Can you trust Washington or Wall Street – or are they the same animal?
A large portion of our economy is in shambles, having been decimated by the corrupt and/or complacent actions of our legislators on both sides of the aisle who seem to believe that the clubby nature of the House and Senate will protect them from allegations of greed, malfeasance, wrongdoing and criminal actions.
Diogenes, the seeker of truth, would be going crazy trying to find honest legislators on the Hill that were not beholden to their political parties and special interest supporters and required to mine the treasure-trove of the American taxpayers on behalf of who fund political campaigns and who are expected to render voter support during upcoming election cycles.
We have seen hyper-technical, almost incomprehensible, legislation promulgated without safeguards to prevent waste, fraud and malfeasance. We have heard the Administration tout their openness and transparency; only to see a jumble of information posted on web sites which is incomplete, inaccurate or highly misleading.
In one instance, lobbyists who are lobbying Federal Agencies are required to disclose those activities as are those Federal Agencies which are being lobbied. So far, there is a severe and significant mismatch of records between those who are lobbying and those who were lobbied.
Global Warming: the issue with accountability for none and money for all …
Public policy will ideally feature some measurability factor which will indicate the beneficial effects of the policy and provide an indication of progress, if not outright success or failure. And this is precisely why those that are promoting global warming legislation are ecstatic. First, due to our current flawed measuring systems, one can pick and choose which temperature datasets to use and may legitimately manipulate them in ways to support prevailing suppositions. Second, the results of man’s puny efforts to affect nature on a global scale may be obscured by nature’s inherent variability. Third, the results may be so small that they are lost in the normal background noise of nature. And fourth, and most importantly, we are being asked to accept the output of computer models as FACT – where the observational confirmation of the modeled data is flawed, lacking or simply “enhanced” by the selective use of time ranges, data smoothing techniques and worst of all, hidden assumptions that compensate for a misunderstanding of the exact science involved.
Thus with no accountability for results, legislators are somewhat free to loot the public treasury on behalf of themselves, their relatives and their special interest friends who will become the recipients of grants, subsidies and especially the Wall Street Wizards who will produce nothing as they create more toxic derivatives out of artificially-created pollution or emissions credits.
The public will become the loser as gross polluters will simply be able to purchase indulgences to continue their polluting ways. The cost being borne by the average consumer/taxpayer who will surely be billed for the cost of the pollution/emissions credits. Nothing will change except the fat bonuses of the Wall Street traders much in the same way that they benefited both from the mortgage meltdown and mortgage mitigation efforts. With so much money at stake, who is to say that individuals and institutions will remain honest, compliant with the law and act as honest brokers for the people they purport to serve?
Self-serving science?
Even scientists, the last bastion of truth-telling, have often been subverted by their funding sources into shading their findings to meet the requirements of those who offer employment, funding and approval for career-boosting projects. When one considers the BILLIONS of dollars now being pumped into the scientific community, one can hardly ignore those legislative and institutional sources which are benefiting greatly from the influx in money and research opportunities. Whereas some, like Al Gore, consider the science of global warming to be settled, the matter is far from settled and the fight over science is far overshadowed by the public policy implications being drawn from nothing more substantial than computer models. Public policy which sees a massive increase in government size, the reach of government control over the economy, military and society, higher rates of taxation and the loss of some individual freedoms. All based on something that may not even exist at all – story-telling based on suppositional science which is based on nothing more than nature’s inherent cyclical variability.
The question arises: can global warming skeptics get a fair hearing before onerous public policy further decimates our troubled economy?
From the Washington Post …
“Warming Skeptics Get Heard on the Hill: More GOP Doubts Expressed as House Prepares to Take Up Emissions-Cap Bill”
“After the decade they've had, Capitol Hill's climate-change skeptics might well feel like polar bears on a shrinking ice floe.”
“Scientists around the globe have rejected their main arguments -- that the climate isn't clearly warming, that humans aren't responsible for it, or that the whole thing doesn't amount to a problem. Public opinion has also shifted and even Exxon Mobil talks about greenhouse gases.”
The mention of greenhouse gases is a diversionary tactic, meant only to shift the focus away from onerous public policies which any citizen can debate to the realm of science where one’s opinion must often be backed with prestigious credentials to be taken seriously. Yes, everybody admits that greenhouse gases do exist – the most prevalent and potent of which is common water vapor – controlled by a scientific mechanism that is still not well understood. CO2, demonized by the media as a pollutant, is a necessary requirement for sustainable life on our planets and rising CO2 levels can be beneficial to mankind. It should be noted that both temperatures and CO2 levels have been higher and lower in periods when there was little or no industrial activitiy and the actions of mankind were not a significant factor.
One needs only to ask why CO2 was chosen as the most dominant of the greenhouse gasses and why the models assume artificial forcings of two to three times current levels to achieve their advertised results? It’s all about controlling energy: energy based on our carbon-based life forms and lifestyle. Truth be known, if the politicians and others were to consider the problem of energy independence and the use of clean, sustainable and abundant energy – there would be a mandate for nuclear energy plants and the problem of energy would be solved.
Only those communists/Marxists/anarchists who tried to cripple our war efforts with their “no nukes,” scare the bejesus out of everyone, want to eliminate nuclear energy from consideration – purely on political reasons which are bent on weakening the United States to promote their own political ideology. These are the very same people who have co-opted the environmental movement for a source of funding and political power. Using our own laws against us as a political weapon of war.
Once again, we need to be careful when we consider that public opinion is often driven by a politicalized and biased media which clearly sides with those in power. And, yes, the major oil companies are talking about the issues and promoting their own solutions – often doing so at the point of a regulatory gun which threatens to dramatically change both their business model and their profitability.
“But this spring, it's been obvious: Doubt is not dead.”
“In fact, as Congress considers placing a national limit on emissions, Washington's climate skeptics have been louder than usual -- and they've been reinforced by other voices in the Republican Party.”
"We're cooling. We're not warming,"
"The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical," said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) -- although nobody is on record as saying carbon dioxide causes cancer.”
Again, we are witnessing a toxic interplay between politics and science – all designed to bring about a pre-ordained public policy which is potentially more crippling to our economy than the current economic crisis.
“These arguments could play a small but key role in the House's deliberations this summer on climate-change legislation. The Democrats' ‘cap-and-trade’ proposal will face ferocious opposition over its potential cost. It will be an even harder sell if skeptics can stir up a debate about whether there really is a problem.”
One, if this was a serious problem, there would be no “cap-and-trade” system. The fact that one is going to trade emissions credits from a South American rainforest with a polluting refinery in Southern California and mitigate global warming is ludicrous. Without mandatory compliance – which assumes global government management – those that cheat or create artificial credits will go unpunished and the politicians will stamp their feet and point their fingers and claim it’s not working because we need more government control.
Note that the reporter frames the debate by referring to skeptics – although the other side has not moved beyond suppositional science and demonstrated anything more than a computer’s ability to output reams of paper with pre-ordained pretty pictures.
What is a prudent solution to a non-existent problem?
"The Republican Party is the party of solutions," Barton said. "We are realistic to know to accept the fact that the American people want a solution to this issue."
I call bullshit! No political party is the party of solutions. Both the democrat and republican parties are about political control, taxation and the usurpation and maintenance of political power. Both parties are more similar than dissimilar as they attempt to exploit the matter of global warming to their own respective advantage. It is almost as if the science matters less than the media coverage.
“Most scientists now say there is a consensus about climate change: It is ‘unequivocal,’ concluded a United Nations report in 2007. It found that recent temperatures were about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit higher than a century ago -- and that most of this is ‘very likely’ due to man-made greenhouse gases.”
Science is not performed by consensus any more than we gather scientists to issue a statement of fact. Any person, at any time, can upset the applecart with a new theory, new measurements and/or new understanding of the underlying physical phenomena. One cannot simply add all of the physical processes underlying nature and compute a value – it doesn’t work that way. We have much to learn about our physical universe, our own physical nature and about the ecosphere in which we live.
Who says?
" 'Unequivocal' was not chosen lightly," said Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who co-chaired part of the U.N. effort. She said the proof is in data on shrinking sea ice, higher surface temperatures and rising sea levels.”
Again, that’s suppositional bullshit. Physical phenomena associated with global climate change are cyclical. We have been hotter, colder, wetter, drier, greener, etc. This is the cyclical variability of nature and there is no proof that we are not continually and cyclically warming, cooling and, in actuality, regressing towards an unknown global mean. As for Susan Solomon, a scientist employed by political entities, one wonders how much her opinion is based on those opinions of her employers?
“Public opinion polls have also shown a shift: In 2005, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 56 percent of Americans were convinced that global warming was occurring.”
To claim that science is performed by consensus is not as ludicrous as science performed by opinion polling. Just saying it does not make it so.
Responding to political exigencies …
“Several gas-emitting companies have accepted the idea; Exxon Mobil says that ‘the risks . . . from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant.’ The 2008 Republican platform mentioned ‘the challenge of climate change.’"
Companies that live in fear of regulatory interference with their business models and profits are likely to publicly say anything or do anything to stay out of the sights of the politicians. Privately, they employ legions of lobbyists to eviscerate unfriendly legislation or build in loopholes, exemptions and so-called “grandfather clauses.” The political parties, whores that they are, will say or do anything to gain or maintain political power. Their pronouncements are worthless based on an analysis of self-serving statements which may contradict reality.
“But a handful of lawmakers -- an informal survey found at least 10 vocal ones, all Republicans -- say they still are not convinced. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) said last month at a hearing with former vice president Al Gore that ‘on the science side, we've had very divergent views.’"
"There are people who still believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona," Gore replied.’
Speaking of Al Gore …
Just why is it that Al Gore is not required to testify under oath?
Just why is it that Al Gore permits no scientists or reporters who hold opposing views to formally engage him in debate?
And why did the democrats prevent Christopher Lord Monckton, a notable observer of global climate change politics and science, from testifying at the same Congressional session as Al Gore. In effect, disinviting him at the last possible moment as he was stepping off the plane? Perhaps to avoid the embarrassment of Al Gore who can only respond with generalities and platitudes?
Old guard?
“Scalise's kind of skepticism has been heartening to the movement's old guard, which on the Hill includes Barton, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.).”
Old guard, is that a code phrase for these two politicians who many in the media openly regard as conservative wing-nuts?
Taxation, pure and simple …
Pollution or emissions credits are a tax on every person on the planet since energy production and use touches every facet of life. And, unfortunately, the only ones to benefit are the politicians and the special interests.
“For now, it's not clear what effect the skeptics will have on the debate over the Democrats' bill, which would set a limit on emissions and force polluters to amass ‘credits’ to allow for their emissions.”
If global warming is such an emergency, why allow credits. Cap emissions and directly fine the polluters? Be honest and call the damn thing what it is: a tax! There is no need to double or triple the costs of emissions credits by adding the burdensome overhead of Wall Street bonuses and trading profits.
“Some environmentalists worry that the skeptics' questions will erode public support, adding to concerns that the bill will raise the price of electricity, gasoline and manufactured goods. Others think it's the skeptics who are irrelevant.”
Environmentalists, you mean the perfect people for a perfect planet who would have you becoming a vegetarian to save animals from”torture?” You mean those environmental who hate people and see population growth as damaging to the environment? You mean those environmentalists who have been complicit in the deaths of millions with their restrictive policies based on junk science? Screw those environmentalists.
“Duke Energy, a large electric utility that will probably face higher costs under a cap-and-trade system, said the skeptics weren't speaking for the company. ‘From our perspective, we're beyond that question,’ said spokesman Tom Williams. ‘We're to the point of, 'Let's go ahead and address it.' "
Perhaps we should demand that Duke Energy release all of the memos concerning their lobbying activities to craft legislation that is beneficial to the Power Company and to the detriment of their rate payers and to the public at large?
I am sorry I supported Michael Steele for RNC Chairman …
“Steele told a national radio audience that any warming is ‘part of the cooling process.’ Asked to clarify what he meant, a GOP spokeswoman said his position was the same as the Republican Party platform. It doesn't mention global cooling.”
He is becoming more inarticulate and incoherent as time goes on. He is not a good spokesman for my Republican Party.
“Solomon, the NOAA scientist, said Steele is wrong. She said that global temperatures had broken from their warming trend in the past few years but that data do not disprove the consensus behind long-term warming.”
Notice she is reported as saying “data do not disprove the consensus behind long-term warming.” And she was the one that said “’Unequivocal' was not chosen lightly,” so she is well-aware of the meaning and usage of words. Why she did not say “science” instead of “consensus” points out the flaw in her reasoning.
Bottom line …
The evildoers who have co-opted both the environmental movement and the far-left democrat politicians are now poised to strike a potentially fatal blow to an already faltering economy. Whether or not they succeed in damaging America remains up to you. We need to tell our elected officials that they must reject public policy based on dodgy science or face the wrath of the voters in the next election cycle. In fact, let’s just vote the bastards out of office anyway. Replacing them with a less toxic brew of politicians who remember that they are there to serve us – we the people – not their political party, not the special interests and certainly not the enemies of America, both foreign and domestic.
-- steve
Reference Links:
Skeptics of Global Warming Have Their Say on Capitol Hill|Washington Post