Growing desperate in their justification for denying Americans the benefits of amply available domestic fossil fuels, scientists and bureaucrats are resorting to that last best hope of institutional mediocrities caught in lies. They are lying some more.
As the real-time data refuses to confirm the dire predictions global warming models have given us that the use of fossil fuels are warming the world at the catastrophic rate, the bureaucrats have been forced to use some alternative fuel of their own: BS.
The EPA for example has raised the ire of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee for ignoring the recommendations of scientists in implementing new standards for power plants in the agency’s rush to close down existing coal fired plants. rather for not even soliciting the opinions of scientists: “We are concerned about the agency’s apparent disregard for the concerns of its science advisors,” said a letter sent to the agency by the House committee. “Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex issues. However, when inconvenient facts are disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible. The EPA cannot continue to rush ahead with costly regulations without allowing time for a real-world look at the science.”
The EPA you see, in their rush to shut down coal in this country, decided to bypass the science, the peer review process—you know the stuff they always say the other side is ignoring? Why. Because science isn’t on their side.
And they aren’t the only ones ignoring science.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Between 1998 and 2012 the global economy more than doubled in size—to some $71 trillion in GDP from $30 trillion. That's the good news. Over the same period the world pumped more than 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is supposedly the bad news. Yet global surface temperatures have remained essentially flat. That's the mystery: If emitting CO2 into the atmosphere causes global warming, why hasn't the globe been warming?
That's the question we would have liked to see answered by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which Friday published the summary of its fifth report on what co-chairman Thomas Stocker calls "the greatest challenge of our times." It would have also been nice to see some humility from the IPCC, which since its last report in 2007 has seen some of its leading scientists exposed as bullies, and some of its most eye-catching predictions debunked. (Remember the vanishing Himalayan glaciers?)
As one of the original writers to cover the "unexplained" halt global warming over the last two decades, I’m gratified the mainstream media is paying attention. Readers will remember that when I covered this, the usual “settled science” crowd did the usual routine of accusing me of not understanding science, math, shapes and colors.
The Wall Street Journal by the way, while right of Obama, is a pretty staid, mainstream publication that generally supports the status quo.
The fact that even the Wall Street Journal is poking at warming alarmists ought to be sounding alarm bells for those purveyors of data-manipulated doom.
As the popular website Watts Up with That points out 2013 has been a bad year in the global warming modeling business.
‘Regardless of efforts to nebulize CAGW to explain all forms of climatic and weather variation,” says WUWT, “in 2013 every loosely falsifiable prediction of the CAGW narrative seems to have failed. The apparent complete failure of the CAGW narrative in 2013 could make the most fundamentalist agnostic wonder if Mother Nature sometimes takes sides.”
All unnoticed by regular folks, but known by global warming alarmists is that temperature and rainfall produced record crops across virtually the entire country greatly adding to economic output in the third quarter. These developments make global warming ninnies worried.
“I’m a young scientist and am too afraid to speak out at work,” reports WUWT, “because I fear repercussions. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in reading an announcement for a seminar coming up soon here at NCAR. It came in our ‘Staff Notes’ that everybody here at NCAR [National Center for Atmospheric Research] receives every day in our inbox. Some of these folks are getting really bitter that they are losing ground in this all-important argument.”
In short, as the predictions of doom remain unfulfilled year after year, and the data shows that the globe has not warmed appreciably in the last two decades count on bureaucrats, politicians and technocrats to increase the number of lies they tell to bolster their side.
“If science is the ‘backbone’ of everything they do at EPA,” asks Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL) of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, “why is the agency ignoring the advice of its own independent scientists who raised concerns over proposed power plant standards? We're asking EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy why the agency is muzzling dissent.” Oh, that’s easy. It’s because they’re losing and they’re hoping to cover it up with their favorite alternative fuel: B.S. And if that doesn't work, don't worry: They'll try more B.S.
Comment:
This really does redefine political
science. It’s science designed to
support political preferences. It’s been
around for a long time in academic medicine.
Should we then rename college political science departments ? Sure, we could call it Marxism.
Then we could redefine social justice to mean
not having to talk to people you don’t like.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment