On the face of it, their argument appears to rely on their claims that research with findings that dismiss climate change has been suppressed by the wicked science establishment. The reality is quite different, but people and media, being naturally paranoid and quick to indict the “elitist” scientific experts, have apparently bought into the deniers’ claims.

What most of the public and mass media do not understand, or choose to ignore in the interest of producing a “shock” story that will get attention regardless of its reliability or content, is what they also have not understood regarding the debate between evolutionists and creationists. Because of the flimsy comprehension of science and evolution of most writers in the mass media, those who venture to write about evolution feel constrained to present “alternative” views.

But “alternative” views are not necessarily credible or true. In the case of evolution, creationist belief in a deity is an article of faith reached by individuals outside the scientific process that involves peer review and rigorous independent impartial testing before any claim of “truth” or verification can be reached.

Anti-evolution forces refuse — because they are unable — to allow their views to be tested, because no such tests are available, or at least tests that do not threaten their belief system. Evolutionists have always asked creationists to submit criteria and protocols for their belief that a higher deity exists, but of course these do not exist. Yet this in no way stops creationists from continuing to assert that such a deity exists.

We now are seeing a similar backlash by climate change deniers. But the deniers’ arguments are no less articles of faith than those of the creationists. In the case of the former, the faith is not in a god but in the free market and capitalism. Almost without exception, those who are in staunch denial are those connected to, involved in or supportive of the traditional capitalist model of economic growth, and by implication opposed to anything that might constrain this model.

While we expect corporate flaks and biostitutes who are often hired consultants to corporations and industry to hew to the corporate party line (after all their livelihood and status depend on it), in the case of climate change deniers we have devotees of the economic growth model and fiery opponents of environmental laws and regulation. If they work at universities, it is likely that some if not most of their research funding comes from the private sector, usually corporations connected to energy, chemicals, and agriculture. They know on which side their bread is buttered. It was ever thus.

The climate science on which the vast majority of credible scientists rely for their uniform agreement that we are approaching the point of no return with climate change is impeccable and clear. Despite a few cranks and contrarians here and there — and let’s be clear that the science establishment needs and tolerates these because they are vital to the honesty of scientific process — the data are quite clear and unmistakable. They are not fuzzy or contradictory or fudged.

There are always disagreements among scientists as to the significance, extent and time line for the consequences of actions, in this case the act of continuing to release greenhouse gases. For example, some scientists believe the tipping point for irreversible climate change and widespread ecological damage is four or five years off. Others believe that we might have 20 years or more to cut back to the 350 ppm CO2 level that most scientists says is imperative to save civilization and prevent global chaos. The first IPCC report, and even other studies today, say that the 75 foot sea level rise that will accompany a loss of the west Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets won’t occur (or be finalized) by the year 2100.

But all of these rely on the same data; in fact every day new studies appear confirming the certainty and speed of climate change. What remains uncertain, as all scientists will admit, is how fast and where ocean- and land-based systems and species will react (and thus contribute additionally to climate change) to the already occurring impacts : worldwide melting of glaciers, release of permafrost from boreal bogs and underwater founts, severe weather events, droughts, floods, and wildfires, as well as the migration of tropical species northward, including insect disease vectors.

Despite uninformed gossip on the internet about how some parts of the world have experienced cold spells (revealing the public’s mistaken belief that weather and climate are the same), the increased average global temperature studies lead to no conclusion but that global warming began decades ago, continues unabated, and shows a steepening upward curve on all charts, in particular since the mid-20th century. No data exist whatsoever that change this upward curve. NONE WHATSOEVER.

The whining of climate deniers and free marketeers about whether the scientific community has excluded them from publishing is nothing but noise. Serious scientific researchers with transparent protocol and clear data that can be analyzed and verified have never been excluded or suppressed. However, as with all scientific peer review processes, nothing requires a science journal to print everything about climate change that arrives on its desk any more than a biology journal is required to print something that purports to prove the existence of a god as the alternative explanation to evolution of life on earth.

