I must say, James Joyner disappointed me this morning. I admit, I came down on him pretty hard… and particularly hard for someone I so often agree with on most matters…  Perhaps overly so, but bless it all, why on earth would someone with a capacity of at least two brain cells capitulate to these people, as he does here?

Makes no sense.

And anyway, my response is dictated as I told you some months ago, by the IDEA of the thing.

A growing body of evidence, including reports from the National Academy of Sciences, NASA and major universities, has found that increasing global temperatures will have dramatic effects in the United States, including rising sea levels, worsened air quality, water shortages and droughts, and increased intensity of hurricanes. Power plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions responsible for increasing temperatures worldwide. According to current projections, dozens or even hundreds of new coal-fired plants will be built in the United States over the next 15 years. Under the current rule, these plants would face no requirement to control or reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Since the power plants have a life span of 40-60 years, the plants built in the near future will determine the level of our carbon emissions for generations.

This certainly seems right. While there is debate as to the exact interaction of these variables as well as the degree to which changing human behavior will solve the problems, we should be able to agree that the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion is in one direction.

From both a public safety and practical political perspective, then, a Republican – conservative – libertarian right solution should be formulated that does not involve abject denial of that consensus.

For pity’s sake, WHY?
This group of scientists who came to this “consensus”… Tell me, is this the same group of scientists who told us nigh on 30 years ago, that global cooling was going to be the problem? 

Is this the same group of scientists who predicted we’re going to have our real barnstormer of a hurricane season? From the press release announcing their wisdom on the matter:

“For the 2006 north Atlantic hurricane season, NOAA is predicting 13 to 16 named storms, with eight to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which four to six could become ‘major’ hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher,”

Just in case you didn’t keep score, we had one category three storm and a couple of category two storms, none of which came closer than 800 miles to our shores.  We had a total of nine dorms that were strong enough to name versus the sixteen that were predicted and the six major storms that were predicted.

Apparently, one cannot make something true, based on the power of a “consensus” alone.  And that’s assuming their really IS a consensus, at all.

And yet, we’re supposed to take predictions on what the weather is going to do for the next 50 years based on man’s input alone, Ruining our economy in the process, apparently in the hope that these morons all actually get one right for change.  I don’t think so. 

(BBCT: Schwarz, via mail)

By the way, while I have the editor opened, I should relate the idea that James has been having server trouble for the majority of the day.  It’s unclear whether it’s just a matter of too much traffic on too little server, or whether he’s got some kind of a denial of service attack going on. 

Tags: , , ,

2 Responses to “More ‘Global Warming’ Nonsense, From People Who Oughta Know Better”

  1. I’ve been thinking that JJ has been having a Sullivan-esque shift in his politics over the past year.  I have found myself disagreeing with him on a more frequent basis and really disapprove of a number of his guest contributors.  Next time you browse through the comments, remember those whom you would have catergorized as trolls months and years before and notice how they now tend to be in agreement with JJ and/or the new contributors on most issues.

    BTW, I haven’t been able to access OTB now for about 48 hours.

  2. To be truly solid online, would require that Joyner’s entire being revolve around one issue.  Thus far, I haven’t seen that one issue pop out at me. 

    That said, your point is well taken; and I wonder if there isn’t kind of a subtle peer pressure at work here.  And it’s worth noting, in far more than just the case of James Joyner, because it is likely endemic to all human beings.  Humans, after all, more than we would like to admit, are pack animals.