Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Quote of the day, “Babs Boxer’s selective English” edition

Tomato, to-mah-to…right?  From Andrew Breitbart (video at link):

“You call it ClimateGate.  I call it Email-Theft-Gate.”

Publishing the contents of the Pentagon Papers (which were leaked in violation of federal law) in order to shine the light of truth and end a war (Vietnam) was totally acceptable.  Publishing the contents of e-mails between conniving junk scientists in order to shine the light of truth and blow the whistle on a multi-trillion dollar global fraud known as “climate change”, though, is soooooooo wrong.

Babs seems to be saying “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

Interesting, because as Ed Driscoll points out, Babs Boxer has sponsored the Military Whistleblower Protection Act.  Plus, she held public hearings into whether or not Bu$hitler McHitlerburton tried to neglect greenhouse gas emissions.  She’s been all about whistleblowing on defense contractors.  But for some reason, she’s less enthusiastic about whistleblowers who expose global scientific fraud.  Go figure.

Quips Jim Treacher:

Climategate is a story about computer hacking in much the same way Watergate was a story about parking garages.

Notes Allah:

Ace has been goofing on the shamelessness of this tactic since last week — leaks that help the left are always about the information obtained, leaks that hurt the left are always about the leak’s illegality — but it’s amazing to see someone as prominent as Boxer stoop to it. She could have simply taken the Jon Stewart route and said no, global warming isn’t in question, but yes, this is a scandalous betrayal of public trust. Doing so would have only helped her side, proving that she’s sincerely interested in the integrity of the science and not prone to the same squirrelly eagerness to ignore unhelpful information as the East Anglia boys. But she’s too stupid or corrupt to figure that out, so in the end the fake newsman has more credibility than a real senator.

Heh.


December 3, 2009 - Posted by crushliberalism | environuts, global warming, hypocrisy, moonbats

1 Comment »

  1. “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

    Comment by hkyson | December 12, 2009


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »