Climate Hype From Newsweek

Sharon Begley has a bizarre article in this week's Newsweek. Amidst its hysteria, it simply can not help contradicting itself. This is the opening of the second paragraph:

Even those who deny the existence of global climate change are having trouble dismissing the evidence of the last year. In the U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 tornadoes have ripped across the heartland, killing more than 500 people and inflicting $9 billion in damage. 

This is tucked in paragraph six:

Scientists disagree about whether climate change will bring more intense or frequent tornadoes...

So, the evidence from the last year regarding tornado frequency means nothing. If that's the case, why would anyone have trouble dismissing it?

Nevertheless, climate change is here, and we are not ready for it! And, you know whose fault that is:

The game of catch-up will have to happen quickly because so much time was lost to inaction. “The Bush administration was a disaster, but the Obama administration has accomplished next to nothing either, in part because a significant part of the Democratic Party is inclined to balk on this issue as well,” says economist Jeffrey Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. “We [are] past the tipping point.” The idea of adapting to climate change was once a taboo subject. Scientists and activists feared that focusing on coping would diminish efforts to reduce carbon emissions. On the opposite side of the divide, climate-change deniers argued that since global warming is a “hoax,” there was no need to figure out how to adapt. “Climate-change adaptation was a nonstarter,” says Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center. “If you wanted to talk about that, you would have had to talk about climate change itself, which the Bush administration didn’t want to do.” In fact, President Bush killed what author Mark Hertsgaard in his 2011 book, Hot, calls “a key adaptation tool,” the National Climate Assessment, an analysis of the vulnerabilities in regions of the U.S. and ideas for coping with them. The legacy of that: state efforts are spotty and local action is practically nonexistent. “There are no true adaptation experts in the federal government, let alone states or cities,” says Arroyo. “They’ve just been commandeered from other departments.”

The rookies will struggle to comprehend the complex impacts of climate change.

I guess we're screwed. But, then I read this (emphasis added):

“You can no longer say that the climate of the future is going to be like the climate of today, let alone yesterday,” says Judi Greenwald, vice president of innovative solutions at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. “In all of the plausible climate scenarios, we are going to have to change the way we do things in ways we can’t even predict.”

If that's the case, maybe we're not so far behind in our planning of how to adapt to climate change, since it's not predictable? Maybe it's a good thing that "local action is practically nonexistent"? Throwing resources into a course of action we won't need based on a faulty prediction seems foolish. A wait-and-see approach might be more sound. Also, the climate is always changing. Therefore, Greenwald's claim that we can no longer say the future will be like the past is not particularly interesting. People have always had to adapt to changing climates, and we would regardless of CO2 emissions. Alarmists insist the climate is changing but simply will not acknowledge that it is ALWAYS changing. It is NEVER static. Apparently mindful of this point, Begley writes this:

From these and other extreme-weather events, one lesson is sinking in with terrifying certainty. The stable climate of the last 12,000 years is gone. Which means you haven’t seen anything yet. And we are not prepared.

What is a "stable climate"? Is Begley acknowledging climate always changes, so she's added another layer by arguing there are "stable" climates and unstable climates, and we are entering the latter? Is that how to resolve the paradox of continual climate change? Sorry, no sale. I would love for someone to explain to me what a changing, but stable climate is, and how that is different from a changing & unstable climate. I have a feeling there is no meaningful distinction.

The bottom line is that the climate is always changing, and it would be changing right now if humans never emitted a single molecule of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, we would have to adapt to the changing climate - something humans have always done. Finally, climate change is unpredictable, so overly preparing for adaptations you might not need is a waste of resources.

There is no crisis here. Begley's argument that we're moving from a stable to an unstable climate is a false distinction designed to hype a crisis.

The Land Swap Fable

The past ten days saw a dust-up between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Time's Joe Klein explains:

Of all the petty annoyances, misdemeanors and felonies of public life, there is none that Barack Obama detests more than to have his words twisted or oversimplified. It is a big part of his frustration with the media; it is a bigger part of his disdain for the talk-show wing of the Republican Party. And so it wasn't hard to imagine smoke jetting from the President's ears as Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, willfully misinterpreted Obama's statement about the need to renegotiate Israel's borders — in Obama's presence, in the Oval Office on May 20. The President had said that a two-state solution, which Netanyahu alleges to support, should be based on the pre-1967 borders, with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that would enable Israel to incorporate the vast majority of its — dare I say — illegal settlements into its territory while giving over equal amounts of Israeli turf to the Palestinians.

This is not a groundbreaking proposition.  ...

But Netanyahu did an astonishing thing: he chose to ignore the part about the land swaps. 

Klein's interpretation isn't groundbreaking either - many Obama apologists have spent the week constructing similar arguments. However, Charles Krauthammer isn't one of them. He has this to say in today's Washington Post:

...last week in his State Department speech, President Obama ... declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.
It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.

Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.

And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.

Note how Obama has undermined Israel’s negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip. 

Klein's assurance that there will be "mutually agreed-upon land swaps" seems hollow. Klein calls the settlements illegal, so why does he think the Palestinians will agree to include some of them in a land swap deal? Any negotiation that starts with the '67 line will end with the '67 line.

Krauthammer's analysis is superior to Klein's.

The War Powers Act (1973-2011)

The Constitution names the president commander in chief, but gives Congress the power to declare war. Since the Constitution's ratification, United States forces have engaged in over one hundred separate conflicts, but war was declared in only five of them (the last time being WWII).

Every time there is a new conflict without a war declaration, critics on both the left and right pen op-eds decrying its illegality. These complaints vary from the tedious to the silly. Does anyone think U.S. forces can't fire a weapon without a war declaration? What if Congress is in recess and there are enemy troops pouring across the border? Must a presidential order to return fire be ignored until Congress convenes? Of course not. Clearly, the President can fight a conflict without Congress. Furthermore, the Constitution does not discuss just war theory or make distinctions for aggressive wars fought on foreign soil. If we accept that the president has some ability to fight without congressional authorization, it must include an ability to wage war beyond immediate self-defense. Where does this presidential power to wage war end? Are there limits?

In 1973, as a response to these issues, and over a presidential veto, Congress passed the War Powers Act. It stated that the president could order American forces into combat, but must inform Congress within 48 hours. The president then has 60 days to receive either a declaration of war or an authorization to use force. If he doesn't receive Congressional authorization, he has an additional 30-day window to withdraw American troops.

Every sitting president has viewed the limits placed on him by the War Powers Act to be unconstitutional, but all have abided by it. The closest a toe came to crossing the line was in the 1999 Kosovo War when President Clinton ordered the bombing of Serbia without Congressional authorization (though Congress voted to fund it, which the White House argued was enough). Either way, the campaign lasted only 78 days, so the act was not violated. Every three-month conflict since 1973 has had Congressional approval.

That record might be coming to an end. It is now 61 days since President Obama informed Congress of the Libyan campaign. Unless he ends the fighting by the 90th day, he will violate the statute. What was his Administration's reason for not seeking authorization? Yesterday, the President sent a letter to Congress without offering one. In this update, he said the U.S. role is "limited", but "crucial", yet there is no such exception in the War Powers Act.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Act's constitutionality, leaving it a debatable question. But, from a public policy standpoint, it appears to have a number of benefits aside from the check of preventing the executive branch from waging wars indefinitely. It gives conflicts added legitimacy if they have Congressional approval, which can be a morale boost for the troops. Congressional votes put on the record the reasons and objectives of a war. Even if a war resolution in a limited conflict is often symbolic, the Act offers discussion and debate on the occasion when the stakes are high and a war is unpopular.

If there are principled objections to the War Powers Act, the Obama Administration hasn't uttered any. It's possible that there are hypothetical scenarios where following the Act might not be wise. But, is this one of them? I haven't heard one decent reason why the Act should be ignored regarding Libya.

If one argued that Congress can authorize the Libyan conflict without White House leadership - that would really turn the Act into a symbolic tool where Congresses (post facto) ratify the wars of presidents indifferent to their opinion. The complaint here shouldn't be that Congress didn't take the lead in providing authorization for Libya. It should be that they rolled over to the White House's contempt. Why aren't any of them complaining about this?

For almost four decades, American presidents have followed the Act. Now, it appears to be abandoned for no compelling reason whatsoever.

Let's hope we don't miss it once it's gone.

The Politicization of Science Continues

The Washington Post has an op-ed warning of the dangers of climate change. It is instructive because it suffers from many of the fallacies that plague most alarmist warnings. Here is the opening (emphasis added):

“CLIMATE CHANGE is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

So says — in response to a request from Congress — the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s preeminent institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers.

In a report titled “America’s Climate Choices,” a panel of scientific and policy experts also concludes that the risks of inaction far outweigh the risks or disadvantages of action.

The "risks or disadvantages of action" are mostly economic. How can an "institution chartered to provide scientific advice to lawmakers" weigh the economic consequences of fighting climate change? That is not a scientific question - it is an economic and public policy question. Is this another example of the politicization of science?

The Post throws in a cheap shot:

None of this is news. But it is newsworthy, sadly, because the Republican Party, and therefore the U.S. government, have moved so far from reality and responsibility in their approach to climate change.

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency not too long ago. They didn't do anything about climate change. The current situation is not entirely the Republicans' fault. Furthermore, I'd like to know who is doing something about climate change. This quote acknowledges that other countries are doing nothing:

Given the global nature of the problem, the report says, U.S. action can’t be sufficient, but “strong U.S. emission efforts will enhance our ability to influence other countries to do the same.”

By the way, how is that a scientific conclusion?  Secondly, if we don't "influence other countries to do the same", are our efforts worthless?

Here's the Post's conclusion:

Every candidate for political office in the next cycle, including for president, should be asked whether they disagree with the scientific consensus of America’s premier scientific advisory group, as reflected in this report; and if so, on what basis they disagree; and if not, what they propose to do about the rising seas, spreading deserts and intensifying storms that, absent a change in policy, loom on America’s horizon.

This report isn't a scientific consensus, it's a political document. I disagree that costs of inaction outweigh the costs of action. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling argument otherwise. Climate change action does not survive a cost benefit analysis. That's why no one to date has done one thing about it.

Survivor: Redemption Island, Ep. 14 - Final

There was an awful lot of crybabyitis going on at the final tribal (Julie, Andrea & Ashley come to mind). It's really hard to tee off on someone for being too loyal to their primary alliance and making it all the way to the finals. Frankly, it looks ridiculous (especially coming from Julie). Basically, they were complaining that Natalie wasn't a back-stabber, and didn't take them to the finals instead of Boston Rob. Cry me a river.

Was it me, or did it look like Phillip didn't even try to get the jury's vote?

As for the Reunion Show - Grant and Matt looked like they were at a wake. Both of them got a good cut from the editors and the barbers, so I don't understand what they are so upset about. I realize Grant has a reason to feel Boston Rob betrayed him - but hasn't Grant seen this show before? That's what Boston Rob does. Yes, he'll be loyal to a couple of people - but not everyone. I think it's noteworthy that Grant stopped talking to Boston Rob three or four episodes into the season. I have a feeling Grant's wife (once she saw a couple of episodes) convinced him that Rob had done him wrong. Again, I'm not saying Grant doesn't have a reason to be annoyed with Rob, but why talk to him from September to February, and then drop him? The timing suggests he was influenced by someone outside the game.

So, the producers didn't reveal that the girls knew about Rob's hidden immunity. Is it because it would have drained even more suspense out of the 2nd half of the season?

The bit where Jeff interviewed the Federal investigator was ridiculous. I always thought the question mark was put there as a joke. It never kept me up at night wondering if he really was an investigator, and that interview didn't prove anything.

I think Dave and his "fiance" had a long talk last night. She did not seem to be ready to be engaged. I think she said yes because there were cameras. Then again, she sat with him on stage afterward, and she seemed OK. We'll see. Her initial reaction could have been shock, not cold feet.

In the preview for next season, Jeff said they are again bringing back two former players. Here are some popular players I really have no desire to see again: Stephenie, Cirie, Rupert, Jerri, Coach, Colby, Hatch, Amanda, Yao Man, etc. I really hope they bring back someone who has only played once. But, I doubt it.

NYT Public Editor: It's Torture Because I Said So

Since the killing of Bin Laden, there has been an extended debate about the efficacy, legailty and morality of enhanced interrogations - especially, waterboarding. Opponents of these practices regularly use the word "torture" when describing them. Readers of the New York Times have noticed that the op-ed pages always use the "t" word, but the news pages are more hesitant. They've complained to the public editor, hoping to see the news pages use the "t" word more often, and he has a column today on the subject.

The Times newsroom’s dilemma might have been removed if the courts had ruled whether the Bush-era methods constituted torture. According to several legal authorities I have consulted, however, that hasn’t happened.  

Torture is a crime, yet no court has ruled the Bush-era methods constitute torture. So, why do the opinion pages think it's torture?

“We made the decision early and relatively quickly: Waterboarding, specifically, has been considered torture for a long time,” said Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, referring to international protocols.

Waterboarding has been considered torture by international protocols for a long time? Are international protocols the equivalent of U.S. law? What's the solution here?

The Times should use the term “torture” more directly, using it on first reference when the discussion is about — and there’s no other word for it — torture. The debate was never whether Bin Laden was found because of brutal interrogations: it was whether he was found because of torture. (emphasis added)

That's one way to win an argument: insist there never was an argument.

More narrowly, the word is appropriate when describing techniques traditionally considered torture, waterboarding being the obvious example. Reasonable fairness can be achieved by adding caveats that acknowledge the Bush camp’s view of its narrow legal definition.

This approach avoids the appearance of mincing words and is well grounded in Americans’ understanding of torture in the historical and moral sense.

So, to hell with the legal definition? Can we use this reasoning in the same-sex marriage debate? Can we say marriage is one man/one woman and that is grounded in Americans' understanding of marriage in the historical and moral sense? Would the Times buy that because this has always been the traditional definition of marriage?

The tradition of calling waterboarding "torture" goes back to the Spanish Inquisition (the Japanese also used it in WWII). However, Spanish and Japanese waterboarding is a lot different than CIA waterboarding. Throwing them all into the same category is dubious. The historical definition is inadequate, and the public editor's argument rests on it.

What if a member of the CIA is charged with torture? Will the legal definition count then? Will the Times' news pages call his actions torture, even if he hasn't been convicted yet?

Survivor: Redemption Island, Ep. 13 - Into the Finale

Earlier this week I heard an interview between radio host Dennis Miller and Survivor producer, Mark Burnett. Miller said this was the best season of Survivor ever. Burnett, when asked his three favorite Survivors of all time, answered: Boston Rob, Phillip and Richard Hatch. This prompted me to reach for my wallet. I'm surprised Burnett didn't have the guts to replace Hatch with Matt. If he and Miller were going to go that far in selling this season, he might as well have gone all the way.

Even a causal reader would recognize that this has not been one of my favorite seasons of Survivor. However, I've still enjoyed it (a bad season of Survivor is still better than almost anything else on TV). Here is how I handicap the field going into the finale (I'm assuming the person coming back from Redemption Island will do so at the beginning of the episode):

Favorite: Boston Rob (35% chance of winning). He has the hidden immunity idol.

2. Natalie (20%). Likely to make the final 3. Could get votes for being sweet.

3. Phillip (16%). It's complicated, but he has a shot.

4. Ashley (14%). I think Ashley will be seen more as a coattail rider. We'll see. She might be ahead of Phillip.

5. Grant (5%). Most likely of the Redemption Island crew to win the next duel and a couple of immunities.

6. Andrea (4%). More likely to survive if she re-enters the game. The girls might use her to go against the guys. (It's a long shot, but everyone on Redemption Island is a long shot).

7 & 8. Mike & Matt (3% each). To win they'd need three straight challenges (most likely one duel and two immunities).

Enjoy the last episode!