Quote of the week #5 – Waxman's stunningly stupid statement

Even by politicians’ standards, that is stunning.

We elected these stunningly stupid politicians. We need to elect a few that are not so grossly ignorant. We have Waxman, Arnold, Pelosi and Obama to name but a few. We are now paying and will be paying for their actions as they drive the ship of state into a carbon abyss. I am sure that the tundra under the arctic ice cap will be studied with billions of our tax dollars.

He must have learned communication skills from Miss South Carolina :

In the past, I used to think that Czech politicians – and not only politicians – were extraordinarily stupid. I no longer think so. The silliest recent example of ignorance we’ve seen was an interview with the #2 member of the Czech Green Party, Ms Kateřina Jacques, who was unable to clarify what biomass is and in what form it can be burned in environmentally friendly heating systems (gas? biowaste?).
But this Waxman dude seems much worse.

Waxman is stunningly stupid about science but thoroughly expert on the acquisition and use of power. With apologies to Tina, what’s science got to do with it?

The Waxman-Malarkey bill
sums it.
from Webster.com:
Main Entry:
ma·lar·key
Variant(s):
also ma·lar·ky
Function:
noun
Etymology:
origin unknown
Date:
1929
: insincere or foolish talk : bunkum

We forget. Congresmen have lobbiests to tell them what to do. The rest of us depend on the newspaper.

Congressmen, like reporters, are not picked for their ability to use logic. It is snowing again here in Montana today. Three days ago, I troweled concrete for a friend in a nasty snowstorm, complete with an icy North wind. Our Beartooth Mountains are still piling up more snow. Last week several elk herds came down to the lower country to escape the many feet of snow in the mountains. I have heard there is big snow in nearby Yellowstone Park-10 feet on the level in part of it. Al Gore is not revered much here.

How are those ships traveling across the tundra?

Wax eloquent Waxman doesn’t.

In related news,
The Catlin Survey Group has just announced that as they get closer and closer to the North Pole, the tundra is shallower and shallower. “Sometimes, we barely get started drilling when we hit the tundra. I have my friends standing by with nets to capture any tundra that I inadvertantly release. It would be irresponsible to let the tundra fly free.”
The Catlin Science Team is anxious to meet with Congressman Waxman to confirm his recent comments, and to apply for grants to further the avancement of Science.

And people actually VOTE for these people? I think there should be an exam for politicians before they are allowed to stand for office. And another one for voters before they are allowed to vote.

Waxman is getting lessons from Gore, facts have no place in this debate:

Gore referencing Madoff and a massive fraud, the irony is so thick…
Also, OT but here is another interesting editorial on solar activity from across the pond. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/felipe-fernandezarmesto-its-been-a-long-cold-lonely-winter-but-here-comes-the-sun-and-yes-its-all-right-1674263.html
It is reasonably factual until the “denier bashing” kicked in, “Fanatics who wish to deny global warming are invoking the Sun to talk up the prospect of global cooling. Loony augurs see a new ice age coming, or threaten us with prophecies of apocalypse in 2012 – the Doomsday year selected by ancient Mayan soothsayers.”
I don’t understand why the British press seem to have drunk so much of the AGW Kool-aid…

if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”
OMG…..Not Tundra……Quick wake up Godzilla!

Waxman wear a “Party Hat”, what else do we need to know?
If you simply watched the videos and turned off the volume, the experience would not change.

“Steven Goddard (11:18:24) : Way OT – the last “swine flu epidemic” occurred when Jimmy Carter was president.”
Way OT too–and they wanted to give shots for it–why do they want to put needles in you? There must be some political reason.
My one and ONLY OT here.

I think the time has arrived to set general standards for politicians and make them preform a test before they officially can take up their job.
It’s dangerous to have people like Waxman deal with policies that are so important for the USA and the world.
Waxman by the way is not the only one.
What to think of Nancy Pelosi stating that we can not afford anymore to burn fossil fuels. Instead we have to burn “Natural Gas”.
Natural gas, as we all know is not a fossil fuel. Not?

Oh dear Watts, I’ve long since ceased to be amazed by the ignorance and stupidity shown by politicians. No wonder they are enthralled by the “technological and scientific elite” – how could it be otherwise? They’re nmostly thick as pig-poo and those that aren’t can see the advantages of playing the public like this. Let’s face it, a lot of the public aren’t any smarter.

Stunning – not for what he said but simply that this will have no impact on Waxman’s career. If he had said that Darwin Evolution is nonsense and the world is only 4000 years old it would be just the same – no effect.
Nobody expects leadership to actually get anything right or even remotely accurate anymore – except, of course, on really important aspects. Like, for example, if he got caught in an extra-marital sex scandal then that would be really really BIG news and probably the end of this lawyers career.

I tried to watch the Gore ‘speech’ to the Congessional Committee, I really did. But only thirty seconds of Gore’s blether made me want to throw up. His sactimonius delivery, his absolute refusal to meet someone like Lord Monckton who would destroy each and every pompously made ‘point’ and his very tone of voice made my stomach churn.
It must be patently obvious to anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever of his intricate ties to businesses involved in the ‘cap-and-trade’ revenue raising scam that he, Gore, is going to double or treble his already obscene fortune.
Just look at what has happened in the last week here in the UK.
Our country is on the verge of bankruptcy, the number of jobless people rises ominously quickly, deflation has begun. Our government’s solution? To spend half a million pounds on freaking windmills!
Our energy prices are set to go through the roof, with the poorest sectors of our population being the hardest hit.
People of the USA, look across the pond at what awaits you. Socialist inspired central control does NOT work, but that is what is being imposed on us all. And it is all in the baseless assertion that the destructive policies being enacted are to save the planet from mankind.
Here in the UK a citizen’s voice is no longer heard, although his every e-mail, web-site visited and mobile phone call is now to be recorded.
You in the USA are our only hope for some sort of sane reaction to halting this mad march to totalitarian control of everything that everyone does.
Please help!!

Un-ethical is the word, he is not stupid. The plan is to lead the stupid of which this country is full of now. Materialism led morons waiting in line for handouts.

King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn’t vote for you.
King Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.
Woman: Well how’d you become king then?
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Dennis: Oh, but you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

(of course, I don’t believe Shimkus is presenting a massive piece of legislation related to the issue…)

Mike Kelley (10:47:01) :
…. Al Gore is not revered much here.

Mike, Al Gore is not revered much here either (more considered as a bad joke), and this is his home town! (Nashville, TN).

I found these in “Schott’s Original Miscellany”. They are taken from “The Demon’s Dictionary” and thought them appropriate here. “Influence”-def.- in politics, a visionary “quo” given for a substantial “quid”. “Politics”_ def.- the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

Andrew P (11:44:53) :
John Edmondson (11:14:39) :
This man is a genius compared to our “primeminister” the one eyed scottish idiot.
Gordon Brown is far from perfect, and his government has got it wrong on many key issues, but I don’t see what him having only one eye or being Scottish has got to do with his abiliity or intellegence (or lack of). I am surprised that this comment (which I am sure many will find offensive) passed through un-moderated.
The reference to “one-eyed Scottish idiot” is a quote from a remark made by Jeremy Clarkson describing the aforementioned prime minister. I believe it was on Australian
TV. He late apologised for the one-eyed Scottish part.

Why did Tavis Smiley embarrass Representative Waxman (D-of course) by posting this amazing display of Waxman’s ignorance? Is Smiley a mole at PBS working for the vast right-wing conspiracy?

For evaporation to occur in that region temperatures would have to increase by 15-20C above present (April average). For any substantial or dangerous evaporation to occur the temperature needs to increase by 35C or more over present. Not going to happen unless a fireball the size of our planet passed very close.

Andrew P
“I am surprised that this comment (which I am sure many will find offensive) passed through un-moderated.”
Actually that was a near quote from good old Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame. He subsequently apologised for the Scottish and blind (one-eyed) references.

And the howling left laughed at Sara Palin!!

We continually elect lawyers (or at least people with law degrees) to political office in America. Is it any wonder they nothing about science?
Unless the curriculum has been further watered down since I got my master’s degree in the mid 90’s, the only science requirement for a BA (the minimum prerequisite for law school) is a first year lab science.
Arts students do not take physics or chemistry as a rule. They usually take intro biology, ecology or geology. Most colleges even have “special” sections of these for non-science majors where the curriculum is watered down and where “labs” are more like demonstrations..
I know that the typical lawyer doesn’t have much more background in sciences than that. The lawyers I work with (I work in the environmental sciences realm) rely on “expert” witnesses. They really don’t give a snot about science per se, and know even less about it.
A lawyer’s concern is wrapped up in the meaning of words. Their need for experts extends only as far as finding those who support their interpretation of the law (preferably ones with lots of peer-reviewed papers). The same holds for lawyers who become politicians.
In Waxman’s case even the EPA has come out on the record stating his bill is not grounded in science. His statement about ice evaporation is therefore not too big of a surprise.
Yesterday I listened to some of Waxman’s testimony from Thursday I don’t know if the guy is a lawyer, but I can say without hesitation that he is definitely a green loon. He doesn’t have the slightest clue about science and simply repeats the most alarmist crud that there is out there (and badly at that).
My fingers are firmly crossed that his bill doesn’t even pass the House – and if it does, that the Senate will kill it.

Roger Sowell (11:55:29) :
Ron de Haan (10:28:30) :
“What Waxman should read in order to look less stupid:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/some-global-warming-qa-to-consider-in-light-of-the-epa-ruling/”
I read Dr. Spencer’s statements, and with all due respect to the good Doctor, unfortunately he is wrong on at least one point. Dr. Spencer stated: “Because the Clean Air Act is exempt from cost/benefit analysis, it does not matter if regulations end up causing ten times more harm than good. “
This is just not true. The section of the Clean Air Act in question, Section 202(a), does require that EPA consider the costs of compliance. In fact, the word “cost” or “costs” is used 5 times in Section 202(a), and 15 times in the entire Section 202.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007521—-000-.html”
Thanks Roger,
I will post your comment at his site.

The scary part is that they invite Al Gore to discuss implementation of the cap and trade without any discussion of the current state of the science, as if it IS no longer in question. The debate is over it seems (at least for Congress). Hate to say it, but we’re screwed…it’s just a matter of how much.
I think they realize the ocean and solar cycles well enough to know they better get something in place within the next year or two max or it might be game over (at least Al does). After all, gotta pay off those deficits somehow…
If you ever had an inkling to write you’re congressman, now is the time! Wake up sheeple!

Wasn’t Waxman in the Monty Python fish-slapping dance? If not he should have been.

I
Am
Speechless.

Thank you Mr. Goddard. I had a feeling someone might recognize the line. “How do you know he’s the King?” “‘Cause ‘e ‘asn’t got (snip) all over ‘im!!”

US and British govt representatives effortlessly demonstrate that their knowledge of the theory of climate change is on a par with their knowledge of the theory of economics.
Tonyb

Hey Folks – keep in mind that when the time comes, and it’s generally discussed that CO2 is not a climate driver – there will be equally gifted politicians pushing our side. The trick is to stay consistent and to blast them even when they are aligned, but for stupid reasons. We wouldn’t want to have zero credibility the way these warmist look right now.

Stan Needham (14:08:30) :
“….you might suggest that he correct the percentage of the atmosphere that consists of CO2. The 3% that he shows in the Q & A is off by 2 orders of magnitude.”
——————–
As I read Dr Spencer, he is referring not to the absolute concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in this section, but to the CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect.
——————-
DR Spencer:
ISN’T CO2 THE ATMOSPHERE’S MAIN GREENHOUSE GAS?
No. Water vapor accounts for about 85% or 90% of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, clouds account for another 5% or 10%. CO2 represents only about 3%, methane even less.
———————–
I understand this to say that
Water vapor is about 85 – 90% [of the greenhouse effect]
Clouds account for 5% or 10% [of the greenhouse effect]
CO2 represents only about 3% [of the greenhouse effect]
And although he does not say it, the man-made portion of that 3% is even smaller IMHO.

[snip wayyyyy off topic]

He is not speaking to scientists or about science, he is speaking to a gullible public who just nod their head in agreement to hide their ignorance. This carbon cap and trade is all about money, corruption and power. Science has been corrupted to serve political interests, which is deeply neo-malthusian at it’s roots. Living standards of middle class America , which have been in decline over 30 years, will plunge in the next 10 years.
Guys like Waxman and other politicians embrace their right to tell the Noble Lie. The truth is not for the ignorant masses, they are simply told what they need to be told to get their acceptance of these plans which are not in their best interests, but serve a larger good. Of course, the larger good is what is good for the elitists who fund the political and pseudo science agenda, and control the MSM who embrace it.

Not only stunning, but scary:
This is what we have come to:
Powerful committee chairs in Congress who (apparently) have not the slightest familiarity with even basic science, engineering, geology, natural history, etcetera; that are now trying to force fundamental policy changes that will have huge and above all unnecessary detrimental impacts on our economic future, driven almost completely by blind adherance to the politically-correct dogma of the eco-extremist far left.
AGW truly has taken on many if not most of the characteristics of religion; and fanatic, dogmatic, intolerant religion at that. One can only hope that the voices of science, reason, and hard data can prevail against the forces of the AGW version of the Inquisition. And even if much of the MSM is still in the tank for Al Gore, Jim Hansen, et. al, thanks to the internet and the hard work of reasoned skeptics the voices of common sense are being heard; i.e.:
This website, icecap.us, the Heartland Institute, scienceandpublicpolicy.org, climatedepot, and others.
And, finally, there is of course our old friend the Sun:
We may still be a ways from a Maunder Minimum, but if ”all quiet on the Solar front” continues much longer surely we may soon be on a par with the Dalton Minimum.
We live in interesting times. . . . .

Now we have more hysteria about something humans have been experiencing for many many generations. Swine flu has been passed to humans for at least seven thousand years. An interesting hypothesis for why pork was removed from Jewish and Arab diets even though the pig was first domesticated in the Fertile Crescent is that a mass outbreak of illness in the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE was linked to cohabitation with pigs.
The Green religion does the same thing today (among other things they co-opt from traditional religion) by latching on to hysteria over diseases and says we should end domestication of animals. So just as Western Asiatic culture sent the pig back to the wild, Green activists suggest we do the same for all species, including humans, which would require a drastic reduction in the number of living species. It’s called rewilding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewilding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewilding_(_Green_Anarchism_)
Instead of looking up to the stars for our future there are those who wish to return us to the caves (and in the mean time suffer under socialism). Surely if they wanted wildlife protected from humans they would embrace post-human ideology that would enable us to use very little resources no matter how many of us there are and would enable us to leave the planet.

Micajah (13:31:01) :
Why did Tavis Smiley embarrass Representative Waxman (D-of course) by posting this amazing display of Waxman’s ignorance? Is Smiley a mole at PBS working for the vast right-wing conspiracy?
You’re assuming Mr. Smiley recognized the ignorance.

He meant a lot of pigs are held down by that ice cap. When it finally evaporates, pigs will fly.

“Waxman would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Very, very good. I think this should be the quote/comment of the week………………..

I feel a small sense of satisfaction at your selection of Mr. Waxman’s statement for QOTW, since I think I may have been the first to quote it here, in a comment I made to the post on the EPA’s proposed CO2 rule. If you read the transcript of the whole interview, what strikes me as even more amazing than the abysmal ignorance displayed by Waxman, is the interviewer’s evident inability to recognize the stupidity of what he was hearing. Of course Mr. Smiley works at NPR, where no challenge or critique of any Democrat position is expected or even allowed. Since this interview, stories have emerged of Cong. Waxman trying to garner votes for cap and trade legislation by bartering offers of extra carbon credits to members whose districts would be adversely affected, which IMHO would be all of them. The Democrats are in a serious bind, since the funding they require to advance their agenda of socialized healthcare and gauranteed college education for everyone, including illegal immigrants, depends on continuing the successful demonization of the evil carbon, and events are conspiring to derail that demonization. They realize that if we get past September with Arctic ice still rebounding even the MSM’s uncritical cheerleading will not be enough to maintain the charade. Hence we have the rising crescendo of climate catastrophe stories to push their wobbling wagon over the finish line before the wheels fall off.

From a native Californian:
I wholeheartedly apologize for the lunacy that my great state has brought forth. I am embarrassed to even say I was born in this state…
Yes, it is that bad.
HZ

A banana for the first person who can establish a significant difference between “Precautionary Principle” and Cheney’s “One Percent Doctrine”…

The concept of savvy politicians is all wrong. Does anyone remember “Gulliver’s Travels?”

This charade is more like “Gullible’s Travails”.

Steven Goddard (11:18:24) :
Way OT – the last “swine flu epidemic” occurred when Jimmy Carter was president.

yeah, not hearing a lot about that.
But on “Savage Nation”, it’s speculated as being a terrorist plot. Great mind there.
NOT!

Craig from Belvidere (18:18:24) :
The higher goals of the Obama Administration:
Why? Do some reading here: http://green-agenda.com
and here: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm

PolarBear (18:00:10) :
Direct from the horse’s mouth! Wow, what a maroon!

Ron de Haan (16:22:42) :
‘Unless we have to deal with Runaway Global Stupidity which will take place in Copenhagen, December 2009.’
‘Runaway Global Stupidity’ = New name for “CO2 drives the climate”
CO2 Tax/Cap and Trade, the new TEA TAX
This is one of the reasons that gave rise to the tea parties. Stupid, corrupt politicians.
Fax your representatives.

Craig from Belvidere (18:18:24) :
. . . Why does this man want to destroy our country? What have we done that he wants to pass legislation with no basis in science or fact that is so detrimental to our way of life and our childrens’ future?

I doubt that Mr. Waxman consciously desires to “destroy our country.” As near as I can tell he is a career political hack, who faithfully espouses the extreme left-wing agenda of the limousine liberals he represents (without serious opposition). By some accounts he is not exactly the brightest bulb on what is already a fairly dim tree, but the electoral victories of the socialist Democrats have put ideologues like Waxman and Pelosi in positions of power, where they can wreak unthinking harm, all in the name of misguided and brainless “good intentions.”
Here is what he had to say about the EPA announcement about the threat “pollution” from “greenhouse gases”:

“The EPA announcement confirms what science has told us – global warming pollution poses a grave threat to the nation’s public healthand welfare. EPA is legally compelled to take action and I commend them for complying with the law. However, I believe it is Congress that should create a comprehensive framework to combat global warming that will break our dependence on foreign sources of energy and help transform our economy with millions of new clean energy jobs.”

[My emphasis]
This is the litany according to Axelrod and Obama, for whom Waxman is just a pawn. Waxman long ago jumped upon the “global warming” bandwagon, but here he is just repeating the Administration cant that somehow taxing “carbon” will “transform our economy with millions of new clean energy jobs.”
Any rational person can see this is sheer poppycock, but the rationale here has little if anything to do with energy, or even climate: it is a way to get control of the entire economy and redistribute wealth, while enhancing their own rule as benevolent dictators. What of course they don’t realize (because they don’t care) is that it will destroy the wealth of the nation, until there is nothing left to distribute.
/Mr Lynn

Dave Wendt (17:11:28) :
They realize that if we get past September with Arctic ice still rebounding even the MSM’s uncritical cheerleading will not be enough to maintain the charade.

Nah, they already moved the goalpost on that one. After prattling for years about ice extent, it’s no longer important. Ice volume is the new metric. A thicker and deeper ice cube is now more important than ice extent spreading albedo glory across the Arctic, because a thicker ice cube makes the water colder.

Omigod!!!…… I’m so embarrassed for you Americans.
…. the north pole is gonna evaporate?
…. the tundra is gonna flip up into the air and go Booo!
…. Ships are gonna drive down the shipping lanes like a highway and run over all the polar bears.
…. I think it’s time for Waxman to retire.

J.Hansford (20:17:14) :
LOL
What’s wrong “J”, if our leaders say it’s so; it’s so!
You better fall in line, or we’ll send the Tundra monster
for you!

Craig from Belvedere, Mr. Lynn, and others on why Waxman and the AGWers want to do this. I gave another answer before (cannot remember which thread) and now I want to explain a little bit more.
This comes straight from California’s Air Resources Board and their AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
ARB (and the Obama administration, and the EPA) claims that implementing all these carbon-reducing measures will create green jobs. If true, it would be good for the economy. They define green jobs in an interesting way, though.
It turns out that California (and as far as I know, ONLY California) cut energy use per capita since 1960, relative to the other 49 states. The reason, per ARB, is by legal mandates that appliances must be the high efficiency type. The result of using less energy per capita was more disposable income in every Californian’s pocket, which they spent on discretionary items.
Latte and mocha coffees made by coffee baristas were actually mentioned in a state committee reporting to ARB as examples of the green jobs created. The statistics almost bear out this point, as 33 percent of the jobs created in California were in the retail sector since the reduced energy use began. What they do not crow about is that another 33 percent of all the jobs created were in government. The remaining jobs were scattered about.
So, ARB (and by extension, Obama and the warmists) believes that cutting carbon, increasing energy prices, and further reducing energy use per capita will result in even more disposable income, which will be spent on even more discretionary items, thereby creating more jobs. They call these green jobs.
The reality is completely different. The reason California had lower energy use per capita since 1960, is that that date (or near that date) was when air conditioning began to be in widespread use across the country. California, though, did not require much air conditioning due to a favorable climate. That one fact, with the three major cities located along the coast, where the ocean keeps the summers cool, accounts for the lower energy use relative to the other 49 states. The three cities are San Francisco (and surroundings), Los Angeles (and surroundings), and San Diego (and its satellite cities). Air conditioning also uses much more energy in humid areas, but the inland areas of California are very dry, even if they are hot. So, relative to cities like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, San Antonio, and others across the South, and northern cities such as Chicago, where it is both hot and humid, California’s people use very little power to air condition their homes. Again, it is the local climate, not some law stating refrigerators must use X amount of power.
But ARB will never admit that. It is the complete Achilles heel in all this AGW nonsense about green jobs.
It is not about factory workers building solar panels, nor windmills, nor electric cars, and ARB freely admits this in their official documents. Those things will be made overseas and imported. There will be a few jobs on the installation side, but not nearly as many as ARB claims overall.
So, there you have it. That is what this is all about. A myth, because no air conditioner in the hot, humid towns or cities will use substantially less energy. There may be some benefit from upgrading to new A/C, but it will be offset. Countering any such improvements in air conditioners is the growing use of rechargeable items in the home, such as laptops, iPods, and cell phones. Further increasing electric loads are modern tvs such as plasma tvs, and entertainment centers with all their power consumption.

Given the utter stupidity and weakness of the AGW/MMCC theories I think Waxmans statement fits perfectly within the AGW/MMCC narrative, meaningless,ill informed,alice in wonderland mumbo jumbo anti science!
I feel that even if they started dressing in clown suits and went round blowing bubbles it wouldnt significantly diminish their group gravitas and authority to represent the ‘CONsensus.
Ill get my coat.

Roger,
I grew up in San Diego. It gets super hot at times. Most houses don’t have AC, but we ran fans almost 24/7 for July and Aug

I don’t have much of a response…
but I did laugh for about two minutes straight.
This is about as conscious a stream of thought as Willy Lee’s in Naked Lunch.

I finally get this blog!
It’s an outpost heavily manned by, how to say this politely..[snip-not polite enough]? With first rate quotes like this:
“I remember when Jimmy Carter decided to put a luxury tax on yachts of a certain size. The people that could buy them put off their purchases and there were layoffs, and we paid the unemployment taxes.”
Yes, we all felt the crash from the yachting business those years. Millions of lives destroyed. Damn those luxury taxes! If only Jimmy Carter had left the yachts alone the world would be a better place. I think anyone buying anything that costs more than $200,000 shouldn’t pay taxes on it, as a way of saying thanks to them for buying it.
I thought this was a serious science related blog. I didn’t know it had an agenda, not to discuss and enlighten but roar and spread BS. [snip] I kept thinking there’d be discussion about things like facts. Not screaming heads and the occasional conspiracy nut-job with a hat lined with tin-foil.
When people constantly complain about the people in Govt. (just like any person who goes on and on about one single topic without any ability to moderate themselves..wink, wink) what they are complaining about is who makes up the society we live in. At least with this system of Govt. we get a pretty good chance of seeing different types of people involved in our government. And it is out Govt. No matter how embarrassing they act. You can vote for someone else (sorry but Ayn Rand is dead) or run for office yourself and let the others in society hear you and your ideas out. Our Government tends to be made up of, dumb, smart, arrogant religious, paranoid, crazy, depressed, happy, ineffectual people who are sometimes beholden to special interests. No more and no less then any large private company would be. Heck no more then the people who make up the neighborhood you live in. Unless you’ve gone Kazinski and are holed up in a 12 square foot cabin with guns, water, lysol and a pet racoon called Big Jim
People say dumb things. Wow. Imagine that. Does that mean they have no valid opinion? That you judge them on this one issue? Or do you look at the combination of their work. For instance I won’t hold it against the Bush Administration that the largest attack on American soil in history happened on their watch. I’ll judge them by the totality of their 8 years in power.
Next we will tackle ‘life is not fair.’ And move on to, ‘Not everyone has a MASTERS DEGREE in SCIENCE!’
But by working together and finding common ground, we can all benefit. But if your idea of Society is one which only looks to your particular single interest or specialty, you will be disappointed and may start carrying around signs that question Obama’s birth certificate and the right of the city to enforce parking laws. But that’s what keeps this little tide-pool interesting. A place you can stop by, look in and be amazed with all the weird creatures. And by that I mean not only this blog, but the entire planet. A tide-pool run wild indeed.
Reply: A couple of snips and this became approvable. ~ charles the moderator

I don’t have much of a response…
but I did laugh for about two minutes straight.
This is about as conscious a stream of thought as Willy Lee’s in Naked Lunch.
OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi

It is fun mocking ignorant politicians. However Mr. Waxman is no more ignorant than nearly all climate scientists who believe that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere.
Climate science is the problem not Mr Waxman.
Climate scientists, formerly geographers, cannot understand physics, it’s too hard. It involves equations and abstract concepts. They can only grasp simple metaphors and the adding and subtraction of 3 digit numbers in energy balance diagrams.
The lower atmosphere is warmer than the upper atmosphere because of the effect of the earth’s gravity on the nitrogen and oxygen that make up 99% of the air. Boring nitrogen is never mentioned by climate scientists.
The cooling of the last few years and the economic slowdown has lessened the effect of green scares, not climate scientists.
The greenhouse/ blanket/ trapping effect of gases in the air does not exist. Until climate scientists understand this, politicians and the greens will continue to use it to alarm and mislead people.

mfearing
We’ve all been there. Though I think you’ll find more interesting “facts” here than most other places and, more diverse political opinion.
What’s wrong with a bit of banter?

mfearing,
My quote about the luxury tax was not to suggest that it ruined the country but that the consequences of it were unintended and were not helpful to the American people. Whenever the government tries to pick winners and losers unintended consequences happen. The cap and trade bill is so large that the unintended consequences of it are unimaginable.
USA Today has a short article that discusses the unintended consequences of another government action here:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2009-02-04-executive-pay-cap-consequences_N.htm
The last sentence, “The unintended consequence is you end up killing the institution you tried to save,” says Johnson. “You drive away the good people.”
I’m afraid that the unintended consequences of cap and trade are much worse than anyone now imagines. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Thanks,
Mike Bryant

My Congresscritter is Greg Walden who had the temerity to question the Profit, Algore, on use of timber resources,he was declared an unbeleiever,and gaveled down by the commitee chairman- the Man Of Wax….
Having an interesst of the Enlightenment and Reformation,(the one would not have happened without the other.)-things haven’t changed all that much in 450 years…

Who the heck elected these gross incompetent politicians? Including the biggest idiot at the top? Gee Whiz. No one admits to it, but he sure as heck got his butt in there, didn’t he? Commie Obama. Plus I guess you guys know we are in global cooling, not global warming what goofballs!

Speaking of out of control taxes, Michelle has an article about Andrew Lloyd Webber’s recent comments.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/27/andrew-lloyd-webber-going-galt-in-britain/

mfearing
If you wonder why this particular article is full of non-scientific commentary, you need to look at what Mr. Watts categorized it as:
Categories : ridiculae
So, ridiculous commentary is welcome. However, if you peruse other articles you will find a more focused discussion. After a while you will again notice that certain contributors also provide serious scientific commentary, while the rest of us add our laymen comments.

Hot off the wire, and a QOTW nomination:
On the Associated Press – Obama promises major investment in science.

” “I believe it is not in our character, American character, to follow — but to lead. And it is time for us to lead once again. I am here today to set this goal: we will devote more than 3 percent of our GDP to research and development [whoa!],” Obama said in a speech at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences.
“We will not just meet but we will exceed the level achieved at the height of the space race,” he said.”

And for me, the money-quote:

.
If that’s what it could it be taken for, then he’s leadin’ ‘n I’m followin’!

OMG, LOL, zing!

“When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.” -Thomas Jefferson to Madame de Stael, 1807.
Which wrongs are being pressed upon you and me? Which wrongs are we supposed to bear? Are we supposed to put up with politicized science, fudged data and hysterical prophecies of catastrophe? Should we accept the new ruling class that would overturn the principles of democracy to feather their nests? What about confiscatory taxes to fight an imagined threat? What other wrongs are you being asked to shoulder because your betters believe you will acquiesce?
What is the moral course?

Here ya go…boy, what faith I have in this one (rolling eyes)
US admits responsibility for emissions to bring big polluters togetherHillary Clinton offers admission to ease obstacles towards reaching agreement at climate change summit in Copenhagen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/27/carbon-emissions-us

Check out the image of the scientific Messiah the BBC used for this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8020930.stm
Lenin would be envious.

I remember that the Russians rammed their flag into the tundra under the ice cap last year 🙂

RoyfOMR (20:14:29) :
Recently we’ve had a number of threads on WUWT concerning scientifically-ignorant, but vocal, politicians (on topic), alarmist trumpeting (without number) and one, about a certain British viscount, discounted by US democrats as a contributor to a debate.
I refer, of course, to the debate sometimes paraphrased as – ‘the debate that is over anyway’.
No greater contrast could there be than between two groups of people than we have between the likes of Mr. Waxman, his fellow-travelers and, IMHO, intellectual giants such as Lord Monckton.
Yes, he is no scientist – in the formal sense anyway that only admits into the fraternity those who’ve been through the approved rites of passage. Even, if he had, when younger, decided to embark on a voyage dedicated to scientific study, would he now be accepted by his peers as one of them?
If he’d become a climate scientist then, unless I’ve badly misjudged him, he would now be a climatological pariah.
Peer-review when honestly, transparently and skeptically debated has proven to be an invaluable tool for progress and in areas of science untouched and untainted by subjective and political influences – it will remain so.
Conversely, when a field of study, scientific or otherwise, converges positively or negatively with shared subjective viewpoints then the peer-review process can become tainted by non-objective agendas!
Lord M is, I believe, a bit of a throwback. A throwback to the days when gentlemen, if bright enough, didn’t worry about conforming to received ideas and gave no heed to the double-yellow line, traffic-warden mentality that sought to impose a border-control mentality upon nature itself!
He is an anachronism, a most-valuable and rare anachronism to be sure – but thank God he’s with us – Given his ability to listen, to digest, to distill mountains of data into nuggets of gold and then convince his target audience of his logic then, if he was on the warmist side of the house, I’d be sending all my disposable cash to Messrs Waxman and Gore!
In short, how can a man who has no peers (or at least darned few- and they’re all dead) be peer-reviewed? Cleverness knows no bounds, truth has no frontiers and ignore the pack-baying of pedigreed professionals when a mongrel (however, high-born) picks up the scent!
If you think that I’ve overplayed the viscounts PR too much and, you also think, that 90 minutes of your life is too much to invest in discovering why I think as I do, then this is not the link for you
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5206383248165214524
RoyfOMR (20:14:29) :
It’s our ability to “think”, “learn”, “argue”, “negotiate” and “compromise” that has made us survive and adapt to the life on this planet surviving the natural threats but at the same time our ability to think has become our biggest threat.
This threat becomes evident when we experience the current political doctrine that blocks out (scientific and moral) integrity and builds policies based on deception, fraud, manipulation and semi-science.
If there ever has been a moment in human history where our ability to think will be put to it’s very limits, it is right now.
Not to find solution to face natural threats because we have lived with those al along but to stop a political ideology determined to send humanity back into the dark ages.
We have to fight the illusion that Humanity, because of it’s growing numbers has become a threat to the survival of this planet and the we have to fight the ludicrous idea that we are in need of five planets to maintain our current consumption patterns.
This is what we are up against and they are moving fast.
Mockton is a great thinker who has addressed all facets of this ill doctrine, leaving no stone on the other and we are indeed lucky to have him on our side.
Look for more Moncton papers here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

Yeah Henry, there’s a lot of tundra under that ice cap for all those ships to walk accross!!! This is an example of the type of tyrannical government that Thomas Jefferson warned about. I suppose that Thomas Jefferson would be shocked at how stupid and socialistic his successors would be!

Roger Sowell (10:50:13) :
Politicians speak in carefully chosen words (written by their staff) and (usually) only when their staff and advisors have chosen the time, place, and manner. Even a supposedly “spontaneous” Town-Hall type performance is just that, a well-rehearsed and practiced performance sometimes worthy of an Academy Award.
It appears to me that Rep. Waxman deserves a Razzy, for bungling his lines so badly. Or a better staff, who can actually write.
Hence a favorite tee shirt: “Elect Better Actors.”

Mr. Waxman is merely lobbying on behalf of the new “culture of science” that President Obama so ardently wishes to establish in America. As opposed to the evidently very unscientific cultures that accompanied all the other presidents.
If you don’t like the good Congressman’s science, you’d better brace yourselves — because, friends, he’s just the “tip of the iceberg.”
(A nice touch, eh? Global warming, ice berg, get it??)
Repy: Iceberg, Goldberg, what’s the difference? ~ charles the standup moderator

Craig from Belvidere (18:18:24) :
Finally a question I actually know something about. I have an advanced degree in economics and I am also a tax lawyer. I lurk here because I have always enjoyed science and find this blog both informative and entertaining.
I see the entire AGW movement as three-pronged with different people having different agendas.
In political terms, the cap and trade and most of the green “movement” is simply a grab for power. More government control equals more power.
In economic terms, the government is seizing control of the means of production, which is simply socialism in its purest definitional form, not meant to be an inflammatory term. Individuals, like Al Gore, are engaged in individual economic rent-seeking behavior. Economic rents are the returns that are being derived in the market above the equilibrium competitive level. Rent seekers like Gore either enter a market in which above equilibrium returns, are being earned, which tends to bring returns down to competitive levels, or they create economic rents by creating a market (carbon offsets anyone?).
In religious terms, Mother Earth, Gaia, or whatever other name is chosen, is sacred, and we are all sinners and defilers. Throw in more than a handful of doomsday cultists, and all rational discourse goes out of the window.
Some, like former VP Gore are in all three prongs, increasing the role of government, lining his pockets, and serving as the High Priest and First Prophet of the Gaian Temple.

Smokey (11:00:59) cautioned, “Calm down, Ted.”
Oh, I got the bubbling enthusiasm amply hedged with a well-padded If-Then structure. 😉
You’ll notice, guys, Obama stares right through Dr. James Hansen like he isn’t even there. Have you seen any indication that Obama knows the guy pulls air? He may have done so here & there – but I haven’t seen it.
Obama is a pragmatist, not a Kool-Aid salesman. He’s a politician who plays for keeps … but he’s also a lawyer, and a Constitutional lawyer, a Harvard intellectual … and an introvert. Introverts have their forms of weirdness, but they’re not strong on pushing Kool-Aid.
We note that the media are not fond of finding out they’ve ‘been had’ (as in being suckered into provide cover for Cheshire-cat AGW), and we are now standing watch to enjoy the moment when they begin smirking & wagging their head at the climate fairy-stories.
Obama is the same way. He isn’t going for the ‘build your house on a foundation of sand’ logical sleigh of hand that AGW-arguments have adopted.
Obama is happy to use popular support for greenhouse warming theories to promote a giant tax-scheme and expansion of government, but I don’t think that he is going to use feather-headed confirmation-biased as a load-bearing structural element in the edifice he wants to build. He has shown a non-affinity for this stuff.
So yeah, some of the 3% will end up going to more fluff & folly climate science, but I’m not seeing enough to suggest to me that Obama is sitting in any Al Gore church sipping the Kool-Aid himself … calculating how much stained glass the billions will buy.
Obama wants to look like a sharp dude, and he wants his decisions to stand the test of time.
Always bear in mind, too, that Obama sits down with the Pentagon rep each day. He does not struggle to get good climate data the way we do. He gets the real deal, interpreted by hard-headed military analysts who’s opinion of climate-hysteria makes your’s & mine look downright soft-hearted.
I disagree with Obama’s general program-philosophy (pallet-loads of cash airdropped out the back of C-130s), but there’s hope in the view that he’s actually a thinking person’s person. [Still, I voted for the Wasilla winsome and her white-haired sponsor. ;]
Hold it up as a reminder:

Anthony, Too important to ignore because there is NO TOMORROW:
Apr 29, 2009
Responding to the EPA Proposed Endangerment Finding
By Joseph D’Aleo
The Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act was signed on April 17, 2009. On April 24, 2009, the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171: Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (PDF). The notice in the Federal Register started the official 60 day clock for comments. Public comments on the proposal must be submitted to EPA by June 23, 2009.
Technical analyses developed in support of the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act may be found here: Technical Support Document for the Proposed Findings (PDF)
Although the “cause or contribute” aspect of the endangerment finding was limited to GHGs from new motor vehicles and engines, it is widely understood that once the proposal is finalized, EPA can proceed to other sources regulated ( powerplants, refineries, manufacturing plants) under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Although EPA did not propose any associated regulations at this time, the endangerment finding is EPA’s first step towards triggering a cascade of CAA programs that will effectively impose strict regulations on a large segment of the American economy. This may include regulations that will affect most all buildings including churches, schools, large and small businesses, the kind of fuels used, the car you drive and, taken to the extreme, how many times you can mow your lawn or blow away your snow or whether you can burn wood in your home stove. The regulations will be just as onerous as cap and trade legislation. The public is unaware that though not a direct tax, the costs of increased regulation and or “cap-and-trade” scheme (really ration-and-tax) will likely run at least $2000 for Americans according to this conservative Heritage Foundation study up to $3100 per family per year according to an MIT study, with increased government control over your entire life, increased job losses and energy shortages. Additional economic analysis showing impacts by state can be found here.
Write your two Senators, Representative and the President, write a letter to your favorite newpaper or post on a blog discussing the EPA ruling or the government�s planned climate actions. Call in to talk radio and explain the dangers of these proposed actions and cap-and-tax legislation if congress feels pressured to act. You can use the Search ICECAP feature to find supporting info to address each one of the so called science findings which we know are wrong with evidence the fact that temperatures are cooling, sea levels are not rising, global ice is not melting, there are fewer heat waves, less drought, fewer global hurricanes and that CO2 is not a dangerous pollutant but a life giving plant fertilizer that has greatly aided agriculture. You can also address the fact that climate models are failing miserably in all these ways.
Both scientists and citizens can make comment on the EPA Endangerment Proposal and the ‘findings’ on which it is based. See the Technical Support document on which the findings were based. It is essentially extractions from the revised US CCSP and IPCC AR4 Summaries. A good selection of the comments filed on the initial CCSP report and the EPA ANPR can be found on Icecap here.
See the EPA web site for how you can submit a comment here. Instructions for filing comments can be found here. Read both documents and refer back to the referenced sections in the IPCC and CCSP. Choose an area (or areas) you feel most qualified to challenge and draft a challenge following carefully the instructions for formatting and submitting above. In your challenge, cite the section and page of the report you are challenging and where possible the quote. Wherever possible cite supporting peer review support for your challenge, including ideally in the case of publishing scientists, your own work. You can use insert topics or authors in SEARCH ICECAP or search tools in Climate Science[link],Climate Audit[link], CO2Science[link], Watts Up With That[link], World Climate Report[link], CEI[link], Heartland[link, link to NYC papers] or just Google. Feel free to contact us for suggestions or to ask about a draft comment you send us. The challenge does not need to be lengthy. Short pithy comments can be just as effective. When you submit comments please send a copy to us so we can put them into a library that is searchable and can be used as a resource in legal challenges.
In May, there will be public hearings. EPA requests those who wish to attend or give public comments, to register on-line in advance of the hearing. EPA will audio web stream both public hearings. The meeting information pages will be updated with this information as it becomes available. The hearings are scheduled at May 18, 2009, at the EPA Potomac Yard Conference Center, Arlington, VA; and May 21, 2009, at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center in Seattle, WA.
The Endangerment Finding and the Technical Support Document will become the US version of the IPCC 2007 report. If left unchallenged, there is no tomorrow.