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."

Well, here we go! It's time for the weekend homework, and this week I'm going to provide you with a number of links to Web sites that you can use again and again. I'll try and do this again in the future, but for now, this will give you a great head start. Bookmark these.

Climate Progress -- Run by a scientist who's actually conducted empirical research on global climate change, this is a great resource. He's funny, intelligent and has no problem calling out Democrats or Republicans who are unwilling to accept scientific facts. Global warming is real, it's important, and we have technology available right now to begin combating the problem.

David Sirota -- One of my favorite columnists and author of Hostile Takeover. Sirota takes Republicans and conservative Democrats to task, focusing mainly on corruption related to lobbying issues and how bribery can affect a politician's decisions. In addition, he makes a point of showing the positive side of government and how grassroots organizations are making a real difference. Well worth subscribing to.

Paul Krugman -- A liberal economist, one of the best on this planet. Krugman's analyses on everything from the dangers of unregulated forces to universal health care to classic economics is always well researched and intelligent.

Enjoy these. The most recent posts are excellent.
 

John McCain's vote against Martin Luther King Day was no mistake, and you need to understand this because race plays a BIG role in the modern conservative movement. It plays a big role because the modern conservatives first began in the late 50's to play on the racism of white Americans in order to turn what was once a very tiny sliver of the Republican Party into what we now know as the GOP.

There was a time, in the mid-fifties, where white voters in the south were just as likely to vote Democrat or Republican. The reason they did so was because, from the late 30's through the 50's, Republicans had generally accepted the successful policies of the New Deal. Republicans HAD to accept these policies because they, along with pro-labor, pro-union reform, America had reached what economist Paul Krugman refers to as "The Great Compression," a society where financial inequality was at its lowest in our nation's history. Everyone was beginning to benefit, thanks in no small part to the large union movement (helped by the government's pro-labor reform), which helped guarantee fair wages for union members and had the effect of positively affecting wages in competing non-union jobs.

But there was always a small minority dedicated to eliminating the New Deal policies, including cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating the government's pro-labor reforms. This movement--Modern Conservatism--saw its chance in the late fifties when Democrats were pushing for civil rights reforms. In 1957, The National Review published an editorial arguing that whites could suppress African-Americans because whites were the superior race:

"The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizen, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race ... sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalance of its will worth the terrible price of violence." 

 Not only did the National Review make a point of noting our Constitution as "merely ... a catalog", it made a point of affirming that whites had the right to commit violence in order to retain their superiority, a right many racist whites agreed upon late in the fifties and during the sixties. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights act into law, the entire South became lost to the Democratic Party and continues to this day to be almost impenetrable (although the racial barrier is collapsing in recent years).

And slowly, Modern Conservatism grew, despite its interest in appealing primarily to the richest one percent of Americans. Slowly, the fringe group became the Republican Majority, and the Republican Party began its attempts to tear down the New Deal policies while cutting taxes for the rich despite having no evidence at all to suggest it would help the economy (there were, in fact, no economists at all in the early days of "supply-side theory," confessed Irving Kristol.). "Liberal Premissiveness," according to Richard Nixon, were at the heart of America's problems.

Modern Conservatism leaped into the fray with Ronald Reagan, who announced his bid for president in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same town where three civil rights activists were killed in 1964. His speech centered on "states' rights," and there was no denying what the underlying tones were. They were present in another famous speech, one in which he described a so-called "Welfare Queen"--and story that was elaborate fiction to begin with--that never mentioned race, and yet everyone knew what color this woman's skin was. It continued, spreading even into the most libertarian gospels, like those found in Ron Paul's own self-published newsletters.

Through it all, there was always an I'll-scratch-your-back mentality, which was necessary for Modern Conservatism to survive. Loyalty was rewarded above all else, and once Modern Conservatism dominated the Republican Party, Republicans were almost forced to go along with the policies (especially once Karl Rove jumped into the mix and proved himself capable of gutting the Republican Party of anyone who supported New Deal policies). Cronyism was always rewarded with new jobs, and the Bush administration is a clear example at every single level. Even John McCain is learning this now, going out of his way to flip-flop on every single ideology that once made him a "Maverick." Now he'll cut taxes for the rich. Now he'll cozy up to the religious right. Now he'll sell himself out to lobbyists.

Through it all, Modern Conservatism has remained true to its roots in helping only the richest one percent of Americans, and yet the Republican Party has continued to garner strength. While topics like national security and religion and abortion rights have always had a minor role in that popularity, only race has has stood the test of time. John McCain knew the rules back in the day, and he knows them now. 

Now he'll apologize for voting against MLK Day. But you know what? He knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he voted against it. He was following Modern Conservatism in order to reap the rewards of its growing power. Had he not, he would be nothing but a footnote in history by this point.

The good news is that racism is losing its popularity even in the deepest heart of the south, and tolerance has grown by leaps and bounds. It's only a matter of time before a significant majority of Americans realize that our country has spent the last 35 years helping only the richest one percent. Once that time comes, Modern Conservatism will desperately clutch at straws before finally disappearing (and indeed already does, preying on our various fears), taking John McCain with it. 

 For those of you interested in learning more, I heartily suggest "The Conscience of a Liberal," by award-winning economist Paul Krugman. The information detailed here represents a fraction of information you'll find in his book.

Yours,

Ken Brosky