice Age as late as the 1970s and demanding government action to “warm up” the planet.

And my question.

Dr Brown, isn't it true, sir, that the prediction of global cooling actually was reported in a Newsweek article, not a scientific journal, which was based on a paper tracking a minor cooling trend in the 40s and 50s and isn't it also true that after seeing the rather alarmist nature of the mainstream article, the authors of the original paper were quick to clarify they were in no way predicting a new ice age? Also, sir, do you not do a disservice to your fellow scientists by continuing to promote the myth portraying them as chicken little alarmists who hysterically warn of catastrophe based on error riddled theories?

Now wouldn't that have been fun?

George Will On The Gore Win

George Will agrees with me. Sort of. Some of his explanations are simplistic and subject to debate, however, his general thesis that the scientist do the work and Gore draws the attention to that work is correct. It just seems to stick in some people's craw to give Gore credit for creating such a monstrous rise in awareness.

More evidence that the debate has moved beyond is it happening to what will be the effect?

H/T: The Moderate Voice

Overrated But Moderate

JimV thinks I'm overrated but moderate. Well, given some of the things I've been called, I'll take overrated as a midway compliment. However, I'm right proud of being called a moderate. I feel like half the time I'm trying to explain to one side I'm not a liberal egg head and to the other side I'm not a heartless free market absolutist.

But more importantly, Jim unravels the mystery behind the now infamous British case on Al Gore's little climate change movie. It seems the plaintiff is something called the New Party. They are the very definition of fringe and also, unlike me, are proudly free market absolutist. So take that little bit of context into your next climate change knife fight.

As far as my response to the meme floating around, let me provide a little of my own context. Hey, I may be overrated but at least I let my readers reply directly.

When I saw the British Court meme repeated at Jason's place, I knew it for what it was. I've seen it a million times before. Kent Hovind is a creationist and he is also, even in creationist's circles, a joke. His method is to throw as many talking points at a person in as short a time as possible creating a situation where it is impossible to respond. His crap against the wall lists are filled with items which are patently false or given so little context they might as well be false. Sound familiar?

This exact tactic is what I mean by the Kent Hovind effect.

The problem with Gore's little film and what can make it dangerous is what I call slide show science. As I've said before, in these crusades you must be pure as the driven snow. The lunatics, aka the Hovinds, will pick the slightest nit and attempt to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Gore puts on a great show and the science is there, but even the slightest misstep, like the Katrina argument, gives trolls like these New Party people a potential AHA! moment and allows them to use this "evidence" to influence those not so well versed in the arguments.

Bottom line, I like Gore's film and I recognize its great service in broadening awareness of climate change. However, it ain't science. The science in it is pretty good but it still ain't science. Watch An Inconvenient Truth at home with your family and follow it up with a good discussion. In the classroom, we would be better served by leaving out the slick presentations and sticking with the real meat and potatoes of climate study.

Like maybe the work of the people with whom Gore shared the prize. You know, the actual scientists at the IPCC. Strangely, they are hardly ever mentioned in these little hit pieces.

UPDATE: Jason has his own response to Mr. V's little rant.

An Inconvenient Blah

As I have feared for a long time, Al Gore's little movie may cause more harm than help.

Call it the Kent Hovind effect.

About Those Climate Scientists...

There has been much hoo-hah over Rep. Jeff Lewis convening a panel on global warming titled "Climate Change: Fact Or Fiction". For his panel Rep. Lewis, recruited three climate scientists who supposedly fall in the category of global warming dissenters. Let's take a look at these gentlemen shall we?

First, the credentials and they are impressive.

Patrick Michaels - Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

John Christy - Director of the Earth Science System at the University of Alabama. He also won an award from NASA for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

Joel Schwartz - Scientist and fellow at the American Enterprise Insititute.

Well now. Surely, if such honored men doubt this whole global warming bunk, we should as well. Or do they? And should we?

Let's look at each gentleman's actual position on global warming.

Patrick Michaels - Believes in man made climate change. His "disagreement" with the evidence is that he believes the change will be on the low end of projections by the IPCC.

John Christy - Believes in man made climate change. In fact he has been quoted as saying "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way". Also falls into the camp of impact will be on the lower end of the scale.

Joel Schwartz - Believes in man made climate change. But believes the cure would be worse than the disease.

Well my goodness gracious me! It seems there's a dirty secret hiding at Rep. Lewis' hearing. All the scientists actually believe man is causing global warming! How about that? The only disagreement they have with their scientific brothers and sisters is the scale, impact and ultimate result of global warming.

Disagreement among scientists is not uncommon. A significant portion of good science hinges on disagreement and discussion. However, as anyone who witnessed the evolution/creation wars understands, when consensus begins to reach larger conclusions, the ideologues afraid of losing their last tenuous grasp on reality latch onto any dissent in order to paint the whole as suspect. Even when the dissenters actually agree with the whole.

My Morning Wooten

Another day, another screed from Jim on global warming. In Jim's doddering world view, it's nothing but an endless parade of chicken littles.

The same thing, I suppose, when we’re bombarded by what in modern times has become a steady stream of dire warnings on everything from the new millennium disaster that was to befall our computers to the revelation that cul-de-sacs and the suburban lifestyle cause obesity.

Well, Jim, let me take a moment to edumacate you. The reason the millenium bug didn't wreak world-wide havoc was the blood, sweat and tears of thousands of software engineers scanning and updating billions of lines of code. In other words, Jim, disaster was avoided because we recognized the problem and took corrective action.

Makes sense to me. Why should we listen to these so-called scientists when it was the liberal eggheads who sold us a bill of goods on Y2K? I mean shouldn't we instead trust pundits to see 50 years into future since they so clearly remember the facts of just 8 years ago?

Batting A Thousand

Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday regarding the consensus on global warming.

Scientific consensus is what you talk about when you don't have scientific fact. The object of science is to establish fact. That is what the scientific method is all about.

NO. NO. A MILLION TIMES NO. Once again an old tactic rears its head. As with the evolution battles, those who oppose overwhelming scientific opinion attempt to obfuscate how science works in an effort to paint a picture of controversy and disagreement. Sort of like the need to be"fair and balanced" when it's obvious only one side contains the truth.

Brit, stick to journalism. Science is not about establishing facts. Science is about trying to understand the facts that exist. And no, hardly ever is there absolute agreement on what those facts mean. However, when a consensus of the scientific community agrees, it should carry a heavy weight.

It continues to amaze me that we as a society blithely watch as millions of dollars are paid to a ball player who fails 70% of the time yet if only 5% of the scientific community disagrees with a position, the veracity of the 95% is put to question.

An Inconvenient Talking Point

I should have started a pool on how long after An Inconvenient Truth's oscar win we would hear this little gem.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES)...blah blah bah...etc etc etc...

Three things you probably will not hear in the repitition of this mostly accurate story.

1. It's an old one. It's been around forever and some right wing sites have risen the zombie once more in an attempt to embarass Gore.

2. Gore buys carbon offsets. These waivers allegedly balance the cost created by the emissions. Having said that, I don't approve of carbon offsets. The point is to remove the amount of crap we are putting in the biosphere. Not to create a system where rich folk can "buy" there way out. (Just so you don't think all conservatives will leave this out, Capt Ed brought it up first thing. He also reflects my point.)

3. Most importantly, none of this hoo-hah does anything to invalidate the science behind climate change.

A Convenient Review

An Oscar bump for this one. Originally published on 1-23-07:

Oscar nominations were announced this morning. As expected Al Gore's slide show movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is nominated in the Best Documentary category. Expect much caterwauling from the usual suspects about another "Michael Moore" moment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I finally watched the movie yesterday. Given my predilection for science subjects, particularly weather related, my reticence to watch the year's global warming "blockbuster" may surprise you. However, my gut refused to bypass the feeling that science and politics, although at times a necessary evil partnership, do not mix well. A description of a non-scientist spending 90 minutes using a slide show in an attempt to distill a complex idea to palatability brought visions of creationist abomination Ken Hovind.

Also, the clips I viewed seemed overwrought. My impression being Gore had gone for the easy sell; conflating individual disasters into evidence of a global problem. Science is not easy. Understanding weather is like plowing the ocean. I begin to claw my eyes when people use Katrina as evidence of global warming. They are both right and wrong, but miss the point.

As anyone who follows Creation/Evolution battles knows, a warrior for the right and good has to be a paladin not a politician. There can be no gray. There can be no vagaries. There can be no right and wrong. You must be pure and true in your quest. Since your enemies will use every stumble as a new flank for attack, you must give them no room for maneuver.

Following 2005's collossal hurricane season those with just enough knowledge to be dangerous screamed that the record number of hurricanes resulted from global warming. Many including myself cringed. What would happen we thought if 2006 was a fizzle? Hurricanes are the epitome of vagary in action. What little we do know about the formation of hurricanes is they are a delicate combination of multiple factors which must be stirred into a near-perfect witches brew. As is now known, the witches brew never bubbled the following year and the global warming doubters exploited the cries of the chicken littles to seed more doubt.

Predicting hurricane frequency is akin to reading the bones. Predicting strength not so much. It's a fairly simple formula. Hot water combined with little wind shear creates monsters. While the media obsessed with the ever increasing numbers of hurricanes in 2005, hard core weather observers noted the Gulf of Mexico reaching its hottest surface temperatures in decades. It was apparent that any storm reaching this boiling pot of water would explode. The frequency only made it more likely it would occur. Thus Rita, Wilma and of course Katrina.

Gore does slip into the mistake of exploiting Katrina but more about that later.

"I see obstacles to understanding and I want to find ways to overcome those obstacles." ~Al Gore

If "An Inconvenient Truth" were merely the story of a charisma-challenged politician driven into the wilderness by circumstance then returning with near messianic power of persuasion it would be compelling. But without the science it would be hollow; a confection, tasty with no sustain. The penultimate compliment I can pay the film is the science is there. The ultimate compliment is Gore changed my mind.

Science is about evidence. Sometimes evidence leads you in a certain direction. Sometimes it skews you off the road like ice in winter. But if you can amass enough compelling evidence in a particular direction you will at least know you are on the right road. Gore presents a mountain of evidence. Evidence that despite certain criticisms has been verified by a consensus of scientists. My fear that Gore would cobble together a patchwork of anecdotal evidence that could easily be attacked has been allayed. Instead, he presented wave after wave of compelling anecdotal and empirical evidence; never leaving a flank unprotected.

It was a Gore most had never seen. A Gore his supporters wish they had seen in 2000.

And about Katrina. Gore is no scientist but like any good scientist he understands the importance of an addendum. In the special features of the DVD Gore notes that new data reported after filming leaves the correlation of frequency of hurricanes and global warming still unknown. However, he quickly points out the correlation between water temperature, hurricane intensity and global warming has little question.

Gore understands that science is not dogma. Science is about admitting you do not know everything. Most importantly, science is processing all evidence. Not just evidence that is convenient.

Talking Dog Interview: Adam Stein

The Talking Dog has an excellent interview with Adam Stein, Vice President for Marketing of Terra Pass. Mr. Stein is obviously on one side of the climate change "debate" but his thoughts are certainly well reasoned. Especially this one.

But a key point is that there is no scientific debate -- there is not a single peer reviewed scientific journal article that disputes the reality of man-made climate change at this point...CO2 records go back 600,000 years, and there is now no alternative explanation-- in short, the "debate" is over. The only question is just how long it takes for most people to understand, and act on this.

Despite what you may hear in certain circles, the debate on man dramatically affecting the world-wide temperature is indeed over. It is now only a matter of discussing what are the potential consequences and, if needed, what are the potential solutions.

h/t: Joe

Pardon My Global Warming

Huntington Beach, California must be so proud. Republican representative Dana Rohrabacher not only disagrees with the recent IPCC report on Global Warming but offers a potential alternate explanation. Dinosaur flatulence. Think I'm kidding? Watch the video.

So Much For Statesmenship

Georgia state Senator Eric Johnson on global warming in the AJC:

It's really hard to ask politicians to think about the election next year and think about what the coast is going to look like in 100 or 200 years.

Points for being honest, but, wouldn't it be nice to expect our leaders to be able to see beyond their nose.

h/t: Atlanta Political Party

A Question For Saxby Chambliss

Georgia Senator and fellow Moultrian Saxby Chambliss is in Switzerland rubbing elbows with the intelligentsia and talking about global warming. He is one of the those I spoke of who will question the potential armageddon as cyclical going so far as to say it may be "nature taking its course".

I have a question for Senator Chambliss.

Senator, you have shown remarkable flexibility on immigration issues. This open-mindedness is certainly understandable given the reality of undocumented aliens being vital to agri-business in our state. Given your willingness to buck your own party on this issue, I am curious why you are not also willing to at least entertain discussion on global warming given the possibility its effects on the world economy could ruin south Georgia farming for generations?