Climate change skeptics running out of excuses...

Eugene Robinson's column today talks about a climate change skeptic that decided he would disprove all the global warming science and ended up proving it himself.

I'm guessing the Republican Party will disavow this guy pretty quickly now that he hasn't fallen in line with the ideology. The future will talk about today's Right Wing like the way the church is described today for executing Copernicus for saying the sun is at the center of our solar system. Of course, if there is a future since we may not survive it based on the science proven in the op-ed.

I'll huff and puff and I'll blow your house in

Yes, climate change is much worse than the big bad wolf...

Finally, hard evidence … but about whom?

For some reason, the birth certificate issue is even being analyzed down under in Australia. A professor at the University of Western Australia astutely picks up on the reason why seemingly intelligent people plug into ideologies that are deeply flawed:

"It has been a long-standing source of puzzlement among outside observers how the Soviet Union and its satellites could bumble along for so long without reforming their sclerotic economies. Didn’t they notice that the shelves were empty? That Western workers enjoyed a far more comfortable life-style than their Soviet brethren?

No, the Soviet ideologues didn't notice and they wouldn't have seen anything even if someone had forced them to look.

Because ideology trumps facts.

And it doesn't matter what the ideology is, whether socialism, any brand of fundamentalist religion, or free-market extremism. The psychological literature shows quite consistently that a threat to one's worldview is more than likely met by a dismissal of facts, however strong the evidence. Indeed, the stronger the evidence, the greater the threat—and hence the greater the denial."

This reminds me of a lot of the things I’ve heard from conservatives about President Obama and progressive policies, such as:

• "You may have doubts about trickle down, but we do have empirical evidence that socialism and communism do not work."
• "Obama is a socialist. Everything he does and says (when he is talking to his supporters) are excellent examples of socialism."
• "This perpetual welfare we have started with endless unemployment is just giving the incentive not to work for a much smaller pool of people than would be employed in a strong economy."
• "[W]ho passed the health care bill against the wishes of the majority? Who wants to put people in jail if they choose not to have health insurance? Which party is it that wants to regulate everything that exists in America?"

Just to be clear, I'm not implying it's conservative issue alone. There are many liberals that hold ideologically rigid views as well. It's one of the reasons I wasn't disappointed when Keith Olbermann's show went off the air.

Now someone might think that I'm glutton for punishment for debating issues with people this ideologically rigid. The reality is I don't mind because not only does it keep me honest but I agree with these kinds of people more times than they realize. Not with the statements above because although I don't mind strong opinions as long as the person knows they're opinions and not passing them off as facts, like they are here.

It never hurts to look into the opposing point of view, under the assumption that they are the ones that are right, to find something that you may agree with. One thing I've learned is my position tends to stay closer to where it originally was but becomes a bit more nuanced than before.

As far as whether or not Obama is a socialist or communist or fascist or jihadist, etc., forget what everyone else says and just go to the source. It's best way to really find out what makes a person tick, regardless of whether or not you like them.

The REAL Reason the party of Reagan cannot accept the science of climate change

Former Republican Congressman Sherwood Boehlert wrote an interesting op-ed in today's Washington Post about why the Republican Party is eschewing science for political reasons.

I am sympathetic to the author's position that verifiable scientific facts must not be questioned and the only political angle must be the solutions to address them. However, I disagree with him that the climate change skepticism is purely political, especially when we know evangelical fundamentalism is much more rampant in the United States compared to other developed countries. What has happened is the fundamentalism has infected right-wing politics, to the point where we have this joker potentially in line to chair the House Energy Committee, all the while believing that there isn't enough carbon on earth and once stating in a committee hearing:

"...the earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.... I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith, and we can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect. Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of dinosaurs, when we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet — not too much carbon. And the cost of a cap-and-trade on the poor is now being discovered."

Some Monday Evening Light Reading

Some articles I came across today that were interesting to read for a variety of reasons:

• David Callahan writes about the “greening” of the wealthy, where more and more of the affluent are environmentally conscious. It seems like a very optimistic approach to the failure of the Senate to take up climate change legislation.
• Ross Douthat writes a very confusing column about the overturning Prop 8 in California. He lays out solid arguments in favor of gay marriage based on cultural and historical factors but says there is something about straight marriage that is different and must be honored. However, he never quite says what that something is.
• Paul Krugman continues to anchor himself firmly on the left of the political divide. Much like Ross Douthat’s opinions on gay marriage, I agree with Paul Krugman most of the time but still feel as though that elusive reason for disagreeing with him is out there somewhere.
• Matt Bai writes a great piece about the xenophobia on the right these days and how this is not a new phenomenon. On a side note, I always thought the deciding factor of the 2006 election was the fact that George W. Bush could not pass comprehensive immigration reform in spite of his popularity with his own party. In much the same way Bill Clinton passed NAFTA and Welfare Reform, going against his own party’s entrenched positions, the failure of immigration reform seemed like the canary in the coal mine for the Republicans as they approached the 2006 mid-term elections.