Posts
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was intended to be an independent agency that served the American people through policy recommendations based on the best available science. Instead, it has apparently become a subsidiary of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
There was a time when the best available science was based on, or at least passed through, American innovation and leadership. American ingenuity still exists as always, but I don't think it is paid much respect these days. That's because there is a political agenda at stake. When the stakes are more intrusive government, raising taxes and then raising them again on a global scale, the rules change.
The science of climate change is bent and twisted to fit the socialist agenda of "sustainable living." The scientists at the heart of the previously mentioned "climate-gate" scandal have shown that scientific "consensus" doesn't always mean proof that a theory is proven true. In fact, at the IPCC, it simply means all scientists it allows into its academic research circle must agree that there is man-made global warming. If their research shows otherwise, it wouldn't see the light of day, much less survive the politically biased "peer review" process.
With this in mind, it is absolutely outrageous that the EPA has given the IPCC and its research fiasco, known as climate-gate, a pass. Its recent endangerment finding for greenhouse gases is obviously based on flawed science. It may be said to be based on an international agency that is fraudulent at its core.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has time and again sounded alarms about the fraud practiced at the IPCC and partners in research. One Senate report summary makes it plain that the "EPA accepted the IPCC’s conclusions wholesale, without doing an independent review. Therefore, EPA failed to uncover key errors in the IPCC reports that ultimately were incorporated into the endangerment finding." It boggles the mind that a simple fact check by our own EPA was not done. In reality, I believe if the facts were properly scrutinized, the conclusions would have been unacceptable, because it would have obstructed the EPA and the White House from implementing its burdensome regulations on the American people and on American business.
How did the EPA respond to such an obvious breach of public trust at the supposedly highly respected IPCC and the climate-gate scientists? According to a Fox News report, "The EPA says it is going forward with "common sense measures that are helping to protect Americans from this threat" and said its critics are trying to 'stall progress.'"
The inescapable truth is, the EPA doesn't care as much about scientific certainty as it does about fulfilling the utopian dream of the UN and the current White House. For the EPA, the "debate" is over. The only debate that keeps them up at night is how big to grow government and how much revenue to extract from businesses and the American people.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
"Global Warming" No Longer Politically Correct?
Oh global warming, we hardly knew ye...
It was just a matter of time before liberals started to run for the hills away from the global warming hysteria. In a laughable article by the New York Times' Thomas L. Friedman, America's "confusion" about climate change is being blamed for China's future success as a green superpower. Confusion about climate change? You mean there's a new debate in town?
Remember, ever since the 1990's, through celebrated events like the Rio de Janeiro "earth summit," global warming was the hot-button issue. Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, was about the impending doom of global warming, not just climate change. In fact, if you wrote or spoke about "climate change" at any of the myriad earth summits since Rio, you would have been looked at as a weirdo. No, the "debate" that was supposedly over all these years was about global warming. Period. End of Story. Conservative skeptics are "flat earthers" because they challenged global warming. So what gives?
Speaking of weirdos, Friedman has a great idea. What was that term people used to use about the planet? What was it, global warming or something? We intelligent liberals have to once again teach those silly little conservatives, those insufferable children, how to think and act. So let's coin a phrase even those small little minds can grasp:
"global weirding".
You know, when it snows like heck just when you thought the planet was burning up? Liberal minds understand it, but our poor dumb conservative brothers are, well, conservative.
One of Friedman's ideas is, "...the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes". He is more concerned that "climate confusion" (my term) would lead to inaction: on clean tech investments, green jobs, and less dependence on oil.
So the answer is re-education. Avoid the phrase "global warming" and use climate change instead. When you're talking to fellow liberals, of course. When you absolutely must scold a pouty-lipped conservative, use "global weirding." Don't waste your time trying to explain why we need the new phrase. When you say things like "political correctness" it makes their little heads explode. And don't tell them about climate-gate, or how the entire past few decades of global warming activism has to be erased from everyone's mind. After all, what counts is the results, not any fictitious debate about the climate warming, changing or weirding. We need sensible action now: bigger government, heavy taxes followed by heavier global taxes, and a green jobless economy.
Welcome to the world of weird science.
It was just a matter of time before liberals started to run for the hills away from the global warming hysteria. In a laughable article by the New York Times' Thomas L. Friedman, America's "confusion" about climate change is being blamed for China's future success as a green superpower. Confusion about climate change? You mean there's a new debate in town?
Remember, ever since the 1990's, through celebrated events like the Rio de Janeiro "earth summit," global warming was the hot-button issue. Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, was about the impending doom of global warming, not just climate change. In fact, if you wrote or spoke about "climate change" at any of the myriad earth summits since Rio, you would have been looked at as a weirdo. No, the "debate" that was supposedly over all these years was about global warming. Period. End of Story. Conservative skeptics are "flat earthers" because they challenged global warming. So what gives?
Speaking of weirdos, Friedman has a great idea. What was that term people used to use about the planet? What was it, global warming or something? We intelligent liberals have to once again teach those silly little conservatives, those insufferable children, how to think and act. So let's coin a phrase even those small little minds can grasp:
"global weirding".
You know, when it snows like heck just when you thought the planet was burning up? Liberal minds understand it, but our poor dumb conservative brothers are, well, conservative.
One of Friedman's ideas is, "...the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes". He is more concerned that "climate confusion" (my term) would lead to inaction: on clean tech investments, green jobs, and less dependence on oil.
So the answer is re-education. Avoid the phrase "global warming" and use climate change instead. When you're talking to fellow liberals, of course. When you absolutely must scold a pouty-lipped conservative, use "global weirding." Don't waste your time trying to explain why we need the new phrase. When you say things like "political correctness" it makes their little heads explode. And don't tell them about climate-gate, or how the entire past few decades of global warming activism has to be erased from everyone's mind. After all, what counts is the results, not any fictitious debate about the climate warming, changing or weirding. We need sensible action now: bigger government, heavy taxes followed by heavier global taxes, and a green jobless economy.
Welcome to the world of weird science.
U.S. Climate Service: Once Again Bending to the UN's Will
The Obama administration recently heralded in yet another big government bureaucracy, the Climate Service. It was created under the auspices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
According to one article, the service is to be a "one stop shop" for consumers of climate information. Of course, the Obama administration assumes Americans need big government to tell them all about climate change and global warming. According to them, Americans are clamoring for a service of this kind. What can a government do but to give them what they want, right?
Well, almost right. People have been clamoring for this "service" to be created. Only it's not so much that Americans are clamoring for such an agency. It's more like a mandate from the largest socialist think-tank in the world, the United Nations.
You see, on September 1, 2009 a UN conference opened in Geneva, Switzerland. It was called the The World Climate Conference-3, and was convened to concoct a "Global Framework for Climate Services". According to another article from the same news source, this conference was "intended to meet accelerating demands for useful information on the impacts of climate change." Of course, the article assumed that "The climate forecasting system will require the participation of all countries, as well as the United Nations and many international partners."
Enter the Obama administration. The U.S. delegation to Geneva was none other than Dr. Jane Lubchenco, an under-secretary and administrator of the NOAA, the agency now overseeing our new Climate Service. And, of course, Lubchenco buys into all the hysteria from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The true intent of the agency is clear from Lubchenco's comments. Talking about government decision-makers, she is quoted as saying, "In a rapidly changing world these decisions cannot be made based on weather of the past; decision-makers need to know what to expect in the next 20 to 50 years to plan effectively." This "effective" planning no doubt will have an expensive price tag for American taxpayers.
This is an example of U.S. bureaucracies created under false pretenses to serve a socialist agenda. It was presented as a response to the legitimate need of its citizens. It really was created to fulfill the utopian delusions of the United Nations. Selling the global warming hysteria is an important part of this delusion. If the UN can control the information and distribute it according to its agenda, even the United States of America can be subjugated and made to conform to its goals.
If you're looking for a balanced debate on the merits of global warming at the new Obama Climate Service, or at the NOAA, save yourself the trouble. The United Nations has already been there. And they liked what they saw.
According to one article, the service is to be a "one stop shop" for consumers of climate information. Of course, the Obama administration assumes Americans need big government to tell them all about climate change and global warming. According to them, Americans are clamoring for a service of this kind. What can a government do but to give them what they want, right?
Well, almost right. People have been clamoring for this "service" to be created. Only it's not so much that Americans are clamoring for such an agency. It's more like a mandate from the largest socialist think-tank in the world, the United Nations.
You see, on September 1, 2009 a UN conference opened in Geneva, Switzerland. It was called the The World Climate Conference-3, and was convened to concoct a "Global Framework for Climate Services". According to another article from the same news source, this conference was "intended to meet accelerating demands for useful information on the impacts of climate change." Of course, the article assumed that "The climate forecasting system will require the participation of all countries, as well as the United Nations and many international partners."
Enter the Obama administration. The U.S. delegation to Geneva was none other than Dr. Jane Lubchenco, an under-secretary and administrator of the NOAA, the agency now overseeing our new Climate Service. And, of course, Lubchenco buys into all the hysteria from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The true intent of the agency is clear from Lubchenco's comments. Talking about government decision-makers, she is quoted as saying, "In a rapidly changing world these decisions cannot be made based on weather of the past; decision-makers need to know what to expect in the next 20 to 50 years to plan effectively." This "effective" planning no doubt will have an expensive price tag for American taxpayers.
This is an example of U.S. bureaucracies created under false pretenses to serve a socialist agenda. It was presented as a response to the legitimate need of its citizens. It really was created to fulfill the utopian delusions of the United Nations. Selling the global warming hysteria is an important part of this delusion. If the UN can control the information and distribute it according to its agenda, even the United States of America can be subjugated and made to conform to its goals.
If you're looking for a balanced debate on the merits of global warming at the new Obama Climate Service, or at the NOAA, save yourself the trouble. The United Nations has already been there. And they liked what they saw.
Why "Climate-Gate" Matters
Can anyone guess how many of the 2500 volunteer scientists and other "experts" doing the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have a dissenting (or "minority" opinion, for the sake of argument) view of climate change? If that doesn't concern you, imagine the Supreme Court, for example, deciding not to publish a minority opinion. Any wonder that there is now such a thing as "climate-gate?"
In the United States of America, dissenting opinion is still a necessary cog in the republican democracy. Scientific integrity, likewise, depends on the due diligence of its researchers. It comes into play not only through the objective scientific method, but also in a peer-review process that does not taint the scientific process. In the case of the IPCC, not only is the science debatable, but the peer-review process is a mockery. For the IPCC, a "peer" simply means that its reports on climate change received the stamp of approval by like-minded left-leaning ideologues. This way, the IPCC can fast-track pre-ordained results to its parent, the United Nations. The UN, in turn, can claim a scientific consensus and move on to unrealistic and tax-heavy proposals like the Kyoto protocol and its successor, the recent Copenhagen talks.
Climate research is toxic right now, excuse the pun.
Senator Inhofe (R-OK) knows this all too well. In his newsletter, he points out that the list of dissenting scientists regarding global warming has currently swollen to over 700:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d6d95751-802a-23ad-4496-7ec7e1641f2f&Region_id=&Issue_id=
The bottom line is that the climate "debate" has never even begun. The United Nations is standing in the way of scientific integrity. Some are wondering what, if anything, should be done to reform the IPCC in light of climate-gate and inaccuracies in their reports?
How about allowing dissenting opinion on the international panel to lend some scientific integrity to it?
In the United States of America, dissenting opinion is still a necessary cog in the republican democracy. Scientific integrity, likewise, depends on the due diligence of its researchers. It comes into play not only through the objective scientific method, but also in a peer-review process that does not taint the scientific process. In the case of the IPCC, not only is the science debatable, but the peer-review process is a mockery. For the IPCC, a "peer" simply means that its reports on climate change received the stamp of approval by like-minded left-leaning ideologues. This way, the IPCC can fast-track pre-ordained results to its parent, the United Nations. The UN, in turn, can claim a scientific consensus and move on to unrealistic and tax-heavy proposals like the Kyoto protocol and its successor, the recent Copenhagen talks.
