The shape of things to come
Richard Cohen, yes that Ricard Cohen, in the WaPo:
Perry waxed wrongly on global warming. He rejected the notion that it is at least partially a product of industrialization, asserting that “a substantial number of scientists have manipulated data” to make it appear that mankind — our cars, trains, automobiles, not to mention China’s belching steel mills — is the culprit. He said that an increasing number of scientists have challenged this notion and that, in conclusion, he stood with them — whoever they might be…
there are some scientists who are global warming skeptics, but these few — about 2 percent of climate researchers — could hold their annual meeting in a phone booth, if there are any left. (Perhaps 2 percent of scientists think there are.)
Perry’s quaint belief in the utter innocence of mankind when it comes to polluting our precious atmosphere might seem like a innocuous tick, a conviction without consequence. In this, it could be likened to the entirely wacky conservative belief of yore that the fluoridation of drinking water was a communist tactic…
just as important is the reason Perry clings to his belief. It’s not that he has studied the science, pored through the reports and all. It’s rather that global warming is global and reversing it would take global programs. This means that standards and limits have to be imposed by the much-reviled federal government — and it, in turn, has to cooperate with other nations.
This is how those on one side of the aisle think and, given the tone of moral superiority, it is a legitimate question whether any evidence could convince them otherwise; we’ve seen that before. As you know, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in recent centuries has been trivial, and AGW, whether it exists or not, is neither important nor urgent. But our betters think otherwise, and we’re going to be hearing a lot more of this in the days to come.
August 24th, 2011 at 8:28 am
I wonder where Dick gets his “2% of climate researchers” data. It would seem to be as fabricated as much of the “settled science” of Al Gore’s fictional movie.
These Obama front men will attack Perry for being a Christian, one that actually believes some sort of creation or “intelligent design” is possible. That supposedly means he hates science.
Doesn’t Perry know churches are for organizing around “god damn America” … not for holding any real Christian beliefs? The AGW mythology is sacred though, and MUST be taken on faith. But whatever humans warmed Illinois up enough to remove the glaciers … I’m indebted to them and their prehistoric coal plants and cars.
Oh the wild charges these “progressives” make … these partisans will charge onward under the race card banner, tilting at windmills. In the wide exposed valley of the informed new media, we are witnessing the death of the fourth estate. Cannons to left and right tear their AGW doctrines to shreds, along with shattered and sunder’d failed climate models, that prove someone had blundered … yet they are undaunted.
Rasmussen says only 41% of likely voters believe man is the primary cause, 47% say long term planetary trends (Dec 2010). Of that 41%, I wonder how many think the CO2 is the issue, or that we can in any way change the course, or if it is even significant enough to try.
This is just more classic leftist demagoguery.
August 24th, 2011 at 10:48 am
I read numerous accounts some time ago that over 30,000 meteorologists signed a letter that disavowed ACW. I’m wondering what that phone booth looks like?