Conservative Heritage Times

There is something about the spotlight and garnering the praise of others that must be like crack, because once these centrist  Republicans who like to bash other Republicans get a taste of it, they can’t seem to stop. Take a look at this story. I’m not sure what kind of a site BuzzFeed is, but I get the feeling the author may just get what Huntsman is up to. Even the title seems to be needling him a bit.

When it comes to highlighting his party’s deficiencies, Huntsman has never been shy. In fact, his ascent to national notoriety has been fueled and fed by regular, headline-grabbing attacks on the GOP — a habit that has turned him into every Democrat’s favorite Republican, and every Republican’s favorite punching bag.

Since I have already beat up on Mr. Huntsman before, I won’t rehash that old ground. I want to focus on one part of his critique specifically.

“The minute that the Republican Party becomes the… anti-science party, we have a huge problem.”

Anti-science? This may also be a reference to the evolution vs. creation debate, but it is clearly a reference to climate change which is mentioned earlier in the article. The science of climate change aside, since Huntsman’s concerns are allegedly about the future electoral viability of the GOP, then is he suggesting that there is mass popular support for measures that would have a significant impact on carbon emissions? Which policies would those be? Would the GOP improve their electoral prospects if they supported a large increase in the gas tax? Cap and trade? Since that went over so well last time. If championing climate change is such a winner with voters, why did Obama drop it like a hot potato? I think Jon Huntsman is more concerned with making the GOP more acceptable to his social circle than he is about the GOP’s electoral prospects in general.

No Comments »

Ugh! As I have said before, I’m not inclined to argue the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) on political grounds. But I am inclined to comment on the state of the debate. As I said in the article linked above, the insufferable smugness of the AGW true believer crowd is profoundly unhelpful to their cause. This story from Political Outcast is a perfect example of what I mean:

The funny thing is, Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz isn’t even a climate scientist. He teaches Systematic Musicology. So, if you’re one of those global warming deniers, then you shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion because you don’t have enough expertise in climate science, or if you do, you should have your credentials stripped from you because you’ve proven yourself unworthy to have them. On the other hand, if you support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, it doesn’t matter what credentials you have or don’t have, your opinion is vital and true. You could be a bum living in a cardboard box in D.C. with an 8^thgrade education and believe that man is causing the earth to warm, and that if the “lords” over in the D.C. castle don’t “do something” about it, humanity will be wiped out, and it will be the fault of all those “deniers.” And that poor bum’s opinion will have more respect than the climate scientists with 18 Ph.D.’s who believe the only thing that’s manmade about anthropogenic global warming is the theory itself.

Read more…

The good professor has changed his original article (follow the links in the article above) presumably in response to criticism, but he seems more concerned with establishing his liberal bona fides in light of his call for the death penalty than he does in walking back from his outrageous premise. Either way, his over the top nonsense has certainly done more harm to the cause he espouses than good. The AGW true believers need to step outside the bubble they inhabit and join the rest of us in the real world where there is, for better or worse, still doubt.

2 Comments »

Sorry I am a little late commenting about this.

Here are Thomas Fleming’s thoughts.

Here are Justin Raimondo’s.

Both are excellent. I have little to add. I will add that Cockburn’s writings expressing his skepticism of global warming are among the most readable I have encountered.

2 Comments »

By “Feltan”

Recently an old video surfaced of a fellow by the name of Al Armendiariz who is an official of the Government’s Environmental Protection Agency.  He stated that the EPA’s enforcement philosophy was similar to the Roman practice of entering a village and “tak(ing) the first five guys they saw and crucify(ing) them.”  Then the town would be “really easy to manage for the next few years” he continued.  In other words, big Oil companies beware — don’t expect moral, ethical or Constitutional treatment from this bad hombre!  After the video hit YouTube, he reflexively apologized.  Al now has a rare distinction on his resume; he offended both the right and left on the national scale with one statement.  His apology for a “poor choice of words” was meant to placate the right leaning Christians among us who didn’t take kindly to the clumsy metaphor.

As a Christian, and as is my duty, I can forgive Al.  We all make mistakes.  By apologizing he asked for forgiveness, and forgiveness is his.  However, we Christians are softies when it comes to the business of forgiveness.  Al still has to make amends with the left.  You just have to feel sorry for the guy thinking about what he is going to have to endure.

One wonders if the next reflexive act for Al is to enter a rehab facility after his resignation.  The video clip will be on the MSNBC web site showing a shell-shocked Al Armendiariz entering the Betty Ford Clinic flanked by a secularly pious and solemn escort of Bill Maher and Michael Moore.  Barry Linn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, will provide the droning audio voice over.  Al’s penance to the left will thus begin.  You see, what Mr. Armendiariz did is simply not allowed by an official of a progressive administration:  He made a public religious reference.  He obliquely brought religion into the public square.  In doing so he violated the most cherished modern-day liberal shibboleth.  True liberals don’t make public references about religion or utter any comment that could positively reflect on the divine, spiritual or people of faith; people who do so are from the unwashed icky conservative tribe.

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Have you been following the “FakeGate” climate change scandal? For those who haven’t, here is a brief recap.

First, some documents (see attachments at bottom of post) from the Heartland Institute, a think tank well know for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skepticism, were leaked.

AGW skeptics quickly suggested that one of the documents, the one labeled 2012 Climate Strategy, was a rather ham-handed forgery. (See here, here and here.) Some even speculated that Peter Gleick, a prominent AGW believing scientist, was the source of the leaked documents (Heartland does not deny the authenticity of the documents other than the allegedly forged Climate Strategy memo.) and likely the forger of the Climate Strategy memo.

Now Gleick has confessed to impersonating a Heartland Board Member to obtain the leaked documents. He has not confessed to the forgery.

As I have said repeatedly, I have stayed away from the AGW debate to some extent because I don’t like politicized science. I agree with Rod Dreher that simply believing that AGW is likely true should not be ”a test of ideological purity” on the right as some have tried to make it. For example, that Newt Gingrich seemed to affirm AGW in his now infamous commercial with Nancy Pelosi has been used by many as proof that Newt is no conservative. Of course Newt is no conservative and the wisdom of doing that commercial can surely be questioned, but acknowledging the possible reality of AGW alone does not tarnish someone’s conservative credentials.

That said, again as I have said over and over, the claim by AGW believers that the scientific debate is settled is obnoxious and maddening. The scientific debate is manifestly not settled or we wouldn’t still be fighting about it. I don’t know enough about climate science to comment in an informed manner on the technical issues involved, but I do follow the debate enough to understand the state of the debate, and the debate is not settled regardless of how smugly the AGW believers insist that it is. (The link at “some documents” above is a textbook case of such smugness.)

What I have been fascinated by is the politics and psychology of this debate. There is clearly a network of AGW true-believers who are on alert to pounch on any AGW sketicism wherever it appears. See for example the Kaminsky AmSpec post. There isn’t a similar crew of Internet commandos who respond to every post on Austrian economics for example. There was a similar crew combatting birtherism as we have even seen on this little ol’ blog. This suggests to me that there is an emotional component motivating the AGW true-believers beyond the alleged integrity of science and saving the planet. My sense is that a lot of the AGW true believers are more motivated (consciously or not) by proving their “I’m not one of those ignorant climate change denialists” bona fides than they are by saving the planet. Being an AGW believer has become for them a sort of badge of enlightenment that separates the believer from the ignorant masses. Accepting AGW has become a sort of class marker for them.

I believe that the insufferable smugness of the AGW crowd has actually hurt their case. Their rhetorical bullying and casual and/or angry dismissal of all skepticism out of hand has cause the skeptics to dig in their heels and gives the impression that they are not as confident as they let on. If the evidence is so overwhelming then why not welcome debate instead of trying to stamp out dissent?

Polls show that the AGW believers are losing ground with the public and even some believers have been willing to admit this. You would think that some of them might get the message and try a different strategy. “Gee, maybe being a pompous know-it-all scold looking down my nose at “anti-science” skeptics isn’t the best rhetorical posture.”

Editor’s Note: I just added a “Climate Change” category.

18 Comments »

As I have said before, I don’t deny anthropogenic global warming (AGW) out of hand. It’s a plausible theory on its face. What bothers me is the global warming believers like Al Gore who think foot-stomping that the scientific debate is settled is a substitute for actual debate. Apparently the fundamentalist evolutionist P.Z. Myers is a fundamentalist AGW believer as well.

… the author is trying to set himself up as a defender of good science, but he does it by … being a denialist about climate change. Scientists are certain (to a reasonable degree) about predicting the future in this case because all the data points in this direction — you have to willfully reject the evidence in order to disagree.

“because all the data points in this direction.” Umm … no it doesn’t. This is the typical AGW believer foot-stomp. Unfortunately for their case it manifestly just ain’t so. I’m a medical doctor, so I’m no expert on climate change science, which is one reason I don’t deny AGW out of hand. I know my limits. But P.Z. Myers is a biological scientist and likely doesn’t know much more about climate science than I do unless he has taken a special interest to learn about it on his own. But you don’t have to be a climate scientist to understand the state of the debate. The state of the debate is all around us. And it so obviously ain’t settled that I wonder why people like Myers still think they can bully people into believing that it is. If anything, this makes them look even more clueless because the state of the public debate has been turning decidedly against AGW in recent years. Do people like Myers and Gore only talk to each other? Did Myers not hear about that whole suppression of dissent and data cooking we learned about in that little affair commonly referred to as Climate Gate?

I’m sorry to break it to Myers but the AGW skeptics have raised points that actually have to be answered. Covering your ears and going “LA LA LA LA LA…” at the top of your lungs does not make those objections go away.

4 Comments »

Al Gore recently went on an expletive laden tirade against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics. The guy, like much of the AGW industry, is losing it because they know they are losing the public debate and they can no longer count on the uncritical acceptance of their theory.

I have generally avoided saying much about this debate because I hate politicized science. A scientific theory isn’t correct because you like its political implications or incorrect because you don’t like its political implications. AGW is either a good theory or a bad theory or some combination of both based on the science, not politics.

What I have always objected to about the debate is the foot-stomping by AGW believers, notably Al Gore himself, that the scientific debate is settled. No it isn’t and no amount of foot stomping will make it so.

Check out the comments below the article which are almost unanimously against Al Gore and his pet theory. I’m sure not all the posters really understand the science, but what this means is that the anti-AGW science is making its way into the public consciousness, and that is something Al Gore clearly can’t tolerate. He is supposed to have the bully pulpit all to himself you see, not have to compete against a bunch of yahoos.

Update: Apparently word of Gore’s rant is getting around. “Al Gore rant” was #1 on the Yahoo “Trending Now” section.

7 Comments »

GM pigs: Green ham with your eggs? :

The project here is called Enviropig. The animals inside the clean, warm barns look like normal pigs and behave like normal pigs, but they are living, breathing wonders of modern science.

Each one contains genes from mice and E.coli bacteria, which have been inserted into their DNA with absolute precision.
Continue Reading »

13 Comments »

Rep. Hank Johnson (D – GA) warns that Guam may tip over:

Has he been hitting the crack pipe or is he naturally so obtuse?

8 Comments »

“Experts” are now saying whales, like all animals, serve as a carbon reserve.:

A century of whaling may have released more than 100 million tonnes – or a large forest’s worth – of carbon into the atmosphere, scientists say.

Whales store carbon within their huge bodies and when they are killed, much of this carbon can be released.

But don’t cows serve this same purpose? Feed a cow properly, and it releases less methane. Perhaps carbon credits should be going to American cattle ranchers. Continue Reading »

2 Comments »

That’s what this Time story would have us believe.

To be fair, it is not scientifically implausible that global warming could contribute to intensified local weather events. And it is also true that local and temporary events (weather) don’t necessarily disprove long term trends (climate). One rising stock does not prove that the market is not trending down. But you would think, given all the bad press the global warming crowd has generated for itself recently, that propriety would dictate that global warming proponents kind of lay low these days, instead of writing scoff inducing apologias, however scientifically plausible they may be, that the blizzard people are currently trying to dig themselves out from under is actually caused by that old’ villain global warming. It has an air of desperation about it. “Please don’t stop believing.” If I was one of the thousands of passengers stranded at the airport with no hope of departure in sight, and I opened my computer to find this story prominently awaiting my attention, I would likely throw my computer through the nearest wall and pledge then and there to buy the biggest most obnoxiously gas guzzling SUV I could find just to put a thumb in the eye of the clowns with the lack of good sense to write such a story. Hint to anthropogenic global warming advocates. Now is not the time. Back away from your keyboard.

12 Comments »

It will be interesting to see the steps the Feds will take to combat the swine flu epidemic. Will they act exactly the way the Rockwellians believe, and go the forced vaccination route or will they go more sensible route that protects the public without enslaving them by shutting down the border with Mexico and banning all flights until the Mexican authorites get a handle on the problem (with U.S. assitance if they ask for it of course)?

Maybe I don’t want to know the answer. In any case they haven’t closed the border yet, which strange when you remember how the Canadian border was closed after 9-11 for a long stretch of time. That was just a few terrorists, this is a widespread public health problem. How baffling the ways of our rulers.

Here are a couple of articles for your consideration: the Rev. Chuck Baldwin on the survelliance state  and  J.J. Jackson on fat people and global warming

5 Comments »

Two very good articles from Front Porch Republic for weekend reading:

Patrick Deenen gives a good summnation of the deeper meaning of the Tea Parties which you won’t find on conventional political or opinion websites.

Bill Kauffman says to hell with Earth Day! Celebrate Arbor Day instead (which was the original date for Earth Day).

No Comments »

Here’s Chuck Baldwin’s Latest:  “Very Real New World Order”

Here’s two articles from Frosty Wooldridge: “Trauma, Tragedy and Transformation for America.” and “Mexico and the Drug War, A Success Story?”

Pat Buchanan’s latest: “Bibi and Barak on a Collison Course?”

The New Yorker covers a the recent state convention of the Second Vermont Republic.

7 Comments »

Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post has written a good article on how global warming has become a knee-jerk reaction to bad weather and how it obscures other environmental problems that make climate change more serious than it needs to be.

1 Comment »

No not the color green.

Who knew? My, how things have changed.

From a paleo perspective, this is both positive (a rejection of crass materialism and conspicuous consumption) and negative (embracing the statism and questionable science of the environmentalists).

Gas prices really have changed the way people think and have altered lifestyles. Gone are my dreams of a big four wheel drive pick-up truck. For now, I’m just sticking with the minivan I inhereted.

16 Comments »