Why is Obama still going to Copenhagen?

Honestly, for a brief moment, I entertained the notion that maybe, just maybe, Obama was going to spend the time and money necessary to go over the Carbonhagen – oops, – Copenhagen in order to surprise us and do something dramatic, like denounce the bastardization of scientific method in order to advance a political agenda.

Think of it. The “whole world” of true believers, who are completely in denial -almost “Orwellian” denial- about how badly their “settled science” has been wounded, gather at Copenhagen -”the most important meeting ever, or at least since WWII. The fix is almost in.

And then Obama steps up, makes sure his teleprompters are in place, tilts his head back a little and declares AGW “an unjust hoax perpetrated upon all the peoples, tempting others to hypocrisy, warping notions of sovereignty and political autonomy, abandoning the poor, enriching those who already have more than they can ever use…fellow citizens of the world, I come not to praise AGW, but to bury it!”

In one fell swoop, the AGW nonsense would end, we could all buy incandescent lightbulbs again, and – best of all- The American President would have single-handedly and bloodlessly set the whole world free from a nascent tyranny. Hooray!

Bush woulda done it, you know.

But then, I read this over at Hot Air, and my daydream collapsed: WH Spokesman Robert Gibbs declaring, dutifully, like a party member in good standing, says “the science is settled; There’s no real scientific basis for the dispute of this.”

If by “settled” you mean that what has been referred to as “science” in the matter of AGW has been something so narrow and shallow and dishonest that even a true believer is appalled, disgusted and unable to sustain belief on it, then yeah…something is settled. And I don’t want to step in it.

As I noted last week:

There is an anvil-heavy irony to all of this. Part of the smart/stupid, left/right narrative was built on the fantastic strawman that the AGW-doubters on the right were “enemies of science,” that first they were not allowing science to use human embryos for experimentation, and now they were daring to doubt the most imperative scientific advice in the history of mankind.

But if the excesses of the weather-sciences are about be discredited to the degree that -as some worry- may “bring all science into dispute”, then that harm comes not from the right, who simply dared to question, but solely from the left, who refused to permit questions, openness, transparency.

But they love science.

You Tube is down
. Were it up, I would place a scene from Ghostbusters, here. The scene where Dr. Peter Venkman is accused of treating science “like a hussy…”

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Pingback: I Dunno, Anchoress. | Little Miss Attila

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Why is Obama still going to Copenhagen? » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com

  • Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  • ahem

    Like healthcare, AGW is less a genuine problem in need of a solution than a strategic means of political control. You are aware that the so-called ‘healthcare’ issue has nothing whatever to do with healthcare, aren’t you? if it were a genuine attempt at reform, it would fix the 10% that’ broken while sparing the 90% that works–without making serfs of our children and threatening to put citizens in jail. No, it’s about taking control of the government. If the healthcare bill passes, the Left has succeeded in nationalizing 48% of the private sector and will lock in a permanent political majority. No more need for Republicans. We’ll all be vassals of the state. It’s called totalitarianism. Obama is a marxist. That’s what they do–take over governments.

    Likewise with AGW. It doesn’t matter if the case has no merit. The revelations may have disappointed some true believers, but the politicians aren’t even embarrassed. They’ll just persist in lying. They don’t give a damn about global warming: it’s the strategic power and the bucks. (Watch Representative Blackburn eviscerate Al Gore on CSPAN. It’s the best thing on Youtube right now. His firm has billions invested in this myth. I think he lost his mind and wants to make us pay.)

    The idea that a powerful country like the US can be kept in control and chastened by appealing to a sense of guilt for its environmental sins and demanding legal reparations for an invisible form of ‘pollution’ holds a powerful appeal. And then agian, one of Obama’s biggest goals is to prostrate us, to bring us down. There is no rational reason he would suddenly display intellectual honesty about the matter. It is all–all–a pretense.

  • Mark L

    Why should Obama be shocked by the the bastardization of scientific method in order to advance a political agenda? For him life is all about advancing political agendas. And AGW advances his agenda of intruding government control into all of our lives — for our own good, of course.

  • http://yank-rbkc.blogspot.com Anthony

    Maybe he wants to visit Freetown Christiania

  • Joan

    And, I love all of the works of God’s creation and marvel at how we are of the earth, as well as of God. Regardless of whether you ‘believe in’ this science, or not, God made us stewards of this planet. Consuming less and loving our fellow human beings and the plants, animals and environment of this delicate jewel of a planet is imperative. If using an energy efficient light bulb or buying fewer things we don’t really need can contribute to the health of the planet and preserve resources for our children and grandchildren — and the children and grandchildren of the poor — and the children and the grandchildren of our enemies, who we are called on to love … how could we not pray for such enlightened behavior?

  • ahem

    Joan: Lenin had a useful term for people like you.

  • Stephen J.

    Ms. A.: The Ghostbusters quote is actually:

    DEAN YAEGER: “Dr. Venkman, we believe that the purpose of science is to serve mankind. You, however, seem to regard science as some kind of ‘dodge’ or ‘hustle.’ Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy and your conclusions are highly questionable. You’re a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman, and you have no place in this department or in this University.”

    Interestingly, in an exchange cut from the film, Venkman tosses defiantly back at Yaeger: “They did this to Galileo, too.” To which Yaeger replies: “It could be worse, Dr. Venkman. They took the astronomer Phileas and staked his head to the town gate.”

    Of course, Venkman turns out to be right after all, as most Hollywood underdogs are, and saves the world, as most do. But it’s equally worth noting that at that point in the film, *Yaeger was correct*: Venkman *was* coasting and hustling his way through his career. It was being called on his B.S. that put him and his friends where they needed to be.

    How applicable all this will be to the current brouhaha, we can never know. But it’s interesting to think about.

  • http://deirdremundy.blogspot.com Deirdre Mundy

    Joan– one problem is that the Lefts idea of ‘Stewardship’ is not a CHRISTIAN idea.

    Yes, God has given us a great gift in Creation. But modern society has a tendency to IDOLIZE the gift, rather than using it as intended. So it’s like if someone gave you a spatula as a gift, and instead of using it to fry burgers and then cleaning it afterwards, you put it in a plexiglass case and admired it instead.

    The Environmentalist movement forgets that the gift has a PURPOSE. Yes, we must use it appropriately, but that doesn’t mean idolizing it.

    So, for instance, when we hysterically ban even miniscule amounts of DDT that could be used safely to prevent Malaria in African Villages, we’re not behaving in a Christian manner— we’re putting the spatula above the well-being of God’s CHILDREN.

    Likewise with global warming–Yes, we should avoid pollution. Yes, we should keep our water clean, preserve green spaces, and practice good stewardship–using what God has given us without WASTING it. BUT when people start equating ‘Good Stewardship’ with things like population control, they’ve started worshipping Gaia, not God. Works of Mercy are more important than works of enviromental correctness.

    Also, much of what the ‘elite’ consider to be good stewardship (banning pesticides, raising energy taxes, etc) actually serves to make the life of the poor WORSE, not better. And, honestly, a lot of ‘environmentally correct’ behavior is about class differences more than anything. After all, your two-prius family may be all well and good, but for a stay-at-home mom of 8, the giant van is the ONLY economical option–and in her case that IS good stewardship since she’s using the resources God gave her to live out her vocation.

    So yes, nature is good. I like pretty trees and animals and rivers too — BUT we have to be careful to appreciate God’s gifts to us in the context of his laws.

    If you cherish the polar bears but advocate for contraception and abortion in the third world, if you relish a good homegrown heritage tomato, but want to deny GM food supplies to the starving children of Africa, if you go zip-lining through the Costa Rican jungle but advocate policies that will leave the poor families in your community withiout sufficient heat for the winter, you are NOT being a good steward. You’re simply being a modern pagan.

  • NanB

    God gave us a beautiful gift and we have not been good stewards of it. The industrial revolution along with greed and consumerism have done a number on this planet. For the time being, we are trying to make the environment better but if we don’t keep our greed in check; nothing will get better.

  • http://deirdremundy.blogspot.com Deirdre Mundy

    The industrial revolution has, in the long run, been good for the poorest of the poor. It used to take A YEAR of manpower to make a blanket from start to finish. Now, there is no reason (other than poor distribution or selfishness) for anyone on this planet to freeze for lack of a coat.

    The longest-industrialized nations are also the ones that work hardest to preserve natural beauty–because we have the luxury to…

    I *DO* think we need to work harder to fight pollution and exploitation in the developing world (yes, China, I am looking at you!). But industry itself neither good nor evil, any more than plowshares are. It’s how we USE it.

    For instance, modern farming techniques allow us to grow more food on less land–so we can both feed the hungry AND enjoy green space.

    And you can have waste and greed in a preindustrial society as well–look at the Roman empire.

    Also, without automation there seems to be a greater tendency towards slavery….

    The problem isn’t industry– it’s original sin. It’s treating various populations (the poor, the elderly, the unborn) as if they’re less than human and expendable. The environmentalists are just as prone to this as the industrialists, with the weird added twist that they also treat certain things as if they’re MORE than human.

    A return to Christianity will do more for the world than any obsession with environmentalism –if we were all thankful for the gifts God has given us, and recognized every other person on earth as a beloved child of God, the rest would follow.

  • Judith L

    The first wedge that came between me and my Leftist beliefs was my discovery of just how hostile to Science Feminists were. I was truly shocked. No more. The Left is constitutionally unable to let any of their beliefs be questioned. That is the heart and soul of Anti-Science.

  • http://runswithangels.wordpress.com/ Team Bender

    Deirdre Mundy – your comments are good and so is your blogsite – but no contact information?

  • Joan

    Deirdre –

    Hmm. I am not really certain where your response to my statements came from. It seems to assume quite a bit. I can tell you that I worship neither spatulas nor the earth, per se. The idea of environmental stewardship has long been a part of the Christian traditions (yes, with an “s” since as a Catholic there have been other Christian traditions who have condemned some of my beliefs over the centuries). So, I am not certain about a return to which Christianity you are speaking of. Many died in Europe over minor theological differences and wars resulting from “which” Christianity. I am with you that being thankful for all of Gods gifts and treating every other person as a beloved child of God — even our enemies — you are right. Then the rest will follow.

    There has been interesting scholarship and theological discussion on environmental stewardship in the Judeo-Christian tradition and how we approach what is, I believe, our moral and religious responsibilities in keeping and tilling this garden earth we have been entrusted. It is one of our obligations as children of God — along with love God and love our neighbors.


  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Joan, we also have responsibilities to our fellow man, as well as to the earth. As Deirdre points out, industrialization has been a great boon, to the poor. It’s also helped prevent a lapse back into widespread slavery, which used to be an accepted part of practically all societies, and cultures.

    I’m all in favor of tending the earth we’ve been given, but I want to do that in a Judeo-Christian context—not in a secularist, neo-pagan, “Human beings are a cancer on Mother Gaia” context.

    Oh, and Deirdre, yes—a lot of environmentalism does have an unpleasant class aspect to it. Give me my heirloom tomatoes, my organic farm (which is tilled by illegal immigrants) and save the polar bears (I think they’re cute!) but the peasants must not harvest the rainforests, nor have too many children nor consume too much! It’s vulgar! Why, they seem to think they’re as good as the rest of us!

  • clende3r

    Deirdre is absolutely correct — the Church of Environmentalism, which puts Gaia above human beings created in the image and likeness, is non-Christian.

  • SKAY

    James Lewis at American Thinker points out a reason why Obama might think it is necessary for him to fly to Copenhagen. He needs man made global warming in order to pass Cap and Tax.

    “Back in Chicago, Obama was closely associated with the people who run the Chicago Climate Exchange, a stock market scheme that depends on artificial, government-created scarcities of carbon-based fuels. Note that except for nuclear and geothermal, all our fuels are carbon-based. It’s the whole ball of wax. No sane person is expecting “novel sources of green energy” to actually add anything soon, or even ever. So Obama is in this up to his crew cut. He just sank below the waves.”

  • Joan

    Rhinestone –

    Sigh. A great deal of this discussion has unpleasant class aspect to it. Having grown up with deep blue collar roots on the edge of million acres of international wilderness, the grand daughter of an illegal immigrant, and having been a successful business person who helped to create jobs, I guess I am aware of all sorts of vulgarity that comes from classist assumptions about a person’s perspective and painting those with a different perspective with a broad brush that can help prevent us from seeing them as children of God.

    Indeed, industrialization has been a boon to some poor. There is no doubt it has been a great boon to the rich. And, blanket condemnations of business or corporations as such is silly, given that they are human institutions run by humans. And, entrepreneurship has been recognized as a key tool for helping to raise the poorest of the world (women and children) out of poverty. It would also be naive to say that the humans who run those businesses are infallible and never succumb to sins of avarice, greed, and worse.

    Not all business is conducted in a manner that indicates an understanding of the need to act with honesty, integrity, and appropriately to other human beings. Contrary to Deirdre’s statement and the popular belief that slavery has been eradicated, if you read the studies on contemporary forms of slavery — including human trafficking, child slavery, and economic indenture– Deirdre is incorrect about the eradication of slavery in the modern world. It is, sadly alive and well. Slavery resulting from the core developmental challenges of mass poverty is still a critical issue.

    You are correct — we actually do have core responsibilities, but not only to our “fellow man,” but also to women, children. And, that responsibility and love, I believe, extends to civil dialogue and a recognition of the fundamental humanity of every one of us — whether we believe what the other person believes or not.

    Wishing you peace and sending blessings.

  • Mutnodjmet

    Anchoress: Great minds think alike. The “Ghostbusters” quote, which I used for a title discussing a piece about California regulations is:

    You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge… or hustle.

    California’s economy has been tremendously damaged by the dogmatic adherence to the religion of global warming, and the post details some of these issues. Pray that California’s citizens can repeal our state’s version of Cap&Trade next year — before it spreads like the economic cancer it is.

  • Pingback: » Links to Visit – 12/01/09 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…

  • CJ


    Regarding your comment:
    “You are correct — we actually do have core responsibilities, but not only to our “fellow man,” but also to women, children.”

    I’m sure Rhinestone used the term “fellow man” in the traditional sense . . . referring to humankind. He wasn’t leaving out women and children.

    A PC pet peeve of mine.

    [Mine too. I get insulted when women pretend that they don't "understand" how mankind can refer to anything other than men. I get offended, as a woman, when women get so lost in PC that they can no longer be conversant, because they're so busy looking for the unintended insult that they can correct and harp. I roll my eyes. I know these women think it is a matter of "respect" to use "humankind" (or would that be hupersonkind) but I frankly think it's a matter of respect to stop badgering people, and pretending to think that they are narrow or thoughtless, when you know perfectly well what they mean, and that no disrespect is intended. I am tired of being schoolmarmed to death by tiresome, insipid PC dictates. I think many people are. -admin]

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Joan, I was using “man” as in human beings; mankind, which includes everybody: male, female, young, old, and all races—not man as in “males, and males only”. I certainly wasn’t excluding women and children by the term, did you really think I was?

    Slavery does still exist in some parts of the world, but industrialism has done a great deal to eliminate the need for large classes of human beings to spend their lives digging, cleaning, building pyramids or huge monuments, farming and laboring to support an elite group of nobility; machines do a lot of that now.

    Machines have also liberated women (and, yes, I do mean female “mankind” here) from household drudgery, which really is drudgery, when you don’t have washing machines, dryers, modern cleaning agents, dishwashers, vacuums—and you’re expected to make all your family’s clothing, as well growing a lot of the food they eat, too. Supermarkets, and clothing stores, only exist in industrial societies; in non-industrial you’ve got to shoulder that shovel and go dig some turnips! When you’re done with that, you can sit down and spin. And spin. And spin some more.

    And, speaking of children, modern technology, and industry, have made it possible for most of them to live to adulthood—and for their mothers to to survive giving birth to them.

    Businesses don’t always operate with integrity, or even very intelligently. Neither do many governments, religious institutions, charities or anything else run by flawed, fallible human beings. The reason for this isn’t industrialization per se; it’s the same reason that sexual slavery exists today; original sin. The solution to this isn’t going green, but repentance, and return to G-d. If we do this, everything else falls into place.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    And, in all honestly, I do believe that the solution to slavery caused by mass poverty is to increase the level of industrialization, thereby getting rid of the need for “human machines” to do the labor, and raising the standard of living for all.

  • Pingback: Magic Words Are Like Magic Beans « Obi’s Sister

  • Doc

    The Green movement is nothing more than the latest version of the anti-American, anti-free market, anti-Western Left. Enviro-nutters are watermelons, green on the outside, red in the middle. Perfect example; American environMentals prevent American companies from oil drilling off the coast of Florida, yet they remain silent when Cuba leases drilling rights to China in those exact same waters. You see, if it benefits a good Commie like Fidel, mums the word.

    There is so much oil off the coast of California it seeps out of the ground and into the Ocean water. My daughter recently complained about the oily film on her after swimming at Santa Barbara’s beaches. ANWR is a frozen tundra in winter and a mosquito-infested swamp in summer. The notion that drilling in a tiny portion of ANWR would ruin Alaska’s pristine beauty is a fraud.

    The media/academic/entertainment industry and their allies in government don’t care about the environment. They just loathe the notion of a strong and prosperous America.

    Oh, one note on slavery. The most recent example I’ve seen is those fictional 13-14 year old Central American prostitutes that ACORN was so eager to help get established. It’s disgusting that the Eurocrats refer to prostitutes as sex workers, as if new terminology can make this modern slave trade legitimate.

  • Pingback: Obama’s West Point Speech » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog

  • http://cartagodelenda.blogspot.com Matteo

    Adeste Fidelis can be pretty amazing. Last year, two of my brothers-in-law did a duet of O Holy Night at a simple country Mass that was sublime.

    I can’t remember the name of the female artist, but on a fifteen hour drive to my in-laws last year, my wife and I heard an amazing Scots-Irish version of “God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen” which had a rousing military cadence, almost like an 18th century army on the march. It changed the way I think about that song! It had sort of the same feeling as the theme song used for the John Adams miniseries, but more energetic and upbeat.

    Also for Advent: The King Will Come When Morning Dawns.

  • http://cartagodelenda.blogspot.com Matteo

    Dang, wrong tab!

  • http://www.ceolas.net peter dublin

    Concerning “Orwellian” and Copenhagen…

    The politicians are trumping one another in all sacrifices they promise…

    Like George Orwell’s Animal Farm book, where mass hysteria meant one pig
    overtrumping another in self-sacrificial willingness
    - except here it’s always someone else (not the politicians) who has
    to make the sacrifice…
    “We must all cut down to save the planet”

    There is no energy shortage
    (given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with CO2 emission
    limits set as deemed necessary)
    and consumers – not politicians – PAY for energy and how they wish to use it.
    Notice: If there WAS an energy shortage, its price rise would
    – limit people using it anyway, and make renewable energy more attractive
    – make energy efficient products more attractive to buy.
    No need to legislate for it.

    And since when do light bulbs, TV sets etc give out any CO2 gas?
    Not like cars.
    And cars are taxed.
    They could of course tax the bulbs etc, and lower the tax on energy
    efficient alternatives.
    Governments make money on the reduced sales, they can pay for CO2
    emission processing and renewable energy, and consumers keep choice.
    Taxes are unjustified, but better for all than bans.

    Few seem to know about the industrial politics behind the supposedly
    environmentally justified bans