Carbon Dioxide as a dangerous substance

Here is a big danger of our current governmental structure: If the Executive branch cannot get the legislature to pass the laws that it wants, it is still possible to get the same result by bypassing elected officials and having a bureaucratic agency issue regulations. From Business Fumes Over Carbon Dioxide Rule –

Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.

An "endangerment" finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions — even if Congress doesn't pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.

Carbon dioxide as a dangerous substance! A substance necessary for life! This would make every human being who exhales–that is, who is alive–a polluter at every breath.

Adapting to global warming

Today the nations of the world meet in Copenhagen to attempt to forge agreements to stop global warming and the catastrophes that climate change will allegedly create. Instead of just trying to cut back on carbon emissions, as if the climate change can be prevented, the Dutch are taking steps to deal with the catastrophes should they occur. From Dutch defense against climate disaster: Adapt to the change –

With the Copenhagen summit starting Monday, chances remain uncertain for a historic breakthrough in the fight to prevent climate change, but the Netherlands is leading a fight of a different kind: How to live with global warming.

As sea levels swell and storms intensify, the Dutch are spending billions of euros on "floating communities" that can rise with surging flood waters, on cavernous garages that double as urban floodplains and on re-engineering parts of a coastline as long as North Carolina's. The government is engaging in "selective relocation" of farmers from flood-prone areas and expanding rivers and canals to contain anticipated swells.

The measures are putting this water world of dikes, levies and pumps that have kept Dutch feet dry for centuries ahead of the rest of the world in adapting to harsher climates ahead.

Really, according to the doomsayers, isn’t it too late to do much of anything? Wouldn’t draconian cap-and-trade laws and restrictions on energy use cripple the world’s already tottering economies in a way that might be more devastating than what climate change would do? If people and nations really believe in climate change doomsday scenarios, shouldn’t the priority now be adaptation? Shouldn’t we start building dikes along the seacoast, or start selling beachfront property several miles inland? I mean, if people really believe those dire warnings.

The new rejection of science and reason

Liberals were aghast at President Bush, that pro-life evangelical Christian, for his alleged hostility to science. But Victor Davis Hanson argues that it is the current administration of President Obama and his postmodernist supporters who are showing the greatest hostility, not only to science, but to reason itself:

Barack Obama promised us not only transparency, but also a new respect for science. In soothing tones, he asserted that his administration was “restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making.”

In our new Enlightenment of Ivy League Guardians, we were to return to the rule of reason and logic. Obama would lead us away from the superstitious world of Bush’s evangelical Christianity, “intelligent design,” and Neanderthal moral opposition to human-embryo stem-cell research.

Instead, we are seeing an unprecedented distortion of science — indeed, an attack on the inductive method itself. Facts and reason are trumped by Chicago-style politics, politically correct dogma, and postmodern relativism.

He goes on to show what he means by discussing the government’s handling of the economy, the party line on global warming, and the treatment of radical Muslims such as Maj. Hasan. He concludes:

In short, we are witnessing the rise of a new deductive, anti-scientific age.

Instead of Christian, southern-twanged fundamentalists, we see instead kinder, gentler federal bureaucrats, globetrotting Ph.D.s, liberal hucksters, and politically correct diversity officers.

All are committed to the medieval fallacy that exalted theoretical ends justify very real tawdry means.

The result is the triumph of superstition, and the dethronement of science.

So does this herald what will come after postmodernism? Secularized superstition?

Notice that there isn’t much relativism among the true believers on the left, unless they are trying to undermine objective religions and philosophies. They themselves are very dogmatic about what they believe and about what they expect others to believe.

HT: Bruce Gee

“The data are surely wrong”

Another Climategate e-mail, the best one yet:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Click the link for the full text, the context, and discussion.

Climategate e-mails

Hackers broke into the computers of some prominent global warming scientists, whose e-mails show them fudging data, suppressing contrary evidence, and violating scientific protocols to advance their hypothesis about catastrophic climate change. Here are some of the e-mails, as classified by the London Telegraph:

Manipulation of evidence
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. . . .

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice!”

This is a reminder that science is an enterprise of human beings, with the whole array of agendas, ambitions, personalities, biases, preconceptions, and sins. Yet we are on the verge of risking our whole economy on a carbon-trade system that assumes what these guys have been saying about catastrophic global warming is objectively true.

Conception without male or female

Scientists have used stem cells to generate both sperm and egg. This opens the way for conceiving a child without either a father or a mother. See No men OR women needed: artificial sperm and eggs created for first time .