SCOTUS Makes Up New Administrtive Law Standards out of Thin Hot Air

Joining such renowned scientists as Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore, five justices of the Supreme Court have stepped into the realm of politics and policy, left aside any concept of Constitutional limits on judicial power or the rule of law, and declared themselves experts on the global climate. This absurd decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, which can only be explained by the 5 justices' policy preferences in this area (as opposed to their ability to dispassionately evaluate a factual record and the legal standards), contorts the state of the law radically to achieve a policy end. Shameful.

The Chief Justice's dissent is powerful, and hopefully, is an indicator of the future direction of the court when the 5 legislators-in-robes step aside from their usurpation:

If petitioners' particularized injury is loss of coastal land, it is also that injury that must be "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical," Defenders of Wildlife, supra, at 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (internal quotation marks omitted), "real and immediate," Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted), and "certainly impending," Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 158, 110 S. Ct. 1717, 109 L. Ed. 2d 135 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).

As to "actual" injury, the Court observes that "global sea levels rose somewhere between 10 and 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming" and that "these rising seas have already begun to swallow Massachusetts' coastal land." Ante, at 19. But none of petitioners' declarations supports that connection. One declaration states that "a rise in sea level due to climate change is occurring on the coast of Massachusetts, in the metropolitan Boston area," but there is no elaboration. Petitioners' Standing Appendix in No. 03-1361, etc. (CADC), p. 196 (Stdg. App.). And the declarant goes on to identify a "significant" non-global-warming cause of Boston's rising sea level: land subsidence. Id., at 197; see also id., at 216. Thus, aside from a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in petitioners' 43 standing declarations and accompanying exhibits to support an inference of actual loss of Massachusetts coastal land from 20th century global sea level increases. It is pure conjecture.

The Court's attempts to identify "imminent" or "certainly impending" loss of Massachusetts coastal land fares no better. See ante, at 19-20. One of petitioners' declarants predicts global warming will cause sea level to rise by 20 to 70 centimeters by the year 2100. Stdg. App. 216. Another uses a computer modeling program to map the Commonwealth's coastal land and its current elevation, and calculates that the high-end estimate of sea level rise would result in the loss of significant state-owned coastal land. Id., at 179. But the computer modeling program has a conceded average error of about 30 centimeters and a maximum observed error of 70 centimeters. Id., at 177-178. As an initial matter, if it is possible that the model underrepresents the elevation of coastal land to an extent equal to or in excess of the projected sea level rise, it is difficult to put much stock in the predicted loss of land. But even placing that problem to the side, accepting a century-long time horizon and a series of compounded estimates renders requirements of imminence and immediacy utterly toothless. See Defenders of Wildlife, supra, at 565, n. 2, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (while the concept of "'imminence'" in standing doctrine is "somewhat elastic," it can be "stretched beyond the breaking point"). "Allegations of possible future injury do not satisfy the requirements of Art. III. A threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact." Whitmore, supra, at 158, 110 S. Ct. 1717, 109 L. Ed. 2d 135. (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added).

At least the court only remanded to give the EPA another chance to explain their decision - Justice Stevens stopped short at crafting world-saving emissions standards for the EPA to implement. But as Justice Scalia notes:

Even on the Court's own terms, however, the same conclusion follows. As mentioned above, the Court gives EPA the option of determining that the science is too uncertain to allow it to form a "judgment" as to whether greenhouse gases endanger public welfare. Attached to this option (on what basis is unclear) is an essay requirement: "If," the Court says, "the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so." Ante, at 31. But EPA has said precisely that -- and at great length, based on information contained in a 2001 report by the National Research Council (NRC) entitled Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions[.] *** I simply cannot conceive of what else the Court would like EPA to say.

I've written on this before, when the DC Circuit made the correct legal decision. As I said then, "In addition to the activists and cities, no fewer than 12 States are plaintiffs here. That's 24 Senators and 151 Representatives - nearly a quarter of the US Congress! Surely they are not without political power. If those states wish to ensure the EPA is fixing global warming, the remedy is in the chambers of the Capitol, not in the courts."

The question is not whether or not global warming is a "crisis," or whether not the EPA should regulate car emissions. The question is whether five unelected judges should be able to dictate massive, unimaginably complex, economy-threatening policy over the objections of both the Executive branch and the Legislative branch, by taking a vague statute and assigning it meanings it couldn't possible have had when it was written.

There is no more inappropriate place for judicial law-making than in the realm global environmental policy. That five lawyers think they can or should go there, when actual experts struggle to predict what the climate will give us 10 days from now, is contrary to what the Constitution ever intended.

CORRECTION: Justice SteVens' name was misspelled above, and has been corrected.

Laughing All the Way to the Carbon Bank

Mark Steyn's column on Al Gore's carbon offset absurdity is simply too hilarious not to share. Here's some precious bits:

Two hundred twenty-one thousand kilowatt-hours? What's he doing in there? Clamping Tipper to the electrodes and zapping her across the rec room every night? No, no, don't worry. Al's massive energy consumption is due entirely to his concern about the way we're depleting the Earth's resources. When I say "we," I don't mean Al, of course. I mean you -- yes, you, Earl Schlub, in the basement apartment at 29 Elm St. You're irresponsibly depleting the Earth's resources by using that electric washer when you could be down by the river with the native women beating your loin cloth dry on the rock while singing traditional village work chants all morning long. But up at the Gore mansion -- the Nashville Electric Service's own personal gold mine, the shining Cathedral of St. Al, Tennessee's very own Palace of Versal -- the Reverend Al is being far more environmentally responsible. As his spokesperson attempted to argue, his high energy usage derives from his brave calls for low energy usage. He's burning up all that electricity by sending out faxes every couple of minutes urging you to use less electricity.

But what about those carbon offsets? Don't those make it OK?

How do "carbon offsets" work? Well, let's say you're a former vice president and you want to reduce your "carbon footprint," but the gorgeous go-go Gore gals are using the hair dryer every night. So you go to a carbon-credits firm and pay some money and they'll find a way of getting somebody on the other side of the planet to reduce his emissions and the net result will be "carbon neutral." It's like in Henry VIII's day. He'd be planning a big ox roast and piling on the calories but he'd give a groat to a starving peasant to carry on starving for another day and the result would be calorie-neutral. (emphasis added)

It's a moral issue alright. Just not the way they say it is.

Read the whole thing. I just about fell out of my chair.

War and US History

A great perspective piece from Victor Davis Hanson on our national successes, failures, and political silliness in times of war and conflict.

Even our most successful wars witnessed far more lethal stupidity than anything seen in Baghdad. Thousands of American dead resulted from lapses like the Confederate surprise at Shiloh, Japanese surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, and the German surprise attacks in the Ardennes.

Gore's Carbon Footprint

Al Gore has responded to (without denying) this report that notes that just one of the former veep's mansions uses twice as much energy in a single month than the average American family does in an entire year.

Allow me to summarize by paraphrasing:

"I have enough money to make other people live with even LESS than zero net carbon output. I hate the greedy elitists who try to buy their way out of guilt, unless those people are me, and then they're noble oracles of disaster. Besides, I'm, like, really important. I NEED two mansions, and once I'm living with the resources I need, then my guilt is assuaged. Don't believe me? Doesn't matter - I have an Oscar that proves I'm right! Suckers!!!"

Again - if Gore honestly thought this was a crisis, carbon neutrality wouldn't be enough - he would aggressively be trying to have a net negative carbon footprint. Beware of politicians and activists who will in no way be negatively impacted by the draconian policies they propose.

By the way, same thing goes for the local yokels who think that by recycling their beer bottles and driving a Prius, they're "part of the solution." If this is truly a life-or-death crisis, every TV turned on, every website read, every microwave oven used, every trip taken to the movie theater, every meal eaten out, every CD bought, every A/C turned on, every heater used above 45 degrees, every mile in a car or product purchased not strictly required for survival is another unnecessary nail in the global warming coffin.

I buy none of it. Neither does anyone else, judging by their behavior.

Quote of the Day

Czech President Vaclav Klaus in an interview on his loud derision of the Global Warming cultists:

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?
A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.

He goes on to wonder if the interviewer is even conscious, and if "Mr. Al Gore" is even sane. The whole thing made me laugh out loud. I love this guy.

Denial

I honestly can't think of anything more evil than the people who attempt to downplay or deny the Holocaust. While it's good science to re-study history to ensure our shared narrative is a true one, those who claim Nazism wasn't "that bad" or worse, that it was all a setup by those nefarious Jews to steal land from the poor, innocent Palestinians, are excusing, justifying, and in some cases even promoting the great evil of fascism. (Now, if only we can get similar outrage directed at people who didn't think Communism was all that bad...)

So, having been compared to one of those excusers of evil by Ellen Goodman last week because I happen to think most of the Global Warming "science" is a lot of political hooey, I felt moved to respond. Goodman said:

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

She then, of course, breaks her arm patting herself on the back for using three whole fluorescent lightbulbs. (I have at least 5 in use in my condo, Ellen. NOW who's Hitler!?!)

Unfortunately, minor things like "bar applications" and "homework" were getting in my way. So fortunately, James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal summed it up brilliantly for me:

Imagine if someone in 1937 had foreknowledge of the Holocaust and began sounding the alarms, describing in detail what was going to happen just a few years later. Most people probably wouldn't believe him. They would be, to use Goodman's phrase, denying the future. But would they be "on par" with people who deny the Holocaust after it has happened?

That seems a stretch. There's an enormous difference between doubting an outlandish prediction (even one that comes true) and denying the grotesque facts of history. Because we are ignorant of the future, we can innocently misjudge it. Holocaust deniers are neither ignorant nor innocent (though extremely ignorant people may innocently accept their claims). They are falsifying history for evil purposes.

To Taranto's wisdom I would add only this. Iran has, in fact, denied the holocaust, and at the same time, not-so-subtly threatened a new, nuclear extermination of Israel (and, incidentally, of the US). Many on the left have their heads in the sand over this threat, and deny that Ahmadinejad really means it, deny that Iran has the ability to make good their threat, deny that the UN is incapable of responding (and in fact is complicit), deny that Iran is currently making war on the US, and has been since 1979, and deny that there is no negotiating with a fascist madman who uses the language of Der Fuher. (Goodman herself thinks Ahmadinejad is nothing like Hitler, because... he denies the Holocaust!)

To me, this is a much closer parallel to the Holocaust deniers. But it would still be absurd to claim the modern Iran-ostriches are "on par" with Illinois Nazis. Almost as absurd as believing that three fluorescent lightbulbs and a Prius are the moral equivalent of liberating Auschwitz.

Global Warming - Betting Our Life(styles) On It

The Canadian National Post has a phenomenal series profiling the so-called global warming "Deniers," which put the lie to much of the slander heaped upon the scientists who dare to defy the groupthink and junk science that has become the new Religion of the Left. Indeed, more and more and more scientists are coming forward with the courage to stand up to this nonsense.

Indeed - it's difficult to figure out why this global "consensus" exists in the first place in the face of so little supporting evidence, until you understand the agenda of the pushers of this insipidness - anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism. Why would China, India, France, Russia, and the multitude of nations who want strong economies sign off on this suicide manifesto? Easy - they are either exempt from the proposed regulations or can ignore them without consequence, and they know that because of our integrity, the US will suffer the most from these policies. And the socialists have the perfect excuse for overarching government control of our property. It's like a perverse version of Ronald Reagan's outspending of the Soviets - our economic and political competitors (even the ones here at home) may suffer, too, but they know we'll suffer more. And they're gambling it will hurt us so much that they can gain supremacy before we come to our senses.

And I wonder if the academics, who twist their data to a pre-ordained conclusion so as not to lose next year's grant money (and to justify more of it) understand that without a robust economy, society won't have the tax revenue to fund luxuries like insulated, ivory tower intellectuals making 6 figures? (Judging from academia's decades-old love affair with militant socialism, this question unfortunately answers itself.)

Not that there aren't true believers, just as there are in any religion. And they fulfill every stereotype of the naive and hypocritical evangelical adherent - basing their own "science" on anecdote (whether they remember more or less snow growing up 10 years ago in Minnesota) and blind allegiance to every word of The Prophet Al. With a straight face, they exhort people to conserve energy by (not kidding) unplugging their cell phone chargers when they aren't actually charging their phone - while burning uncountable carbon atoms powering their amps, riding in their busses and private jets, and keeping the lights on in their many mansions.

If a single one of these mindless celebs (and that includes Al Gore and even - dare I say it - His Royal Dumbo Ears the Prince) actually feared that humanity faced immediate danger to its very existence, they would all move out of their mansions and into one bedroom flats and keep their thermostats at 60 all winter. None of them would travel unless absolutely necessary - and then certainly not on private jets! None of them would heat their pools - or even have pools. Every Ferrari and tricked out Cadillac would be abandoned. Never again would they buy foreign made luxury items - Armani suits, BMWs, and Italian marble slabs take a lot of marine diesel to cart across the sea (not to mention the overboard discharges that taint the oceans with waste oil). Every dollar they made beyond the $30,000 needed to live day to day would be donated to environmental causes, European governments, the UN, and buying controlling stock in oil companies so as to shut them down. They would donate their estates to build new nuclear power plants. They would all switch to acoustic guitars, and beg people to stay home and read books instead of driving to the movie theater or even turning on their TVs. Democrats would denounce NASCAR fans.

You see, our true priorities, fears, and agendas are shown not in what we say, but in what we do. And none of the global warming cultists, by their energy gobbling, lavish lifestyle supporting, conspicuous consumption actions, are actually afraid of global warming. It's not a priority to them. Their agenda is not to stop polar ice from melting, it's to look cool and feel like they matter beyond the fantasy worlds in which they live.

Environmental policy is important. Pollution choking the air we breath and the water we drink is a serious threat to our health and economic vibrancy, as well as to the inherent value our natural places provide to our souls just by existing. There are plenty of very good reasons to limit dirty emissions and discharges, and to regulate our industries so we don't expose entire communities to deadly chemicals. And the climate is not stable - it will warm and cool, maybe even dramatically, and humans will have to adapt. Just as we've always done. But none of this justifies the Global Warming absurdity currently underway.

Understanding what the true threats are - and more importantly, what they aren't - is crucial to crafting policies that actually solve problems as opposed to making rich celebrities feel good about themselves. And in solving problems, we must recognize that when we monkey with the economy, it doesn't just hurt the profits of millionaires working for Exxon - it stifles job growth, entrepreneurship, tax revenue, technological innovation, and class mobility. It destroys the ability of the third world to improve their living conditions, leading inevitably to more poverty, disease, famine, war, fighting over resources, ethnic strife, and violent tribalism - conditions not easily remedied with a dike. And the solutions offered thus far involve more epherial (but no less destructive) dangers, threatening individual freedom, state and national sovereignty, and property rights.

That's right, environmentalists. No free lunch. Your proposals are, if implemented, going to doom millions to poverty and early death. All for a problem even the UN Doomsday Report says is "unstoppable." Just so everyone's clear what the tradeoff is.

The global warming fad is a frightening harbinger of Western un-seriousness. We half heartedly (or not at all) fight against the rising Global Jihad - a REAL clear, present, and immediate threat to our existence and to our freedoms - instead choosing to spend billions of dollars (usually of other people's money) to combat something which even if it actually exists can't be stopped at this point (at least not without dooming ourselves to the poverty of a pre-industrial existence). We're willing to stifle foreign investment that would substantially reduce the risk of military conflict just so John Kerry will have nicer things to say to fascist Mullahs about us the next time he takes his wife's private jet to Europe.

The enviro-cultists are ironically betting their lives and lifestyles that they're wrong, and that they'll fail in their lobbying efforts. I'm also betting my life (and my own lifestyle), but on the assumption that I'm right. I'm going to continue to participate in the US industrial economy, use electricity unnecessarily to do things like watch TV and use this computer. My wife and I are going to buy more house than we absolutely need, and heat it in the winter. I will buy things I don't need that were delivered to the store by a truck burning fossil fuels. And in 50 years when emissions are tripled and the Florida peninsula still exists, I'm going to say "I told you so."

Hopefully, the cultists won't have to apologize for having needlessly tanked our economy in the meantime.

Activists, States Demand SCOTUS Fix Global Warming Whether It Has Authority Or Not

That's not, of course, what the briefs state. But that's exactly what's going on.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments this week on the case of Massachusetts v. EPA. The EPA determined that neither the 1970 Clean Air Act nor its 1977 amendments authorized it to regulate automobile CO2 emissions to combat global warming, and that even if it did, it certainly did not require that it craft such regulations. (Since the environmental fear du jure in the '70s was global cooling, this seems to me to be a reasonable conclusion.)

The case turns on issues of standing, and to what extent Congress gave policy discretion to the EPA. The DC Circuit barely found standing by the plaintiffs to hear the case, and when it did, determined that the EPA was within their statutory bounds in declining, for a variety of reasons, to regulate CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Massachusetts v. EPA, 415 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2005). (This opinion is fairly short and well worth a read, short of the policy-oriented rantings of the dissent.)

Liberal groups like the ACS are already wringing their hands over this "momentous environmental issue." But it's not an "environmental issue" at all. It's a political one, and the DC Circuit made the right call. The Plaintiffs essentially want the Court to read the language of a 30-year-old statute to require an agency to pass a regulation that only they will approve of, in order to create an uncertain remedy for an uncertain harm that in any event was completely unforeseen when the statute was written.

This is precisely why Congress meets every single year - so we're not stuck in the Carter years forever. In addition to the activists and cities, no fewer than 12 States are plaintiffs here. That's 24 Senators and 151 Representatives - nearly a quarter of the US Congress! Surely they are not without political power. If those states wish to ensure the EPA is fixing global warming, the remedy is in the chambers of the Capitol, not in the courts.

The liberal argument is that if the Supreme Court denies Massachusetts et al. the relief they seek, then the environment is doomed. Hogwash. It is simply returned to the political processes where it belongs. If the Court makes the right call on this and affirms the D.C. Circuit, nothing whatsoever forestalls Senator Kennedy from introducing legislation that would amend the Clean Air Act in such a way that would make plaintiffs happy, nor are the other 534 legislators proscribed from voting for it. (He doesn't even have to wait for the court!) The only obstacle seems to be a policy disagreement by a majority of Americans via their elected officials, which, last time I checked, is not grounds for relief under Article III. This is nothing more than an attempted policy coup by a political minority who can't be bothered to actually muster votes - and that is nothing less than tyranny.

The Courts have neither the functional ability nor the Constitutional authorization to hand down from on high "correct" environmental policies. Environmental policy is complex and technical, with thousands of disparate interests at stake, and thousands of ways to address thousands of problems. This is exactly the kind of issue for which we have a large, representative, deliberative body with fact finding powers, who upon reaching a conclusion can best be said to have arrived at the aggregate will of ALL the people - not just those few who take Al Gore seriously.

Senator Inhofe Obliterates Global Warming Scare Mongers

Nothing in Senator James Inhofe's (R - OK) speech about global warming yesterday is new to anyone who is actually interested in the science of climatology, as opposed to the sensationalist nonsense that passes for it in the modern media, or has dug deeper than the front page of the New York Times. But here, Inhofe has concisely and expertly rebutted the last decade of eco-ridiculousness - with the cites to back it up. I recommend bookmarking it for the next time some hippy demands to know why ratifying the Kyoto Agreement isn't a "family value." Here are some highlights:

On the Media's ability to learn from history:

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.

From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

On the graphs showing exponential temperature growth:

The “hockey stick” was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the “hockey stick.” http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697

On the definition of "Doom":

It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.

On computer models as "truth":

Earlier this year, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than “science fiction.” In fact, after years of hearing about the computer generated scary scenarios about the future of our planet, I now believe that the greatest climate threat we face may be coming from alarmist computer models.

On the veracity of Enviro-predictions:

The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict.

On the Kyoto "Solution":

The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. And keep in mind that Kyoto is not even close to being complied with by many of the nations that ratified it, including 13 of the EU-15 nations that are not going to meet their emission reduction promises.

Many of the nations that ratified Kyoto are now realizing what I have been saying all along: The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain.

On environmentalists' concern for the world's empoverished people:

The Kyoto Protocol’s post 2012 agenda which mandates that the developing world be subjected to restrictions on greenhouse gases could have the potential to severely restrict development in regions of the world like Africa, Asia and South America -- where some of the Earth’s most energy-deprived people currently reside.

Expanding basic necessities like running water and electricity in the developing world are seen by many in the green movement as a threat to the planet’s health that must be avoided. Energy poverty equals a life of back-breaking poverty and premature death.

If we allow scientifically unfounded fears of global warming to influence policy makers to restrict future energy production and the creation of basic infrastructure in the developing world -- billions of people will continue to suffer.

On the real agenda:

French President Jacques Chirac provided the key clue as to why so many in the international community still revere the Kyoto Protocol, who in 2000 said Kyoto represents “the first component of an authentic global governance.”

On Time Magazine's "Expertise":

“[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”

Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore’s movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.

Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.

On lies of omission:

On February 19th of this year, CBS News’s “60 Minutes” produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml

It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water.

“60 Minutes” failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than today.

On lies of omission (2):

The “60 Minutes” segment made no mention of [NASA scientist and alarmist James] Hansen’s partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen’s receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen’s subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf

Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen’s huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation. http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speechID=6

On Al Gore's Inconvenient Truths:

On June 27, the Associated Press ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared “Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie.” The article quoted only five scientists praising Gore’s science, despite AP’s having contacted over 100 scientists. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2006-06-27-inconvenient-truth-reviews_x.htm

The fact that over 80% of the scientists contacted by the AP had not even seen the movie or that many scientists have harshly criticized the science presented by Gore did not dissuade the news outlet one bit from its mission to promote Gore’s brand of climate alarmism. http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

On the (disapointing) scientific objectivity of the Discovery Channel:

In July, the Discovery Channel presented a documentary on global warming narrated by former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. The program presented only those views of scientists promoting the idea that humans are destroying the Earth’s climate. http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=258659

You don’t have to take my word for the program’s overwhelming bias; a Bloomberg News TV review noted “You'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program” because of its lack of scientific objectivity.

On who's spending the most propoganda dollars:

The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.

On "Scientific Consensus":

Continuing with our media analysis: On July 24, 2006 The Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004 Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323

However, the analysis in Science Magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser.

Peiser also pointed out that less than two percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called “consensus view” that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view.

On dead polar bears:

Finally, a September 15, 2006 Reuters News article claimed that polar bears in the Arctic are threatened with extinction by global warming.***

What was missing from this Reuters news article was the fact that according to biologists who study the animals, polar bears are doing quite well. Biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, a territory of Canada, refuted these claims in May when he noted that, “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

And finally, On the wisdom of Americans:

The media endlessly hypes studies that purportedly show that global warming could increase mosquito populations, malaria, West Nile Virus, heat waves and hurricanes, threaten the oceans, damage coral reefs, boost poison ivy growth, damage vineyards, and global food crops, to name just a few of the global warming linked calamities. Oddly, according to the media reports, warmer temperatures almost never seem to have any positive effects on plant or animal life or food production. Fortunately, the media’s addiction to so-called ‘climate porn’ has failed to seduce many Americans.

According to a July Pew Research Center Poll, the American public is split about evenly between those who say global warming is due to human activity versus those who believe it’s from natural factors or not happening at all.

In addition, an August Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe global warming is naturally occurring is on the rise.

Yes -- it appears that alarmism has led to skepticism.

The American people know when their intelligence is being insulted. They know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.

Read the whole thing. And like I said, I think I'll keep it bookmarked - it'll come in handy for the Great Ice Age Scare of 2014.

And the Award For Most Unintentionally Ironic Bumper Sticker Goes To...

...the aged hippy my wife and I saw the other day driving his crappy little hatchback, spewing a dark cloud of sick looking fumes, smoke, and pollution from his tail pipe that any semi would be proud of.

The sticker?

"One Less SUV"

That Movie Poster Looks Even More Ridiculous...

The humiliation that must have been suffered by the hurricane image spinning in the wrong direction to scare those of us in the Northern Hemisphere into suffering through an Al Gore monologue must have been devastating. And now, there is yet another inconvenient truth for the hysterical environmentalists and liberal scaremongers who hate America and want people to think we're the source of all the world's ills - this year's Atlantic hurricane season is now below normal. (In fact, there's not been a single actual hurricane - just three tropical storms.) But how could this be when we've been told that global warming is about to doom us all? According to the data:

Part of the reason for the slow season is that tropical western Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are running about normal, if not slightly below normal. In contrast, at the same time last year SSTs in the same region were running well above normal.

But this is just an anomaly - a meaningless data spike that doesn't affect the larger trend, isn't it? The long term still spells doom, right? Well, not according to that pesky science (always getting in the way):

The cooler SSTs in the Atlantic are not an isolated anomaly. In a research paper being published next month in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists will show that between 2003 and 2005, globally averaged temperatures in the upper ocean cooled rather dramatically, effectively erasing 20% of the warming that occurred over the previous 48 years.

Hmmm... An increase in SSTs = Global Warming. So a decrease in SSTs should = Global Cooling. Right? Anyone? Anyone? As I've said before, it's exactly the same logic.

Good thing we have all of the environmentalists' and liberal politicians' hot air to keep us warm during the coming chill.

I'm embarrassed when conservatives embrace junk science like Intelligent Design. Many conservatives are. So why don't liberals, so smug and proud about their devotion to science and reason, stop ignoring significant data that contravenes what they see as a vote getting issue? Ah. That's why.

No political party has a monopoly on subverting science for political gain. But if creationists get their way, the worst thing that happens is that some kids in Pennsylvania have to re-take biology from people who actually know what they're talking about, or just stay ignorant while working in jobs that probably doesn't require an intimate knowledge of how the As, Ts, Gs, and Cs work in DNA. If, on the other hand, the rabid environmentalists get their way, thousands of businesses will fail, the US economy will nose-dive, outdoor recreation will be a thing of the past, energy prices will REALLY rise due to tax increases, inflation will make people yearn for the halcyon days of Carter stagflation, and we will all have to live in crowded, high efficiency apartments unless you become a Democratic candidate for President or a university professor.

I know which group I'll take my chances with.

Global Warming - Not As Bad As It Was In The 40's

If increasingly powerful hurricanes are proof that global warming is real and that it's a threat, as opposed to cyclical cycles that have only been able to be adequately studied since we've been able to launch satellites, does that mean that this year's less severe season is proof that the planet is getting cooler? (By the way, the Washington Post article linked in the last sentence talking about the 2006 Season revisions didn't mention Global Warming. They merely noted the Atlantic temperatures were cooler than expected. How very, very odd.)

It's the exact same logic. 5 years of increased hurricanes = runaway global warming. Reduced hurricanes SHOULD = global cooling. Except when it hurts funding requests and tenure applications.

China's getting into the act, too:

[Chinese Vice Minister of Water Resources] E [Jingping] said the typhoon season in China normally starts around July 27, but this year the first typhoon hit the southern province of Guangdong on May 18.

"This is the earliest typhoon to hit Guangdong since 1949," he said in a speech.

Emphasis mine. So does that mean that global warming was worse in 1949? And how long have exact stats been kept on typhoons?

If Al Gore wants to convince me to implement socialism and tank our economy to prevent us from becoming nothing more than a few "breeding pairs at the poles" in 100 years (excepting him and his three mansions, of course), his and his ilk's science is going to have to go beyond hysteric and unsubstantiated post hoc ergo propter hoc scare mongering. And. It. Hasn't.

And I thought it was the conservatives who were supposed to be anti-science to serve their political agenda...