Thursday, February 01, 2007

Waxman's Political "Scientists"

Global warming alarmists are in full cry on Capitol Hill, led by Democrat congressman Henry Waxman of...California. Beverly Hills no less, (pix of Sunset Blvd. at night) the congressman of the Lear Jet Liberals. Marlo Lewis, NRO:
Waxman’s key witness was self-styled whistleblower Rick Piltz, who resigned in a huff from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) in March 2005. Piltz claimed the Bush team politicized the CCSP’s work, citing in particular their decision to “bury” the Clinton administration’s flagship climate report, the U.S. National Assessment (about which more below). Piltz also finds it galling — as does Waxman — that White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chief of Staff Phil Cooney, a lawyer and former oil industry lobbyist rather than a scientist, edited CCSP publications such as its annual report, Our Changing Planet, and the CCSP Strategic Plan. Yet, as Piltz acknowledged at the hearing, he is himself not a climatologist but a political scientist, and his job at the CCSP was to produce reports by editing the contributions of agency scientists. So Waxman and Piltz’s indignation that a non-scientist edited scientific reports is a tad selective.
Ah yes, quite a select group. Piltz presented no new information, having already been given a friendly spin in the liberal organ of record, the NY Times, back in 2005. And, as Debra Saunders points out, liberals attempt to impugn the professional opinions of scientists who are global warming skeptics, while "getting their science from a movie and a politician". Not to mention those "political" "scientists", uh political scientists. Sounds faith-based to me, denying the existence of skeptical scientists. (Saunders cites some more). And note this in Lewis's rebuttal to Waxman, pointing out that even President Clinton did not ask the Senate to ratify Kyoto:
The Kyoto Protocol might avert 0.07°C of global warming by the year 2050 — too small an amount for scientists to detect. Yet the treaty could easily cost the United States $100 billion or more annually in reduced economic growth, lost jobs, and higher energy prices. Kyoto is all cost for no benefit. No president worth his salt would have asked the Senate to ratify this treaty.
Meanwhile, former Clinton administration Veep Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize on the strength of his movie and concerned climate "authorities" and bureaucrats are gathering lemming-like in closed door sessions in luxe Paris to discuss final details "very likely" blaming humans for global warming. The foregone conclusions, uh the conclusion has been leaking out today prior to release tomorrow. Um:
A draft of the report predicts a temperature increase of between 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by the year 2100, although that could be adjusted.
And um:
Another contentious issue is predictions of sea level rise. Scientists are trying to incorporate concerns that their early drafts underestimate how much the sea level will rise by 2100 because they cannot predict how much ice will melt from Greenland and Antarctica.
Maybe the US MSM will leave these weasel word qualifiers in French as they will not translate well in English, sounding en plus more authoritative en francais. And in a lovely gesture, that may merit a stop in Paris by some of Waxman's friends and constituents jetting home from Davos or perhaps Gstaad:
As the delegates hold their evening session, the Eiffel Tower, other Paris monuments and concerned citizens in several European countries were expected to switch off their lights for five minutes to call attention to energy conservation, heeding a call by French environmental campaigners.

Some experts said that while well-intentioned, turning the lights out could actually consume more energy than it would conserve by requiring a power spike when the lights turn back on _ possibly causing brownouts or even blackouts.

Ah oui, la science...politique.

Related post: Sister Cities, Kyoto-Wilmette

No comments: