Posts Tagged ‘state legislature’

First Bills: Adjust Ag Tax, Protect State Seal

Posted: Thursday, December 23, 2010 at 8:59 am
By: Cory Allen Heidelberger
1 Comment | Trackback Bookmark and Share

What’s that under my tree? Christmas bills! Yahoo! Start your RSS engines: the first pieces of legislation to be proposed in the 2011 session of the South Dakota State Legislature are in the e-hopper.

First in from the State House: two bills on the agricultural productivity tax (you know, the quasi-income tax now imposed on farmers in place of plain old property tax). House Bill 1001 changes shall to may in a couple spots (ah ha! So shall and may do mean different things!) and allows the folks in charge of this tax to incorporate more data in the calculations. HB 1002 clarifies the need for documentation and the kinds of data the director of equalization can use to assess taxes on ag land.

HB 1003 empowers the Interim Rules Review Committee to revert rules that impose “unreasonable” costs on local governments and school districts. If I’m reading the law right, the interim committee already has the power to revert rules for other reasons. But I wonder if this change will resurrect debates over costs that are better settled during session by the full body.

The Senate is a bit slower out of the blocks, with a couple of style and form changes. Senate Bill 3 has a little more substance: it clamps down on the use of South Dakota’s state seal. Section specifies that the state seal may not be used for the following:

  1. On or in connection with any advertising or promotion for any product, business, organization, service, or article whether offered for sale for profit or offered without charge;
  2. In a political campaign to assist or defeat any candidate for elective office; or
  3. In a manner which may operate or be construed as an endorsement of any business, organization, product, service, or article.

In other words, if this passes, Senator Russell Olson (R-8/Madison) will have to get the Bulldog Media folks to whip up a new header for his website:

screen cap of Russell Olson's campaign website, showing political use of state sealSmall but deadly: Senate Bill 3 would ban use of the state seal in political campaign literature.

Senate Bill 3 would empower the Secretary of State to come up with rules to “assure tasteful and high-quality reproduction of the seal.” I welcome readers to compose their own punchlines.

The Interim Bureau of Administration Agency Review Committee put this bill together. They even had the foresight to pre-empt complaints of censorship. Says Section 7:

Nothing in this Act prohibits the reproduction of the state seal for illustrative purposes by the news media if the reproduction by the news media is incidental to the publication or the broadcast. Nothing in this Act prohibits a characterization of the state seal from being used in political cartoons.

Hey, Ehrisman! You’re still good to go! But now let’s see if there’s floor debate on whether blogs meet the Legislature’s definition of “news media.”

There’s much more fun to come from our hearty 105 in Pierre. Stay tuned!

About that Party Switch in SD Senate

Posted: Friday, November 19, 2010 at 10:07 am
By: RadioActive Chief
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Wow! The SD Democrats can’t even win when they win.

South Dakota Democrat switches to GOP after being elected to Senate

The already large number of Republicans in the South Dakota Legislature got a little larger today with the announcement by Sen-elect Eldon Nygaard that he would be switching his party affiliation to Republican just weeks after being elected into the Senate as a Democrat.

Nygaard, who represents District 17 covering Clay and Turner counties, said in a statement he made the move because his philosophy regarding government’s role in society is more in line with the Republican Party.

That being said, Nygaard is certainly free to do whatever he thinks is right regarding party affiliation…just as say, ex-US Senator Spector in Pennsylvania, or in the past, the party change of Scott Heidepriem did. It’s also understandable that District 17 Democrats might feel a bit ruffled about it all. C’est la vie.

This additional evidence of the political dominance of the GOP in South Dakota politics, gives a heavier burden to the Elephant herd, to insure that the party doesn’t fall into the trap of the 90’s GOP Congresses that decided that now that they were in charge, they could do the same kinds of crap that the Donkey party does, and get away with it. (For that matter, this is the same caveat that the new House of Representatives needs to keep in mind…right, Kristi?)

The Chief seriously wonders where the SD Democrats go from here to regain some life…just as an intellectual exercise, mind you, not a shift in the vote.
We can take the SDGOP’s party dominance isn’t based on the type of machine politics and corruption that much of the urban Democratic dominance is rooted in elsewhere in the country. Also, the very real contest between SHS and Noem shows that sizable numbers of registered SD GOP-ers are willing and able to swing across party lines if the spirit so moves them. That thought, if nothing else, should help the GOP keep a good sense of political situational awareness.

SD Legislature: Even More One-Party Rule

Posted: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 at 6:05 am
By: Cory Allen Heidelberger
10 Comments | Trackback Bookmark and Share
SD Legislature Election results 20102011–2012 South Dakota Legislature, party composition (unofficial results, 2010.11.02) Click image to enlarge

Some vote notes on what happened in the South Dakota Legislature:

  1. With Democrats Sandy Jerstad, Nancy Turbak Berry, and Gerald Lange booted by the voters from the Legislature, what’s Dakota War College have left to blog about?
  2. I guess there’s still Frank Kloucek, still representing District 19. Kolaches will ride again… and maybe a little scrutiny of Monsanto-controlled SDSU?
  3. But at least Turbak Berry got beat by Ried Holien, an old debate guy! Let’s hear some good speeches, Ried!
  4. Other incumbents who lost: Sen. Dan Ahlers from Dell Rapids, Rep. Oran Sorenson from Garretson, Rep. Quentin Burg from Wessington Springs, Rep. Matha Vanderlinde from Sioux Falls, Sen. Pam Merchant from Brookings, and Rep. Gerald Lange from Madison… all Democrats. Not one Republican incumbent in the Legislature lost.
  5. If I’m counting right, the State Senate now has 29 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Dems lose 4. The Democratic caucus could carpool… in one car.
  6. My count shows the State House with 51 Republicans and 19 Democrats. Dems lose 5.
  7. Blogger and Pastor Steve Hickey wins District 9 House. Steve, I’ll expect vociferous opposition to any new Blog Control Acts.
  8. Blogger Steve Sibson does not win District 20 House. I was going to suggest that Sibby needs to put down World Net Daily and talk about things actually happening in South Dakota… but last night’s results up and down the board make clear South Dakotans are not voting on policy.
  9. Even without Sibby, the yahoo caucus made great gains. Expect Rep. Rev. Hickey to carpool with Reps. Jenna Haggar and Brian Liss from Sioux Falls. Get ready for Don Kopp to make climate change denial law as he originally wanted.

Dist.8: Olson-Bjorklund TransCanada Ticket

Posted: Monday, October 18, 2010 at 6:56 am
By: Cory Allen Heidelberger
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Fargen, Lange, Schmidtke, Stricherz Recognize Oil Tax Breaks Wrong

KJAM asked our District 8 House and Senate candidates what they think of the millions of dollars South Dakota gave away to TransCanada this year as an incentive for building the Keystone pipeline (second question on each interview, minute or two in). The answers are instructive about who’s looking out for South Dakota and who’s making excuses for Big Oil.

Republican Senator Russell Olson offers no surprises with his passionate advocacy for Big Oil, saying the tax refund was “absolutely” good. He hews closely to the company line (TransCanada’s and his boss’s at Heartland Consumer Power District), telling us the Keystone I pipeline was an $800-million stimulus for South Dakota.* TransCanada is now the biggest property tax payer in the state, says Olson, pumping more money into school and county budgets than any other industry could. Every barrel of oil from TransCanada, says Olson, is one less barrel from petrodictators like Hugo Chavez. And TransCanada got $30 million less in refunds from Pierre than they originally projected. Olson says TransCanada has brought our state a “phenomenal amount of money,” and the “economic benefit certainly outweighs the one-time $10 million rift that everybody is so worked up about.”

That’s a strong answer. Too bad it misses the point. Olson’s Independent Democratic challenger Clark Schmidtke points out that we didn’t need to hand out that $10 million in the first place. Both Schmidtke and incumbent Democratic House candidate Rep. Mitch Fargen note that neither North Dakota nor Nebraska offered such cushy tax breaks to TransCanada. If Russ’s analysis of local benefits from the pipelines is correct (and I question even that), North Dakota and Nebraska got similar benefits for free. We could have gotten the same benefits and still kept that $10 million for education or health care or other local priorities, just as North Dakota and Nebraska did. Oops.

Schmidtke does answer the broader question about state incentives in general for economic development by saying he can support applying and even expanding these tax refunds to ethanol companies, since ethanol does more direct good for South Dakota farmers and workers. Fargen adds that the refund program TransCanada exploited was developed to support South Dakota’s ethanol, soy diesel, and wind energy companies. He and Schmidtke agree that TransCanada’s refund was a giveaway that produced few jobs for South Dakotans.

