New Gallup Poll Provides Clear Road Map for Republican Themes in 2010

by Ben DeGrow | 8:11 am, July 7, 2009

Gallup yesterday posted the results of a very interesting poll that shows far more Americans self-identifying in a conservative direction than in a liberal direction. Brian Faughnan at Red State has it about right concerning the broad message of the poll:
I think it’s a growing distrust of what they view as the liberal agenda of [...]

Denver District Judge Christina Habas, Defender of Colorado’s Constitution and citizen’s rights in Mill Levy Tax Freeze case, Named to Short List for Federal Bench

by CTBC Director | 7:00 am, July 7, 2009

Although overshadowed by a variety of high-profile news events (celebrity deaths, governors on opposite coasts leaving home or leaving office, and the U.S. House passing the largest tax increase in American history), last week’s announcement that Denver District Judge Christina Habas made the short list of recommendations to fill two Colorado federal judicial vacancies is noteworthy. 
The [...]

Gallup: Americans of all political stripes becoming more conservative…or libertarian?

by Rossputin | 1:25 am, July 7, 2009

Following up on their poll showing that conservatives are the largest ideological group in America, Gallup (hardly a right-wing organization) released a survey yesterday showing that regardless of party affiliation and despite the results of the last election, the self-identified political views of Americas across party lines are becoming more conservative.

Note that even Democrats have become more conservative rather than more liberal.

I’ll write more about it later in this note, but I actually believe that this poll shows Americans becoming somewhat more libertarian rather than purely conservative.

This reinforces what I’ve been writing repeatedly: Liberals will learn the wrong lesson from 2008. As I noted in October, “Politicians and political activists of all stripes have a tendency toward a particular error: Believing that their side winning an election means the voters have given them a mandate and have made clear that they support all the ideas espoused by the winning candidates.”

While people across political parties say they’ve gotten more conservative, people who self-identify as “liberal” say they have gotten more liberal:

Two key points to make here: Although liberals, particularly in liberal enclaves like NYC or Boulder or Berkeley, think that a majority (or at least a large minority) of the population shares their views (think of Pauline Kael’s famous quote about the 1972 election: “I don’t know how Nixon could have been elected; nobody I know voted for him.”), Gallup notes that only 18% of those polled describe themselves as liberal.

What’s key in this poll – as in all polls these days – is the views of moderates and independents, both groupings which show about twice as many people becoming more conservative rather than more liberal.

[Brief tangent into electoral politics: This bodes very badly for Democratic electoral prospects in 2010 but, as I’ve said before, only if the GOP gives them a decent alternative. Some have argued that the recent events surrounding John Ensign, Mark Sanford, and Sarah Palin have done great damage to the GOP’s chances, but I think it’s far too early to make such pronouncements. Furthermore, don’t think Palin was going to be a candidate for President or VP and I don’t think John Ensign matters very much. Sanford’s errors – not just the affair(s) but the apparent spending of gov’t money – are worse. Which is why he needs to resign. Not just because he’s broken the most important trust of the people regarding the use of their money but also because the longer he’s around, the longer he’ll be fodder for Democrats.]

If you look at the issues Gallup polled specifically, you might agree with my conclusion (though I can’t say it’s not partly because it’s what I want to see) that Americans are becoming more libertarian.

Yes, becoming more “pro-life” is not a libertarian change – although having that view is not the same as saying you’d support Federal regulation of the issue, so the 7-point increase in pro-life views could still contain some libertarian content in much the same way that I’m pro-choice but against Roe v Wade and believe there is a legitimate debate to be had over state regulation of abortion. The possibility that more pro-life views can still mean more libertarian views is strengthened by the poll’s 7-point drop in people who say the government should promote “traditional values.”

Looking at issues outside of the “social” or “values-based” sphere, I think there’s a distinct pro-libertarian trend:

There was a 7-point jump, to 51%, of respondents saying protect the economy over the environment, a 6-point jump in people who do not favor a ban on handguns, and interestingly a 10-point drop in people who want to lower immigration levels into the country (I believe the question does not differentiate between legal and illegal immigration.)

On one of the major issues of the day, Gallup notes first that the percentage of Americans “in favor of maintaining the current healthcare system” dropped 7 points. Next, however, we learn that “Gallup saw a seven-point increase, from 34% to 41%, in views that it is not the government’s responsibility to provide all Americans with healthcare coverage.”

What this says to me is that we may see a repeat of HillaryCare: It polled very strongly until people learned what it really meant and what it would really cost. Then it didn’t even get a vote in the Senate. Yes, it will almost certainly get a vote this time, in part because Reid and Pelosi won’t give people time to read the bill. But despite the corrupt Democratic momentum which let them squeak Waxman-Markey through the house, the health care debate is not just enormous but also easier for people to understand – and therefore argue against.

In questions about the “power and role of government”, there was a bit of movement toward the liberal view on questions of tax levels (4% drop in people saying taxes were too high…which is not the same as a 4% increase in saying they are too low, but that’s Gallup’s subtle spin.) But by far the biggest move was conservative, with a 10% jump in people saying that government has too much power.

Here’s Gallup’s conclusion:

Aside from the trends, Gallup’s recent polling from 2008-2009 indicates that a majority of Americans concur with the Republican Party’s general philosophy on the death penalty, defense spending, gay marriage, the role of government, environmental protection, and handgun legislation. Americans are about as likely to agree with the Republican Party’s general philosophy as they are to agree with the Democratic Party’s in terms of abortion, government activism, government promotion of “traditional” values, taxes, changing the power of labor unions, and certain aspects of the need for healthcare reform. They are more likely to agree with the Democratic Party’s philosophy on other aspects of healthcare reform, embryonic stem-cell research, government regulation of business, the Iraq war, and immigration.

Look at the issues on which they claim that Americans are more likely to agree with Democrats: On health-care reform, it’s only half-true. Americans aren’t extremely happy with the current system (though they are happy with their own coverage – a real problem for “reformers”), but they do not believe providing health care is the government’s responsibility. Their poll shows only 38% believe industry is over-regulated, but Gallup doesn’t say what percentage said regulation levels were about right, we we should not infer that a majority of Americans want more regulation. Most Americans don’t understand the stem cell issue – what is banned is not the research with embryonic stem cells but the funding of such research by the federal government. It’s true that 43% of Gallup’s respondents say the Iraq War was “not a mistake”, but that number is up from a year ago, and 66% say Afghanistan was not a mistake. Finally, the immigration results are worth reiteration. I’m very pleased that the country is moving away from xenophobia and toward understanding that legal immigration is a clear net benefit to our nation, not to mention that it’s our true foundation.

On balance, it seems clear to me that Americans are becoming more libertarian, even if they don’t know it. And while that’s bad news for Democrats, it also has real implications for Republicans, namely that if they’re going to keep any focus on “social issues”, if they want to win elections they will have to make those issues secondary to issues of liberty, economic and otherwise.

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold speaking at Coalition for a Conservative Majority (CCM) Meeting July 7th

by CTBC Director | 10:32 pm, July 6, 2009

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold is the guest speaker at this month’s Coalition for a Conservative Majority (CCM) Progress & Strategy Meeting in Colorado Springs on Tuesday, July 7th.    The meeting starts at 6PM (presentations at 6:30) at The Retired Enlisted Association, 834 Emory Circle, Colorado Springs, CO  80915.
Matt will present the case for [...]

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold interviewed at Independence Day Tea Party Celebration (Saturday, July 4th)

by CTBC Director | 8:00 pm, July 6, 2009

Appearing at the Independence Day Tea Party Celebration in Arvada this weekend (Saturday, July 4th), Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold spoke before the crowd, and was also interviewed by Ari Armstrong of FreeColorado, covering the event.
For more on the event, view Ari’s posts on FreeColorado and/or PeoplesPressCollective.

Video clip courtesy of Ari Armstrong, FreeColorado.com

More Daniel Hannan? You Got It.

by Jon Caldara | 12:27 pm, July 6, 2009

The same day Daniel Hannan came to Denver to give us a great speech, he taped an Independent Thinking with me. If you’re anything like me, you can’t get enough of this guy. So for your viewing pleasure, enjoy this new episode of Independent Thinking starring the man himself – Daniel Hannan:

To anyone who thinks the Tea Party Movement is partisan – watch this

by Mr. Bob | 12:17 pm, July 6, 2009

#tcot #ppc #teaparty
Senator Cornyn is being booed off the stage by Tea Party goers. Malkin says she isn’t voting for ONE SINGLE incumbant. I second the motion.

Palin’s Quitting – my view

by Mr. Bob | 10:06 am, July 6, 2009

#palin #ppc #tcot #redco

Just my two cents on the matter. I’ve never quite understood why people hate her so much but regardless, she was NEVER a normal politician. She was a mom with a ton of common sense and impressive outdoor skills. She was smart enough to make good decisions, not waste money and say no to cronyism.

When I saw her quit this weekend, she looked tired, out of sorts and seemed to now believe it just isn’t worth it because of the attacks on her family and the state she loves.

She’s a mom first and foremost and to have her daughters called whores, her downs syndrome child called a mistake, her husband called a buffoon, over and over again and worse, to have to spend her time defending herself against untrue and false accusations constantly she got tired and she quit, perhaps a mistake, but so what.

Her family is over a half million dollars in debt now because of these frivolous lawsuits…perhaps she also needs the money. Unlike Great Britain, in the US you can sue people and not have to pay their legal fees if you lose. That isn’t likely to change with the current bozos employed on Capital Hill either. Suing basically is free, defending oneself costs millions.

Congratulations to the left, to the Democrats who unleashed hell upon her. You won, you knocked her down, out of the race. Great. If you feel good about it, you are a damaged soul and need counseling, perhaps with a two by four.

She was never a viable candidate for Presidency because she was not slick, she was short on ideas in a few areas, and because there were too many Republicans that also hated her for some reason. The media successfully demonized her to the general public, and Sarah didn’t help herself enough when given the chance.

She answered questions and talked like a normal person would, unfortunately a normal person can’t win the most powerful job in the world. That person must be able to communicate extra-ordinarily, she could not, she does not.

Had she ran, she would have been beaten in the primary. She can’t run now because she will labeled a quitter (and rightly so.) We will hear from her again but it will not be as a Presidential candidate…that’s my two.

Barriers to success, in America says:
Here are lessons of the Sarah Palin experience, for any aspiring politician who shares her background and her sex. Your children will go through the tabloid wringer. Your religion will be mocked and misrepresented. Your political record will be distorted, to better parody your family and your faith. (And no, gentle reader, Palin did not insist on abstinence-only sex education, slash funds for special-needs children or inject creationism into public schools.)

Male commentators will attack you for parading your children. Female commentators will attack you for not staying home with them. You’ll be sneered at for how you talk and how many colleges you attended. You’ll endure gibes about your “slutty” looks and your “white trash concupiscence,” while a prominent female academic declares that your “greatest hypocrisy” is the “pretense” that you’re a woman. And eight months after the election, the professionals who pressed you into the service of a gimmicky, dreary, idea-free campaign will still be blaming you for their defeat.

All of this had something to do with ordinary partisan politics. But it had everything to do with Palin’s gender and her social class.

Sarah Palin is beloved by millions because her rise suggested, however temporarily, that the old American aphorism about how anyone can grow up to be president might actually be true.

Politicians Caused Mortgage Meltdown

by Ari Armstrong | 9:04 am, July 6, 2009

The following article originally was published July 6, 2009, by the Grand Junction Free Press.

Politicians caused mortgage meltdown

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

If you want to know the basics of how politicians caused the mortgage meltdown and the resulting recession, purchase and read Thomas Sowell’s new book, The Housing Boom and Bust. In just 148 pages of text (plus notes and such), Sowell explains how political economic controls largely started in the 1970s gained force in the 1990s, initiating the housing bubble in the early 2000s and resulting in the bust of 2006.

Sowell begins his account with the 1970s, when various localities around the U.S. — particularly in New York and coastal California — imposed wide-ranging property controls that restricted building and sent housing prices through the roof.

Through such controls as government open space, zoning, “smart” growth, lot size controls, building height restrictions, preservation restrictions, building permit hassles and limits, and planning commissions, various localities forced up housing costs. Meanwhile, housing remained affordable where local governments left it relatively free.

The politically induced pain created the “misconception… that the free market failed to produce affordable housing, and that government intervention was therefore necessary… to enable ordinary people to find a place to live that was within their means,” Sowell writes.

Enter the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The legislation directed federal bureaucrats to “encourage” banks “to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.” Over time, this developed into federal policies to cajole and threaten banks into making risky loans.

Starting in the 1990s, activists such as ACORN (and, as reported elsewhere, Sonia Sotomayor), media outlets such as the New York Times, and politicians from George H. W. Bush to Bill Clinton pressured banks to make riskier loans, on the pretext of helping some minority applicants. (As Sowell points out, minorities were hurt worst in the resulting housing bust.)

Janet Reno, Bill Clinton’s Attorney General, warned banks, “Do not wait for the Justice Department to come knocking.”

In 1993, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) brought legal action against banks that failed to meet racial quotas in lending. In 1995, new controls under CRA imposed more stringent quotas. Nevermind whether the recipients of the risky loans were prepared to repay them.

In addition to legal action and threats thereof, bureaucrats threatened banks’ ability to form mergers and branches unless they followed politically-correct lending practices, Sowell reviews.

Also during the 1990s, the politician-created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began lowering lending requirements, partly under pressure from HUD. These quasi-governmental entities purchased risky loans originated by others. Other investors rightly predicted that the federal government would not allow these organizations to bear the brunt of their irresponsible policies; they were later bailed out with tax dollars.

In 2002, George W. Bush advocated subsidies for down payments and zero-down loans. The Federal Housing Administration also promoted zero-down loans. Yet Bush’s American Dream Downpayment Act and aligned measures helped create a financial nightmare.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve artificially held down interest rates in the early 2000s, encouraging many to buy houses who could not otherwise afford them.

The net effect of all these political controls was to encourage “creative” lending policies, causing an explosion of adjustable-rate and zero-down mortgages, Sowell reviews. When interest rates crept back up in 2004, the houses of cards began to crumble.

Particularly telling is the political reaction to the mortgage meltdown. Many of the same politicians and activists who previously encouraged risky lending quickly turned to blaming the “greed” of the free market. These quotes alone are worth the price of Sowell’s book.

For example, in 2003, Congressman Barney Frank said, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping making housing more affordable.” In 2007 Frank blamed the mortgage meltdown on “too little regulation.” In 2008 Frank blamed “a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best.” So Frank first helped destroy the free market, then blamed the market for not working.

In 2004, Republican Senator Kit Bond threatened to cut the budget of an agency that raised alarms about Freddie and Fannie. Later, Bond complained that the same agency had failed to “look at the practices” of Freddie and Fannie.

In 2004, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Freddie and Fannie as “one of the great success stories of all time.” In 2007, Dodd blamed others for the “adjustable-rate mortgages that today are defaulting and going into foreclosure at record rates.”

In 2003, Congresswoman Maxine Waters said “we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac” or Fannie Mae and advocated “affordable housing” through “desktop underwriting to 100 percent loans.” In 2004, 76 House Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, urged President Bush to sacrifice “an exclusive focus on safety and soundness” on the alter of “affordable housing.”

Now that they have devastated the housing market and caused the worst recession since the Great Depression, these are the same clowns who want to seize control of energy and health care.

Don’t let them get away with it again.

Really Wanting to Know More About Why Mr. Curtis Left the Colorado GOP

by Ben DeGrow | 8:17 am, July 6, 2009

Congratulations appear to be in order for Jeremy Pelzer, who has landed some sort of gig at the new online Rocky Mountain Independent. Jeremy’s fairly long feature today is the latest Colorado GOP postmortem piece, with the standard news hook of a lifelong moderate Republican switching parties in disgust:

The Colorado Republican Party has had few [...]

Colorado Free Marketeers on Twitter

by wesley | 7:41 am, July 6, 2009

Here’s a quick reminder for all liberty-activist Twitternuts.  For a few weeks now, Ari Armstrong at FreeColorado.com has been doing all the hard work of digesting the daily news and distributing important activist bulletins for liberty junkies.  Alerts are categorized by issue so you can efficiently use your time and act on the issues most [...]

Letter to Sen. Michael Bennet: Oppose Cap and Trade!

by Rossputin | 7:05 am, July 6, 2009

In line with my earlier post about Dr. Alan Carlin’s comments on the EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding, I sent this note to our junior Senator, Michael Bennet.

Dear Senator Bennet,

I urge you to vote no on the disastrous cap-and-trade bill (aka “Waxman-Markey”) when it gets to the Senate.

It’s one thing to believe in big government, but another thing entirely to support the biggest tax increase in history in a bill which will wreck our economy and get the federal government involved in regulating things as trivial as the lights people put over their art works.

Waxman-Markey is claimed to have been written because of “man-made global warming”. However the supporters of Waxman-Markey don’t try to argue that this bill will actually have any measurable impact on global temperatures over any time frame! Furthermore, the bill includes a provision to slap trade tariffs on countries which don’t put similar nooses around the necks of their own economies. Since China and India have both said that they will have no part of this foolishness (but China is encouraging the US to act aggressively – so they can steal much more of our industrial base because our own government has made us non-competitive), this means that the left-wing of Congress will move to interfere in trade with China. This will not only be an economic disaster, but a political one as well…and I wouldn’t rule out its having subtle military impact, such as in China’s willingness to help rein in North Korea.

Regarding “global warming”, I want to make sure you are aware of the details of comments made by a 38-year veteran of the EPA whose response to the proposed CO2 “endangerment finding” was suppressed by an EPA Administrator who said that his views were inconvenient in that they contradicted the EPA’s pre-determined outcome on the issue.

You can read Dr. Carlin’s comments on his own web site at: http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/
The direct link to the comment PDF is: http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/Endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf

Dr. Carlin lays out the science behind his conclusion that CO2 has little or no responsibility for climate change while reinforcing several new studies which explain why the UN IPCC’s models are fatally flawed.

Over the next months, a lot of people will spend a lot of time educating the public about Waxman-Markey: a hoax based on a hoax. My view is that anyone who votes for it, unless they’re in the bluest of blue states along our coasts, will pay a serious price. Don’t forget, this bill is also a direct attack on states which get a lot of electricity from coal-fired plants – which means it’s a direct attack on Colorado.

If you have any care at all for the people you are supposed to be representing, I urge you to oppose Waxman-Markey. If you have no care for us, then vote no to protect your own likelihood of re-election in less than a year and a half.

Regards,

Ross Kaminsky

Global Warming: Won’t get fooled again

by Rossputin | 1:51 am, July 6, 2009

Dr. Alan Carlin, an employee of the EPA since 1971, has made public his “Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act” that an EPA director blocked because it was inconvenient to their pre-determined outcome. Carlin’s study casts down upon almost every aspect of global warming alarmism and on the EPA’s “endangerment finding” regarding carbon dioxide.

The document is about 100 pages long and most of you won’t have time to read it. Fortunately, Dr. Carlin included an excellent executive summary which I’ll further condense for you here:

In the study’s preface, Dr. Carlin says that the EPA is relying on outside sources instead of doing their own research, that the outside source material is out of date and that a lot of new research has occurred since its creation, and that current data “are sufficiently at variance with those of the IPCC (the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), CCSP (the US Climate Change Science Program), and the Draft TSD (technical supporting documentation for their finding that CO2 presents a danger)” to show that the EPA “has not critically reviewed the findings by these other groups.”

Dr. Carlin also shreds the concept of a “consensus” on the issue, noting that “What is actually noteworthy about this effort is not the relative apparent scientific shine of the two sides but rather the relative ease with which major holes have been found in the GHG/CO2/AGW argument….The issue is rather whether the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis meets the ultimate scientific test—conformance with real world data. What these comments show is that it is this ultimate test that the hypothesis fails; this is why EPA needs to carefully reexamine the science behind global warming before proposing an endangerment finding.” (page iv)

In his executive summary (beginning page v), Carlin’s criticism of anthropogenic global warming theory is devastating: He notes that the hypothesis that greenhouse gases and CO2 are causing warming “fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data. As Feynman (1975) has said failure to conform to real world data makes it necessary from a scientific viewpoint to revise the hypothesis or abandon it… Unfortunately this has not happened in the global warming debate, but needs to if an accurate finding concerning endangerment is to be made.”

These data include “Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics”, “Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models”, “no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997” in satellite measurements, no inclusion of ocean oscillations in IPCC models, no inclusion of “indirect solar variability” in IPCC models, no allowance for the possibility of other not as yet understood natural phenomena, and the strong possibility that surface temperature data “may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems (which is why the EPA’s draft endangerment finding ignores satellite data which does not fit their distinctly political rather than scientific goal.)

Carlin then goes on to take apart the last IPCC report, upon which most of the EPA’s TSD is based, noting that:
• Global temperatures have declined for more than a decade despite atmospheric CO2 levels increasing,
• New research shows the IPCC was wrong in predicting more frequent and intense hurricanes due to AGW (man-made global warming),
• There is no evidence that Greenland is melting despite IPCC predictions,
• The recent recession has cut greenhouse gas emissions, but the draft TSD doesn’t mention it,
• New research shows that the climate probably operates with negative feedback rather than the positive feedback which IPCC models assume, and
• New research suggests the IPCC “used faulty solar data” to claim that the sun was not the cause of global temperature variability.

After taking apart the IPCC and TSD, Carlin offers his own thoughts on the issue (starting on page vii):

• The best explanations for global temperature fluctuations appear to be solar cycles
• Sunspots also appear to have an impact, though the way it works isn’t understood
• “Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations appear to have so little effect that it is difficult to find any effect in the satellite temperature record, which started in 1978.”
• Surface temperature measurements are suspect because they are so different from the satellite record, so “it appears even more unlikely that GHGs have as much of an effect on measured surface temperatures as claimed”
• “Hence it is not reasonable to conclude that there is any endangerment from changes in GHG levels based on the satellite record, since almost all the fluctuations appear to be due to natural causes and not human-caused pollution as defined by the Clean Air Act.”

I’ll quote the conclusion of Dr. Carlin’s executive summary in its entirety:

These inconsistencies between the TSD analysis and scientific observations are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in my view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP. Adopting the scientific conclusions of an outside group such as the IPCC or CCSP without thorough review by EPA is not in the EPA tradition anyway, and there seems to be little reason to change the tradition in this case. If their conclusions should be incorrect and EPA acts on them, it is EPA that will be blamed for inadequate research and understanding and reaching a possibly inaccurate determination of endangerment. Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until about 2030 given the 60 year cycle described in Section 2) there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain much of the available data.

Finally, there is an obvious logical problem posed by steadily increasing US health and welfare measures and the alleged endangerment of health and welfare discussed in this draft TSD during a period of rapid rise in at least CO2 ambient levels. This discontinuity either needs to be carefully explained in the draft TSD or the conclusions changed.

The rest of Carlin’s document lays out the science behind his comments and conclusions. Here’s a taste:

A major cause for concern with regard to the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect espoused by the IPCC is that a crucial implied assumption may not be valid based on real world data. The IPCC models imply that global relative humidity is a constant as a result of various assumptions about evaporation and participation. This appears not to be the case, however, as shown in the following graph. Stockwell (2008) provides a discussion of the pros and cons for EGE and concludes that it is doubtful. Ref: http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/

Gregory and others say that the IPCC models all assume that global relative humidity is a constant.2 I note that this assumption would appear to imply their result since increases in temperature increase the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold. This in turn results in an increased GHG warming effect, and so on and on, just as the IPCC concluded. Gregory puts it this way:

There is no physics in support of this assumption, and no way to calculate its value from first principles. This assumption means that if temperatures increase for any reason, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases. But water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, so the GHE becomes stronger and temperatures increase more. The current theory does not determine this – it is only an assumption. If this assumption is only slightly wrong, it completely changes the expected response of increasing CO2 because water vapour is such a dominant greenhouse gas.

So if this arbitrary assumption does not hold, then there is no positive feedback effect. If accurate, the chart below appears to support the anti-AGW case.

On pages 54-55, Carlin also shows an interesting chart of various climate-related issues, the prediction based on the “CO2 Hypothesis”, the prediction based on the “Sun/Cosmic Ray Hypothesis”, the actual data, and which hypothesis offers the best explanation. In NONE of the 7 issues does the current alarmist theory about CO2 fit the data.

