I don’t know. I’m not a scientist – and even if I were I might still be confused. But that’s the point. Our scientifically-challenged legislators (Nancy Pelosi can barely speak coherent English, Al Gore nearly flunked out of divinity school) are about to enact a monumentally expensive, tax regressive “climate change” bill at the very moment AGW skepticism is growing in the rest of world. From the WSJ:
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)
This is one of the greatest examples ever of “politics as religion,” people (our Congress) blinded by ideology to a degree that might impress the mullahs. Oh, well. It’s only our money and our country.
For the record, I will repeat “I am a anthropogenic global warming agnostic.” It’s possible that I am wrong about this. But the idea that Nancy Pelosi et al are making decisions for us on this matter, when it is light years beyond their mental compass, is truly frightening. They are shameless and we are pathetic for electing them.
Here’s one last interesting example. A Congresswoman named Ellen Tauscher, Democrat from San Francisco’s East Bay, is so convinced of the veracity of AWG that she postponed resigning from Congress (she has a new job with the administration) to vote for the bill. Ms. Tauscher’s educational background? She has a degree in early childhood education from Seton Hall.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
28 Comments
1. Lightnin' Hopkins:What could go wrong? It’s not like they’re Rahm-ing an unread bill through the House under the cover of wall-to-wall celebrity death coverage, as “some would have you believe.”
Jun 26, 2009 - 12:21 pm 2. Insufficiently Sensitive:It is frightening to see the extent to which ’scientific’ publications like Nature and Science magazines have degraded their respect for science.
There’s a proper skepticism in science which admits questions and challenges such as the ‘letter of 54′ submitted by Bill Happer and rejected by ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’ – else the process is more political, or religious, than scientific. Real scientists expect and are prepared to rebut challenges on specific terms – not the canard that ‘lotsa scientists say this so it’s settled’.
And don’t even get me started on ‘Scientific American’. They’re so much a religion that they treat an honest critic like Bjorn Lomborg as a, well, heretic – hiring personal attacks on him, and refusing him space to rebut. It’s time to drive the moneychangers out of the temple, and I’d start with the editors of S.A.
Jun 26, 2009 - 1:23 pm 3. Tcobb:The people in power who believe in man made global warming tend to believe in it because of the consequences for them if it is either true or widely perceived to be true. Our economy depends upon energy–it does. So long as energy is cheap, there can be abundance for the many. But once we can’t produce energy, or rather, aren’t allowed to on the scale that meets the demand, it becomes necessary to ration who gets what and how much.
That’s the key. When resources are scarce that’s when the politicians can stand forth and say that it is necessary to ration them in a “fair manner”–which means giving the lion’s share to those that they favor. There is only need to ration when there is a scarcity of a necessity.
The US has two-thirds of the world’s coal reserves. There are vast oil fields within the offshore waters of the US. We have shale oil in the western United States. We have the technology and uranium to build nuclear power plants that could easily supply all the electricity needed for this country. But because of our own government, we are not allowed to utilize these resources and/or technologies.
Its not about “saving the planet.” Its about creating artificial scarcity that gives the political class a justification for running everyone else’s lives. Its about power, and the nasty, vile people who crave it.
Jun 26, 2009 - 1:31 pm 4. Paul:It makes perfect sense if one accepts the idea that the Democrat’s goal is to scrap representative democracy and install a socialist system with unlimited state power for themselves(help me REMAKE America!!).
If wrecking the economy is necessary in order to gain complete power so be it. In fact they have to know that a dysfunctional economy is inevitable in a socialist dictatorship. Everything Obama and the Democrats have done has severely harmed our economy and Obamacare and Cap and Trade promise to do further enormous economic damage.
They are driven by an insatiable lust for power and status, which is the defining characteristic of leftism. It has been the primary motivation of the left since the French Revolution.
And Ellen Tauscher’s new job?
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
Think about that one!!
Jun 26, 2009 - 1:32 pm 5. kcom:The sooner we hear the death gurgle of this whole idiotic undertaking the better off we’ll all be. There has been nothing scientific about the progression of this movement from a legitimate questioning of our possible affect on the climate straight to the establishment of a quasi-religion that brooks no heresy. Somehow, they claim, an open debate that never took place settled all these questions – before most of us had even heard of the topic. We’re just supposed to take their word for it. Sorry, but I’m not buying and plenty of other people aren’t either.
Jun 26, 2009 - 1:34 pm 6. Lightnin' Hopkins:“And Ellen Tauscher’s new job?
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.”
George Orwell, call your office.
Jun 26, 2009 - 1:39 pm 7. EdSki:I can tell you definitely, man made global warming is the biggest schuck of our time. All you have to do is listen to the scammers own words to know this.
No scientist worth their weight in carbon credits would ever even use a sentence like “the debate is over,” or “consensus.”
The very heart of science is to always, always, always keep looking, keep experimenting, keep learning. A true scientist would say something closer to “to the best of our knowledge, at this time…”
For example, for at least a hundred years, scientists were convinced that electricity flows from positive to negative. Every experiment proved it correct. But when physics progressed to the atomic level, they learned they had been wrong all along. Electricity flows from negative to positive. And its not even the movement of electrons that causes it, in reality its the lack of electrons that cause electricity to flow. The attraction caused by a missing electron in a conductor is what pulls electrons from near by atoms, which causes electricity to flow. (EET class of ‘85, so if my terms are off, apologies.)
My point being, real scientists know and understand, everything they are convinced is true, could change completely with the next big scientific discovery, so they think and speak with that in mind. When global warming-mongers say the debate is over, they are proving science is the last thing on their mind.
Jun 26, 2009 - 1:43 pm 8. Brother J:Actually Roger, when I think about it, a degree in early childhood education may not be a bad qualification to have when dealing with Congress. Just maybe not if you’re one of them.
I do believe that Cap and Tax is bad law based on junk science.
Jun 26, 2009 - 1:47 pm 9. Tcobb:My point being, real scientists know and understand, everything they are convinced is true, could change completely with the next big scientific discovery, so they think and speak with that in mind. When global warming-mongers say the debate is over, they are proving science is the last thing on their mind.
Exactly.
But there are a lot of people out there masquerading as scientists who are really just opportunists in search of the GRANT MONEY, and they are willing to tell whoever gives them GRANT MONEY anything they would like to hear so long as the GRANT MONEY will keep coming in. They are high IQ prostitutes who are too ugly to make a living by pursuing their trade in the traditional manner.
Jun 26, 2009 - 2:09 pm 10. EdSki:Re: #9 Tcobb
“They are high IQ prostitutes who are too ugly to make a living by pursuing their trade in the traditional manner.”
That is too funny! Can I use that one?
Reminds me of the politician back in the early 1900’s who wanted to shut down the US Patent Office because everything useful had already been invented, so there was no longer a need for it.
Jun 26, 2009 - 2:30 pm 11. david foster:If this happens, it will be very difficult–virtually impossible–to ever undo it, because to the holders of the permits, they will be “assets” (like NYC taxi medallions), and eliminating the cap-trade policy would destroy their value.
See my post demonizing energy producers.
Jun 26, 2009 - 2:43 pm 12. EdSki:Re: 11 david foster
Isn’t that exactly what the federal government did to the Indiana teacher union pension funds when they took over GM?
Jun 26, 2009 - 3:17 pm 13. Mike_K:I think this will be easier to undo than the health care bill, if it passes. Australia quickly reversed course when the new Labour PM learned what would happen to electricity prices under the new rules he had campaigned for.
Jun 26, 2009 - 3:27 pm 14. Climate Change : The American Clean Energy and Security Act: | Conservative Political Report:[...] Pajamas Media | Is man-made global warming the biggest schuck of all time? [...]
Jun 26, 2009 - 3:45 pm 15. Steve:Another reason to have a tea party. One question to proponents of AGW is why cut off debate? If you are certain of your facts, why not welcome debate. The skeptics are willing to debate. I guess that shows which side has facts vs opinion.
