Consider for a moment the Protestant Reformation, led by Martin Luther during 17th Century. Luther kick-started the heart of a socio-religious movement, not just by preaching his message via sermon, but by utilizing the myriad information mediums of the time. Through hymns, woodcuts, and plays, Luther’s message of reforming the Catholic Church was able to spread through Germany and into the rest of Europe. Luther’s ideas were not new, but he was able to capitalize on populist doubts and concerns over the direction of the Church and the corruption of papal indulgences and then transmit his message to various segments of society using those various forms of mass media.

The difference between Luther’s movement and the precursors to it that were led by John Hus and, before that, John Wyclif were that while both Hus and Wyclif were able to amass a following, they–for whatever reason–didn’t take advantage of technology and spread their movement beyond a stagnant group of supporters. If the printing press had never been invented, Martin Luther’s ideas likely wouldn’t have caught on and he probably would have been burned at the stake as a heretic, as happened to Hus.

Over the past year, Conservatives throughout the United States have launched a Reformation, taking aim at both the ruling Democratic Party and the out-of-power Republicans. The Republicans, who controlled Washington in various aspects from roughly 1994 until 2008, are to blame for many–though nowhere near all–of the problems that are facing America today. Reckless spending, an unwise foreign policy, and an expansion of the size and scope of the federal government all occurred under a Republican President and a Republican Congress. The Republicans deserved to lose in 2006 and 2008, because they had lost their way. Now it appears that the Republican Party is resurgent, as evidenced by recent electoral victories in New Jersey’s and Virginia’s gubernatorial races, and a Special Election for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

About a year ago, a business commentator named Rick Santelli spawned an entire movement with a rant on the floor of the Chicago Stock Exchange about bailouts and big government. This rant led to a series of protests, demonstrations, and rallies known as the Tea Party movement. But what would this movement have been without technology? It would have been a lot different. Without television or radio, there’d be no Glenn Beck, one of the main movers of this movement into the mainstream. Without the internet, there would be no RedState or any of the other conservative community websites. There would be no YouTube, whose users have posted a ton of speeches from tea party activists across the country.

Whether or not the Tea Party Movement (or the Conservative Reformation) would exist today without our current forms of technology is something that nobody knows. But it’s undeniable that technologies such as television, radio, and the internet have helped make this movement what it is today. And by utilizing several forms of mass media, conservatives have been able to target different segments of the population the same way Luther did in the 1600′s. The Tea Party movement is a large, diverse group that is full of people of all economic group, every race, every creed, and every section of the conservative big tent, and they’ve all been brought together by a common ideal that has been transmitted to the nation at large by technology. Just as the left did during the Bush years with MoveOn.org, the Huffington Post, and the DailyKos, and just as Martin Luther did 400 years ago, conservatives have found new ways to make old ideas fashionable again.

The Conservative Movement has entered the Twenty-First Century.

The legacy media doesn’t know what to make of these tea parties. There is no central office in Manhattan so that David Shuster can call and get the head honcho of the tea baggers on the phone. In fact, there’s no centralization at all. It’s a leaderless protest movement. It’s not Ross Perot redux. And that’s why this movement will last for a long time.

It must be infuriating for the political and media establishment of this country. These aren’t the kind of protests they’re used to–like minded folks that smell of patchouli and look like Tommy Chong. The tea partiers are not protesting free trade or the Iraq War or corporate malfeasance or any of the other respectable causes. These freaks are protesting big government. What? Yeah, and they’re talking about the Founding Fathers without saying “racist” or (in the immortal words of the teacher from Dazed and Confused) “slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn’t want to pay their taxes.”

And that’s what the politicians and the legacy media don’t get. The tea partiers are not like them. They don’t watch the same movies, listen to the same music, and hang out with the same people. They barely speak the same language.

I must admit that I’ve always been kind of irked about the Tea Party movement. I don’t really relate to the people who wear tea bags dangling from their hats. I don’t really watch Glenn Beck and I prefer classic rock to talk radio. And the populist nature of the Tea Party crowd has kind of bugged me too. But unlike the typical populist movement, these folks are demanding that government get smaller and get less involved in their lives. And they all seem to have read the Founding Fathers.

Last year, I was still not sure what to make of these so-called “tea baggers.” But once I saw Susan Roesgen from CNN interviewing some guy named Norm at one of these events in Chicago last year, I made up my mind. If you recall, Ms. Roesgen attacked this fellow with government talking points about all the FREE GOVERNMENT MONEY that Illinois was getting from the Stimulus bill. Norm quoted Abraham Lincoln. When was the last time you heard a guy–picked randomly from the crowd–at a protest quoting Lincoln? After watching the condescension that guys like Anderson Cooper leveled at these folks, I knew that they couldn’t be all bad.

So while I don’t support everything the Tea Party says or does, I think it’s safe to say that I’m on their side, especially against the mainstream media and the non-stop tea bagging jokes that emanate from it.

To add fuel to the fire, the Daily Mail is reporting that one of the world’s top Climate scientists, Professor Phil Jones, has confessed that he has not been able to keep track of all the climate information that he has. Jones, you may remember, was one of the honchos at the center of the ClimateGate controversy a month or so ago. Now Jones is conceding that the Earth was possibly warmer during the Middle Ages than it is now.

But the real kicker is that Jones is now saying that there has not been any “statistically significant” warming for 15 years.

All these revelations might mean nothing in normal times. But the international community has been raving for vast changes in climate policy based on the poor research and shabby science conducted by fellows like Professor Jones. In fact, just a couple of months ago there was the United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen which tried to enact actual policy changes based on this “settled science” sham.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. For years, global warming skeptics have been shut out of the climate debate and harangued as “flat earthers,” “Holocaust deniers,” and “corporate fascists.” But with the climate consensus crumbling before our very eyes, will skeptics be brought into the discussion so that we may actually find out what is going on? Probably not. When the leaked ClimateGate emails first surfaced, Senator Barbara Boxer responded to questions about the scandal by referring to it as “Email-Theft Gate.” Ah yes, the real perpetrators were not the scientists with faulty statistics and flawed research that policy makers were using to demand more and more of your tax dollars. No, no. The villains behind the whole thing were people trying to get to the bottom of the climate racket.

In the coming months and years, you can bet that politicians and media elites will continue to cling to the man-made global warming hypothesis as a life preserver as they proceed to drown under the rising tides of inconvenient facts that vindicate the skeptics.

Eric Boehlert is so smart. The Lotion Czar of Media Matters points out that conservatives are a bunch of knuckle-dragging troglodytes because we don’t know the difference between “climate” and “weather.” In fact, if you subscribe to his Twitter feed, you’ll be treated to all sorts of enlightenment, such as this Tweet:

“Rain washes away much needed fresh snow in Vancouver.” Welcome to ‘Global Warming Olympics.

Alas, so much for the difference between weather and climate.

Whether or not “climate change” is happening and whether or not it is the result of human activity, the best thing that can happen is for a rigorous debate about it to occur. But any time someone suggests that the “settled science” isn’t really all that settled, they are called an “idiot” by geniuses like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and compared to Holocaust deniers by Al Gore. What are the warm-mongers so afraid of that they result to preposterous ad hominem attacks whenever someone disputes their incredibly shaky “settled science”?

Looking back at recent scandals that have rocked the Climate Change Industry, it should be obvious that skeptics of global warming theories have had a point for a long time. And while global warming remains an open question for scientists, those who poke holes in conventional wisdom should not be silenced. If no one speaks up against a theory, that leads to dangerous groupthink. Look at the Bay of Pigs, the run-up to the Iraq Warm, and the Challenger disaster if you need proof of the disastrous results that can occur if no one speaks up and challenges the conventional wisdom of the time.

Last year, the House of Representatives passed a “Cap and Trade” bill that would cost a ton of money, impose new regulations on businesses, and increase energy prices. There are arguments for and against this proposal, but should we really pass this thing without anyone questioning the science behind the theory of global warming? Especially when the world’s foremost climate science center, the CRU, has been rocked by such scandals as ClimateGate? If the science is really settled, then what harm could a little bit of back-and-forth between sides do, especially when all that money is on the line?

Maybe guys like Eric Boehlert really are ahead of the curve and climate change skeptics are unenlightened dolts. But if so, why can’t the “Settled Science” guys debate the issue and prove how foolish we are? But if the skeptics are right, and the “settled” climate science is just a hothouse flower that will wilt and dry up under scrutiny, then maybe we should think twice before imposing new regulations on businesses and new costs on consumers.