"Reckless Caution"

The following is an editorial, copied in its entirety, from the Wall Street Journal late this past week. It's a very succinct, clear and thought-provoking piece.

By JAMES TARANTO
February 8, 2007; Page A15

When NBC's Tim Russert asked John Edwards on Sunday if he, as president, would accept a nuclear-armed Iran, the silver-tongued lawyer got tongue-tied: "I -- there's no answer to that question at this moment. I think that it's a -- it's a -- it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I think we have -- we have many steps in front of us that have not been used. We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not, not been done. The things that I just talked about, I think, are the right approach in dealing with Iran. And then we'll, we'll see what the result is. . . . I think -- I think the -- we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president."

Less than two weeks earlier, Mr. Edwards had spoken by satellite to Israel's annual Herzliya Conference. "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. . . . To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate -- all options must remain on the table."

Why did Mr. Edwards's views morph so quickly from hawkish to weaselly? Probably because confrontation with Iran is very unpopular among the Democratic antiwar base. Last week Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, a left-liberal magazine, confronted Mr. Edwards about the Herzliya speech, and the candidate waffled. Although allowing that "it would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table," he offered this criticism of President Bush: "When he uses this kind of language 'options are on the table,' he does it in a very threatening kind of way." Does Mr. Edwards mean to be docile?

Mr. Klein asked if America can live with a nuclear Iran. "I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet," Mr. Edwards answered. There's a world of difference between the unequivocal "under no circumstances" and the coy "I'm not ready." And that "yet" suggests it is only a matter of time before he does cross the bridge.

Mr. Edwards is not the only Democratic presidential candidate without a comprehensible position on Iran. Last week Hillary Clinton spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Heather Robinson of PoliticalMavens.com reported that Mrs. Clinton said: "There are many, including our president, who reject any engagement with Iran and Syria. I believe that is a good-faith position to take, but I'm not sure it's the smart strategy that'll take us to the goal we share. What do I mean by engagement or some kind of process? I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it . . . but there are a number of factors that argue for doing what I'm suggesting." Whatever that may be.

Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have something else in common: Both voted for the Iraq war in 2002, and both turned against it only after it become unpopular. On Iraq, they followed public opinion; on Iran, they are waiting to be led.

Pandering to public sentiment may be fine for a senator, but the president needs to be able to make decisions in the national interest -- which sometimes means shaping public opinion, sometimes defying it. Mr. Bush has done both, whether or not his decisions were wise ones.
Perhaps voters next year, chastened by Mr. Bush's dangerous boldness, will opt for someone more risk-averse. But if a crisis arises and the president proves unable to lead, they may find themselves longing for Mr. Bush's steadfastness. An excess of caution is itself a form of recklessness.

I found this editorial to be a truly brilliant expose of the lack of leadership and conviction by any of these Democratic Presidential hopefuls. Ironically, perhaps the Iran question, by virtue of its hypothetical nature, is the better litmus test of Presidential leadership ability for 2008, rather than the reality of Iraq, on which so much second-guessing and foot-shufflings is now occurring.

On the latter topic, the Journal featured another editorial, on Thursday, chronicling Hillary Clinton's predictable attempts to distance herself from her earlier pro-war stance on Iraq. The article points out that, whereas, initially, she was bound to support her husband's pro-interventionist statements, stance and actions regarding Iraq, the realities of being flanked on the left by other Democratic Presidential candidates has sent her running headlong from her earlier, solid pro-Iraq-war votes, statements and positions.

Essentially, we have two Democrats, one a former Senator, one still sitting, who voted for the Iraq war, now showing their inability to lead, persevere in their convictions, or do other than pander to what they perceive as popular opinions. In that manner, both Edwards and Hillary seem to be chips off the triangulating Clinton block.

Campaign Embezzlement and Candidate Judgment

Thursday's WSJ featured an article on candidates who have had their treasurers embezzle their campaign chests. Two names which caught my attention were Joe Biden and John Boehner.

The story opens with the tale of the Florida candidate who ultimately lost her race for a House seat, because, in part, opponents played-up her appallingly lax choice of a treasurer with a history of mental illness. He absconded with her entire campaign account on the eve of the election registration date, and, ultimately, became an issue in her campaign for the US House seat formerly held by Catherine Harris.

The article mentions that some candidates never publicize the occurrences of this sort of crime, and don't even bring charges. They rightly feel it reflects on their judgment in choice of personnel, etc.

You bet it does! You want Biden running the government, knowing his campaign treasurer took him for $400,000 in 2004? Boehner's treasurer gambled away $600,000 that same year. It turns out that the treasurers in these two cases went to prison. Still, this was the first I'd ever heard to the campaign fund thefts.

It's an incredible tale, regarding Biden's snafu. I hope this comes up more prominently in his race for the White House.

On a related note, I was in error when I mentioned recently (February 1st post) that Chris Dodd is risking financial ruin by running for President. This week, I learned that Dodd is apparently running second only to Hillary, among Democrats, in fundraising.

Imagine that! It must be the Connecticut hedge-fund connection. All those financial billionaires want to be sure to be treated kindly, just in case doddering Dodd makes it through the primaries. Or retains the chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee.

Will wonders never cease?

"Don't Worry....Be Happy:" More On Presidential Campaigning

Don't worry......this is all good. No matter who you are backing, the ultra-early start to the Presidential campaign season is actually a good thing.

Let all these crazies jump into the pool with their messed-up, ill-informed views and 'solutions.'

There's Obama, who advocates just talking to everyone, 'cause, you know, he's a wonderful racial rainbow all of his own, and will personally engineer world peace and total income equality for Americans.

Then we have Hillary. She wouldn't leave Iraq, but she wouldn't have gone in, either. She's not for cutting and running, but demands Bush have it all sewn up by Jan2009. She's liberal, but not too much so, she's a 'serious Senate military/foreign policy "expert,"' such as they are, but she's not sure where she stands on anything relevant to the subject, i.e., repudiating past votes, or promising to change her tune. Can we say "triangulation?" No, wait, that was her husband....

What about John Edwards? According to him, the country's about to have class warfare, and by the way, the economy really sucks, GDP and inflation numbers to the contrary.

Over on the (almost) right, we have John McCain. This Senator, who is actually proud of the latest campaign spending "reform" abomination which he co-authored, wants us to stay in Iraq and fight a lot more. But, he's socially liberal, with no apparently firm convictions on much of anything. In short, your average, career Senate windbag who now feels he's waited long enough, and it is now "his turn" in the White House. Nevermind the lack of any remotely relevant, qualifying accomplishments on his CV.

What about Mitt Romney? On one hand, a seasoned governor and savior of the Salt Lake City Olympics. Former consultant and co-founder of Bain Capital. Solid management and governing credentials, but now gone a little soft in the head, e.g., national guaranteed healthcare for everyone! And insurance companies cannot turn you down! Boy, I'm sure eager to see the national bill for this idea.

You know what? Don't worry about any of these egotistical Presidential wannabes. One of these clowns will win- we can't prevent that. And then, s/he won't be allowed to implement his/her wilder, crazier schemes anyway, because about 300 representatives will have to drink the Kool-Aid to make that happen.

More likely, the really appallingly bad ideas will be stripped off, like ionized electrons, on the way to victory. In the end, it's the daily-monthly leadership, reactive, and problem-solving grind that dominates the Oval Office.

So what if we get Hillary? My bet is, unlike her husband, she'll be out after 4 years- probably by her own party. Really, looking in the rearview mirror, Carter, Ford, and Bush-41, all got just one term before either their bad judgment or lack of passion doomed them. I think Hillary will join that exclusive club, if she wins the Presidency.

Between the razor-thin party pluralities in the House and Senate, and the recent 8-year run of a very strong, confident conservative President, expect some experimentation from the American electorate.

Maybe the first black, or first woman President. But once they are sworn in, it'll be time to deliver. The 3-year clock to re-election time will be ticking, and suddenly, they'll feel vulnerable and in the electoral crosshairs.

We have a free market economically, which fuels our economic welfare, global success and influence. Our free market in politics and government also assures us of a steady supply of candidates ready to rip an anemic or inept President apart, and provide us with a more convincing replacement and alternative.

Don't worry......be happy! Long live the Republic!

More On Global Warming: CNBC Video Clip

For more on the "other" side of the global warming issue, see this video clip from CNBC this morning.

The description reads,

"According to meteorologist Dr. William Gray, global warming is due to natural alternations of global ocean circulation and rainfall. Dr. Gray shares his view with CNBC's Joe Kernen."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=175287455

Dr. Grey provides some valuable perspective on the political context governing the scientific "debate," or non-debate, on this now-popular topic.

I find it very disturbing that such widespread disagreement with the prevailing popular, but scientifically unproven, opinion on global warming is ignored, disdained, and/or dismissed as irrelevant, biased, or nonsensical.

As Dr. Grey points out, the current popular opinion is, itself, incredibly biased.

Just for the record, to restate the "alternative" hypothesis,

"That it is currently unproven that recent global temperature changes are:

a) outside of the range of measurement error, and/or;
b) outside the range of the long-term warming/cooling cycle values of the planet, and/or;
c) a function exclusively, or primarily and predominantly of human activity, particularly with respect to their carbon-dioxide-emitting activities."

