From the Associated Press comes the latest climate horror story: "It's already starting to happen. The culprit is the warming seas--and in particular the Gulf of Maine, whose waters are heating up faster than 99 percent of the world's oceans, scientists say." Of course, another way of looking at that is that 99% of the world's oceans aren't heating up at such an alarming rate.
Never mind that. The story includes the obligatory definitive quotes from scientists and advocates: "These changes are very real, and we're seeing them happen quickly," says Rutgers biologist Malin Pinsky (though the AP notes he "was not involved in the research that resulted in the 99 percent statistic"). "The warming is already here," says Jeff Young, who took some biology classes in 1990-91 after earning a bachelor's degree in journalism and political science. "And we have to deal with it."
But then the equivocation begins. After recounting the recent increase in the rate at which temperatures are rising--0.05 degree a year between 1982 and 2004, "nearly 10 times faster" during the past decade--the AP acknowledges: "Scientists are not certain why."
" 'Atmospheric events' could be pushing additional heat into the Gulf, causing a 'perfect storm' of conditions that combine to dramatically raise temperatures there, said Nick Record, a research scientist at the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, a Maine center for oceanography," the story adds. Andy Pershing of the Gulf of Maine Research Institute "and many peers agree." Given that the assertion is merely about what "could be" happening, they're not agreeing to much.
                            
                                 
A victim of warming, but not the global kind. Getty Images
Deep in the story we find out why this is so alarming: "Ironically, the warmer water has created ideal conditions for lobsters and contributed to an overabundance in recent years, causing prices to tumble to their lowest point in nearly two decades in Maine."
We can exclusively confirm it's not just in Maine. Last month we purchased two summer lobsters from FreshDirect, the New York grocery-delivery service, for $5.99 a pound (alas, this week they're up to $6.99). That afforded us the treat--unusual for a city dweller--of killing our own food. Because of climate change, these lobsters and millions like them are literally being boiled alive!
Global warming: Delicious if true.
Meanwhile, the Washington Free Beacon notes that Secretary of State John Kerry is going Old Testament on global warming:
Kerry said it was the United States' biblical "duty" to confront climate change at home and abroad in "Muslim-majority" nations during a speech Wednesday.
"Our faiths are inextricably linked on any number of things that we must confront and deal with in policy concepts today. Our faiths are inextricably linked on the environment. For many of us, respect for God's creation also translates into a duty to protect and sustain his first creation, Earth, the planet," Kerry said.
"Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid out in Scriptures clearly, beginning in Genesis. And Muslim-majority countries are among the most vulnerable. Our response to this challenge ought to be rooted in a sense of stewardship of Earth, and for me and for many of us here today, that responsibility comes from God," he continued.
Why, you may ask, are Muslim-majority countries "particularly vulnerable"? Perhaps because lobster is haram. But if it's biblical backing Kerry is after, he's looking in the wrong place. The passage he wants is Leviticus 11:12.
One Step Forward, Three Steps Back
"The latest big legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act . . . just suffered a major setback in federal court," the New Republic's Jonathan Cohn is delighted to report.
It's a setback for sure: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit yesterday vacated a three-judge panel's ruling in Halbig v. Burwell, which struck down an important IRS regulation as inconsistent with the ObamaCare law. The full 11-judge court, newly packed with Democratic appointees, will rehear the case in December.
"The real significance of today's announcement is how it affects the Supreme Court," Cohn argues:
The architects of the lawsuit had already petitioned the justices, asking them to take up the case and issue a final, authoritative ruling. . . . But the best pretext for the justices to take the case would be a split among Circuit Court rulings--i.e., one decision upholding the lawsuit and one rejecting it. As of [yesterday] that split no longer exists. One Court (the Fourth Circuit) has ruled unanimously to reject the lawsuit while another one (the D.C. Circuit) has decided to bring the case before its full panel of judges.
Most legal experts I know think the justices will, at the very least, wait to see how the full D.C. Circuit rules before taking the lawsuits seriously. The D.C. Circuit rehearing is set for November [sic; actually December] and that court probably won't issue a ruling until spring or summer of next year. If those judges end up reversing the decision, the Supreme Court justices might pass on the case altogether, although two other cases are in much earlier stages of the judicial process and could still produce conflicting rulings.
A circuit split over the interpretation of an important federal statute is not a pretext for the Supreme Court to hear a case on the question; it is a very good reason. Even absent a circuit split, an argument can be made for early action by the high court to resolve a legal uncertainty that stands to affect millions of Americans.
To be sure, the uncertainty could also be resolved without the Supreme Court's involvement, if Halbig and the other cases all go the government's way in the appellate courts. But as even Cohn acknowledges, the justices could take the case anyway, especially if they think the lower courts got it wrong. "That would be more likely if the D.C. Circuit splits on party lines," Cohn observes, leaving unsaid the obvious inference that a decision in favor of the government would be politically motivated.
Meanwhile, the New York Times had a story the other day titled "Bracing for New Challenges in Year 2 of Health Care Law." They don't mean legal challenges:
Insurance executives and managers of the online marketplaces are already girding for the coming open enrollment period, saying they fear it could be even more difficult than the last.
One challenge facing consumers will be wide swings in prices. Some insurers are seeking double-digit price increases, while others are hoping to snare more of the market by lowering premiums for the coming year. . . .
"In some respects, it's going to be more complicated," said Kevin Counihan, the former chief executive of Access Health CT, Connecticut's online marketplace, who was just named as the head of the insurance marketplaces for the federal government. Connecticut's marketplace was among the most successful state-based exchanges, sharply reducing the number of uninsured in the state. "Part of me thinks that this year is going to make last year look like the good old days."
National Journal points to another potential problem:
Obamacare premiums will barely change next year in some of America's biggest cities, but consumers are still at risk for big price increases if they're not willing to change plans.
Because of the way the Affordable Care Act's insurance subsidies are structured, people who signed up for coverage this year will often have to pay significantly more to renew the same policy. But many people who are willing to switch plans will get a better deal in 2015 than they did this year, according to a new analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
If you like your ObamaCare plan--though what are the odds of that?--you may not get to keep it.
And keep in mind that for ObamaCare's "success" to continue, millions more people have to buy policies than did last year. The Times reports the administration "is expected to try to persuade about five million more people to sign up" while also ensuring that the purported eight million existing enrollees renew.
"Experts" tell the Times that will "present a significant challenge. People in this group were unaware they could get assistance with the cost of their premiums, decided the coverage was not worth the cost or simply found the process of enrolling too challenging."
The Times story doesn't go into the politics of it all, but it seems to us that may be perilous as well. If the administration succeeds in enrolling millions more people, that's more potential voters who have firsthand experience with ObamaCare.