Dwight Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation “that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded.”

Was less remembered than Ike’s warning to beware of the “Military Industrial Complex” but now far more prophetic.

See Dwight’ post here carried and commented on in Watts Up with That here.

-----------------------------------

Also now available some items that will gore your alarmist friends:

See full size display here.

-------------------------------------

Register here.

Global warming is falling out of the minds, if not the hearts, of many Americans. Only 30% of people surveyed in a recent Pew Research Center poll believe global warming is a top priority. That’s down from 35% last year. In fact, global warming ranks dead last in Pew’s list of priority issues. The economy by far is the biggest concern people have, with 85% of those surveyed naming it as their top priority, followed by jobs and terrorism. Trade policy ranks just above global warming by one percentage point. 

The broader category of the environment also plunged as a national priority, according to the survey, down to 41% from 56% in 2008. “The 15-point decline in the percentage calling environmental protection a top priority this year is steep, but not unprecedented given the broader shift in public priorities,” Pew notes.

Kostigen goes on to say we should not let our job worries and the economy keep us from addressing this issue, claiming that by doing so we would create new jobs and a better economy. This flies in the face of what the European and Australian experience has been. Carbon prices have collapsed and jobs have left those countries for less greener countries. They are abandoning the policies we are planning to enact. The same negative effect will occur here in the states if we let this failed environmental agenda take control of our policies. CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant fertilizer that has enabled the world to grow more food and feed more of its people. As Dr. Happer testified, our atmosphere has been suffering from CO2 starvation with levels one third of those over most of the earth’s history. Wake up America befoe it is too late.

The good people always have good reasons for letting someone else do the heavy lifting. Everyone thinks someone will because anyone could, but no one does.

Our society has determined that it is immoral to punish a person unless every element of a crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. We don’t rely on the best guesses of the police or the opinions of criminal justice experts as to the likelihood of guilt. The prosecution has to meet an evidentiary burden of proof which is very high.

Climate alarmists are advocating political action which will “punish” billions of people. The harm suffered by the poorest will be severe. And these poor haven’t even committed a crime. Aren’t they entitled to at least as much due process as a criminal? As a matter of morality, what standard of evidence should be required before such punishment is imposed? What burden should the alarmist advocates satisfy?

I don’t think honesty is asking too much. Is it asking too much that climate scientists check each other’s work before they make grand pronouncements of their theories to the rest of us? I believe that a scientist with a moral conscience, a bit of self-awareness and some knowledge of the dangers of hubris would realize his moral duty to be as sure as he could possibly be before demanding that billions of poor people suffer from his advocacy. At a minimum, that would mean checking and replicating every study. It would mean openness and transparency. It would mean quality control of the highest order. It would mean cessation of the dishonest presentations to the public and character assassination of anyone with a different viewpoint. And it would mean an insistence that other climate scientists conform to those minimum moral standards.

Instead, they play hide the ball. We get studies filled with lazy, wild-ass guesses which boggle the mind; “the dog ate my homework” excuses to reasonable requests for data; acceptance of pathetically bad studies without question; and failures of quality control for data that are jaw-dropping in their implications. And at every turn, the behavior of prominent climate alarmists sets off warning bells that tell us their moral compasses are seriously askew.

The alarmist scientists keep saying that they have the science on their side. But they never replicate studies. They never check each other’s work. They say they don’t have time to bother with quality control. And when others start checking, the mistakes keep piling higher and higher. The obstinance about transparency is a scandal. The refusal to replicate is inexplicable. The quality control is so bad it borders on criminal.

It’s time for good people to do something. Nothing won’t cut it anymore.

Icecap Note: This is an excellent summary and call-to-action to all of us to make our voices heard before it is too late. Read Roger’s story above the comments to see how the AAAS scientists did not react to Gore’s litany of lies. Meanwhile Hansen is trying to mobilize forces against the coal industry thinking he has the political cover (with blank check financial backing from Soros etal) now to be even more aggressive. Let our voices be heard in such volume so that his is ignored or we like our great great grandparents will find us reading by candlelight and cooking on woodstoves.”

Also now available some items that will gore your alarmist friends:

See full size display here.

-------------------------------------

Environmentalists are even fighting soft toilet tissues as the New York Times reported. See also “Bottom Reached- Reusable Toilet Wipes here. They come in many colors and designs for any decor.

For those who are reluctant to take a step back a century or two, you can use paper but stick to the one sheet rule Laurie David recommended a year ago. To remind you, the rolls come with her picture.

By Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

I had intended to return to this point when I originally posted about this debate last week, but time got away from me. Thankfully, my colleague Roy Cordato brought it up today:

During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist. This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling. First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.

This shatters so much of the alarmists’ claim, as they almost always appeal to the IPCC as their ultimate authority. Slain. See post here. See video of debate here. 

Video: Schlesinger vs. Christy: A Forum on Climate Change
John Locke Foundation, February 12, 2009

William Schlesinger and John Christy hold opposing views of the potential danger associated with global warming. Each made his case [February 11] during a forum in Hickory sponsored by the John Locke Foundation and the Reese Institute for Conservation of Natural Resources at Lenoir-Rhyne University.

[Editor’s note: Schlesinger, President of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, is a biogeochemist specializing in the circulation of chemical elements in natural ecosystems. Christy is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the Alabama State Climatologist. Now, why is it that when someone who’s not a climatologist or meteorologist criticizes manmade global warming theory, defenders protest that he’s not qualified, while when the same sort of person defends it, they don’t? In this debate, Schlesinger’s lack of understanding of, and even ignorance of basic facts in, empirical atmospheric science was readily apparent. This link would be an excellent one to send to uncommitted (or even committed!) friends.

Attached (with the permission of the John Locke Foundation, which sponsored the debate) you’ll find my own running notes from the debate, which you may find helpful, but they’re no substitute for hearing and watching the hour and fifteen minute debate here--complete with many excellent graphic illustrations by both speakers--for yourself.--ECB]

Also available on youtube in 8 parts here.

See full size video here.

“Scare,” a two-minute video highlighting the scare tactics of global-warming alarmists was produced for the Heartland Institute. Heartland released the video in the wake of former vice president Al Gore’s claim before a U.S. Senate committee January 28 that “scientists are practically screaming from the rooftops” about the threat of global warming.

The first part of “Scare” shows President Barack Obama asserting that “the science is settled” on global warming and alarmist predictions of death and destruction. The voice-over suggests some of the alarmist propaganda is backed by “corporations heavily invested in so-called green technology.”

With video footage of social and political unrest flashing, the video warns that the “cost of force-feeding these technologies into every corner of our lives could bankrupt a world already teetering on financial ruin.”

The second half of the video features several science-based facts about climate change, including that the Earth has been cooling in recent years and global temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past 10,000 years.

It concludes by inviting viewers to attend the International Conference on Climate Change in New York City, March 8-10, 2009, where they can learn the Earth isn’t in crisis, and the presenters “have the science to prove it”

“This is a provocative video on one of the most important public policy issues of day,"said Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. “Heartland has distributed more than 1 million videos and books presenting scientific and economic facts that show global warming is not a crisis. We hope this video and the conference it is helping to promote are the final stake in the heart of global warming alarmism.”

The Heartland Institute Thursday February 12, 2009 launched the second of two videos promoting its upcoming climate change conference by taking aim at the federal EPA’s suggestion it may tax animal flatulence as a way to help control greenhouse gases.

The 47-second video opens with a headline from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution from December 6, 2008, “EPA’s air-pollution target: flatulent cows. Agency may tax livestock farms for greenhouse gas emissions.” With Strauss’s “Blue Danube Waltz” playing in the background, the video connects livestock flatulence with severe weather, while a nearly hysterical federal bureaucrat insists, “there’s global warming everywhere” that must be stopped through taxation.

Also is Al Gore telling the truth about global warming? Watch Heartland Institute’s “Snowjob” to get the facts.

See full size video here.

-----------------------------------------------
Steve Crowder sounds off on Global Warming

------------------------------------

And this new Americans for Prosperity ad began running in Virginia today:

----------------------

And for Minnesotans, who in 2008 had their coldest year since 1979, this classic video by Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Also now available some items that will gore your alarmist friends:

See full size display here.

-------------------------------------

Senate Commerce Committee – February 12, 2009

Vitter: Dr. Holdren, one of the lines in the President’s Inaugural Address which I most appreciated was his comment about science, and honoring that, and not having it overtaken by ideology. My concern is that as one of his top science advisors, that many statements you’ve made in the past don’t meet that test, and so I wanted to explore that. One is from 1971, an article with Paul Ehrlich, titled Global Ecology, in which you predicted that, “some form of eco-catastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” Do you think that was a responsible prediction?
Holdren: Well, thank you, Senator, for that..., um..., for that question. First of all, I guess I would say that one of the things I’ve learned in the intervening nearly four decades is that predictions about the future are difficult. That was a statement which at least, at the age of 26, I had the good sense to hedge by saying “almost certain”. The trends at the time were not, ah..., were not positive, either with respect to the dangers of thermonuclear war or with respect to ecological dangers of a variety of sorts. A lot of things were getting worse. I would argue that the motivation for looking at the downside possibilities - the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time. In many respects there were changes in direction which reduced the possibility of nuclear war through arms control agreements and there were changes in direction in national and international policy with respect to environmental problems, including a good many laws passed by this Congress.
Vitter: Given all that context, do you think that was a responsible prediction at the time?
Holdren: Senator, with respect, I would want to distinguish between predictions and, ahh, description of possibilities which we would like to avert. I think it is responsible to call attention to the dangers that society faces, so we’ll make the investments and make the changes to reduce those dangers.
Vitter: Well, I will call “seems almost certain” a prediction, but that’s just a difference of opinion. What, specifically, what science was that prediction based on?
Holdren: Well, it was based in the ecological domain on a lot of science, on the evidence of the accumulation of persistent toxic substances in the body fat of organisms all around the planet, on the rise of the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, of sulfur oxides, of particulate matter, on trace metals accumulating in various parts of the environment in large quantities, on the destruction of tropical forests at a great rate…
Vitter (interrupting): Is all of that dramatically reversed since this “almost certainty” has obviously been averted?
Holdren: Some of it has reversed, and I’m grateful for that. And, again, I think that it’s been reversed in part because of sensible laws passed by the United States Congress and signed by various Presidents. Some of it has not reversed. We continue to be on a perilous path with respect to climate change, and I think we need to do more work to get that one reversed as well.
Vitter: OK. Another statement. In 1986, you predicted that global warming could cause the deaths of one billion people by 2020. Would you stick to that statement today?
Holdren: Well, again, I wouldn’t have called it a prediction then, and I wouldn’t call it a prediction now. I think it is unlikely to happen, but it is ...
Vitter (interrupting): Do you think it could happen?
Holdren: I think it could happen, and the way it could happen is climate crosses a tipping point in which a catastrophic degree of climate change has severe impacts on global agriculture. A lot of people depend on that…
Vitter (interrupting): So you would stick to that statement?
Holdren: I don’t think it’s likely. I think we should invest effort - considerable effort - to reduce the likelihood further.
Vitter: So you would stick to the statement that it could happen?
Holdren: It could happen, and ...
Vitter (interrupting): One billion by 2020?
Holdren: It could.
Vitter: In 1973, you encouraged “a decline in fertility to well below replacement” in the United States because “280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many.” What would your number for the right population in the US be today?”
Holdren: I no longer think it’s productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population for the United States. I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States faced appeared to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities. It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period. But I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have been calling for years ‘sustainable prosperity’.
Vitter: Well, since we’re at 304 million, I’m certainly heartened that you’re not sticking to the 280 million figure. But, much more recently, namely a couple of weeks ago, in your response to my written questions, you did say on this matter, “balancing costs and benefits of population growth is a complex business, of course, and reasonable people can disagree about where it comes out.” I’ll be quite honest with ya. I’m not concerned where you or I might come out. I’m scared to death that you think this is a proper function of government, which is what that sentence clearly implies. You think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?
Holdren: No, Senator, I do not. And I did not, certainly, intend that to be the implication of that sentence. The sentence means only what it says, which is that people who have thought about these matters come out in different places. I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well being of the citizens we have. I also believe that many of those policies will have the effect, and have had the effect in the past, of lowering birth rates. Because when you provide health care for women, opportunities for women, education, people tend to have smaller families on average. And it ends up being easier to solve some of our other problems when that occurs.