Should the Democrats Talk About Climate Change?

August 16, 2012 at 9:22 am | Posted in Climate change, Disinformation, Global warming | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , ,

Climate change has long been a divisive issue.  For that reason the Democratic Party has shied away from talking about it before the election.

But this year has been the tipping point for public opinion about climate change.

Drought, fires, and record temperatures this past summer have convinced many who previously doubted global warming.  (Although global warming does not account for all of the present drought, it does contribute to it, and will contribute more importantly to future droughts.  Here is a concise summary of the relative contributions to drought from natural cycles and from human-induced warming.)

The reports of ice melting and the margins of glaciers disintegrating in both the Arctic and the Antarctic have added to the change of heart. The steady drum beat of dramatic changes has cumulatively built up a convincing mass of evidence.

There are probably few farmers in the midwest and southwest who still do not believe in global warming.

The drought is going to push up the price of food.  The melting of the permafrost in formerly cold regions will force hugely expensive replacements of buildings and roads.  There will also be an enormous human and medical cost from fungal  infections, as I’ll discuss in a later post.  It is now clear that the cost of not reducing global warming will eventually dwarf the cost of reducing it.

By the way, what do the Pee Party and Paul Ryan think about the Federal role in drought relief? If they are for it, how do they expect the government to pay for it?

That brings us back to the question in the title of this post.

In the pre-election arguments, the Democrats should point out that, of the two parties, only they are willing to do something about global warming.

If Republicans are elected,
– action will be further delayed
– the problem will be much harder when we finally get around to dealing with it
– the impact on you, your children and your grandchildren will be much more severe.

If Democrats are elected,
– action starts right away
– the problem will not be as hard or as costly
– the impact on you and yours and on the economy will be less severe.

Al Gore was right.  Global warming is an inconvenient truth.  But we cannot avoid having to deal with it eventually.

The Un-Americanism of the Tea Party

August 1, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Posted in Conceited, Dysfunctional Politics | 1 Comment
Tags: , ,

As a matter of principle, the Tea Party is against compromise.

It therefore seeks to establish an Authoritarian politics.  It seeks to establish the opposite of an open society.  The Tea Party believes that it knows the final truth, and can learn nothing from those holding other views.

But the American experiment is based on the goal of an open society.  That goal is its most fundamental principle, from which flow all of its other goals and principles.

Hence the Tea Party is un-American at its very core.

The line of reasoning above is a syllogism.  The conclusion followed by strict logic.  It is inescapable.

From the Tea Party’s Authoritarianism follows, in particular, that the Tea Party is the antithesis of Libertarianism, which is one of the proposed routes (not necessarily the best) to an open society.

Readers may recall that the same points were made, in a different way, in a post about Grover Norquist, who was a precursor of the Tea Party.

Given the Tea Party’s un-American authoritarianism, allow me to call it the Pee Party.

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.