Our Jeff Stier's excellent article "With Its Soda Tax, Mexico Repeats The Mistakes Of Mayor Bloomberg" in the Chicago Tribune yesterday drew the ire of a hostile commenter, who responded to Jeff's piece about the usefulness (not) of soda taxes to fight obesity by complaining that the National Center for Public Policy Research is a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition.
What one has to do with the other I don't know, since the numerous problems with soda taxes as an anti-obesity tool have nothing to do with climate change.
However, because countless leftists have repeatedly claimed we are a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition over the years, I'm using this silly comment as an opportunity to set the record straight. We aren't a member and haven't been since about 2006.
Our reason for departing had nothing to do with the Cooler Heads Coalition itself, which has routinely shown more accuracy about global warming-cum-climate change (and soon-to-be "ocean acidification," I suspect, as global warming is losing steam in more ways than one) than the IPCC, or the people who are members of Cooler Heads, who are great and clever people, one and all. We simply decided about that time to withdraw from formal coalitions across the board, as we were in some (not Cooler Heads) in which the leadership tended to speak for all the members without polling the members first.
So be on notice, leftist trolls. I've written this out in plain English and posted it on the web, where search engines can and will find it, if you would only have the decency to do a little research before you post. (And you could always just ask us.) The National Center for Public Policy Research admires the uncanny accuracy of the Cooler Heads Coalition, wishes our government and governments worldwide would pay more attention to the recommendations of the Cooler Heads Coalition, and wonders why more journalists aren't wise enough to read the offerings of the Cooler Heads Coalition, but we are not members of the Cooler Heads Coalition, and we have not been for years.
If you wish to complain about our work on issues, how about trying a discussion on the merits? For once?