Since this didn't end up appearing on Patrick McIlheran's blog, I thought I would share it with you to ensure you understand the difference between BAD government and GOOD government. In a recent post, Patrick uses the the bad policies of governments in pseudo-communist China and Africa (read: dictatorships, to varying degrees) as a reason why governments in general are "bad." Patrick relies on a story in The Spectator, which just so happens to be--surprise!--an extreme right-wing newspaper. The article in question, which you can read here, talks about a recent visit to Cameroon where the journalist went through multiple roadblocks, which can have horrible effects on food transportation.

Cameroon? Really? Boy, who could have thought that there might be flaws in the Cameroon government? This is one of McIlheran's favorite ways to play people against the U.S. government, and it's extremely effective. Despite the fact that the governments in question are hardly an example of democracy, especially not the kind we have here in the United States, McIlheran argues them as typical examples. And yet, if I were to list the multiple ways in which the Free Market hampers the production and distribution of food, McIlheran would most likely argue: "No, that's not the fault of the Free Market. And those are markets in other countries."

The current global food crisis is an imprortant issue, and reducing the explanation to "Governments are evil" is a gross, disingenuous action, especially when the governments in question are very often at the mercy of the IMF and World Bank, which promotes Free Market principles in exchange for loans. Add to that the skyrocketing cost of oil and massive droughts caused by climate change, and you have a veritable stew of problems that won't be solved anytime soon.

If you're interested in helping to make a small difference, switch to vegetarian meals on a regular basis. I make a point of eating vegetarian at least four times per week (or more), even though I enjoy eating meat. It's a small sacrifice, one we can all make, and it save a LOT of energy that's typically spent raising meat. One giant solution won't solve the food crisis, just like one giant government isn't the problem. 

I'm going to write about this once more later in the week, but for now take a look at this link:

How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Global Warming? 

The point of this particular post is mainly a very simple argument and that is this: nothing short of catastrophe will convince the skeptic movement at this point. It's literally impossible. The IPCC, in their eyes, is one big bureaucratic conspiracy, and the scientific "establishment" is flat-out wrong. There will never be enough evidence. Period.

And there's more. For the past three decades, members of the Modern Conservative Movement have gone out of their way to demonize environmentalism and block literally every single attempt to achieve clean energy. The motives changes from person to person, but the ultimate goal of marginalizing the environmental movement is identical in every aspect. After the democrats in Congress voted to mandate all light bulbs to be switched to energy efficient fluorescent bulbs (and will most likely follow suit with LED as it becomes available), the Conservative Movement was up in arms. Even in the Journal Sentinel, Patrick McIlheran argued what right do they have? How could they do this to our freedom? Big Government, blah blah blah

It's not a bad argument, but how long is it credible? The more energy we use, the more we will affect our planet, and when some people decide to use the less efficient light bulbs, that affects the freedom of everyone else. And we're talking about LIGHT BULBS. Light bulbs that can literally reduce our light-based energy consumption by 75 percent. So then the argument is that the bulbs have a little mercury. Okay. Good argument. So why not provide consumers with a simple way to recycle the used bulbs rather than completely abandon the idea? No, that would be too much. This is the EASIEST way to reduce our eco footprint, and there are Movement Conservatives going out of their way to oppose it.

This is nothing new. While in office, President Carter installed solar hot water panels on the White House. When Ronald Reagan took office, he removed them. He literally took them down despite the fact that they were functioning perfectly. This goes beyond criticism of environmentalism. This was a deliberate attack on the movement as a whole, regardless of the progress made up to that point and regardless of the benefits. It was borderline sadistic, and it set the tone for the way the Modern Conservative movement has reacted to any environmental progress.
 

Let's talk about Global Warming Denial within the U.S. Congress, specifically Senator Inhofe. For those of you who don't know Senator Inhofe, he gained a lot of media attention for releasing the "Inhofe 400," a list of 400 scientists who allegedly believed global warming was false. There's only one problem: most of the 400 have been thoroughly debunked. Not only have a majority of the scientists been completely debunked for various reasons, still more are actually coming out and REQUESTING to be taken off the list. Why? Because they believe global warming exists, and that it's caused partly by human beings. They don't want to be on the list!

But I digress. How about those scientists who argue that global warming is a hoax? Let's take a look at one--Chris Allen, a weather director from an ABC affiliate in southern Kentucky--from The Grist:

"My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus...did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is "we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US!" I have a huge problem with that."

 Ouch! That's a pretty tough argument for any scientist to debunk.

Kate Sheppard from the American Prospect sums up the "Inhofe 400" in the most concise, realistic way:

"It's not too hard to dredge up 400 people in all the world who think the lunar landing was a farce or believe that Elvis is living in Albuquerque, much like it isn't too hard to dig up 400 people with a vague background in the field of science who find something to dispute in climate science. That doesn't mean their views should be lauded and held up as scientific proof that global warming isn't so bad. There haven't been any peer-reviewed scientific studies validating any claims that the planet is either not warming, or not warming because of humans, and the world's most-respected climatologists are all in agreement."