Busy day! Here’s a quick Texas vs. California roundup:
Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’
“Good afternoon, and welcome to the Lipsky Extreme Lobbying Seminar. And by ‘Extreme,’ I mean both our proven seminar methods and the profits you’ll be raking in after you get out of here.”
“Is that why we’re wearing the shock collars?”
“Got it in one! Immediate, painful correction is necessary for maximum learning in minimum time. You’ll learn more here in three hours than three years of law school. Now, on to the topic at hand: Emergency funding bills. Today’s example: the relief bill for Superstorm Sandy. Now, let me ask you bright boys and girls a question: What should go in an emergency relief bill. Mr. Smith?”
“Uh, emergency relief for victims of AGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!”
“Sorry, Mr. Smith, but Mr. Shock Collar says you’re mistaken. Anyone else? Mr. Dewey?”
“Whatever a lobbyist client pays for?”
“Ding ding ding! Correct on all counts! Now, can someone give me an example of an ideal item to put in an emergency spending bill? Mr. Smith?”
“Uh, $5 million for emergency power generAGGHHHHHHHHHH!”
“Sadly, it appears that Mr. Smith is a slow learner. Ms. Cheathum?”
“$150 million for Alaskan fisheries?”
“Correct! Mr. Howe?”
“$188 million for Amtrack?”
“Excellent! Mr Smith?”
“$20 million for tearing down flood damaged AGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH! Why does learning have to be so painful???”
“Pain is just stupidity leaving the body. Mr. Solitary?”
“$600 million for a global warming slush fund?”
“Brilliant! That’s thinking big! Mr. Smith, care to give it one last try?”
“$188 million for hurricane cleanAGGGHHHHHHHHHH I mean tunnels! Random tunnels!”
“I’m glad to see that my proven learning methods have finally gotten through to Mr. Smith. Class dismissed.”
I still think Monbiot is more loon than not, and Anthropogenic Global Warming more scam than threat (I think it possible that the earth has warmed slightly, but regard the case for this possible warming trend being man-made as far from proven). But at least some hardcore greens are beginning to realize that if you really want to reduce carbon emissions without wrecking the world economy, nuclear is the way to go.
On a related note, for my latest Japan update (including news on the Fukushima Daiichi reactors) go here.
The Eco-Left indulges their misanthropic fantasies of homicide against those that disagree with them, with comically horrifying results.
Keep in mind that the kind of people who heartily approve of such things are in the Obama Administration (and staff positions in the Pelosi/Reid congress) right now…
Between finishing my taxes and the House District 52 race, I’ve had precious little time to post updates on other issues, but despite my personal lacunae interesting developments in Climategate have been bubbling right along.
This piece in the Telegraph does a good job of covering some of the further revelations. One of the more interesting points:
“The first report centred directly on the IPCC itself. When several of the more alarmist claims in its most recent 2007 report were revealed to be wrong and without any scientific foundation, the official response, not least from the IPCC’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was to claim that everything in its report was ‘peer-reviewed’, having been confirmed by independent experts.
“But a new study put this claim to the test. A team of 40 researchers from 12 countries, led by a Canadian analyst Donna Laframboise, checked out every one of the 18,531 scientific sources cited in the mammoth 2007 report. Astonishingly, they found that nearly a third of them – 5,587 – were not peer-reviewed at all, but came from newspaper articles, student theses, even propaganda leaflets and press releases put out by green activists and lobby groups.”
And who would you get to provide an objective, disinterested analysis of IPCC claims? Why, obviously “chair of Falck Renewables, a firm that has wind farms across Europe, and chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, ‘a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a $1 trillion industry by 2050.’” Who else? That’s like asking G. Gordon Liddy to perform a dispassionate, objective analysis of Watergate.
You would think that Climategate, the failure of the last “cap and trade” bill, the deep unpopularity of ObamaCare, and the continued poor jobs situation would conspire to prevent Democrats from pushing a huge, job-killing, tax-and-spend global warming bill. You would be wrong. Under the bipartisan fig-leaf of the ever more RINO-ish Lindsey Graham, Harry Reid and company are getting ready to unveil Cap-and-Trade Junior. And they plan to do it in secret, without all those messy public committee meetings. There doesn’t seem to be any limit to how low congressional Democrats are willing to drive their poll numbers in order to get the government’s fingers into as many economic pies as possible before the reckoning comes in November.
The battle over cap-and-trade, and Climategate, is far from over. If you know anyone in South Carolina, they should be ringing Graham’s phone off the hook to oppose this. Speaking of which, here’s the contact information for Graham’s offices off his official website:
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: (202) 224-5972
Upstate Regional Office
130 South Main St.
Greenville, SC 29601
Main: (864) 250-1417
Midlands Regional Office
508 Hampton Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Main: (803) 933-0112
Pee Dee Regional Office
McMillan Federal Building
401 West Evans Street, Suite 226B
Florence, SC 29501
Main: (843) 669-1505
Lowcountry Regional Office
530 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, Suite 202
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Main: (843) 849-3887
Piedmont Regional Office
140 East Main Street, Suite 110
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Main: (803) 366-2828
Golden Corner Regional Office
124 Exchange Street
Pendleton, SC 29678
Main: (864) 646-4090
Here’s the email form: http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EmailSenatorGraham.
Via Instapundit comes word that proponents of anthropogenic global warming are getting tired of all that annoying skepticism over tiny little things like “missing data,” “corrupted peer review processes” and “stuff just made up out of thin air.” And they’re not going to stand for it any more! They’re going to hit back at those skeptics hard, real hard! They’re going to (brace yourself for this) take out an ad in The New York Times!
Oh no, not The New York Times! Not that! Just imagine the impact that will have on the 3% of the NYT readership that doesn’t already believe in global warming! It’s like trying to influence the NRA by threatening to take out an ad against them in the local vegetarian newsletter.
But on reflection, a global warming ad isn’t designed to change minds the minds of skeptics any more than a papal encyclical on original sin is designed to sway the mind of Christopher Hitchins. It’s designed to reassure the global warming faithful that the high priests of AGW will fight to maintain the faith, and that unbelievers and heretics will be punished. For that, The New York Times is the perfect vehicle.
They’re not trying to convince the other side. They’re preaching to the chorus.
The banjo player is actually pretty good…
(Hat Tip: Todd H.)