Posed the same question, incumbent Democratic candidate for House Rep. Gerry Lange doesn’t hesitate to brand the TransCanada giveaway a bad idea. Lange recognizes the value of this tax incentive for the local energy projects for which it was originally intended, like the soy diesel plant. But that contractors’ excise tax that we refunded to TransCanada is the same tax that hits school districts and counties when they build public improvements. Why, asks Lange, hit South Dakota taxpayers with that expense for building schools and roads and bridges, then turn around and give back millions to a foreign company for building a pipeline (which I will note gets no public use)?

Republican House candidate Patricia Stricherz (who, yes, is currently a paying advertiser here on the Madville Times) is just as forceful and unhesitant as Lange in saying the TransCanada tax refunds were “Absolutely not” a good idea. She notes that TransCanada has already had leaks in South Dakota and says companies that want to come here should have to prove themselves worthy.

So where does that leave Independent/9-12 candidate for House Jason Bjorklund? Let’s read the transcript of his response to the question:

Admittedly I’m not entirely up on TransCanada. I haven’t been in the Legislature obvioulsy, so I’m not privy to all the information they’ve had, but as far I understand this is a done deal and at this point there’s nothing we can do about it. Do I think this is best way to bring buinsesses and jobs to South Dakota? No, not necessarily. We need to look at ways to encourage businesses to come here without spending the… limited resources that we have. Now this TransCanada thing it appears to be a done deal, they’ve got the money, there’s nothing we can do at this point but sit back and look at the numbers how many jobs did it create in the state, was this a good move for us to do, and keep that in mind as we make future decisions [Jason Bjorklund, interview with Lauri Struve, KJAM Radio, 2010.10.13].

Here Bjorklund has a golden opporunity to put his 9-12 Project principles into action. He could rail against wasteful government spending and crony capitalism. He could show that he can translate the slogans he gets from national talk radio into real solutions that put South Dakotans first. Instead, he hems and haws and provides more cover for the Republican regime in Pierre than the declared Republican on the House ballot offers. Not necessarily… it’s over and done… there’s nothing we can do about it….

Bull-roar. A legislator not beholden to the GOP or Big Oil could do lots about it. He could declare it bad policy and a waste of money, as Schmidtke and Fargen do. He could point to other priorities where the money would be better spent, as Lange does. He could highlight the dangers posed by the pipeline, as Stricherz does. He could look ahead and vow to repeal the refund for the Keystone XL pipeline and recoup the money with a pennies-per-barrel pipeline tax (a good idea that Senator Russ Olson killed this year).

Schmidtke, Fargen, Lange, and even Stricherz are making clear that, on this issue, they recognize that we should put South Dakotans ahead of foreign oil corporations. Olson is proving once again that he’s in the pocket of Big Oil. Bjorklund is hinting that he’s more interested in covering for the mistakes and corporate giveaways of the Republican machine in Pierre than in challenging the powers that be and sticking up for average South Dakotans.

Olson-Bjorklund: The TransCanada Ticket

*So if Kristi Noem can look at South Dakota’s current economic situation and say the federal stimulus failed, can we say Olson’s imputed “TransCanada stimulus” also failed?

Liss Plays to Inattentive Voters in Dist. 13

Posted: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 at 6:02 am
By: Cory Allen Heidelberger
2 Comments | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Remember, candidates: your junk mail now goes out to bloggers as well, and bloggers respond negatively to bull.

Today’s case in point is a campaign letter from District 13 candidate for State House Brian C. Liss. Challenging incumbent Representative Susy Blake, Liss apparently sends out a letter crying about “Socialism!” He apparently tries to make hay out of the fact that Blake voted this year for HCR 1015, which would have declared that the federal stimulus money that saved South Dakota’s budget constituted “important, useful, and beneficial investments for our people, economy, and infrastructure.” HCR—that stands for House Concurrent Resolution. Resolution—i.e., even had it passed, it would have done nothing.

Liss’s real beef should be with SB 196, the FY2011 state budget that actually spends those nasty stimulus dollars. Rep. Blake voted against that spending. GOP nominee for Congress Kristi Noem voted for spending that stimulus money. So who’s the socialist now, Mr. Liss?

Liss himself appears to like government spending. On his Issues page, he advocates bringing home all the federal handouts we can for “benefits and services.” He also promises to go to Pierre and spend more tax dollars on education. Isn’t that socialism, too?

But the blogger who gets first dibs on setting Mr. Liss straight is Corey Vilhauer of Black Marks on Wood Pulp. He makes a rare excursion into politics to chastise “Freedom Fighter” Liss for his blowhardery:

…Despite your letter’s insistence, governmental support for public services is not “socialism.” And the the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act isn’t “unprecedented intergenerational theft”….

Those things don’t mean the same thing. They never have. Buy a dictionary. I’m struggling to determine which freedoms you’re fighting for, and why I’m in need of a freedom fighter in the first place. I get it, though. You’re using baited buzz words in order to scare those who aren’t paying attention into backing the standard Conservative Agenda [emphasis mine; insightful observation by Corey Vilhauer, “Dear Brian Liss, Republican,” Black Marks on Wood Pulp, 2010.06.21].

Right on the money, C.V. Shouters like Liss turn some cute phrases, but they always fail on the details. Their only hope is that enough busy voters won’t have time to pay close attention to what politicians are really saying and will fall for the surface-level rhetoric.

Voters of District 13 (and elsewhere!), pay attention. The only thing you need to “liberate” District 13 from is the sloppy and contradictory rhetoric of Brian C. Liss and similar conservative fakers.


Candidate Liss responds! Follow the conversation on the Madville Times.

Small Schools Give Economic and Educational Return on Investment

Posted: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 at 6:24 am
By: Cory Allen Heidelberger
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Friday’s print MDL ran this half-page informational ad to explain just what the state gets for its extra investment in small schools. The ad, apparently from the Rutland and Oldham-Ramona school districts, is clearly a response to failed House Bill 1150 and other action during this year’s legislative session that shows our elected officials (mostly Republicans) still view education as an unpleasant expense rather than a vital investment.

Some highlights from the ad:

  1. The 232 students at Oldham-Ramona and Rutland cost the state about $44,000 more than the aid formula would send if those kids went to bigger schools. That $44,000 supports 60 jobs and $3 million of district expenditures… also known as economic activity (Rutland pays teachers; teachers buy gas, groceries, and houses; everyone’s happy).
  2. The small schools don’t argue that they are absolutely better than large schools. They recognize that while smal schools are better for some kids, big schools are better for others.
    The small schools want every family to have a full range of choices to provide their children with the educational experience that’s best for them (and isn’t that what we all want?)
  3. The real problem is that the State of South Dakota isn’t meeting its obligation to sufficiently fund any schools, large or small. South Dakota remains dead, dead last in per-student state funding, leaving local districts to struggle to raise captial through opt-outs.

SD House: Cuts for Kids, Refunds for Big Oil

Posted: Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 8:48 am
By: Cory Allen Heidelberger
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

As the South Dakota Legislature moves toward negating the annual funding increase promised to K-12 schools by state law, consider this:

  1. In voting for the hoghoused Senate Bill 22, the State House would save 1.2%.
  2. According to the governor’s budget book, total state aid this year is $375 million.
  3. 1.2% of that figure is $4.5 million.*
  4. At the same time, the House hoghoused Senate Bill 195 to make sure that TransCanada still gets big tax refund on its Keystone pipeline. One source tells me that refund is worth $38 million.

Apparently, the State House can’t come up with $4.5 million to fulfill its legal promise to our school districts. But the State House can come up with $38 million to give a tax break to a foreign corporation.

The conference committee that will attempt to reconcile Senate Bill 22 is an even split for and against the zero increase: Senator Garnos and Reps. Faehn and Noem (ayes) and Senators Knudson and Nesselhuf and Rep. Lucas (nays). Worth noting: Knudson has been trying to make pipelines ineligible for tax refunds.

By the way, local Senator Russell Olson voted yesterday for the zero increase.

*Update: The new GOP list of budget amendments includes two amendments (mh and mi) to restore the 1.2% increase. By their figures, those increases could mean $10.9M to $18.5M more for K-12 education.

Kopp Backpedals on Intent of Ridiculous Global Warming Resolution

Posted: Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 8:12 am
By: Cory Allen Heidelberger
4 Comments | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Bob Newland is on to something (no, not on something, you jokers—pay attention!). On the Decorum Forum, South Dakota’s best blogger on probation suggests Rep. Don Kopp (R-35/Rapid City) is making stuff up as he defends his HCR 1009, the newly amended and passed anti-science resolution on global warming that has won South Dakota widespread mockery and scientific correction.

Rep. Kopp has been backpedaling for a week, trying to distance himself from the embarrassing belief in astrology that the original resolution declared before the Senate amended the resolution into meaninglessness. He repeated on SDPB’s Dakota Midday today his claim that some of the nuttier text in the resolution was slipped into the resolution by someone in the Legislative Research Council and that he didn’t catch it before the House vote.

Wait. Really? If Kopp is suggesting the LRC fudged a bill, that’s more than a screw-up or a prank. That’s an unelected bureaucrat attempting to subvert the legislative process by hijacking legislation written by an elected official. Even on a resolution, that’s an enormous accusation. If it were true, I would expect a lot of shouting and heads rolling.

But I seriously doubt the Legislative Research Council would risk the public trust by daring to insert an entire paragraph of “goobledy-guck,” as Kopp called it on SDPB this noon. And even if that remarkable claim were true, can we accept Kopp’s further claim that neither he nor the 35 other House members who approved the original laughable text noticed the gobbledy-guck? Only if we assume that resolutions really mean so little to legislators that they aren’t paying attention.

Kopp certainly seems to wish now that no one were paying attention to his resolution. More than once in today’s SDPB interview, Kopp emphasized that his proposal is just a resolution, not a bill, and doesn’t require anyone to do anything.

Well, a non-binding resolution certainly doesn’t seem to have been his original intent:

Schools in South Dakota should teach both sides of the global warming issue, Republican state Rep. Don Kopp of Rapid City says. Kopp plans to push that idea during the upcoming legislative session with a bill that would require public schools that teach the threats of global warming to also provide students with the skeptical view of climate change.

“If a school is paid for with public funds, if they teach global warming or show Al Gore’s video, as most of our schools here in Rapid City did, then they will have to show the opposing view,” Kopp said Monday. “I believe that’s only fair. If they only hear one side of the story, that’s all they get.”

Kopp said he has pre-filed legislation in the Legislature that would change the law requiring both sides of global warming to be covered in school classes, if the issue is brought up at all. He doesn’t intend to include a penalty for schools that don’t follow the law but also doubts it would be necessary.

“If it passes, I assume they (schools) will follow the law and show both sides of the issue,” he said [emphasis mine; Kevin Woster, “Rapid City lawmaker: Schools should teach both sides of global-warming,” Rapid City Journal, 2010.01.04].

Bill. Law. Require. Kevin Woster makes mistakes… but I doubt he’d make that many in one article.

I suspect the GOP leaders talked enough sense into Kopp to get him to go for a resolution. But the above text tells me Kopp wanted a law. He wanted to force science teachers to give equal time to global warming denialism… and maybe astrology. Kopp’s resolution, watered down as it is, still declares the anti-science agenda that he wants, and now that the South Dakota Legislature officially wants. By trying to dodge responsibility with more unlikely claims, Kopp only makes his legislative effort more derisible.

I hate to say it, but on this issue, our fair state deserves all the mockery it gets.

Russell Olson Loses on GOP Health Care Nullification

Posted: Monday, March 1, 2010 at 4:49 am
By: Cory Allen Heidelberger
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

…but acknowledge right to health care?

District 8 Senator Russell Olson and a handful of Republicans in Pierre seem to think they can pass state laws that trump federal law. Russ joined a crushed minority of conservative posers who voted this week for SB 137, a silly and superfluous little bill that read as follows:

Pursuant to the ninth and tenth amendments to the United States Constitution, any law made by Congress which interferes with the right of any person or entity to choose their personal physician, private health care systems or private health care coverage, or which imposes any penalty, tax, fee, or fine, of any type, for declining to purchase health care coverage or participate in any particular health care system or plan, is null and void within the state of South Dakota.

Never mind that, if such federal laws were unconstitutional, we wouldn’t need a state law to negate them. Never mind that South Dakota can choose to ignore a federal health care law any more than we can ignore the Voting Rights Act or not hire black people. Never mind that no flavor of the federal health insurance reforms proposed in the past year would restrictanyone’s ability to choose doctor, hospital, or insurance plan (in fact, a public option would increase our choices). Never mind that these Republicans seem perfectly comfortable with forcing everyone to buy insurance for their cars but not for their bodies and their children.