But climate change deniers are counting on public and media ignorance and demand for “objectivity” to get a sympathetic ear for their case. In effect they are demanding that any and all studies they submit for peer review and publication in professional journals be published regardless of the accuracy or integrity of their data. In effect they are demanding that their POLITICAL VIEWS be allowed free rein, whether or not their science supports them.

So the next time you see some apparently legitimate scientist griping that his work has been rejected by scientific journals, it behooves you to look behind the scenes at who he is, who funds him, and towards what ends, especially when the debate turns into ad hominem attacks on the scientists who, fed up with the mendacity and distortions of the climate change deniers, don’t want serious work and debate polluted by the propaganda of corporations and their paid lackies.

I don’t want to say “I told you so”. But the fact is that many people, including Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez, his former VP running mate, exposed Obama’s voting record and political stances long before the 2008 election.

Gonzalez sent out a long memo which I myself distributed to all my lists but apparently few paid attention to Obama’s actual voting record: in favor of the death penalty; support for most Iraq authorization bills; favors for Exelon, Illinois’ nuclear industry, support for “clean coal”, opposition to class action lawsuits and to limits on credit card interest rates, and (hold your breath), active support for neo-con U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, whom Obama praised as his mentor.

So none of what Obama is now doing (or not doing) comes as a surprise. My reaction and that of many independents and greens was a big DUH. Or, what is it about a centrist capitalist that you don’t understand?

Some progressives moan that Obama has reneged on his promises. But in fact he never made these promises. All his statements, with possibly a few exceptions, made it quite clear that he was in lock step with traditional centrist Democratic Party capitalist beliefs and ideologies. Now, when these facts have become clear, too many people are too ready to believe that he changed his mind rather than admit that they were fooled.

Why were they fooled? The answer is obvious. Because he is African-American. Millions of people voted for him because of this alone, thinking that the color of one’s skin and one’s experience as a minority come hand in glove with progressive or radical thought. This is in its own way a converse variant of racism: thinking that one’s skin color is somehow linked on its chromosome with progressive principles.

These people forget that he comes out of the Ivy League, Harvard Law School, and the eerily prescient Democratic Party machine in Chicago, which has carefully groomed him as The Great Black Hope. They really put their money on the right number.

More people voted for Obama because he was African-American than voted against him because of that. Ponder that fact. Ponder the fact that even now, many blacks and liberals are bending over backwards to cut him slack, even after he brought with him the worst most regressive white collar criminals into his private abode and put them in charge of our economic future: slime buckets like Larry Summers, and, overlooking possible “minor” crimes, Eric Holder. The list goes on and on.

And then there were the Wall St./bank bailouts, done without setting the most minimal conditions on this huge payout, and without demanding anything in return. The Democrats railroaded this through for their friends in finance and banking. The Republicans, whose regressive agenda we fully recognize and which in fact called their sincerity into question on this issue, opposed it.

They were right to do so, though for the wrong reasons (although the far right and conservatives had the right reason: keep government from getting its hands into the pants of private business even if it means bankruptcy for businesses and banks). At the very least Obama could have laid down one condition: support universal single payer health care and you will get your bailout. He didn’t. That isn’t what I call a shrewd businessman.

My point is that Obama didn’t change direction or positions. He stayed firm in his commitment to capitalism, corporatism, and Wall St., so firm that he wasn’t going to demand anything in return for rescuing the financial community. I call that not stupid but an intentional betrayal of all those progressives who voted for him blindly, thinking that his election meant a new era.

But lots of people didn’t fall slavishly at the feet of this idol; they saw very clearly what he stood for and where he would go. And he clearly wasn’t going to diverge from traditional centrist capitalist politics. The believers exhibited “the audacity of hope”… blind hope. That’s par for the course for knee jerk Democratic Party members, for paleo-liberals, for African-Americans. There is always an audience for well-trained dog-and-pony shows. They have four years to brush up on their tricks before every presidential election.

The 2008 election was yet another example of Democratic Party blackmail: “do you want another four years of Bush in the person of McCain”? and all that crap, knowing that there was no alternative to either of them, realistically. The usual lesser of two evils argument that we saw offered when Ralph Nader had the cojones to get up and say what we all know (liberals excepted): that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is, generously, the difference between the two slices of buttered bread squashed together.

Unless and until voters acknowledge this last fact, they are destined to continual groping in the dark for something that will forever elude them. So let’s be blunt.

1. There is no chance in hell that Obama is going to adopt the progressive agenda on ANY of the relevant issues (Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, climate change, civil liberties and protection of privacy, bringing Bush war criminals to justice, energy policy, etc.). No chance.

2. The complacency of the electorate in the face of massive bail-outs, including that of the auto industry which should fold up shop and go home unless they are forced to build electric vehicles, trains and buses and wind turbines, must be brought up short.

3. The prayers and reliance of the public on the federal government to save their jobs and homes need to be aligned with reality, by a push for massive relocalization of the economy, which must for survival’s sake become leaner, smaller and non-reliant on continued economic growth and consumption. Republicans fear socialism but so should we, though for somewhat different reasons. Socialism and corporatism are the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of a deluded and disinterested citizenry.

4. The recession needs to be welcomed and augmented by a wholesale drawback by all citizens from compulsive shopping and consumption, shredding of credit cards, demand for public transportation, willingness to pay the full cost of energy and goods by ending all subsidies and tax breaks for energy and corporations, among other things. We should be helping push capitalism over the cliff; it is Wall St. and the banks that will go first. Afterwards, we can reassemble the pieces we want reassembled, in the way we want them to be. Americans still haven’t learned that democracy comes before the economy. The Russians didn’t learn this lesson soon enough.

5. Here is the sine qua non: a grassroots political and electoral movement that will unite behind some basic principles and demands and then put this into practice in a citizens’ PAC that will focus on unseating those phony liberals (mostly Democrats) who are mainly responsible for the betrayal that is being led by Obama. Max Baucus might be considered as a first target for his outrageous behavior on health care, with Waxman and Markey a close second for their huge energy bill, one of the biggest scams to ever get support from the liberal media and pundits.

Yes, the Republicans are repulsive and mendacious. But they always were and don’t pretend to be otherwise. We don’t need their phony cry for “bipartisanship” and “ending the stalemate” in Washington; the Democrats are doing a fine job of sitting in for the Republicans.

We have two years to put these people up in front of a political firing squad.
Yes, some of you will say that the alternative might be right wingers lurking and ready to replace them. But consider this: the Dems might get re-elected but in the meantime they will have to face the wrath of the public and the possibility, even if slim, that their political careers might be over. This is the only way to hold them accountable for their brazen arrogance. They need to be told two things: we don’t like them, and we don’t like the things they stand for.

This message will trickle into the White House soon enough. A grassroots revolt against the deceptions and blackmail of the Democratic Party. A statement that we will no longer accept their contemptuous attitude that continues to lecture us that the alternative is worse. The Democrats in congress, NOT the Republicans, are the ones who need to be put on trial. They need to be told that they do not own our vote and that they must earn it. They have failed. They need to be booted out. Are progressives willing to admit their mistakes and take appropriate action to regain their power as citizens and voters? How long will Democratic Party members fete and re-arm their executioners?

This is the question progressives need to answer. They will be met by clever Democrats telling them to just keep quiet and things will work out. But right now things are working out only for Wall St. The rest of us will be lucky if we get an extension in unemployment benefits or a tiny reduction in mortgage rates. If we listen to the Democrats, we will never get universal health care or get our troops back from Iraq. Come on now, you already knew this, didn’t you?

Time for a reality check about the Democrats. Without it we are doomed to hand wringing and regrets, and a permanent apathy and pessimism that the Democrats will welcome as an accompaniment to the voters’ permanent recusal from civic life.