April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
Slate has a piece noting that the politicization of scientific issues might trace back to the skew of the politics of scientists (and offering a useful exercise: “When President Obama appears Wednesday on Discovery Channel’s Mythbusters (9 p.m. ET), he will be there not just to encourage youngsters to do their science homework but also to reinforce the idea that Democrats are the party of science and rationality. And why not? Most scientists are already on his side. Imagine if George W. Bush had tried such a stunt.”).
Which note about the skew is also a worthwhile point, one at the heart of my response when answering the inevitable question: how did ‘global warming’ get so politicized? A quick check reveals how, some years ago, scientists leading the charge on the issue slipped the rails of science to show their true driver, leaping instead headlong into… demanding policies, even as — despite billions of dollars and by now decades — they could not manage to make their case beyond the un-compelling ‘I can’t explain it any other way’ or ‘my computer model says so’. Policy is partisan. So, we see, are policy-demanding scientists. So, then, becomes the issue.
And we see this contemporaneously. Note the recent call by some pretty hard-lefty scientists at Rutgers getting all bent out of shape because Gov. Chris Christie rather soberly indicated the alarmists have still yet to be able to make their case (though he has in the meantime become the first governor to move all state-level cap-and-trade revenues on-budget).
“Paul Falkowski, director of the Rutgers University Energy Institute, said global warming doubts are based on politics and personal beliefs, not science. ‘There is no honest argument against human climate change. The issues now rely primarily on political dialogue on how we’re going to move this country forward,’ he said.” (emphases added)
So, yes, the good professor is on to something, even if some glaring projection leaves his telescope turned around. Though not such that he can’t still keep talking, and prove too much.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?