I would like to see a show of hands. How many of you believe global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity? – Carolyn Washburn

During the December 2008 GOP primary debate Ms. Washburn asked the presidential hopefuls if they “believed in global warming.” Aside from being a classic gotcha question rooted in media bias against the GOP, the question revealed some of the true nature of global warming alarmism. The question implied that one must adhere to the entire global warming doctrine or be a non-believer. A system of commonly held beliefs whereby believers are expected to accept the entire set of beliefs is a working definition of a religion. Despite Washburn’s insistence, global warming should not be a monolithic belief system that must be taken as a whole. This blog suggests that Washburn’s single question should be broken into several logical steps in order to understand a politician’s beliefs.

1. Do you believe the Earth is warming? The Earth has been both warmer and cooler than now over recent geological history. However, since the industrial revolution began in earnest, measured temperatures have increased somewhat. The past few years have seen a mild cooling, possibly a result of regular changes in solar activity. Still, during the Dark Ages, global temperatures were higher than they are now, so measured over a long enough time frame, the Earth is not warming much.
2. Do you believe human activity has contributed to the Earth’s warming? There is solid proof that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up since the industrial revolution, and in proportion to human prosperity. Throughout geological history, however, CO2 concentration was a lagging indicator of global warming; the Earth warmed, then CO2 went up. Computer models suggest that increased CO2 and other greenhouse gasses should warm the Earth, but there is no empirical evidence to prove how much.
3. Do you believe human activity is a significant cause of the Earth’s warming? That is a very different question than the prior one. Nobody knows whether the Earth is warming significantly, so nobody can know if humans are a significant factor. Increases in global temperature, sea level increases, and weather pattern shifts are all predictions based on untestable computer models that are hyper-sensitive to unproven inputs like sea foam and dust in the atmosphere. So far, the recorded changes in global temperature are within the norms from geological history.
4. Do you believe that coordinated action can prevent global warming? Even if the answer to the above three questions were ‘yes,’ that does not mean there is a reasonable solution to the problem. Logically, humans should reduce their so called carbon footprints to reduce global warming, but as John Christy, one of the recent Nobel laureates on climate change, pointed out, reducing carbon emissions by supposedly necessary levels would require the elimination of nearly all modern industrial activity – a return to a standard of living prior to the industrial revolution. Of course it would be technically feasible to build several thousand nuclear power plants and convert all activity to an electrical system (cars, home heat, industrial machinery), but the environmentalists would never stand for it.
5. Do the consequences of global warming constitute an emergency? Environmental alarmists like V.P. Al Gore make all sorts of unfounded claims about the impending global warming catastrophe. More reasoned voices like Bjorn Lomborg suggest a cost benefit analysis. The industrial revolution has brought the most health, prosperity, and happiness to all corners of the world than any other human endeavor. Turning away from modern life would cause far more harm to mankind than global warming ever could. Lomborg suggests spending money on addressing human advancement rather than battling the environmentalist shibboleth called climate change.
6. Can the world actually do anything about global warming? Even if the answer to all of the above questions is yes, we must take action, global coordination is a vaporous dream. Consider the accomplishments of the UN – there are none. Consider OPEC’s efforts to curtail individual oil production for the benefit of the cartel – it never worked. Consider NATO’s peacekeeping efforts – mostly failures. Countries are most often formed along cultural and economic lines; their very existence indicates a lack of interest in cooperation that is not individually beneficial. Any global carbon cap provides strong incentives for some countries to cheat, and cheat they will. China and India, for example, are quite up front that they do not want to give up their prosperity. With a gaping hole in the carbon cap like this, who can blame Eastern Europe or the Middle East for violating their global warming commitments too?

So, Ms. Washburn, one cannot argue global warming issues with a show of hands. Global warming is not a religion and there are more than two sides to consider. Until the debate can evolve like other important and complex issues, both the environment and human prosperity are in trouble.

Racismist: One who finds anyone with whom he disagrees to be racist.

In July, this blog lightly accused V.P. Biden of being a racist for gushing over Pres. Obama’s cleanliness and articulateness. While that was a joke, many jokes have kernel of truth, and this kernel has been exposed by the recent flood of racist accusations from the fringe Left. Are these accusers in fact the racists? Subtlety so, but this blog offers a new term for such foolish beliefs: racismists.

Pres. Carter said that most of the anti-Obama sentiment is due to his race. Paul Krugman said that white Southerners who voted Republican in 2008 are racists. Keith Olberman plays the race card like he owns a trick deck, and Bill Maher’s inscrutable rants rarely fail to paint his opponents as racist.

Of course this is hardly news. In 1980, the Carter campaign tried to paint Pres. Reagan as a racist for endorsing the broad concept of state’s rights. Coretta Scott King said that Republicans would bring back the KKK and Nazis. UN Ambassador Andrew Young said that Reagan was hinting it was OK to kill black people (he actually used the n-word). The Congressional Black Caucus called Reagan a physical danger to black people’s safety.

The black vote is the most homogeneous in all of US politics, so the Democrats take it for granted. Indeed, because 90+ percent of the black vote is reliably Democratic, there was no strategic advantage to nominating Obama because of his race. Obama knows this and has largely avoided siding with Carter and the other racismists. Still, the Democrats have loosed their radical fringe, and they see racism behind every windmill.

Overt cries of racism by the left usually signal desperation. As in 1980, the Democrats are now losing the public debate on their core values; socialized medicine, card check, cap and trade, and prosecuting CIA operative are all under fire. Did this wave of disfavor cause a tactical shift toward crying racism? Probably not. The Democrats in charge simply can’t contain their more reactionary wings when they are on the ropes elsewhere. When Obama lost control of the press, the press became free to gravitate toward the more colorful voices of the left. Rather than lament the unfounded racial attacks, Republicans should celebrate because the attacks prove they are winning.

Why does the left fringe, the Olbermans, Carters, Mahers, Krugmans, and others, find people with whom they disagree racist? They are themselves a variant of racists – racismists. A racismist knows that he, like most people, feels uncomfortable around unfamiliar cultures and beliefs. Far leftists have been taught to associate this normal human feeling with racism, for racism has been defined down from overt discrimination and irrational reaction to simply feeling uncomfortable around the unfamiliar. The mainstream press made this point by reporting on a nonsensical study showing slower reaction times and greater stress when white college students interacted with minorities, thus proving subconscious racism.

Extreme lefties are well insulated from the views of regular people, so they naturally feel uncomfortable when non-progressive ideas make the news. Since they have been trained to believe that these feelings are racist, they put themselves in a bind. As lefties, they can’t be racist, but they also know they are experiencing what they believe to be racist feelings. Therefore, the people who backed them into this corner must be the real racists; Freud called this defense mechanism ‘projection.’ Shout Bits proposes that someone who neurotically defends his views with cries of racism should be classified a ‘racismist.’

This is all good news for the likes of Carter. He can now cease to be an anti-Semite racist and merely be a racismist. Olberman is no longer a raving hot-head lunatic, he has a clinical condition that makes him a racismist. Maher is not just a jerk. He can’t help himself because he is a racismist. Paul Krugman is not simply on a mission to return the US to a level of prosperity the US outgrew 60 years ago, he is a racismist. So, the next time someone calls you a racist for suggesting that Obama is trying to bankrupt the US, put your hand on his shoulder. Let him know you care about his condition and that there is help. He is a racismist.

On Friday, just in time for a soft news cycle, Pres. Obama announced a 35% punitive tariff on Chinese tires. Not only is this another example of Obama shifting policy and giving in to his left wing masters, this is the blue print for a second great depression.

Obama campaigned to restore protectionism to the Democratic Party, so his Chinese tire decision is not out of character for a redistributionist leftie. Wisely, however, Obama has more recently changed his tune to say that protectionism is the wrong move during an economic decline. Still, with Card Check in the doldrums, Obama had to throw the unions a bone, and China bashing it is.

Why Obama chose low end Chinese tires is a mystery. The US has not been a player in this market segment for over a decade. No US jobs will be ‘saved’ by Obama’s actions, not even union ones. Furthermore, Obama did not find that China is dumping its products, only that it is selling more tires than last year. This trend is easily explained by lower car sales; people are keeping their older cars longer, and they need inexpensive tires. One can only assume that Obama is playing some sort of insider politics with the unions that demanded this tariff.

Since no US tire manufacturer will be affected, the only direct effect of Obama’s weekend tariff is to make life harder for people who drive modest cars that ride on low cost tires. Obama will hardly earn his stripes as a man of the people with this one. The indirect effects could be dramatic.

China has already signaled its intent to retaliate. China imports over $71bln from the US, including manufactured goods. This figure has been growing at double digit rates for a decade. Obama has no training or experience in business or economics, but even he should realize that the US can ill afford to risk such a valuable customer for its products. Furthermore, whatever China buys from the US offsets China’s immense Dollar reserves and helps shore up the Dollar’s price. Obama had nothing to gain and everything to lose, and yet he still managed to make the wrong decision.

To be sure, China needs the US too. China sold $338bln in goods to the US last year, but China is diversifying. China has a growing middle class that consumes domestic goods designed for Asian markets. Also, China is expanding into higher value added goods, like autos, which create greater wealth than do commodities. China can indeed survive without the US by marketing to its Asian neighbors. Furthermore, China’s communist dictators are comparatively immune to the effects of a disgruntled populace. In short, China is well equipped to fight a trade war.

The Great Depression is the textbook example of how trade protectionism can lengthen a recession. If Obama’s Chinese tire tariff expands into serial retaliations, the US will have the pleasure of repeating that experiment in misery. Let’s hope that Obama steps back from this precipice before it is too late by repealing this pointless tariff.