Solemn Vow

History Lesson
There have been many times in the past when there were warmer decades. It may have been warmer in medieval times, when the Vikings settled Greenland, and when wine was exported from England. Many proxy indicators show that the Medieval Warming was global in extent. And there were even warmer periods a few thousand years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. The fact is that there are very powerful influences on the earth's climate that have nothing to do with human-generated CO2. The graph strongly suggests that the IPCC has greatly underestimated the natural sources of warming (and cooling) and has greatly exaggerated the warming from CO2. (WSJ, 2/21/2012)


The authors of the WSJ's January 27th op-ed piece debunking climate change claims respond (smack down?) their critics. We quote only the above paragraph which echoes the assertion RedStateVT has made that any student of history knows the planet periodically heats up and cools down.


OK, one more quote:


The Trenberth letter states: "Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused." However, the claim of 97% support is deceptive. The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we would agree with. Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some impact.


The last one, we promise:


A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology. If there were economic advantages to investing in technology that depends on taxpayer support, companies like Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Solar Millenium, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Ener1 and the Renewable Energy Development Corporation would be prospering instead of filing for bankruptcy in only the past few months.


Read the article!


Appreciated
“The types of affluent voters who have been going to vote for Democrats are unlikely to be driven away” by the prospect of higher taxes, said Geoff Garin, a pollster for Democratic candidates and for the “super PAC” backing Mr. Obama. “They have an appreciation for what those higher taxes pay for.” (NYT, 2/20/2012)


So wealthy Liberals are OK with higher taxes because they know what these taxes are used for. Well, first of all, if the taxes are used to advance their ideology then, of course, they do not mind. But where does that leave wealthy Republicans? Are they cheap? Uncaring toward the poor? Unappreciative? In fact, study after study shows that wealthy Republicans give more to charitable causes than Democrats. The distaste for taxes then, is more about the ineffectiveness of government programs. Simply throwing more money at - you name it - poverty, education, green energy, has not had the desired effect. Maybe, Republicans say, we need to rethink how we address these issues. The Democrat answer is always to tax more and spend more. 


Exploitation!
Most of that money came in six- and seven-figure checks from just a few dozen individuals or corporations — the billionaire casino executive Sheldon Adelson, the mutual fund investor Foster S. Friess and the PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, among others — who have exploited recent court rulings and changes in campaign finance rules to exert unprecedented influence over their party’s choice of presidential nominee. (NYT, 2/20/2012)


In a nineteen paragraph article about Super PAC money, the Times gives us one paragraph about Obama. And then it is only to say how little his campaign has received and how he has been forced to seek more. Note also how Republican Super PAC contributors have "exploited" court rulings. We would, of course, have said that they did what the courts said was legal.