Complete Polarization In The World Of Politics: Climate Change Edition

Perhaps you think that science, of all things, should be above politics.  After all, the whole idea of the scientific method is to divorce our efforts to understand the physical world from the misdirecting influences of political power and groupthink.  In science, there is only one relevant question:  Does the best available evidence support or refute the hypothesis at hand?  How could politics possibly get mixed up in that?

The simple answer is, this is human affairs.  And in human affairs, when money and power are at stake (and sometimes, even when they are not), people are going to form themselves into teams and tribes to fight it out.  Evidence?  What's that?

You probably have seen polls showing very large gaps in opinions on the subject of "climate change" between Republicans and Democrats.  For example, this Gallup poll from March found that 66% of Democrats "worry a great deal about climate change," while only 18% of Republicans do so.  That's rather a huge divide, although not quite complete polarization.  

However, as things are now playing out in our Congress and in the courts, the polarization on the issue of climate change is nearing one hundred percent.  Democrats are in complete unanimity in declaring climate change to be a crisis and demanding massive government-directed "solutions," while Republicans have fewer and fewer non-skeptics in their ranks.  I'm old enough to remember that the Republican presidential candidates in both 2008 (McCain) and 2012 (Romney) had drunk the climate Kool Aid.  (I actually went to a fund-raiser for Romney in 2012, only to hear him deliver a talk that was largely about how he was going to solve the climate crisis by some kind of new coercive regime.)  Those days are over.  Can anybody name a member of the younger generation of Republicans in Congress who is not a skeptic? 

Read More

This Is Not A Post About Global Warming

This is definitely not a post about global warming.  Except that it is.

A friend this morning sent me a link to the Quillette website, which a few days ago posted an edited version of a speech that was to be delivered at Kings College, London, by a guy named Adam Perkins.  The title of the speech is "The Scientific Importance of Free Speech."   Unfortunately, Kings College canceled the speech at the last minute because it was deemed to be too "high risk."  Perkins thus joins the ranks of Charles Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, and -- as of just two weeks ago -- Josh Blackman, as people who have been run off campus or shouted down for holding views deemed by contemporary progressives as too offensive to be heard.

Try reading the Perkins piece, and see if you can figure out what about it is so offensive.  I'll give you a few excerpts that summarize the theme:

Read More

How To Run For Governor Of New York

How To Run For Governor Of New York

So you want to run for Governor of New York?  No problem -- it's easy!  We can look to the emerging re-election campaign of current Governor Andrew Cuomo to see how it's done by the pros.

There are a few basic rules.  Rule number one is, every time the New York Times comes up with some kind of ridiculous new regulatory initiative or spending program to solve the problems of humanity, you implement it immediately (with other people's money, of course).  This is the functional equivalent of the magician's diverting the observer's attention while the real activity goes on somewhere else.  The progressive do-gooder will fall for it every time!  

Read More

Why I Have A Problem With Earth Day

Why I Have A Problem With Earth Day

When I went out last night for my walk with the dog, the Empire State Building was lit up in brilliant green, presumably in honor of Earth Day. . . . The spire on the new One World Trade Center was a similar shade of bright green.  We should all join in feeling warm and fuzzy that we are saving the planet!

Call me a grinch, but I don't want to be associated with the people who promote Earth Day.  Not that I have anything against being a good steward of the environment.  I even picked up the litter on the sidewalk as I walked down the block!  But Earth Day has a very unfortunate association with people who have used the promotion of phony environmental scares in the effort to impose authoritarian government on the people.  Forty-eight years after the first Earth Day in 1970, the scares that got the thing going look, frankly, ridiculous in retrospect.  Yet somehow, instead of developing a healthy skepticism of those who promote scary sin-and-redemption fantasies to aggrandize their own power, we've just moved on from the old fantasies to a whole crop of new and equally phony scare stories.  And even more people seem to have bought into them.  Is there any chance that today's environmental scare stories will look any less ridiculous forty-eight years from now?

Read More

The Laydown Criminal Case Against Comey

It seems that the very sanctimonious former FBI Director, James Comey, is out on a tour, promoting his book "A Higher Loyalty."  Comey has the idea that he was treated shabbily by the President when he was fired in May 2017, and that he occupies the moral high ground with respect to the President.

You would think that, of anyone, the Director of the FBI would know what constitutes a federal crime.  Don't be so sure.  Consider just one example where Comey has committed a clear and obvious crime and yet doesn't seem to have a clue.

Read More

The New York Times Instructs On How To Solve Society's Problems

Last week the Washington Post called on nine progressive public policy "experts" to tell us how to fix the "staggering" problem of income inequality.  To no one's surprise, the "solutions" were all some variety of government "programs" and handouts of one sort or another and spending vast sums of money from the infinite federal pile of loot.  This week the New York Times weighs in with a couple of efforts on related topics, namely disparate results by race in maternity and childhood poverty.  

Once again the proposed solutions are the usual variants of new government "programs" and spending and collective coercion.  I guess that's understandable -- that's as far as their imaginations stretch; it's all they know.  But there are several aspects of this that I can't understand.  One is the high moral dudgeon and condescension that pervades these things.  Society is guilty!  You are guilty!  How could anyone (it must be the Republicans!) be so evil and heartless to oppose the programs and spending that will so obviously provide an immediate fix to these grave problems?  A second thing I can't understand is the unquestioning attribution of the persistence of the problems to the two official universal causes, namely white racism and failure to spend enough government money, without ever citing any data or asking whether these explanations make any sense.  And the third thing I can't understand is the total unwillingness to recognize that vast numbers of programs and vast amounts of spending already exist to address these problems, none of which works or ameliorates the problems at all.  Aren't we owed at least a few words on why we should believe that it will somehow be different this time?

Read More