annoytheleft

Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’

Cap And Trade is Dead (for now)

In Democrat, Global Warming on December 27, 2009 at 8:39 pm

According to the Dems, Cap And Trade and “Green Jobs” were to have been good for the economy. But with health care taking up so much of the Senate’s floor time, Cap And Trade legislation would be pushed dangerously close to the 2010 elections. As a result, Democrats have begun to demur on “Cap and Tax”.

From Politico: “We need to deal with the phenomena of global warming, but I think it’s very difficult in the kind of economic circumstances we have right now,” said Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, who called passage of any economy-wide cap and trade “unlikely.”

“I’d just as soon see that set aside until we work through the economy,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). “What we don’t want to do is have anything get in the way of working to resolve the problems with the economy.”

“Climate change in an election year has very poor prospects,” added Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “I’ve told that to the leadership.”

So, what we can learn from these statements is that, for the Democrats, Cap And Trade is critical, absolutely critical to slowing the imminent danger of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)… but it’s less critical when it’s an election year and the possibility exists that the public will see through our “good for the economy” lie.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

Cap-and-trade is dead, at least for 2010, unless the Cultural Ministers for Corruption Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can find more ways to bribe Democratic Senators into committing career suicide.  I wouldn’t necessarily dismiss that possibility.

What remains critical, for those of us who are not lying buffoons, is the removal as many of these power-seeking AGW alarmists as possible in 2010 before they can pick this legislation back up.

Wikipedia’s Own ‘Climategate’

In Global Warming on December 21, 2009 at 1:06 am

I came upon an interesting post in Watts Up With That this evening. It seems that a highly placed editor at Wikipedia with what appear to be ‘god’ privileges to edit and delete entries and ban contributors has been categorically skewing climate entries. Lots of them.

William Connolley, Global Warming zealot

William Connolley, the pony-tailed, eco-snob co-founder of Realclimate.org had managed to eliminate untold amounts of information that may have cast a dim light on global warming orthodoxy, including the 400 year long Medieval Warming Period.

Lawrence Solomon, National Post: The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.

As we now know from the Climategate Emails this band saw the Medieval Warm Period as an enormous obstacle in their mission of spreading the word about global warming. If temperatures were warmer 1,000 years ago than today, the Climategate Emails explain in detail their message that we now live in the warmest of all possible times would be undermined. As put by one band member, a Briton named Folland at the Hadley Centre, a Medieval Warm Period “dilutes the message rather significantly.”

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band.

I can’t express strongly enough (in mixed company) the disgust that I have for a “scientist” who would dismiss legitimate and recognized data simply because it “dilutes the message rather significantly”. I’ll say it again because it can’t be said enough: when you are paid to study “global warming” it doesn’t ensure future paychecks to disprove the concept.