Today promises to be a busy morning, with all manner of Actual Things To Do. You’re going to have to keep the plates spinning just a little longer, if you don’t mind.
In case anyone is at a loss to get the convo started – an unlikely possibility, I know – there’s an interesting update to the Heartland documents “discovered” by one Peter Gleik, a true apostle of the AGW orthodoxy. Turns out that “fake but accurate” has not yet run its course in the halls of the soi-disant American elite:
Peter H. Gleick, a water and climate analyst who has been studying aspects of global warming for more than two decades, in recent years became an aggressive critic of organizations and individuals casting doubt on the seriousness of greenhouse-driven climate change. He used blogs, congressional testimony, group letters and other means to make his case.
Now, Gleick has admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. His summary, just published on his blog at Huffington Post, speaks for itself.
That’s from the online pages of the NYT, so you know that it was written with a heavy heart. The Times concludes:
The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the “rational public debate” that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed.
So now it’s a “rational public debate” they want? Because it seems to me that the “science was settled,” used to be the mantra. With those who would like to debate the math which underlies the science scourged from the scientific media, or keeping quiet lest they be seen as heretics in the pockets of Unseen Forces who only want to see the world burn.
The time for debate is past, we have been told. It’s time for all of us to line up behind those who would seek enormous, international transfers of wealth, to line up behind those who fly private jets to swank meetings in Switzerland while abjuring us to turn the thermostat down and huddle our unwashed masses in public transport – or better yet – move to company housing to rid ourselves of our commute entirely. We should trim our sails, and bow down in guilt before our gilt-clad masters.
It would be medievalism once more, in fealty to a new divine right of kings.
Which anyway, that’s the way I see it.
Ah, the “liberal” (modern day warped definition) mind: Liberally defining truth to fit their narrative, when “inconvenient truth” stares them in the face….
I believe you see very clearly, far into the murky depths of politicized science, lucrative research grants, and a worldview predisposed to “elegant” 5 year plans put together by fellow technocrats, who just happen to also get to live like kings while the rest of us freeze to death in the dark.
About 10 years ago, I saw a documentary on climate issues, mentioned the money only flows from Congress when they can present extreme projections of doom, hence “the coming ice age” that then was upended for our recent brush with “global warming” which has transmogrified to “CLIMATE CHANGE!” (not to be confused with “climate change”). The documentary showed how only in this mode did the Universities keep on the dole….
And then, if we wanted, could discuss if “Report from Iron Mountain” is true, or a hoax, as it indicated a coming environmental catastrophe would be a good way to keep tapping the pockets of the populace after peace broke out (replacing the funding of the evil Military-Industrial Complex®)….
The Military-Industrial complex transmogrifies into the Political-Academic Industrial Complex. To borrow, and paraphrase, the line from “Dune,” “The Money Must Flow.” It is so much like the drug “Spice,” is it not?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh….Moderation purgatory.
Heh. You said “Spice.”
Alfa Mike
Quarter, keep in mind that in Ike’s farewell speech, he didn’t just warn of the Military-Industrial Complex… he also warned against a “priesthood of science”:
“In his January 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned famously of the “military-industrial complex,” but also worried more broadly about the relationship between science and government. We should “gravely” regard the “the prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money,” Eisenhower said. But “we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
I’ve more or less believed “Man-made Global Warming” was sour grapes for the ice age scientists of the late 1970′s. Were they not predicting a new ice age? It snowed in North Miami, it had to be a new ice age. It couldn’t be that their models were wrong. Not possible! Something else must have interfered with the onset of the ice age. Enter “Man-made Global Warming.” A
cheapsalve to a battered ego of the scientist who’s life’s work was shown to be meaningless.But climate panic is nothing new.
I just started reading “Ameritopia”. Hits the mark in so many ways. Question is will we surrender without a fight?
If you like Levin, I also recommend Mark Steyn’s books… especially America Alone, and John Derbyshire’s We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism.
I bought the unabridged audio cd of Ameritopia, and heartly reccomend it. Mark Levin is a clever one.
He used blogs, congressional testimony, group letters and other means to make his case.
My emphasis.
Really? Congressional testimony, you say? Might charges of perjury be in the offing?
Ron, I would respectfully suggest that testimony about research -and the conclusions derived therefrom- are not statements of fact, but of findings. It is quite possible that the findings are incorrect.
I’d welcome another ice age, you know. It gets hot, damned hot, down here in the summer.
It’s just a shame that the loudest voices trumpeting the vital need to label the gas we exhale as a pollutant have slunk away, back to the hidden world of the wizards of smart. It was all a money grab and all about allowing government to tell you what you can drive, what you could eat, where you could live, etc. etc. etc. I just don’t get why someone would voluntarily cede their lives over to government control with a smile on their face. Stupid.
I know I didn’t go to Boot Camp with a smile on *MY* face
I think this is one of the reasons military folks trend libertarian (See who contributed the most to Ron Paul.) They know what total government control is actually like. The point of joining up in such a totalitarian organization, at least in the USA, is to provide a hard shell around the people inside, who can then breathe and act freely, and not have to suffer coercion themselves.
Yup.
+1
They were planning to cede OUR lives over to the government, not theirs.
Typical Lefty LIB BS….A hearty round of “take a flying leap” needs to be sent their way. It is always about the $$$$. Just like when we hear that we need more money for schools – “It’s for the children..” when it is really about fat salaries & perks for educators who can’t educate our kids. We spend more & more $$$ on things like this and get back “meh” in return.
The enviromental zealots are no better than the Taliban. We should hold them in the same regard.
The interesting thing about the “money for schools” cry is that when you actually look at the numbers on a state by state basis there’s no correlation between $ spent and results obtained. Obviously money is needed to run a school, but throwing more money at a school doesn’t automatically make the school better.
The contract for the teachers of the City of Chicago’s public school system is up. The current school day in the schools is about 5.75 hours, the shortest of the 10 biggest American cities’ school systems. Mayor Emannuel wants to lengthen it to 7.5 hours. The Chicago Teachers Union has apparently responded by asking for a 24% raise for next year and a 5% raise the year after.
Me, I’d be real, real tempted to let them strike. Two years ago there were 15,000 young men and women who graduated from Illinois colleges with B.A.’s in Education. There were 7,500 jobs in Illinois schools open.
If it was for the children, then they’d not spend the incomes of the next two or three or five generations of children, and not even children yet, would they? Nope, they are committing larceny back to the future, eh?
Prosecute the lot of them for fraud. Lock them away, confiscate their ill-gotten gains.
For the children.
I say we should all get to throw a CFL at Al Gore. It may not undo the damage done but it sure will make me happier.
Maybe a good lawyer could make a case for a RICO suit.
Anthony Watts is my go to guy for climate change science without the ulterior political motives. He’s on my daily read list, although much of the “hard science” is out of my league. But I learn more about it every day. Watts has a great synopsis with killer links on the whole Hearland thing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/breaking-gleick-confesses/#more-57113
Second Watts also. Gleick stepped in it big time…
Not only that, but Our Bill (Tuttle) has been known to comment approvingly there.
Dang, Cap’n, there you go again! You Irishmen, always refusing to defer to your betters! It’s for your own good, don’t you see?
“Hey, look! It’s Halley’s comet!”
It’s all just more stuff from the microcephalic liberals. (Is that a redundancy?)
Paul
Hey, As an ex-Californian living for 35+ years in Doity Joisey, I’ve learned that there’s always another way to scam the “subjects”. Global Warming was a national, if not world wide, scam.
WTF?
Where can I purchase my indulgences?
There are at least a few knights in shining armor still left. Check out this article from a VERY distinguished group:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Ahh – the climate change “debate” (I think internet politics are weird).
That is a scientific debate which is, to my mind, different from a political debate. Because the following doesn’t, shouldn’t or indeed can’t seemingly follow…
…but somehow it does always follow. It boils the debate down to “climate change IS/IS NOT occuring, because the solution is world government”.
The way I see it… the solution wouldn’t be world government, really the solution would be small government with almost no government borrowing.
Angus, the solution with the AGW crowd is ALWAYS “World Government.” They’re like a broken record. (Of course SNL anticipated the knee-jerk Greenie totalitarian solution to all things climate-change, fire OR ice with it’s classic diner skit in which the answer to EVER order of ANY kind was: “Cheese-burger, cheese-burger, cheese-burger!”)
Debate assumes both sides are listening. We know, however, that the AGW side isn’t listening because they think the “science” is settled. Regressives are actually anti-Science when science is not convenient.
;-] Can’t add anything to That.
If I had a private jet I’d let you fly it!
Headline: “Pencil-Necked Gleick, prominent AGW alarmist, caught liberally lying about conspiracies opposing his views. Dan Rather reports: ‘Fake, but accurate!’ ”
Film at 11.