Monday, September 07, 2009
"Democratic officials and foot soldiers, who have experienced the volatile public mood firsthand, are asking Obama to take a more assertive approach this fall." [link]
Then this from the AP:
"The Obama administration's bottom line on a government health insurance option blurred Sunday as White House officials stressed support but stopped short of calling it a must-have part of an overhaul.
"White House political adviser David Axelrod said Obama is 'not walking away' from a public plan. But asked if the president would veto a bill that came to him without the option, Axelrod declined to answer." [link]
Obama? More assertive? Sorry, fellas. It ain't gonna happen.
Unlike those for whom this holiday was created, those who will be sitting on their fat asses drinking beer, passing gas, and doing nothing.
You know who you are.
To stop global warming.
A phenomenon that more and more scientists are beginning to doubt even exists:
Climate scientists should talk about what "may" happen, rather than what "will" happen
By Eric Berger, Houston Chronicle
I'm the science reporter for the Houston Chronicle, the daily newspaper in the petrochemical capital of the United States, if not the world.
For a long time now, science reporters have been confidently told the science is settled. That the planet is warming and humans are unquestionably the primary cause. We've been told to trust the computer models -- the models which show a markedly upward trend in temperatures as carbon dioxide concentrations increase. And I've trusted the scientists telling me this.
It seems pretty clear that the models forecast a steady upward trend in global temperatures as long as carbon dioxide levels rise. (Which they have). Yet according to satellite and surface temperature measurements the global average temperature has essentially remained flat for the last 12 years. This strikes me as somewhat curious.
When An Inconvenient Truth came out I believed the movie to be scientifically accurate. Carbon dioxide levels were rising and so were temperatures. And hurricane activity, especially after the disastrous 2005 season, was out of control.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the end of the world: hurricane activity on the global scale is near historical lows. And the Earth seems to have, at least temporarily, stopped warming.
This, despite the fact that some of the country's leading climate scientists say there is unequivocally a link between major hurricanes and climate change. And despite the fact that other leading climate scientists predicted 2009 or 2010 will go down as the warmest year in recorded history. Either prediction, if true, would be alarming.
Yet both of these predictions seem, at the present moment, to be off.
Do not misunderstand me. I am not a climate change skeptic. I do not deny that the planet warmed 0.6°C in the 20th century. I do not deny that humans played some part in that significant warming.
But I am confused. Four years ago this all seemed like a fait accompli. Humans were unquestionably warming the climate and changing the planet forever through their emissions of carbon dioxide.
The problem is that some climate scientists and environmentalists have been so determined to see something done about carbon dioxide emissions -- now -- that they have glossed over the uncertainties.
Uncertainties like: maybe there isn't a linear relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature, and maybe the planet will cool for a couple of decades even as carbon dioxide emissions accelerate. [link]
"Do not misunderstand me. I am not a climate change skeptic." Coulda fooled me.
He may not have allowed it to enter his psyche yet but this science reporter's worldview is shaken to its core. The science isn't backing up the claims of the "scientists." And he's unable to reconcile it.
Skepticism is a good thing, man. Embrace it. That's how it was determined that the earth isn't flat. And what a shock that must have been!
Back to my original point, our government - in fact the world government - is poised to tax the crap out of us in order to stop that which this reporter now admits might not be happening. Can we talk about this?
My favorite line of the day regarding the Times's attempt at keeping America in the dark about Jones comes from Mickey Kaus:
"It seems this may be just another installment of the NYT's running feature, 'You Know That Guy You've Never Heard About? Well, He's Gone.' ..."
I'm reminded of the way in which the Washington Post handled the story that rocked the John Kerry For President campaign in 2004 that had to do with a charge leveled against him by the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, alleging that Kerry was unfit for command because of the way he conducted himself years earlier in Vietnam.
While the blogosphere was on fire with facts and allegations and counter-charges being flung left and right, the Post remained silent. It never addressed the subject.* The controversy (which proved to doom Kerry's campaign) didn't exist (if the only news you got came from the liberal Washington Post).
That is, until days later when an exhaustive article appeared on its front page that attempted to refute the charges made by the swift boaters. Line by line. Charges that didn't exist until that moment, they would have had you believe.
It was a surreal moment.
So this is nothing new ...
- - -
* I waited. Day after day, nothing. Why was the Post ignoring this earth-shaking story? Day ... after ... day. Then it became apparent. The editors wanted to get their rebuttal - their defense of Kerry - together and to not give the swift boaters and their allegations any boost.
I must admit, the effort was an effective one. But it was transparent as hell too. To the point where it was almost laughable.