Climate research is toxic right now, excuse the pun.
Senator Inhofe (R-OK) knows this all too well. In his newsletter, he points out that the list of dissenting scientists regarding global warming has currently swollen to over 700:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d6d95751-802a-23ad-4496-7ec7e1641f2f&Region_id=&Issue_id=
The bottom line is that the climate "debate" has never even begun. The United Nations is standing in the way of scientific integrity. Some are wondering what, if anything, should be done to reform the IPCC in light of climate-gate and inaccuracies in their reports?
How about allowing dissenting opinion on the international panel to lend some scientific integrity to it?
The Green Police Already Here?
Audi's Super Bowl ad, featuring a twist on rock legend Cheap Trick's hit "Dream Police," was as entertaining as it was frightening.
I don't believe the foreign car manufacturer just stumbled onto a clever marketing ploy to sell its product. Is it possible the car company was reflecting a reality we American consumers have not yet realized?
Few Americans know about the concept of "greenwashing." According to
an article by Scientific American, greenwashing refers to a marketing strategy by companies that may include overstating claims of eco-friendly products they are trying to sell. The bottom line to accepting this as an "unacceptable" practice is to convince consumers that they need government to "protect" us from companies that may not be as eco-friendly as the government thinks they should be.
This, of course, requires everyone to accept the dubious global warming hysteria as gospel. And it means putting the regulatory "cart" before the scientific "horse." Ultimately it means, lookout taxpayers.
Audi's ending statement in the Super Sunday ad was their motto, "truth in engineering." That may be because the Green Police already exists in the Federal Trade Commission. Another Scientific American article explains that, "Section 5 of the FTC Act authorizes the agency to intervene when businesses are misrepresenting their practices to clients -- in other words, turning greenwashing into fraud."
Strong arm tactics may well be on the way, courtesy of our government bureaucracy. The article celebrates that the FTC is looking to update its greenwashing guidelines to crack down on the evil industrial machine. It doesn't matter that fraudulent claims seem to be rampant about global warming itself in academic circles. We recently saw this in the e-mail scandal involving a UK research facility sanctioned by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That kind of fraud is okay, because it serves the liberal agenda of global wealth redistribution and government intrusion into our everyday lives.
I don't believe the foreign car manufacturer just stumbled onto a clever marketing ploy to sell its product. Is it possible the car company was reflecting a reality we American consumers have not yet realized?
Few Americans know about the concept of "greenwashing." According to
an article by Scientific American, greenwashing refers to a marketing strategy by companies that may include overstating claims of eco-friendly products they are trying to sell. The bottom line to accepting this as an "unacceptable" practice is to convince consumers that they need government to "protect" us from companies that may not be as eco-friendly as the government thinks they should be.
This, of course, requires everyone to accept the dubious global warming hysteria as gospel. And it means putting the regulatory "cart" before the scientific "horse." Ultimately it means, lookout taxpayers.
Audi's ending statement in the Super Sunday ad was their motto, "truth in engineering." That may be because the Green Police already exists in the Federal Trade Commission. Another Scientific American article explains that, "Section 5 of the FTC Act authorizes the agency to intervene when businesses are misrepresenting their practices to clients -- in other words, turning greenwashing into fraud."
Strong arm tactics may well be on the way, courtesy of our government bureaucracy. The article celebrates that the FTC is looking to update its greenwashing guidelines to crack down on the evil industrial machine. It doesn't matter that fraudulent claims seem to be rampant about global warming itself in academic circles. We recently saw this in the e-mail scandal involving a UK research facility sanctioned by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That kind of fraud is okay, because it serves the liberal agenda of global wealth redistribution and government intrusion into our everyday lives.
Bin Laden Solves Global Warming
Bin Laden says the only way to solve global warming is to break the U.S. economy...look out, EPA chief Lisa Jackson- your job may not be so safe after all with that kind of competition!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)