Numbers to scare you: The just ended 111th Congress added more debt than the first hundred Congresses combined.
As I’ve said, it’s all pork: NASA’s Ares rocket is supposingly dead, but the continuing resolution from Congress requires NASA to spend $500 million more for it.
It is also a mess, but I’ve said that before also!
The lawless Obama administration. Key quote:
Obama uses his control over Executive Branch agencies to do what Congress or the courts have forbidden. It’s worked, sometimes, for him over the past few years. But he’s out of time now: the GOP-led House can defund many of these efforts, even if it can’t put a stop to them completely.
Just so no one has any doubts, doing something that both Congress and the courts say is forbidden is breaking the law. And it appears that the Obama administration has a fetish for this sort of thing.
Democratic tolerance: Al Sharpton, in his effort to get the FCC to outlaw conservative speech on the airwaves, says it is arrogant to “allow people to say what they want.”
Oink! Scientists rail against senator who belittled research.
The space war over NASA: The continuing resolution puts NASA where it was back in February, with everything uncertain.
Our government at work: For the past seven years, Maryland has used prisoners, some with fraud and theft convictions, to process Social Security numbers and other personal information of low income residences.
Power grab! The EPA has taken from Texas regulators the permitting process for air quality on major industrial facilities.
More on that Sacramento-area pilot who is being threatened by the TSA for posting a video showing airport security flaws.
When will the left learn? A big tax hike in Oregon results instead in substantially less revenue for the state.
So you think NASA’s gonna get some money, eh? According the Treasury Department, the government’s debt rose by $2 trillion last year alone.
Yesterday the New York Times published a long article by Justin Gillis describing the work of Charles Keeling, the scientist who first measured the increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. The article is very much worth reading, as it does a generally reasonable and detailed job of giving the history, background, and importance of Keeling’s research.
Unfortunately, the flaws of Gillis’s article illustrate the difficulty of debating climate change science, or maybe any political issue, in our times. Though Gillis does make an effort to give the skeptical scientists their fair due, he is so convinced they are wrong that his article in the end fails to address the basic areas of disagreement on which the entire climate debate today hinges. In fact, by avoiding some of the debate’s most basic issues, Gillis ends up creating barriers which make an honest analysis of the issues impossible.
That this seems to happen in almost all political debates today is distressing, at the least. How can we honestly face our problems if we refuse to face all the facts on which those problems hang?
Let’s consider the specific areas where Gillis’s demonstrates a large blind spot:
1. One of the fundamental facts that throws a wrench in all global warming theories is the fact, recognized by all climate scientists, that in all past global warming events, the Earth’s climate warmed before the levels of carbon dioxide rose. In other words, an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere did not cause global warming. Instead, the warming encouraged the increase in carbon dioxide.
An honest appraisal of the science of climate change would always recognize this puzzling but very significant data point. Gillis, however, fails to mention it. Nor is Gillis alone in this failure. Almost all global warming advocates as well as their willing helpers in the press routinely ignore this important detail. Yet, that climate scientists can’t explain this fact is one of primary reasons many are skeptical of the disaster scenarios put forth by global warming advocates.
As I say, an honest discussion of this subject would always recognize this point.
2. As his primary evidence that the Earth is now warming from the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, Gillis has this to say:
In 2007, a body appointed by the United Nations declared that the scientific evidence that the earth was warming had become unequivocal, and it added that humans were almost certainly the main cause. Mr. Gore and the panel jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize.
This “body” is of course the IPCC. That Gillis is strangely reluctant to actually name this organization in his article suggests he knows its reputation is seriously damaged. Rather than face this fact and deal with it, however, he prefers to ignore it, and in the process help his readers avoid this fact as well.
Yet, the IPCC reports have known problems. They contain some fundamental factual errors, as well as citing as evidence numerous press releases from environmental advocacy groups, hardly a reliable source of information. This is not to say that the IPCC reports should be dismissed wholesale, but for Gillis to depend on them as his sole source of proof of global warming without recognizing these problems is not only inappropriate, it discredits everything he writes. It also suggests that he relies more on the prestige of the organization who issued the report, rather than the science behind it. His further reference to Al Gore and the Nobel prize is further evidence of this reliance on authority.
Once again, an honest appraisal of the present state of the global warming debate would gladly face all these facts, and describe them for the reader.
3. Gillis makes the unfortunate decision to call anyone who questions the science of global warming a “contrarian.” The use of this denigrating term, comparable to the use of the term “denier”, suggests that Gillis has a closed mind about the subject, and has no interest in finding out anything about the skeptical view.
An honest appraisal of the debate, however, would avoid these kinds of loaded terms. It is perfectly fine to note the weaknesses of the skeptical position. It is not acceptable to use ad hominem attacks to discredit them.
All in all, the three examples above encompass all of the basic problems we face in almost all our political debates today:
Until we stop doing these foolish things, we will find it impossible to discuss or solve our problems reasonably, and with good will.
The space war will continue until March: Unable to pass a real budget, Congress has instead passed a continuing resolution that, among everything else, freezes NASA’s budget at 2010 numbers through the spring.
More evidence that the American government manned spaceflight program is dying: NASA is considering a merger of its Exploration and Operations directorates. Without a shuttle, there really is no need for Operations.
So what happens when California goes bankrupt?
Repeal the damn bill! How Obamacare is hastening the bankruptcy of state governments. Key quote:
If state Medicaid spending increases by 41 percent as projected by [the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services], then by next year Medicaid could end up consuming nearly 30 percent of the average state budget. Medicaid would greatly exceed all other state priorities, including education, which tops state budgets at about 22 percent. In fact, state spending on education would experience certain cuts next year. [emphasis mine]
Resisting the power grab: Automakers sue the EPA over its new ethanol regulations allowing the sale of gasoline with 15% ethanol.
Power grab! FCC votes 3-2 to regulate the internet via net neutrality.
There’s a mini ice age coming, says a man whose predictions the last few winters have been better than the British weather service.
Who says the healthcare bill didn’t nationalize the healthcare industry? Under the new law, the Obama administration will be reviewing all health insurance rate increases next year, approving only those it agrees with.
Repeal the damn bill!
Power grab! Eight former park superintendents are pressing the U.S. and Canadian governments to expand government control over lands adjacent to Glacier National Park in Montana and Waterton Lakes National Park.
Your tax dollars at work: Twenty idiotic things the U.S. government is spending money on. My favorite, #8, also happens to be one of the most expensive:
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs spent $175 million during 2010 to maintain hundreds of buildings that it does not even use. This includes a pink, octagonal monkey house in the city of Dayton, Ohio.
Ho! Ho! Ho! The members of an informal high school “Christmas Sweater Club” have been punished by their school for spreading Christmas cheer. Key quote:
Mother Kathleen Flannery said an administrator called her and explained “not everyone wants Christmas cheer. That suicide rates are up over Christmas, and that they should keep their cheer to themselves, perhaps.”
A TSA worker gets probation after being convicted of using TSA surveillance equipment to steal travelers’ laptops.
Want to trim the federal debt? Here’s a place to start: Federal paychecks in the San Diego area are one third higher than private pay, according to census numbers. The pay raises were also more than three times higher.
A law student at Syracuse University is facing possible expulsion for “harassment,” but the university won’t tell him who his accusers are or even the details of his offense.
The space war over NASA continues: The continuing resolution being offered by the Senate would freeze NASA’s budget at 2010 numbers through March. Also,
NASA would be prohibited from initiating new programs, and could be required to continue spending about $200 million per month on the Moon-bound Constellation program.
As I’ve said repeatedly, the whole thing is a mess.
A few words in praise of fear. Key quote:
In Washington and in statehouses around the country, the reality of the pending Fiscal Armageddon is starting to seep into the thick skulls of the elected class. Jerry Brown pronounced himself “shocked” once he got a good peek at California’s balance sheet. Off the record, politicians of both parties are starting to concede that a lot of the old ideological disputes at now moot, because there simply isn’t any money. It’s not a question of whether there are going to be deep cuts and fundamental restructuring, but when and how much. [emphasis mine]
The lack of money affects NASA’s future as much as anything. The future of space does not lie in government funding, no matter what people tell you.
Giving credit where credit is due: Ed Morrissey notes that the Republicans have shown significant progress in reducing the number of earmarks requested by their members, while the Democrats have not.
Not only do the Republicans have to continue to improve their numbers, now is the time for Democrats to see the writing on the wall and get with the program. Cut spending!
In a related note: Loaded gun slips past TSA screeners.