On Alleged Global Warming

This week marked the release of the UN's Panel on Climate Change's "Summary for Policy Makers," a prelude, but not actually, the "Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007." Much has already been made of, and quoted from, this non-scientists' summary's dire predictions.

For some perspective on just what the document is, is not, and does not reference, consider the following excerpts from Philip Stott's editorial in yesterday's Saturday edition of the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Stott is professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London, and co-editor of "Political Ecology: Science, Myth and Power" (Oxford University Press, 2000).

Herewith are some passages from his piece, the reading of in its entirety I strongly urge:

"Unfortunately, the IPCC represents science by supercommittee, as rule 10 of its procedures states: "In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavors to reach consensus." I bet Galileo would have had a rough time with that.

In this context, it is vital to remember that science progresses by skepticism and by paradigm shifts: A consensus early last century would have given us eugenics. Moreover, the IPCC does no original research, nor does it monitor climate-related data; its evidence is instead from selected secondary sources. But, above all, this supercommittee is more political than is often recognized, rule three firmly reminding delegates that: "documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments."

Friday's summary and "best estimates" of temperature-rise by 2100 (as compared to preindustrial times) are thus little more than a committee compromise chewed over by governments with different agendas: an average potential rise of three degrees Celsius (up from 2.5 degrees in 2001); a probable rise of between 1.8 to 4 degrees; a possible rise of between 1.1 to 6.4 degrees. So you can take your pick, also bearing in mind that there are groups outside the IPCC predicting cooling by one or two degrees Celsius. Moreover, the conclusion that climate changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause is wonderful Alice-through-the-Looking-Glass talk.

For the skeptic, however, the problem remains, as ever, water vapor and clouds. Enormous uncertainties persist with respect to the role of clouds in climate change. Moreover, models that strive to incorporate everything, from aerosols to vegetation and volcanoes to ocean currents, may look convincing, but the error range associated with each additional factor results in near-total uncertainty. Yet, there is a greater concern. Throughout the history of science, monocausal explanations that overemphasize the dominance of one factor in immensely complex processes (in this case, the human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases) have been inevitably replaced by more powerful theories.

Worryingly for the IPCC's "consensus," there is a counterparadigm, relating to the serious uncertainties of water vapor and clouds, now waiting in the wings. In the words of Dr. Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center: "The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." A key piece of research in this emerging new paradigm was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A (October 2006): "Do electrons help to make the clouds?"

Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists managed to trace the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulfuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the galaxy -- cosmic rays -- liberated electrons in the air, which helped the molecular clusters to form much faster than atmospheric scientists have predicted. This process could well explain a long-touted link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.

......Cosmic rays are known to boost cloud formation -- and, in turn, reduce earth temperatures -- by creating ions that cause water droplets to condense. Calculating temperature changes at the earth's surface -- by studying oxygen isotopes trapped in rocks formed by ancient marine fossils -- scientists then compared these with variations in cosmic-ray activity, determined by looking at how cosmic rays have affected iron isotopes in meteorites. Their results suggest that temperature fluctuations are more likely to relate to cosmic-ray activity than to carbon dioxide. By contrast, they found no correlation between temperature variation and the changing patterns of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the mechanism remained far from understood -- until last October, that is, when the team in the Copenhagen lab may have discovered it.

The inconvenient truth remains that climate is the most complex, coupled, nonlinear, chaotic system known. In such a system, both "doing something" (emitting human-induced gases) and "not doing something" (not emitting) at the margins are equally unpredictable. What climate will we produce? Will it be better? And, if we get there, won't it, too, change?

This is the fatal flaw at the heart of the whole global-warming debacle. Climate change must be accepted as the norm, not as an exception, and it must be seen primarily as a political and economic issue, focusing on how best humanity can continue to adapt to constant change, hot, wet, cold or dry. The concept of achieving a "stable climate" is a dangerous oxymoron."

With this editorial as a backdrop, the recent rush by CEOs of US large-cap companies to capitulate to America's Congress on this issue looks even more mistaken than I thought in two posts I wrote recently, here and here.

Unless I am mistaken, the findings of which Mr. Stott, an Englishman, writes, came out of Denmark. Not ExxonMobil, in Houston. Nor ChevronTexaco. So, contrary to the letter from two Senators to Rex Tillerson (ExxonMobil CEO) last year, threatening coercive acts if Exxon does not stop funding 'anti-green' research, and simply admit global-warming guilt, this new, developing evidence demonstrates why the 'battle' over the question of whether there is atypical global warming occurring is far from over. After all, cosmic rays and water vapor are, arguably, not at all within the control of humans. What will the greens do about these, if they are, in fact, affecting global temperatures?

Could it be that, as Stott suggests at the end of his piece, we need to learn to adapt to a changing global climate, rather than attempt to change it ourselves?