On pages 58-59, Carlin notes that the IPCC’s model predicts a “hot spot” over the tropics which is “entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that most of the global temperature change cannot be attributed to increasing CO2 concentrations.” Just as interesting as the data is the way the EPA dealt with this rather conclusive evidence against their pre-determined position: “The Draft TSD indeed notes that the lack of heating in the tropical troposphere is a problem but says that the data has been questioned. While this is being sorted out or if it is never sorted out, the prudent thing to do is to assume that the data is correct and therefore that the hypothesis is invalid until shown otherwise by new and better science. Not to do so is to take a major risk since otherwise very expensive remediation actions may be taken on the basis of a claim that data is questionable when it may indeed be correct.”

It’s no surprise that the EPA went out of their way to quash Dr. Carlin’s document. The fact that they did so is backfiring on them, however, and bringing far more attention to Carlin’s criticism than it might otherwise have received.

It’s a double-bonus for those of us who recognize “global warming” as the hoax and anti-capitalist power grab that it is: Not only is the “science” now being challenged by an extremely credible source from within the EPA, but the blatantly political motivation behind the Cult of AGW has been amply demonstrated by their telling Dr. Carlin to shut up and go work on other things.

And don’t forget, the discredited IPCC models are the claimed basis for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill which will be the single most devastating piece of legislation ever aimed at our economy. Waxman and Markey make Smoot and Hawley look like pikers. Make sure your Senators know that you know of Dr. Carlin’s comments and that, in the immortal words of Pete Townshend, we “won’t get fooled again.”

July 4 Tea Party Arvada Colorado

by Ari Armstrong | 8:54 am, July 5, 2009

I interviewed a number of participants of the July 4 Tea Party in Arvada, Colorado. Hear what they have to say:

Jon Caldara gave the keynote speech:

Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench Colorado outlined his case for voting against retention of four Colorado Supreme Court Justices:

Here are a few additional photos:

See also reports for Castle Rock and Colorado Springs. Please send in information about other July 4 Tea Parties across Colorado!

Commentary

I’ve heard estimates of a thousand participants. I imagine attendance was lower than at the Tax Day Tea Party because more people were at local events and many were busy with family gatherings.

It was a fun time. I helped hand out a couple hundred Ayn Rand Samplers and a few hundred “Clear the Bench” flyers.

The most troubling aspect of the event is that various speakers really laid on the religion. It was almost as much of a church service as a political rally. I heard quite a lot of the same crazy talk that cost Republicans control of government in the first place. While we heard from Jefferson’s Declaration, we heard nothing about Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state. But religious tyranny is hardly an improvement upon leftist tyranny. For example, those who endorse the “personhood” measure next year are as much the enemy of liberty as are those who advocate socialized medicine, for reasons stated.

Yet some of the speeches were great; see Jon Caldara’s speech above. And the people who attended went for their own reasons. One lady told me she was “pro-life” (i.e., an advocate of abortion bans), and at least two people carried signs proclaiming that America is a Christian nation. Yet most people I talked with were there for the obvious reasons: federal politicians are spending our money like drunken sailors and seizing control of broad swaths of the economy.

The right obviously still suffers from the schism that resulted in its downfall; it is torn between those who would impose their sectarian dogmas by force of law and those who advocate individual rights and a government devoted to protecting those rights. That intellectual battle continues to rage.

Yet I see many signs that more and more citizens are taking up the banner of individual rights.

Who is Dan Maes? Candidate for Governor speaks at Denver GOP “First Thursday” Breakfast

by The Peripatetic Pundit | 8:00 am, July 5, 2009

Although the majority of Colorado citizens are stilly only vaguely aware of it, the 2010 campaign season is already fully underway, with candidates (announced and otherwise) making the rounds among the political breakfast and lunch club set. The Denver GOP (yes, “Republicans in Denver” is NOT an oxymoron) most recently hosted gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes [...]

From the “you must be $@*&! kidding” files: “Global warming now shrinking sheep”

by Rossputin | 2:14 am, July 5, 2009

I noted earlier today some pushback by journalists against the media publishing as real journalism propaganda generated by climate alarmists who have financial incentive to promote fear.

From the “you must be $@*&! kidding” files, comes this story as if to prove my point: “Global Warming now shrinking sheep“

Really, they’re blaming a 5% reduction in the size of some wild sheep on a Scottish island on climate change. Hmmm…5% in wild animals. That must be easy to measure.

The last sentence in the “news” story is this: “Britain’s Natural Environment Research Council supported the research.” The NERC is one of the worst offenders in climate alarmism, with such statements on their web site as “The overwhelming consensus among climate change scientists is that human activities, particularly those producing greenhouse gases, are responsible for much of the climate change we’re seeing. The climate also changes naturally over time. This may account for some of the warming, but not all.” Ummmm…right. The climate might change just a tiny bit over time because of nature.

And “There is a danger that if societies do not drastically curb emissions this century we will reach a point when, even if we stop all emissions, the Earth will continue to warm.” If that’s true, doesn’t that argue directly against their prior claim that nature is only a modest factor?

You get the idea. the NERC is a British Algore. There is no research they would “support” which would not have a guaranteed outcome of blaming something on man-made global warming in an effort to increase their own funding.

I would bet lunch that the NERC also had a hand in drafting the press releases sent to the media about this “research”. So while there may be a hint of “pushback” by journalists, it’s hardly universal. The media is still a tool of self-interested “scientists” who are creating the appearance of a crisis in order to further their careers. (No different than what politicians do!)

Obama care: dissecting the President’s claims

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, July 5, 2009

Cato Institute scholars pick apart the President’s claims from the June 24 ABC news show, “Questions for the President: Prescription for America.”

For more, see healthcare.cato.org.
[Via John LaPlante]

Hints of journalistic push-back on global warming propaganda?

by Rossputin | 1:08 am, July 5, 2009

Here’s an interesting note at AmericanThinker.com about journalists finally getting the courage to object to propaganda produced by the National Science Foundation being printed in media outlets as true journalism.

See “Journalists protest Global Warming spin cycle”, William Tate, 7/3/09
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/journalists_protest_global_war.html

Happy Independence Day, 233 Years

by Ben DeGrow | 10:02 am, July 4, 2009

Other days leave us to ponder and fight for the future of personal and economic liberty. Other days leave us to dwell on the financial challenges that face so many Americans. Today we celebrate and commemorate the blessings of liberty enshrined in sacred words of our nation’s founding, ratified 233 years ago during a remarkable [...]

Happy July 4th from Clear The Bench Colorado!

by CTBC Director | 6:00 am, July 4, 2009

As we celebrate our Independence Day today, remember: Freedom isn’t Free.

Happy Dependence Day

by Rossputin | 1:05 am, July 4, 2009

Do you work for AIG or GM? For Citigroup or the Department of Education? If so, then I wish you happy Dependence Day. Same if you work at a company which uses lobbyists to steer federal earmarks your way…or if you are that lobbyist. And, not to sound cruel, but if you’re on welfare (especially if you could with a little effort get off it), or if you’re getting unemployment benefits or food stamps, then welcome to Dependence Day.

And if you voted for Barack Obama and Democratic congressional candidates and still are proud of your vote, most of all I welcome you to Dependence Day.

You are the antithesis of this nation’s founding, the antidote to liberty and free markets, the source of the smiley-faced fascism which creeps further into our lives daily while the politicians you voted for saddle us and our children and grandchildren with unsustainable debt and perpetual dependency on government largess and the politicians who dispense it – which is to say you support the theft of one person’s property to give to another person.

Yes, the US is still the greatest nation on earth, but that status is rapidly diminishing thanks to you, supporter of Democrats, bailouts, and stimulus programs.

While I will celebrate what independence I have left, I’ll always have in the back of my mind the destruction that you and yours are wreaking on our republic. You have a lot to answer for, and I trust that history – and my children and yours – will judge you no more kindly than I do.

You may think I sound angry and bitter. Well, I am. I’m angry at our politicians, particularly the Democrats who go along with the biggest tax increase in world history without reading it even though they know it’s wrong, being easily bought off by power-grubbing committee chairmen. I’m bitter with our media and the liberal elite who are so enamored of their second black president (at least we were all told that Bill Clinton was the first) that they let his ability to swat a fly trump his destruction of our children’s futures.

None of this is to say that the GOP of recent years was anything but disastrous. They certainly did great damage as well, not least by not standing up for capitalism. But a major difference in my view: Obama, Pelosi, and friends WANT to destroy the nation’s economy and our economic liberty. Bush, although he earned my enmity for “abandoning free market principles to save the free market” was at least a reluctant anti-capitalist unlike the joyful one we now have in the White House.

You may think I sound angry and bitter. But when it comes to how I really feel about Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress, I haven’t come close to saying how strongly I truly feel. Let me put it in a few simple words: Obama and Congressional Democrats are intentionally destroying all that makes America great.

By the way, if you’ve forgotten due to your public school education (in the last 20 years) or your watching of any of the major old-line networks’ “news” broadcasts or your reading the NY Times, here is a large part of what America means – in a one-page document: The Declaration of Independence

And in case reading that one page is too much of a distraction from playing with your Wii, or in case standing up for your liberty is just too damn inconvenient when the government will give us “everything for everyone” for free (as seen on a banner at the Democratic National Convention), let me remind you of the price of freedom which has allowed Americans to become lethargic and apathetic: “Our Sacred Honor”

And if somehow, Mr. Liberal, you don’t need to go somewhere in your Prius, you could learn a lot about the philosophy behind the founding of this nation. It’s a philosophy you don’t understand, but I hold out hope that you may be capable of learning. And for my libertarian and conservative friends, this article is a great reminder of what we’re fighting for: “Independence Forever”

Sarah Palin Stepping Down as Alaska Governor … The Speculation Begins

by Ben DeGrow | 2:43 pm, July 3, 2009

I wasn’t planning to blog on politics at all over the long weekend, but the very recent news emerging that Alaska governor Sarah Palin not only won’t run for re-election in 2010 but also is stepping down later this month has changed my mind.
Right now, speculation is running rampant why Palin has chosen to [...]

“Senator Who?” Michael Bennett Gets the Code Pink Treatment on Single Payer Socialized Medicine

by T.L. James | 11:08 am, July 3, 2009

Last night in Denver, Colorado’s appointed Senator Michael “Senator Who?” Bennett attended (briefly and at the last minute) a “townhall forum” on “comprehensive healthcare reform” put on by the self-parodyingly-named Metro Organization of People.  As with all such townhalls, this one was strictly formatted and the questions for Back-and-Forth Bennett were given to him in [...]

How’s that California paycheck looking?

by Rossputin | 1:33 am, July 3, 2009

Yesterday afternoon, California started paying its bills with IOUs. You heard that right. The state with the world’s 8th largest economy is broke, and they’re leaning on banks to cash the IOUs for them with a promise of paying the banks 3.5% interest when the government settles up with them.

Saying that California operates like a banana republic is an insult to banana republics everywhere.

This month, the People’s Republic of California will issue over $3 billion in these “registered warrants”, the first time the state has had to function this way in 27 years. According to the WSJ, “The scrip will be issued to taxpayers, vendors, local governments and others the state can’t pay because it doesn’t have enough cash. Bondholders will be paid principal and interest as usual, when due, state officials have said.”

In the meantime, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, largely to blame for this mess for his early cave-in to Democrats and unions after they beat him on some ballot initiatives in 2005. His response was to hire a Democrat as his chief of staff. (To be fair, Susan Kennedy, while quite liberal does have some free-market leanings.)

Now, in what is almost certainly too little and absolutely too late, the Governator is getting the fiscal responsibility religion, forcing state workers to take “furlough Fridays” and suggesting cutting the state’s guaranteed funding levels for education (a great idea that Colorado should heed as soon as possible.) Those things, while I decent start, will hardly dent California’s $26 billion budget deficit.

According to Reuters, “Spending cuts will fall hard on state workers – some losing jobs and others losing pay through furloughs – and on recipients of state aid, including local government agencies already stretched by rising jobless and homeless rates.” I say it’s about time. California, probably even more than the federal government, has a bloated public sector and out-of-control welfare system which are sucking the lifeblood from their economy. The FIRST people that budget cuts should target are state workers, in part because the state’s workforce is far too large and with the added benefit of reducing the cash going to extremely destructive (of the private sector) unions.

For a little more “inside baseball” on California’s budget process, this page of THIS Reuters article (the article’s second page) is much better than one normally expects from that source.

My wife and I have on occasion spoken of where we might live if the day comes that we move from Colorado. I have said without fail that California is a political and economic disaster and I want no part of it. Unfortunately, current events are proving me right. Can you imagine how you’d feel if you worked for the state and got a paycheck in the form of an IOU? Even Hugo Chavez would be embarrassed to do that.

Socialized medicine isn’t the answer—freedom is

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 7:50 pm, July 2, 2009

Tom Lucero Criticizes Betsy Markey’s Policy

by wesley | 5:58 pm, July 2, 2009

University of Colorado Reagent Tom Lucero continues to excite voters in Colorado’s 4th congressional district.  This week Lucero criticized Representative Betsy Markey’s policy position supporting Card Check, legislation that will make it easier for union thug bosses to unionize private sector employees.  Lucero challenges that Rep. Markey’s support for Card Check shows how out of [...]

Clear The Bench Colorado Director invited to speak at Independence Day Tea Party Event

by CTBC Director | 12:15 pm, July 2, 2009

 Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold has been invited to reprise his debut appearance at the April 15th Tax Day Tea Party rally (a massive event in Denver, and extremely well-attended around the country, despite mass media attempts to downplay or discredit these grassroots events) at the Independence Day Tea Party Patriotic Celebration cookout [...]

I don’t care who you are dats funny right dare

by Mr. Bob | 12:06 pm, July 2, 2009

Obama To Hold Job Performance Review With Every American Worker

Bizarre Self-Parody: Michael Bennet Hiding from Denver Post on Card-Check

by Ben DeGrow | 8:24 am, July 2, 2009

The chronic inability of Colorado’s appointed U.S. Senator Michael Bennet to take a position on the union card check bill (also known as EFCA) has moved deep into the realm of bizarre self-parody. It’s a political joke that has lasted so long that the label of “Both Ways Bennet” has been branded permanently on his [...]

Budget shortfall another reason for transparency

by Amy Oliver | 7:03 am, July 2, 2009

A reporter asked Colorado Transparency Project Director Amy Oliver Cooke, a member of the Colorado Long Term Economic Stability Commission, if real cuts in spending need to be made in Colorado’s budget where would she make them?  She answered,
I don’t know because I don’t have specifics on where the state spends its money.  That’s why we need transparency.  If [...]

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers