Hold Your Breath, Save The Planet
9:53 AM
by Nick Stone of Drawnlines Politics.
It's Obama Administration policy at its finest, and it's an awfully mixed message. On the front page of today's Wall Street Journal, the paper tells readers what the president means when he said last week that he expects "meaningful" progress in Copenhagen.
The answer: President Obama is about to declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.
This action will allow the EPA to regulate he gas under the Clean Air Act. The EPA will be free to enforce permitting, or even better- taxation - on the ubiquitous gas. Imagine how business - already struggling under increased economic pressures - feels about this administration proposing yet another burden on their solvency. On top of the other various sundry taxes and fees that the administration has imposed on the very job creators and wealth expansionists that this country needs most in our time of economic tumult, this new regulation and taxation will surely be yet another albatross around the neck of our nation's recovery.
With recent news surfacing that liberal activists within the scientific community have fudged data to meld and explain the global warming crisis that made Al Gore a Nobel recipient, this might be the very worst time for the administration to declare new environmental policy. If the global warming community turns out to be vindicated, then fine. But quite simply, it is glaringly evident that the science upon which their arguments have been based is fatally flawed (and apparently on purpose by those who knew the answer they wanted, then asked the right questions to get said answer). Meanwhile, the president would do well to acknowledge that the debate is most certainly NOT over. He'll have one hell of a time explaining his policy change to residents of Houston, who just received their first annual snowfall nearly a month before winter arrives.
It would be illogical not to remind readers that just a few short decades ago, Leonard Nimoy warned of a coming Ice Age on the show In Search Of . The popular logic of the 1970s was that a global cooling would be the the undoing of civilization. The potato famine, the black plague, and the invention of the Stradivarius violin were all the children of the Little Ice Age. If you are inclined to think of that event as ancient history, google the picture of George Washington crossing an iced-over Delaware River near modern day Philadelphia or read up on "the year without a summer".
Galileo once knew without a doubt that Mars had canals. Sailors knew for certain not long ago that the Earth was flat and contained giant sea serpents which swallowed their ships. And thirty years ago, we knew with near certainty that encroaching glaciers would prove more hazardous than rising tides. So, hold your breath and cut down your trees if you truly care about the environment today. Trees, by the way, are huge polluters during heat waves - so it stands to reason that if the Earth is warming, trees will be a major source of concern.
The president assures this writer that your tax bill is in the mail. But then that too might be based on faulty data. Meanwhile let's put a hold on new climate legislation and go back to the drawing board in the name of real science, sans-pretense. Will this president claim that this too is out of his control, that he "inherited" the war on science from the previous administration?
There's ALWAYS something new happening at Drawnlines Politics.
For videos and archives visit our homepage
Check out our new Election Center!
It's Obama Administration policy at its finest, and it's an awfully mixed message. On the front page of today's Wall Street Journal, the paper tells readers what the president means when he said last week that he expects "meaningful" progress in Copenhagen.
The answer: President Obama is about to declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.
This action will allow the EPA to regulate he gas under the Clean Air Act. The EPA will be free to enforce permitting, or even better- taxation - on the ubiquitous gas. Imagine how business - already struggling under increased economic pressures - feels about this administration proposing yet another burden on their solvency. On top of the other various sundry taxes and fees that the administration has imposed on the very job creators and wealth expansionists that this country needs most in our time of economic tumult, this new regulation and taxation will surely be yet another albatross around the neck of our nation's recovery.
With recent news surfacing that liberal activists within the scientific community have fudged data to meld and explain the global warming crisis that made Al Gore a Nobel recipient, this might be the very worst time for the administration to declare new environmental policy. If the global warming community turns out to be vindicated, then fine. But quite simply, it is glaringly evident that the science upon which their arguments have been based is fatally flawed (and apparently on purpose by those who knew the answer they wanted, then asked the right questions to get said answer). Meanwhile, the president would do well to acknowledge that the debate is most certainly NOT over. He'll have one hell of a time explaining his policy change to residents of Houston, who just received their first annual snowfall nearly a month before winter arrives.
It would be illogical not to remind readers that just a few short decades ago, Leonard Nimoy warned of a coming Ice Age on the show In Search Of . The popular logic of the 1970s was that a global cooling would be the the undoing of civilization. The potato famine, the black plague, and the invention of the Stradivarius violin were all the children of the Little Ice Age. If you are inclined to think of that event as ancient history, google the picture of George Washington crossing an iced-over Delaware River near modern day Philadelphia or read up on "the year without a summer".
Galileo once knew without a doubt that Mars had canals. Sailors knew for certain not long ago that the Earth was flat and contained giant sea serpents which swallowed their ships. And thirty years ago, we knew with near certainty that encroaching glaciers would prove more hazardous than rising tides. So, hold your breath and cut down your trees if you truly care about the environment today. Trees, by the way, are huge polluters during heat waves - so it stands to reason that if the Earth is warming, trees will be a major source of concern.
The president assures this writer that your tax bill is in the mail. But then that too might be based on faulty data. Meanwhile let's put a hold on new climate legislation and go back to the drawing board in the name of real science, sans-pretense. Will this president claim that this too is out of his control, that he "inherited" the war on science from the previous administration?
There's ALWAYS something new happening at Drawnlines Politics.
For videos and archives visit our homepage
Check out our new Election Center!
Posted by Nick Stone
on 9:53 AM.
Filed under
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0
Posts
You do realize that you sound uneducated and conspiracy-minded here? The science is in on global warming. Some scientists screwed things, to be sure. However the melting polar ice caps, bizarre weather patterns and the uhh...HOLE in the OZONE LAYER, continue to show that global warming is a problem.
Even if scientists are flat wrong (98% of them agree global warming is a serious, man-made issue), do you really want to take that chance? Now is the time to act.
Also, you reminding people that Galileo once thought Mars had canals and sailors thought the earth was flat is just highly misleading. Science has been there to explain, correct and improve on those theories. Scientists also agree on the theory of gravity...do you want to question that too?
Apologies on the delay of response.
Readers will note that I never took a stance on the issue of global warming during this column. If you'd like to make the issue about the editor rather than the issue of climate science, then it'll be crystal clear to the public which one of us is off our rocker. So thank you for making that distinction clear without me having to lift a finger.
98% of scientists agree, do they? I see that those few scientists from the emails aren't the only ones cooking up figures. You might want to hit "reply all" to your pals in the tree ring circus so that you're all together on the talking points. I sincerely implore you to continue your thoughtful comments on my posts. They make most excellent reading material!