I note with interest that in acknowledging a right to choose a doctor, a hospital, and health coverage, Russ and bill sponsors Sen. Gordon Howie and Rep. Thomas Brunner appear to be acknowledging that we have a right to health care.

Of course, Russ and his wealthy Republican friends believe no such thing. Private insurers interfere with my purported right to choose my doctor by locking me into provider networks and charging me more if I seek care outside that network. SB 137 doesn’t stop that. private insurers penalize when I decline to buy health insurance: when I come back a year later looking to buy in again, they’ll slap me with a huge premium for not having continuous coverage, or deny me outright. SB 137 doesn’t stop that.

Private insurance companies do much more to practically limit my exercise of the health care rights SB 137 enumerates. But Russ and the boys keep telling me my own government, run by my neighbors and me, is the greatest threat to my liberty.

Assurant is jacking my health premium 23%. President Obama wants to lower my premium and require private insurers to spend more of our money on actual health care. I have met the enemy, and he is not us.

Senator Olson, if you and your conservative friends really believe your own rhetoric about our right to access health care and insurance, you’ll knock off the nullificationnincompoopery and get on board with real federal health care reform.

Glowbull Warming Reaches Pierre & SD Blogosphere

Posted: Friday, February 26, 2010 at 8:54 am
By: RadioActive Chief
1 Comment | Trackback Bookmark and Share

There is just too much discussion going on worthy of reply about this to let it go without additional comment.

The starting reference point is HC1009, labeled: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Calling for balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota.

The Chief has taught HS sciences for a quarter century…and the prevailing orthodoxy on AGW (anthropogenic global warming: you know, man made!) is junk science at best, and at worst is totally bogus intellectual fraud. After formally studying a number of relevant scientific disciplines, IMHO AlGore and the glowbull warming advocates are claiming far, far more than is supported by the VALID evidence…which looks better and better with every successive debunking of junk “evidence” that has been used by the IPCC, and other agencies like the UK Meteorological Office, East Anglia University Climate Unit, etc.

The US science teaching establishment to a large extent has drunk the AlGore Kool Aid…and has little bashfulness about promoting what IMHO is a grossly distorted pseudoscientific dogma in the classroom.

This is the backstory on HC1009…which is well intentioned, but is in need of some important correction to be credible. Some of these corrections have been noted several places in the blogosphere. Badlands Blue and Madville Times both have erupted on this to some degree at least…CAH seems to be a bit more sensible in his comments, but admittedly both have properly noted some real problems, which were also noted with a bit more specificity in a posting from SD Politics.

Overall, the Chief concurs with the latter of these, not so much with the former commenters. The references in the bill to “astrology(!)”, “thermography”, and “interrelativity” (which suggests some sort of warp drive travel or something) obviously (at least to me!) need to be cleaned up.

There is one additional wording change that I would heartily suggest. The passage in the bill that states “That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;” is also incorrect in this context.

The Chief continually stressed to his students that a “scientific theory” is NOT a guess about something…it is rather a unified explanation that is able to account for a large body of related proven scientific phenomena. The idea a man-made glowbull warming is IMHO a LONG way from reaching the level of established theory. A more appropriate statement in the bill at that point would be “That global warming is a scientific hypothesis rather than a proven fact”.

In science, a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a scientific question. The validity or non-validity of the explanation may be established by the process of experimentation. To be supported, a hypothesis must be demonstrated REPEATEDLY by experiments (or data) that are clearly and concisely defined, and are available to anyone else interested in the topic, who then is able to also demonstrate the same conclusion. If the conclusion can not be logically and unambiguously supported from a number of independent sources then if cannot be considered as being scientifically valid.

That is the current state of the hypothesis of AGW today, and as more and more cases of shoddy research, flawed and/or missing critical data, and evident “rigging” of the scientific review process comes to light, it becomes less and less likely that AlGore and others of his enviromental ilk are correct in their assertions of “established science”.

So, what’s to get exercised about concerning the scientific Waterloo being defended by the orthodox “warmists”? It is neatly summarized in Ken’s concluding paragraph in his above- noted and linked post at SD Politics:

Climate change alarmism is in a crisis right now, for good reason. Cap and Trade legislation, a very costly proposal based on very dubious quazi-scientific ideas, is something the State of South Dakota ought to be concerned about. It is easy to make mistakes when putting a resolution together, but if we are going to weigh in on this we need to be rather more careful in our choice of words.

Hear, hear!