Jun 26, 2009 - 4:46 pm 16. Professor Guvinoff:Among the bogus reasons to increase taxes, global warming alarm is a tribute to the overflowing imagination of the guy who invented the internet, before concocting this global hysteria.
Maybe the wives of Mohammed could teach the happy internauts and the sad global warmists how to engage in prophet sharing?
A strong economy, everything else being equal, will produce more carbon dioxide than a weak one. That does not mean that reducing carbon emission will automatically weaken the economy, but who can seriously believe that this kind of supreme finesse in resources management could be accomplished by people who pass bills they don’t read and who would never have become politicians anyway, if science had been what inspired their career?
If we must go ga-ga about green this and green that, let’s keep in mind that the combination of carbon dioxide and sun light (and ground moisture) is what makes plant growth possible, and using hydrocarbons if you are lucky have access to them is uncomparably more practical, and more responsible to your lungs than burning wood.
By the way, if you want to indulge in a bit of science, consider this: A wood fire is just deferred solar heating, if you consider that the burning wood renders the carbon dioxide and the heat that were consumed by the growth of the tree. The carbon dioxide and the heat came together to for the plant growth, and they also escape together when the plant is burned. No need to be a rocket scientist to understand that carbon dioxide is a common by-product of energy production, but also an essential feedstock for plant growth in general and agriculture in particular.
Of course if you think that civilization was an unfortunate development, a terrible mistake, which must be corrected at all costs (yes, costs!), I don’t expect my arguments to move you, but let me be clear: I am not prepared to trade my prosperity for the funny cap above your bonehead.
Jun 26, 2009 - 5:03 pm 17. Margie:Since all those idiots are for it, I’m automatically against it. Snake oil.
Jun 26, 2009 - 5:49 pm 18. Tcobb:but let me be clear: I am not prepared to trade my prosperity for the funny cap above your bonehead.
That’s not the issue. The real question is whether you are going to be FORCED to trade your prosperity for a life in the little Green Wonderland where the “progressives” think that all of the peasants should be living.
Jun 26, 2009 - 6:00 pm 19. TexasDude:Democrats love forcing people to what they deem is important.
Example ..
When they felt that slavery should be considered something that is important, they lead the way in the fostering and then actually creating the Civil War.
Jun 26, 2009 - 8:23 pm 20. Richard Nieporent:This is nothing but a power grab. If we let this happen, we will be under the total control of a group of religious fanatics. In essence, we will be just like Iran. Only in our case, the religion is environmentalism, the deity is Gaia and her prophet is Al Gore.
Jun 26, 2009 - 9:26 pm 21. Judith L:My journey from left to right began when I started to teach research and systems theory. The lights should have gone on during my 5 graduate classes in research and statistics, but actually explaining it to others did it. I was truly shocked to finally see how hostile to honest science the left is.
Jun 27, 2009 - 7:05 am 22. David Thomson:“I was truly shocked to finally see how hostile to honest science the left is.”
There is constant talk about the anti-intellectualism of far right individuals. This is especially true regarding evolution. Nonetheless, the anti-intellectualism of the Left is far worse! The latter, when push comes to shove, does not believe in objective reality. Claims of truth are considered merely an attempt by the establishment to marginalize the disenfranchised of the world. Facts are to be ignored if they conflict with ideological assertions. As matter of fact, this is an unabashed core doctrine of Marxism.
Jun 27, 2009 - 9:19 am 23. david foster:Judith L…wish you’d write something more about that. Maybe Roger would take a guest post for Pajamas Media, or alternatively we’d take a guest post at Chicago Boyz.
Jun 27, 2009 - 7:54 pm 24. Paul_In_Houston:My biggest problem with global warming is the absolute certitude of some of its’ proponents (Example: Al Gore’s assertion that the science has been “settled”).
Let’s try for some perspective, time-wise.
For those comfortable with the metric (S.I.) system, imagine a line about 4.6 kilometers long (a bit under 3 miles). That would represent the 4.6 billion year age of the Earth at 1,000,000 years/meter; 1 mm (about the thickness of a paper clip) would represent a THOUSAND years.
That line would span the downtown area of quite a few large cities, with some to spare. Here in Houston, the downtown streets are 16 to the mile, making their spacing about 100 meters. Thus, that line would be about 46 blocks.
The reign of the dinosaurs ended around 65 million years ago (65 meters, about 2/3 of a city block down that line from today).
The first of our ancestors verging on intelligence may have emerged from 2 to 4 million years ago (2 to 4 meters, say 6.5 to 13 feet; your living room could be around 4 meters in one of its’ dimensions).
What we call “modern” man may go back 40,000 years or so (40 mm, TWO finger-widths on that line).
Written history goes back 6000 years (six millimeters, 1/4 inch on that line).
Fahrenheit’s thermometer is around 300 years old ( 0.3 mm, you’re approaching the thickness of a business card now, or the diameter of a grain of salt).
The portion of that time-line during which precise temperature measurements were recorded would be literally microscopic.
And from that portion, we dare to make really long range climate predictions, and mandate actions based on them?
I live about three miles west of some of Houston’s major downtown buildings, so I can easily visualize that line.
Looking at that time-line of Earth’s history (the universe’s may be four times that), and the flyspeck of our own existence upon it, the notion of asserting that ANY science has been “settled” strikes me as arrogance beyond comprehension (as in “only a politician could possibly believe that”).
-
Jun 28, 2009 - 7:18 am 25. hermie:Obama’s massive spending has to be financed somehow…so he and the Marxists ram through a means of taxing the public on the bogus mantra that they are ’saving the planet’. Remember the tobacco company settlement, where the money was to go to public health programs but surprise…found its way into the general revenue funds of the states which accepted the deal? That money went to reducing state budget deficts or went to totally unrelated projects.Now with billions of dollars that the public will be forced to bear, his massive deficts will be slightly reduced, giving him cover to claim that his econoomic policies were ’successful’.
Since the AGW campaign was established, the predictions of New York shoreline rising 30 meters has NOT occurred. There hasn’t been any studies that even 30 centimeters has happened. In fact, the only studies that ‘prove’ rising ocean levels uses out of the way islands, and their methodology was suspect at the very least.
It started as as ‘Global Cooling’ in the 70’s, then it became ‘Global Warming’, with no explanation offered for the difference conclusions, but they both claimed that it was still from the same source: man. It then became ‘Climate Change’ when people began questioning ‘warming’ when they were freezing their rears off for longer and longer periods in the year; and less hot days in the summer.
Then came the kicker: The SCOTUS ruling that the EPA had the authority to call CO2 a pollutant, despite their being no real scientific evidence that it should. It was a legal ploy that got the government’s hands into the regulation of carbon in all forms. This lead to lies about ‘carbon pollution’ just recently by the Won, who claimed that carbon was polluting or air and water.
Now, armed with phony ‘consensus’ and billions and billions in tax money, Obama will now set out to establish more unaccountable and Un-Constitutional ‘czars’ to regulate American business and curtail more of our individual liberties.
Jun 28, 2009 - 10:35 am 26. M. Report:When the Democratic Congresscritters
Jun 28, 2009 - 5:14 pm 27. Reaganite Republican:bow down to Mammon, instead of Gaia,
what will their True Believer Fanatic
Followers say, and do, to the Apostates ?
Obama claimed that the average American would not bear the brunt of this historic tax-increase: he stated that instead ““It is paid for by the polluters who currently emit dangerous carbon emissions.”
Just compare this outrageous falsehood to Ronald Reagans’ famous quote:
“The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us.
Business doesn’t pay taxes, and who better than business to make this message known? Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business.”
And after the way the rammed this through the House with little debate, without legislators even reading it… and while quarantining the GOP from any meaningful input whatsoever, any foolhardy individuals who still believe Obama’s threadbare “bipartisanship” spiel ought to have their head examined.
Jun 28, 2009 - 5:19 pm 28. Crusader:I can’t believe all this global-warming denying is STILL going on?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/
Jun 30, 2009 - 1:48 pm