Politics

The Goldwater Institute sent out an email today titled “Some Like It Hot” by Robert C. Balling, Jr., a global warming skeptic who is a climatology professor at Arizona State University (and a Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow). It’s short, so I’ll quote it in full: This summer treated us to the films “Too Hot Not To Handle” and Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” as well as news that the Supreme Court will decide whether carbon dioxide (CO2) should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Reinforcing the idea that CO2 is a pollutant, Gore and others often speak of “CO2 pollution.” Before you train yourself to add the “p” word to your vocabulary, consider that CO2 comes from the Earth itself and its levels have fluctuated greatly throughout history. At one point, atmospheric CO2 levels dropped drastically and came perilously close to suffocating the global ecosystem. If someone is concerned about dangerous levels of atmospheric CO2, too low is far more dangerous than too high. Experiments show that when CO2 levels increase, plants grow faster and bigger. In order to make CO2 more sinister, claims are made that ragweed and poison ivy will grow more vigorously in the future, and indeed they will. But so will every tree in the forest. There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that when elevated will act to warm the Earth. However, its levels have fluctuated enormously over the history of the Earth, and the ecosystems of the planet have adjusted to cope with these variations. The Supreme Court ruling will be interesting, but Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant. Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. is a Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow and is a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect. A longer version of this article originally appeared on TCSDaily.com.The big problem with this piece is a very critical omission. The last paragraph admits that CO2 elevation causes global warming, but says that its levels have “fluctuated enormously” over the history of the earth. But it fails to tell us what the record of CO2 fluctuation shows and where we stand today in comparison to the existing past record, leaving the reader with the false impression that the current levels are within normal historical fluctuations. CO2 levels today are much higher than they have been in the last 400,000 years (which I believe has now been extended to 600,000 years), as documented by CO2 levels in Antarctic ice cores. To quote Steve Albers at NOAA: The reason I would be most concerned is not what has happened so far, but what can very possibly happen if we stay on the present course. Carbon dioxide (CO2) mainly from fossil fuel burning is being released into the atmosphere faster than natural processes can remove it, thus increasing atmospheric concentrations. The rate of rise in CO2 concentration has been increasing as well, from about 1.3 parts per million per year several decades ago to about 2.2 ppm/yr in 2005. The natural background is about 280ppm and current CO2 concentrations are about 380ppm. A linear extrapolation of the 2005 trend would yield a doubling of CO2 over natural values by around 2080. It is often suggested that short of that, values of just 450ppm would represent a threshold of unacceptable changes in the environment. These values are potentially just a few decades away. If we wait until things get obviously worse before we take action it could be too late for reasonably quick action to restore our familiar climate. One reason is because the ocean reservior of CO2 might be filling up and it would then take hundreds of years or more to reverse the CO2 back to its “natural” level to undo the warming effect. Another aspect of the carbon cycle is that even if the global emission rate is held constant, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would continue to rise for quite some time (e.g. one or more centuries) and reach levels several times what it is at present. Alternatively, to hold the CO2 concentration at current levels, the emission rate would have to be cut by roughly one-half (without considering the effect of the ocean reservoirs filling up). To hold the currently elevated temperature constant the emission rate would need about a two-thirds cut. Even if we magically turned off all emissions at once, it would probably take 100-300 years for CO2 levels to come down close to the natural background levels. The corresponding “half-life” would be something on the order of 50 years, subject to changes in the various CO2 sinks. ...

A 91-page document describing the Republican strategy for the 2006 elections has been leaked and is available online (PDF). The document was obtained by The Raw Story website, which has published a summary: The document, signed by Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), reveals plans to focus Republican Senatorial campaigns on three themes. Next week, Republicans will tout efforts to “secure America’s prosperity” through a variety of programs. Plans for small business health insurance pooling, spending reductions, increased domestic oil drilling, and “permanent death tax reform” are all to be pushed at the state level. ...

The United States Senate has, after a three-year delay, ratified the Convention on Cybercrime. This treaty requires United States law enforcement to help other countries enforce their cybercrime laws against offenders in the United States–even if the actions are not illegal in the United States. There was an option for the Senate to attach an amendment to the treaty that said the FBI would only aid in cases where the crime in the foreign country was also a crime here (“dual criminality”), but they did not take that option, at the behest of the Bush Administration and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The result is that other countries that have ratified the treaty can force U.S. law enforcement to conduct searches, seizures, and surveillance on U.S. citizens who are doing things that are legal in the U.S., but illegal in those countries, which is the main concern that has been raised by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Technology Liberation Front, Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, and Declan McCullagh in his discussion of the treaty at ZDNet. A list of current signatories can be found at the Council of Europe’s website. Looking at the actual content of the treaty, I don’t think it’s as bad as the critics have made it sound. The treaty targets specific crimes in chapter II, section 1, Titles 1-5, and I don’t see how it could be expanded to cover things like the Internet sale of or discussion of products that are illegal in other countries. Title 1 covers crimes which involve “Offences against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems,” which include illegal access to computers, illegal interception of data traffic, data interference (intentional damage or destruction of data), system interference (e.g., denial of service), and misuse of devices. The last item seems to be the most potentially problematic, but it is qualified to say that the signatories need not enforce that one, and that it only applies to devices intended to be used for the other offenses (i.e., it carves out an exception for security testing). Title 2 covers computer-related forgery and computer-related fraud. Title 3 covers child pornography. Title 4 covers copyright, which imposes nothing worse than is already in place in the United States. Title 5 covers ancillary liability–aiding and abetting the aforementioned offenses, and corporate liability for participation in such offenses. The problematic provisions are in chapter III, on international cooperation. Title 3 on mutual assistance provides for the possibility of requiring dual criminality–which I agree is the way the Senate should have gone. But it appears to me that the wording is such that it only mandates mutual assistance for the offenses listed in titles 1-5 (articles 1-11 within those titles). If this really mandated the U.S. to go after people in the U.S. who are doing things like selling Nazi memorabilia in violation of French law, wouldn’t other countries be worried about the U.S. ratification on the grounds that they could go after online gambling in their countries?

Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ District 6) proposed 19 amendments in order to force yes-or-no votes on earmarks in a bloated appropriations bills. They were all defeated by a wide margin, but the result produced a scoring of members of the House of Representatives who support earmarks and those who don’t. (Each amendment proposed removing funding for a particular earmark, so a YES vote on each amendment is an anti-pork, anti-earmark vote; a NO vote is to keep the earmark.) The specific earmarks were: House Vote 190 - Dairy education in Iowa ($229,000) House Vote 191 - Hydroponic tomato production in Ohio ($180,000) House Vote 192 - National Grape and Wine Initiative ($100,000) House Vote 204 - Virginia Science Museum ($250,000) House Vote 205 - Juniata Locomotive Demonstration ($1,000,000) House Vote 277 - Swimming pool in Banning, CA ($500,000) House Vote 278 - “Facilities” in Weirton, West Virginia ($100,000) House Vote 279 - Multipurpose facility in Yucaipa, California ($500,000) House Vote 280 - Strand Theater Arts Center in Plattsburgh, New York ($250,000) House Vote 298 - Mystic Aquarium in New London, Conn. ($1,000,000) House Vote 299 - The Jason Foundation in Ashburn, VA ($1,000,000) House Vote 302 - Northwest Manufacturing Initiative ($2,500,000) House Vote 303 - Lewis Center for Education Research ($4,000,000) House Vote 304 - Leonard Wood Research Institute ($20,000,000) House Vote 334 - Arthur Avenue Retail Market ($150,000) House Vote 335 - Bronx Council for the Arts in Bronx, N.Y. ($300,000) House Vote 336 - Johnstown Area Regional Industries ($800,000) House Vote 337 - Fairmont State University ($900,000) House Vote 338 - Tourism Development Association in Kentucky ($1,000,000) Here’s how Arizona’s Representatives fared: 19 out of 19 NO (anti-earmark): Flake (R, AZ District 6) Franks (R, AZ District 2) Hayworth (R, AZ District 5) Shadegg (R, AZ District 3) 0 out of 19 NO (pro-earmark): Grijalva (D, AZ District 7) Kolbe (R, AZ District 8) Pastor (D, AZ District 4) Renzi (R, AZ District 1) I’m sorry to see that my representative, Ed Pastor, voted in full support of these earmarks, though it does seem to me that both all YES and all NO votes are suggestive of a failure to judge them on individual merit. I do find an all YES (anti-earmark) vote more principled, as the practice of inserting earmarks has been an “invitation to corruption” (as Talking Point Memo puts it). Flake plans to continue challenging every earmark that does not include the name of a sponsor, and posts an “egregious earmark of the week” on his website under the “earmark reform” category.

While the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s lawsuit against AT&T continues, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly today threw out the ACLU’s lawsuit against the National Security Agency for collecting call detail records from AT&T, MCI, and other providers (though not, apparently, from Verizon or BellSouth). Lippard (2006-12-09): Correction: This ACLU lawsuit that was thrown out was against AT&T. The ACLU lawsuit against the NSA in Michigan was a victory today for the ACLU. ...

On Google Earth or at The Register. (Via Anson Kennedy on the SKEPTIC mailing list.) Historical Comments Einzige (2006-12-09): They've clearly got a lot more work to do: the colors are all wrong!

Today Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California ruled on the U.S. government’s motions for dismissal or summary judgment in the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s lawsuit against AT&T on grounds of “state secrets.” The motions were denied, with the possibility of a later dismissal or summary judgment on state secrets grounds. However, the judge noted the limits of state secrets privilege with respect to the infringement of individual rights, and stated that “dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security” (p. 36 of the ruling). The judge noted that you can’t claim that something is a “state secret” if it’s not secret, citing not only news stories about interception but public statements by George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales. Also denied were AT&T’s motions for dismiss for lack of standing, for lack of plaintiff demonstration that AT&T lack’s appropriate government certification for its actions (though the judge indicates he could be persuaded otherwise on this one later), due to AT&T’s claim of common law immunity from civil liability for conducting government surveillance (in part because AT&T has argued that its cooperation has been voluntary, not mandatory), and due to AT&T’s claim of qualified immunity. The judge proposes appointing a qualified, appropriately security-cleared expert to assist the court in reviewing classified material and determining what may be disclosed and to whom. The next hearing is a case management hearing on August 8.

As everyone knows, Bush’s first veto ever was of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, to authorize federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, on the ridiculous basis that this research involves killing “boys and girls." As Scott Rosenberg points out at Salon: Here is why Bush’s position is a joke: Thousands and thousands of embryos are destroyed every year in fertility clinics. They are created in petri dishes as part of fertility treatments like IVF; then they are discarded. If Bush and his administration truly believe that destroying an embryo is a kind of murder, they shouldn’t be wasting their time arguing about research funding: They should immediately shut down every fertility clinic in the country, arrest the doctors and staff who operate them, and charge all the wannabe parents who have been wantonly slaughtering legions of the unborn. But of course they’ll never do such a thing. (Nor, to be absolutely clear, do I think they should.) Bush could not care less about this issue except as far as it helps burnish his pro-life credentials among his “base." … If Bush believes destroying embryos is murder, let him take a real stand against it. If he doesn’t, he shouldn’t make it harder for the thousands of embryos that are being discarded anyway to be used for a valuable purpose that could improve real lives. ...

Yahoo headlined this story “House votes to keep ‘under God’ in pledge,” but that’s not accurate. The House passed a bill (H.R. 2389, the “Pledge Protection Act of 2005,” on a vote of 260-167) which prohibits the courts from hearing challenges to the presence of “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, which strikes me as an unconstitutional action by the Congress. (Congress does have the power in Article I, Section 8 “To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” and “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” which gives them at least some powers of regulation (to the extent that it is “necessary and proper”) over the courts. But circumscribing the topics which the Supreme Court can address would seem to me to be something only the Constitution can do. Any constitutional scholars care to comment? Missouri Rep. Todd Akin is quoted in the story saying, “We’re creating a fence. The fence goes around the federal judiciary. We’re doing that because we don’t trust them." Yet it’s Congress, more than the courts, that can’t be trusted to be remotely responsible, rational, respectful of the Constitution, or of the people. We’d be much better off putting a fence around the Congress, such as by ending the First Amendment after the fifth word. “Under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance by act of Congress in 1954 for explicitly religious reasons (to distinguish the U.S. from the godless communists in the Soviet Union), and the U.S. Supreme Court avoided making a ruling on the issue in Michael Newdow’s case by throwing the case out on a technicality–the issue of standing, since he didn’t have custody of his daughter. He’s currently pursuing the case through the courts again with other plaintiffs. All but one of Arizona’s Republican Representatives signed on as sponsors of the House bill: Trent Franks, Jeff Flake, J.D. Hayworth, Rick Renzi, John Shadegg. The one Republican exception was Jim Kolbe (R); the two Arizona Democrats, Raul Grijalva and Ed Pastor, did not. I suspect their voting went along these same lines. The Senate version of this bill is S. 1046, introduced by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl. While the House bill attracted 197 sponsors, the Senate bill has only attracted 16 and Senator John McCain is not among them. The Senate bill is stalled out in the Judiciary Committee.

Seth Godin has pointed out a new Anti-Astroturfing Wiki, for exposing those who are creating fake grassroots efforts by actions like coordinating letters to the editor or blog comment posts which don’t mention the coordinating body–a practice engaged in by both advocates for and against net neutrality regulations. The current Wikipedia definition: “In American politics and advertising, the term astroturfing describes formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior. The goal is the appearance of independent public reaction to a politician, political group, product, service, event, or similar entities by centrally orchestrating the behavior of many diverse and geographically distributed individuals." The Anti-Astroturfing Wiki and campaign has been set up as part of TheNewPR Wiki by Paull Young and Trevor Cook in response to the PR Institute of Australia’s promotion of a “how-to” seminar on astroturfing even though the practice violates the PRIA Code of Ethics. Young has issued an anti-astroturfing statement: ...