But wait, I thought the ‘science was settled’

About one third of the way into his State of the Union speech on Jan. 27, President Barack Obama said an astonishing thing. He said: “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future. …”

I know my head snapped upright. I can only imagine the kind of head-scratching and quizzical scowling at their neighbors that must have occurred among those who have been lining up at the trough, planning to make millions off government boondoggles justified by the “Man-made Global Warming” scam.

“What the heck did he just say? First they dump ‘global warming” for the easier-to-hedge ‘climate change,’ which can mean anything. Now he claims it’s all about ‘clean energy’ and that you should agree even if you don’t buy into ‘man-made climate change’?”

What happened? Only a year ago, falling back to such a “last line of defense” would have been unthinkable for a global warming true believer like Mr. Obama. Aren’t we taught “The science is settled; there’s no more room for debate”? That “To be a global warming denier is little better than to be a Holocaust denier?” That those who refuse to believe our consumption of fossil fuels plays a major role in an ongoing, desperately destructive global warming trend are the equivalent of “flat-earthers”?

Imagine if the president had said, “ I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence that the earth is flat. But even if you doubt the evidence …” Wouldn’t that have been weird? What’s going on?

I believe what’s going on is that, in this age of the Internet, the full-court press of the global collectivist lapdog media — I’m referring to the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN — is failing in its assigned task to keep the lid on the scandal broadly known as “Climategate.”

The president is no fool (OK, he understands economics little better than he did when “Barry the Stoner” sat at the knee of his mentor, Communist Frank Marshall Davis. Rather, I mean he understands political tactics and in-fighting at the ward and city council level.) He also has the benefit of the most thorough available briefings on just what the vast info dump from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia really contains, and — unfiltered through the Green Religion belief system of The Washington Post et al. — what it’s going to do to the future of all the lying, manipulative, grant-hungry buffoons who spent the past decade feeding the politicians the “man-made global warming” hysteria they hoped to use to push through their vast new anti-capitalist, anti-industrial carbon taxes, designed to reduce us all to a state of subservient serfdom, limiting our energy consumption to third World standards, riding to our assigned workplaces on politically correct little battery-powered trolleys.

Don’t take my word for it. Visit London Daily Express.

Visit http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html and
http://climatedepot.com/ and http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner.

Need more detail from sober, “mainstream” sources? Try http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html, and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/.

Of course, “providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy” — which is Washingtonspeak for huge tax handouts to political favorites to fund boondoggles that would never pencil out in the free market — is another piece of Democratic economic idiocy. The “incentive” for efficient, economical energy is that people will happily buy your more efficient, more economical energy as soon as you offer to sell it to them for less. You don’t need any big government programs to make that work.

What’s the most economical source of energy available? Either coal or nuclear, or both. (Nuclear only becomes more affordable when the government grants the industry what amounts to an exemption from liability insurance premiums at market rates — which government has been doing for, like, 55 years. If you want to end nuclear energy, just repeal that liability exemption. If you want cheap energy to drive economic growth, don’t — and build a whole bunch of coal plants and new oil refineries, in the meantime.)

Mr. Obama, shockingly enough, did call for building new nuclear power plants. Frankly, I don’t believe him. I think he had his fingers crossed behind his back, assuming his partners in the Green Extreme will file the lawsuits necessary to keep that from becoming a reality any time in the next 20 years. I certainly don’t see any big fanfare for an initiative to slice through the red tape and untie the hands of industry, something destined to get a push equivalent to Kennedy’s “race to the moon.”

But that doesn’t mean Congress shouldn’t take Mr. Obama at his word. As soon as possible, Congress should pass a law exempting from any standard “environmental review” rigmarole any firm with a reasonable safety record that can set forth a plan to build and bring on line 10 new nuclear reactors in the next decade. And/or 10 new coal-fired power plants.

What’s that? I’ve forgotten the president included the word “clean”? Fine: Keep fighting sulfur dioxide by all means — though emission levels, compared to 50 years ago, are almost absurdly low already. But what does limiting CARBON dioxide emissions have to do with “clean”? Carbon dioxide is as clean as you can get. It’s necessary for life on earth. Carbon dioxide is not now nor has it ever been a “pollutant.” Carbon dioxide levels at two, three, five times current levels would be great, encouraging more plant life and more fertility and food production in general.

What we have to worry about is FALLING carbon dioxide levels, and FALLING temperatures. That’s what starved the Norse out of Greenland, 500 years ago. (Well, that and the fact they refused to eat fish; go figure.) Before that, the ice ages were the biggest challenge our species ever faced. And they ARE coming back. The only thing we can’t be sure of, is when.

So maybe we shouldn’t build any of those nuclear plants north of the 40th parallel. But build we must. (“We” being private investors, not the federal government, which must be immediately reduced to 10 percent of it current size, for starters.)

Otherwise, the best thing government can do is close down the EPA, otherwise not give anybody a dime, and just get out of the way.

One Comment to “But wait, I thought the ‘science was settled’”

  1. Durk Pearson Says:

    A doubling of carbon dioxide increases solar heating by about 2 watts per square meter. A typical tropospheric cloud causes cooling of about 200 watts per square meter. Clouds are the 800 pound gorilla in the climate change room.

    Cosmic rays can nucleate clouds, a discovery dating back to 1894 which won physicist/meteorologist Wilson the Nobel Prize in physics for his Wilson Cloud Chamber way back in 1927.

    Climate is far better correlated with both orbital variations and cosmic ray flux than with CO2 concentrations (which follow temperature changes with a lag of about 800 years). A large scale experiment is underway at CERN to determine the effects of cosmic rays on cloud nucleation. From the size, cost, and complexity of the equipment, the CERN physicists are taking this very seriously:


RSS 2.0" title="Subscribe to this posts comments via RSS 2.0">RSS subscribe