AnnotatedOpinions.com

A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that an alarming number of Americans believe scientists have falsified their data to sell global warming to the public. . .   

Why is there so much confusion about whether the planet is warming? We believe a big part of the problem centers on the use of earth surface temperature data as a direct measure of warming. . .  

One doesn’t need to measure thousands of temperatures to find conclusive evidence that the planet is warming. The earth does the averaging for us. Many physical and biological characteristics show that the earth is warming and has been for decades. . .  

In order to convince a skeptical public that global change is real, scientists and funding agencies need to invest more in field measurements and monitoring rather than computer modeled predictions. . .  

[AO: Alas, if only it was that straightforward. Unfortunately, one of the main reasons global warming skeptics don’t believe in global warming is that they refuse to believe in it unless it can be completely and conclusively proven. Since they refuse to accept any available evidence as conclusive proof of global warming, they reject it.  

In a way, they are like those who smoked cigarettes for years knowing that cigarettes “could” cause cancer but because they lacked specific evidence that cigarettes “did” cause cancer, they saw no reason to change their smoking habit. Unfortunately for many such persons, the evidence they were willing to accept came too late.  

Recognizing that as long as global warming is not completely and conclusively proven significant numbers of people will continue to be skeptical of it, perhaps the best approach may be to address the source of people’s skepticism directly, rather than generating more evidence in support of global warming that is unlikely to be seen as conclusive by skeptics. ]

. . . We haven’t given up hope for a worldwide climate accord. Such a deal is important, and someday it should be achievable. But  Washington needs to get its own house in order before it can play a leadership role in global climate talks, or expect them to bear fruit. Right now, we’re less concerned about the lack of action in Copenhagen than about the lack of action on a climate bill by the U.S. Senate. . . the U.S. bears an overwhelming burden of responsibility for the problem, and the world will follow only if it first sets a good example.  

[AO: I have previously cautioned against unilateral action on climate change. Some of the arguments I made there are applicable here. The simple problem is that the US cannot stop climate change without other countries and there is no way of guaranteeing action by other countries in response to our “leadership” on climate change. This problem is exacerbated by the consideration that our actions on climate change could put us at a significant disadvantage vis-à-vis countries that don’t act. I am looking at you, China.  

As a result, summits like Copenhagen provides a platform for action that could, at least potentially, insure that our actions will be followed with action by other countries.  

I am not advocating for no immediate action in Washington. Quite the contrary. I am advocating that Congress takes sensible and reasonable steps with an eye toward not putting America at a significant disadvantage. I am also suggesting that, contrary to the editorial, international summits, like Copenhagen, may be useful and
necessary sooner rather than later.]

While the world was fixated on what could happen in Copenhagen, however, something important did happen in Washington: The Obama administration officially declared that greenhouse gases produced by burning coal and oil pose a danger to public health. Why is that important? Because it opens the way to possible broad new federal regulation of U.S. power plants, heavy industry and automobiles. . . [AO: Right. because, you know, any new federal regulation of power plants, heavy industry and automobiles is bad. But why?] 

A brief — very brief — legal history: In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to weigh whether carbon dioxide and other climate-changing gases threatened human health and welfare. If so, the court said, the EPA could take steps to regulate them.  

Flash forward to earlier this month.  

The EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson, announced the agency’s finding. That was a key step that would allow the EPA to act on its own authority — without further action by Congress — to develop tough rules for carbon dioxide emissions and other gases blamed for global warming.  

That sounds like a political ultimatum to Congress — pass a law to cut carbon or else.  

Wrong strategy. . . [AO: Err… wrong interpretation. As I’ve explained,
Congress passed the Clean Air Act which ordered EPA to regulate  harmful substance in the air. The EPA refused to regulate carbon, claiming it had no authority to do so. In other words, the EPA claimed that the Clean Air Act did not order it to regulate carbon. As a result, the EPA was sued by 14 states. The EPA lost and was told by the Supreme Court that it has the authority to regulate carbon. Now, the EPA agrees.   

The Chicago Tribune thinks this is a “strategy” by the EPA and a political ultimatum to Congress. Never mind the EPA had no choice. Disregard the fact that the EPA was dragged kicking and screaming to this decision. No. The way the Tribune tells it, this is all about political theatrics orchestrated by the Obama administration.]  

The EPA could act, but it shouldn’t. Any move by the EPA to curb carbon will almost certainly end up in the courts, for years if not decades. . . So if the Obama administration wants to ignite years of litigation, it can bypass Congress, make the rules — and see how well that works. . . [AO: Now who’s making an ultimatum? The threat here is that if the EPA acts, it will be tied up in litigation for decades. It doesn’t matter if the litigation is warranted. Doesn’t matter if the regulated parties have a sound case. They’ll simply tie up the EPA for years.  

But here’s the catch. The Tribune assumes these same regulated entities that will take advantage of any opening to tie up EPA regulation in court for decades will welcome Congressional regulation without a fight. Why would they? After all, they can tie up new Congressional regulation in litigation for decades too.   

Of course, the Tribune is probably assuming that Congress will take steps that, no doubt heavily influenced by industry lobbyists, will be seen by the regulated community are sufficiently benign as to not be worthy of a long-term court fight.]

The last best hope is that Obama advances a surprise climate initiative surge that goes beyond short-term politics. . .   

An Obama climate surge would mean offering at least a 30 percent US reduction in emissions by 2020 from the 1990 level, as part of a commitment to embrace real target emissions as demanded by the Africans and other nations who walked out of the talks earlier this week.  

It would also offer a global US climate policy package to developing nations, including China, India and Brazil, that would lead them to embrace more ambitious emission targets and green development. . .  

Among such solutions in a climate surge initiative are:  

-           A green Tobin tax on very short-term speculative financial trades, which was proposed by George Soros at Copenhagen. Such a tax would raise hundreds of billions for investing in energy efficiency and green development projects in poor nations. . . 

[AO: Considerable scientific evidence support the conclusion that climate change is a real and ongoing problem. America must take steps to do its part to arrest this problem. Yet, there is little that America can do on its own to fix the problem without the participation of the international community. However, in our efforts to engage the international community on the issue of global warming, we must be careful not to take steps that later prove harmful to America.  

In that regard, the “Obama surge” the writer, Charles Derber, recommends may be an unnecessary action that could harm America if other countries do not follow suit. First, we cannot afford to commit to significant emissions reductions just because other countries demand we do so as Derber recommends. Also, we cannot afford to commit to significant carbon reductions as a means of encouraging developing countries like China, India and Brazil to follow suit. Those countries will not commit to significant emissions reductions simply as a way to copy America. Instead, they will do what they believe to be in their best interest which may or may not involve committing to significant emissions reductions.   

On the other hand, if a US commitment to significant emissions reductions is negotiated with other counties, including developing countries such as China, India and Brazil, we will be in a better position to use offers of significant emissions reductions to encourage other countries to do the same.  

There has been much talk about different mechanisms for generating revenue for funding green initiatives in developing countries. Here, Derber suggests using revenue from a Tobin tax on very short-term speculative financial trades for such a purpose. This may be a good idea. However, we must be cognizant that climate change is not our only immediate problem. America has a huge deficit that could be alleviated somewhat by revenues from such a tax. We also have millions of Americans who go without health insurance because we cannot “afford” national health insurance for all Americans. We must at least consider these other priorities as potential recipients of any revenue generated by a Tobin tax.]

. . . both [Democrats and Republicans] have agreed, although tacitly, on one thing: Science is the appropriate arbiter of the political debate, and policy decisions should be determined by objective scientific assessments of future risks. This seductive idea gives politicians something to hide behind when faced with divisive decisions. . .

[But] . . . problems such as climate change are much more scientifically complex than determining the charge on an electron or even the structure of DNA. . . Such science is often not subject to replicable experiments or verification. . .  

The real scandal illustrated by the [East Anglia] e-mails is not that scientists tried to undermine peer review, fudge and conceal data, and torpedo competitors, but that scientists and advocates on both sides of the climate debate continue to claim political authority derived from a false ideal of pure science. This charade is a disservice to both science and democracy. To science, because the reality cannot live up to the myth; to democracy, because the difficult political choices created by the genuine but also uncertain threat of climate change are concealed by the scientific debate.  

What is the solution? Let politics do its job; indeed, demand it. . .  

[AO: Science does not always provide the answers politicians need. In deed, at times the science necessary to address a particular issue is not at the stage where decisions can be reliably premised on scientific conclusions.  

The writers make the argument that, at times, politicians must rely on other non-scientific means of making decisions in issues that are inherently scientific. This, the writers suggest, is necessary where the politics are divisive and the science is sufficiently complex.   

But what do the authors mean by “sufficiently complex?” Surely, they don’t mean that even given conclusive scientific evidence regarding a complex scientific issue, politicians should discard the conclusive scientific evidence simply because the issue is divisive. For example, creationism/evolution is a divisive issue. Yet, the scientific evidence is fairly conclusive. Are the writers suggesting that politicians disregard scientific evidence in that debate? What will politicians rely on there?  

In regards to climate change, the writers recommend that politicians be “clear about the values, interests and beliefs that underpin their preferences and choices about science and policy.” They say that it is “Better to recognize that decision-makers, depending on their political beliefs, will weigh the evidence and risks of climate change differently when evaluating policy options.” But this is something that politicians do whether or not the issue is divisive. Politicians must always weigh competing goals. What science does is provide a basis for weighing the scientifically-supported decision more favorably.  

Ultimately, climate change, divisive or not, complex or simple, must be treated like any other science issue. The scientific evidence must be allowed to speak for itself and politicians must seriously consider that evidence when making decisions.]

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an “endangerment” to human health. . .  

Not everyone is pleased. . . When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.   

With the Senate blocking President Obama’s cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d’etat served as the administration’s loud response to Webb: The hell we can’t. With this EPA “endangerment” finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.  

Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There’s the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society — as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based — you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats. . .  

[AO: Charles Krauthammer tells a story. It’s a story about how Third World countries are attempting to steal the treasures of Western Democracies. It’s a story about how socialists traded in their red colors for green so they can continue their socialist agenda. It’s a story about how the current administration, unilaterally, is using the EPA to usurp the will of the people and Congress by imposing or threatening to impose restrictions on carbon. In short, it is a fanciful story . . . a very fanciful story. One challenged by reality.  

Here’s a more fact based, shorter account. No talk of Third World kleptocracies. No talk of socialists changing colors. No. None of that. No doubt, this account is not as interesting and doesn’t warm the hearts of some but, alas, this is the unfortunate reality of simply sticking to the facts and avoiding grandiose theories that veer away from reality.  

Congress, in the Clean Air Act, authorized the EPA to regulated harmful substances in the air. The Bush administration decided it had no authority to regulate carbon emissions despite evidence that carbon emissions are harmful. The state of Massachusetts, in the name of its people, twelve other states and several cities, sued the EPA. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court where
the Supreme Court held that the EPA had the authority to regulate carbon. The Supreme Court also ruled that the EPA must provide a good reason if it wants to avoid regulation required by the Clean Air Act passed by Congress. In other words, Congress ordered the EPA to regulate carbon in the Clean Air Act. If the EPA wants to avoid its responsibility, it’d better have a very good reason.  

The EPA eventually decided, with its back against the wall, that it has to regulate carbon.  

Now, we have Congress telling the EPA to regulate carbon. We have states demanding that the EPA do what Congress ordered. We have the US Supreme Court telling the EPA that the Clean Air Act authorizes it to regulate carbon. We have the EPA finally conceding, after putting up a mighty struggle, that it has the authority to regulate carbon.  

Yet, Krauthammer wants us to believe that this is an attempt by the EPA to usurp the power of the Congress and ordinary Americans.   

Like I said, he tells a fanciful story.]

Despite some questions, Obama’s Afghan policy is sound Given time, his strategy should work. But will there be time, and what about ‘winning’? [LA Times]

Afghanistan: Did Obama really say that? [Chicago Tribune]

Afghanistan: Now let’s win it; Republicans, Democrats and independents, it’s time to get behind our troops – and our commander in chief. [USA Today]

A Goldilocks strategy: Obama bought himself time on Afghanistan, but there will be hell to pay if his policy fails. [Washington Post]

Health reform must go forward: Defenders of the status quo in health care would gladly allow the need to vet President Obama’s Afghanistan plan to drain precious energy from the health-care fight. [Boston Globe]

Climate of suspicion [Chicago Tribune]

Trading with Ecuador: Washington must resist efforts by Chevron to interfere with a Andean trade agreement. [LA Times]

Too risky to regulate? Not with proper verification [Boston Globe]

The Job Summit: Once job creation has the priority status it deserves, the next step is to build on proven programs and add new ones to address the scale and nature of joblessness. [New York Times]

‘Yes’ to a second stimulus: State and local governments are draining federal dollars, deepening the U.S.’s decline. [Washington Post]

Cracking Cuba [LA Times]

Framers envisioned separation: Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s support for legal abortion has earned him the wrath of the Catholic bishop of Providence, R.I., Thomas Tobin [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Tiger Woods pleas for privacy, and he has a point [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Taking one for the team: The National Football League needs to move beyond its incremental steps to combat player brain injuries. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Concussions: Kurt Warner’s courage - Arizona Cardinal Kurt Warner did something courageous last Sunday. He admitted he was too shaken up to play. [Boston Globe]

Neglected Warriors: Far greater candor in Washington is needed about all the factors and risks that can drive soldiers to commit suicide. [New York Times]

‘Reality’ and the White House crashers [LA Times]

How to get around Karzai: Good governors and ministers may help us succeed in spite of the Afghan president. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

————————–

Editorial Note: This feature, “What They Are Saying” will be discontinued on Monday, December 7, 2009 so that we can bring you more annotated opinions.

·       A show of resolve [Chicago Tribune]

·      The reality of Afghanistan: We will not remake Afghan society
nor create a recognizable democracy there. [LA Times]

·       The Afghanistan Speech: President Obama needs to tell the
American people how he intends to pay for the war and how he will decide when Afghanistan will be able to stand on its own. [New York Times] 

·     More means less: President Obama’s decision to send more soldiers to Afghanistan amounts to the best of several risky options. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

·      Obama’s get-in, get-out plan faces harsh Afghan realities: But carefully crafted strategy offers a reasonable prospect for success. [USA Today]

·      Afghanistan: How long until we know? Whether President Obama’s new strategy is working should become quite clear within two years. [USA Today]

·      Surge, then leave: Obama made the right decision — even if it will make everyone a little unhappy. [Washington Post]

Accounting for the costs of war [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Climategate: Dissent on ice – You don’t have to be a climate change
skeptic to be appalled by the exchange of e-mails from top scientists. [Boston Globe]

Fame and its new upper crust [Chicago Tribune]

We need a new women’s health movement [LA Times]

Advertising: We sue harder? [Boston Globe]

What the U.S. can achieve in Afghanistan, despite Karzai: Washington can compensate for his failings by persuading him to choose strong, principled Cabinet ministers and delegate authority to them. [LA
Times]

Look beyond Iran’s posturing [Boston Globe]

Iran’s military dictatorship [Washington Post]

Swiss ban on minarets is pure discrimination: Sunday’s referendum is a reminder that cultural anxieties can be inflamed even in the most tolerant country. [LA Times]

Health-care fatigue: A desultory debate of rote talking points and cheap demagoguery. [Washington Post]

Woods: Breaking gossip a bore [Chicago Tribune]

Crash and don’t tell: Tiger Woods is the refreshing converse of the
loathsome White House party-crashers. [Washington Post]

Collisions with the future: The world’s grandest science experiment is up and running again – no thanks to a bird. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

More and more, the truth of Christmas is put to the test [Chicago Tribune]

————————–

Editorial Note: This feature, “What They Are Saying” will be discontinued on Monday, December 7, 2009 so that we can bring you more annotated opinions.

Weighing the benefits of a mammography: Although we all would like to think that public health pronouncements are the unmitigated truth about any issue, rarely is that the case. [LA Times]

Giving thanks in secular, holy ways: At Thanksgiving, the secular and religious impulses, usually taken to be antagonists, salute each other respect. [Boston Globe]

Ft. Hood and the bugaboo of ‘political correctness’: Look deeper at a killer and what do you usually find? An angry, crazy person. [LA Times]

The Church and the Capital: Washington lawmakers should negotiate the language of a same-sex marriage bill with the Catholic archdiocese without selling out same-sex couples. [New York Times]

Free speech: It’s the ACLU’s deal: For Americans liberal and  conservative, the organization continues to support their right to speak. [LA Times]

For American savers, the mattress beckons: Banks pay microscopic interest even as they recover. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

The Phantom Menace: The scare stories from Wall Street seem to be intimidating Washington from doing more to rescue the economy. [New York Times]

What the Pilgrims really sought: Their trip to the New World wasn’t about tolerance or diversity. It was about purity. [USA Today]

Tim DeChristopher’s wild legal ride: He disrupted an oil and gas lease auction last year by posing as a buyer. Now a judge has rejected his last-ditch defense strategy. [LA Times]  

Crunching the numbers on bioenergy rules: The right rules will encourage the development of fast-growing grasses and trees that can greatly increase the amount of carbon absorbed by plants on marginal land. [Boston Globe]

Hot times: As a crucial climate change conference nears, more evidence of a warming globe [Houston Chronicle]

Obama needs to feel the heat: The melting arctic ice is unimpressed with his climate-change efforts. [Washington Post]

A green future for old buildings: Many existing buildings, especially those built before World War II, embody environmental and energy-conscious design. [Boston Globe]  

GPS and Privacy Rights: A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., should rule that police need a warrant before putting a GPS device on a suspect’s car. [New York Times]

Heal thyself: The slow reaction by the Department of Veterans Affairs to a flawed cancer-treatment program in Philadelphia suggests an agency that would rather forget its mistakes than learn from them. [Philadelphia Inquirer]  

Afghanistan Plan C: Obama tries to think his way around the all-in-or-all-out dilemma. [Washington Post]

In El Salvador, a grim reflection, and a glimmer of hope: The president has bestowed the country’s highest honor on six Jesuit priests massacred 20 years ago, more evidence that peaceful change is possible, if slow to come. [LA Times]

India and us: South Asia is a tar pit filled with failed and dysfunctional states, save for one. [Washington Post]  

Slang from the mouths of babes [Chicago Tribune]

From vinyl to digital, my obsession lives on: Technology has made the pursuit of our pleasures much easier. But in so doing, I often wonder if it has made them less sacred. [Boston Globe]

A Luddite in the library: Search engines are all well and good, but sometimes the best place to find something is a library. [LA Times]  

Obama is right to acknowledge China’s might: For better and worse, the U.S. and Chinese economies are intertwined, and that makes America stronger, not weaker. [LA Times]

For Palin, reality goes rogue: The former vice-presidential candidate dwells on the most damaging accusation against her — that she rang up $150,000 in luxury clothing purchases. Too bad that her defense is
preposterous. [Boston Globe]

Studying Palintology: Here’s something useful that George W. Bush can put his money into. [Washington Post]

Our rogue Evita: Sarah Palin follows in the footsteps of Eva Peron. [Washington Post]

Obama’s Judicial Nominations: The White House and the Senate should speed up judicial nominations and confirmations to restore balance to the federal courts. [New York Times]

Time for a ruling on judge: Eight months after President Obama nominated him to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, a jurist from Indiana may finally have a chance at confirmation from the Senate. [LA Times]

Madoff: A piece of the (malef)action: The convicted Ponzi schemer’s belongings are being auctioned off. Good news for his victims, but it’s still sad that his infamy lends exorbitant value to mundane objects. [Boston Globe]

Puppets in Congress: It is disturbing that so many members of Congress were willing to repeat a biotechnology company’s talking points in the Congressional Record. [New York Times]

Gitmo, Illinois: Plans for moving some Gitmo prisoners prisons in Illinois is no reason for panic [Chicago Tribune]

Democracy – it’s not for everyone: In the past half century, the record of democracies in some regions of the world has been spotty. [Boston Globe]

Shaming undermines justice: Americans may cheer the idea of retributive punishment, but such judgments threaten the principles of our legal system. [USA Today]

What the Future May Hold: For future generations, we need to remember that infrastructure is linked to the health of the economy, the environment and the viability of the nation as a whole. [New York Times]

Their Future Is Ours: The country is stumbling under the challenge of integrating the children of immigrants, who need more supportive policies and programs. [New York Times]

Pandemic politics: How did we get to a point where H1N1 means something different to everyone? [Washington Post]