Friday, December 11, 2009

"On the fifth day of Copenhagen,
the GreenFrauds gave to me. . . ."

Honestly, I've looked, but I don't see much going on today in Copenhagen. It may be just a day to "play" for the delegates attending the conference. So to fill in, I've posted some good articles and "issues" about warmism from the U.S.

Here's an article from Jonah Goldberg at National Review online: "Global Warming as a Political Tool." Goldberg wrote the book Liberal Fascism, which I've mentioned here before, an excellent read. He's calls what the EPA has done, threatening to regulate CO2 emissions if the Senate doesn't pass cap and trade, "grotesquely dishonest." As part of the enduring statist desire to penetrate ever deeper into every nook and cranny of our lives, greens have wanted to find a way for the government to regulate CO2, a natural byproduct of fire and breathing, for decades. Now they can.

I really like Charles Krauthammer, both his columns and his panel appearances on Fox News. He has an article in the Washington Post: "The New Socialism." He writes in the column that one of the major goals of the Copenhagen summit is a major transfer of wealth from the West to Third World countries. Anyone who doesn't know that is either drinking the Koolaid or has been in a cave for the past six months.

Writes Krauthammer, Politically it's an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man's guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale, too.

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an "endangerment" to human health. Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything.

He concludes: Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend clean-air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation. Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn't lurking in CIA cloak. He's knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.

Sarah Palin is making the Green Warmist Climate Advocates' heads explode. House Dems spent the day on Thursday targeting her as their newest, greatest villain. They are responding to her December 9 op-ed in the Washington Post, "Copenhagen's Political Science," in which she wrote, "The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue."

Now the House Dems are gunning for her, as reported in Politico. Did these representatives all get a phone call from Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel? Some quotes from our lawmakers in the House:

“Before Sarah Palin writes a book, she should try reading a few,” said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who followed up with a series of peer-reviewed reports on rising sea levels, air temperatures and ocean acidity.

Palin’s position is “worse than one of denial – it’s one of defeatism,” added Inslee, echoing earlier comments by former Vice-President Al Gore.

“Ex-Governor Palin is at it again, [she] somehow has discovered some kind of smoking gun,” added Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who compared Palin’s statements to her support of the discredited “death panel” charges over the summer. “There is no there,” he added. “And the ex-governor’s state has [suffered] the greatest impact in terms of global warming of any state in the nation…It’s absolutely critical that we not allow the same sort of death panel, swift-boating to occur.”

Asked if Obama should stand up to Palin personally, Inslee shot back: “There are those in the birther movement encouraged by the former governor of Alaska who don’t even believe he’s president.”

This is hilarious. Death panel swift-boating birther movement? Huh? Could Sarah have these men more twisted up?

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the House’s climate change panel, [and one of the authors of the cap and trade bill] said he will hold hearings into the East Anglia controversy after the Copenhagen summit – if only to highlight the overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change independent of the school’s work. . . . Markey said he would welcome the Republicans in Copenhagen because they would be “exposed to the consensus the world has reached…They are in a very, very, very small minority on the planet.”

Well, it's good to know that the House will waste its time holding hearings on a subject where they have already decided the outcome. Science as consensus--we've already visited that fallacy. The late Michael Crichton spoke about science and consensus in a 2003 lecture at the California Institute of Technology:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . . I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . .[the entire lecture is here]

No comments: