-
Global Warming on 15-Year Hold
April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
-
Suddenly This Summer
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
-
FakeGate: Just Another Day at Team Green
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
-
“Climate” and the Campaign
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Germany’s Green Bubble Follows Spain’s; Will Congress Waste More Billions on Ours?
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Whenever that silver-haired Republican candidate weighs in on the ‘climate’ debate yelling “Science!” I want to stick around until the end of the video. I love that line, “Good heavens, Miss Nakamoto, you’re beautiful!”
Wait, that’s not Magnus Pyke?
Seriously. Mr. Huntsman, beyond the pose: what would you do? “Science!” is a talking point. More of a pose, really, of being the thoughtful man even while its success depends on stirring no more than Pavlovian nodding and clucking in response. Anything else ultimately arrives at the question Hunstman’s pose begs:
What. Would. You. Do.?
What’s your point? That you’re down with the kidz on campus and your media base can rest easy because you’re not, you know, ‘crazy’ as you say? Or are you going somewhere with this? Is it cap-and-trade? Kyoto? Kyoto II? Carbon (dioxide…meaning ‘energy’) taxes? Wait, wait…Green jobs?
There’s surely some relevant reason for this sneering adamance? It’s not just to gain certain approval, right? And assuming you’ve got policy in mind you’re willing to divulge, well, without just sputtering “science(!)”, please then state why?
Here’s the problem for today’s stylish poseur: Nothing ever proposed would, according to anyone or any computer model on which the entire argument is premised, detectably impact temperature or climate.
The schemes are all pain, no gain. According to all. There is no disagreement. Are you down with “consensus”?
So, let’s talk about it. And how these models also belie a fallback notion usually offered with crossed arms that well, every little bit helps. It’s doing ‘something’. Not according to them. If you disagree, well, please tell us what the temperature impact would be. This should be good.
Adopting any of these futile, all-pain no gain gestures to seize the mantle of being ‘responsible’, by ‘doing something’ — despite that the basis for your action, climate models, all claim otherwise — would not only be reckless. It would be, well, anti-scientific.
But, don’t be shy. Get beyond the pose. You buy into the premise (as disconnected as it is, see above) for an activist agenda. Then what? What is it that you plan to do? Seems relevant. Do you share Rick Perry’s policy stance, or do you want to double down on Obamanomics? Simple question. Can’t wait for the answer.
View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Chris Horner
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/08/science-beyond-the-pose-what-w
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
PattyMor| 9.8.11 @ 3:36PM
Do us a favor Jon and go home to your wife, kids, and blow dryer, but leave us alone (us and in U.S. voters).
CalMark| 9.8.11 @ 5:36PM
Huntsman looks like a tailor's mannequin. I have rarely seen such a phony, unreal-looking man.
Oh, and his politics are dishonest and leftist. (But I repeat myself.)
Paul McGrath| 9.8.11 @ 3:50PM
Right on, Chris, RIGHT ON. The Republican argument should be that the global warming problem--whether it exists or not--has never been debated in front of the American people from a cost/benefit analysis.
If it could be proved that global warming could be eliminated if every American family paid ten extra dollars a month, I might agree with that. If government were to show that it would cost the American family an extra $1,000.00 a month to reduce global warming by 20%, I would NOT agree with that.
But no one has ever put it in these terms. Instead, global warming is an absolute scientific fact, and without debate, discussion or congressional approval, we are going to destroy coal, ban drilling in Alaska and limit it in the Gulf, regulate fracking, and prevent a pipeline from Canada to the U. S.
This is where Perry stumbled last night also. Present the global warming thing in these terms, and people will understand.
Bob Grant| 9.8.11 @ 3:57PM
This guy doesn't impress my one wit. Yes, he's slick with a slick message and picture-perfect family but this is not 1992 or '96.
We could have used him THEN!!
It's a different day. Different election. We need someone to sell, educate, and consistently articulate what real conservative principles are and how they are our only hope of saving this once-great country. And personally, I don't care if he looks like the elephant man in doing so.
At the next debate, I would suggest taking Mr. Horner's advice and demand Huntsman expand on his all-encompassing love for "science".
2Anglico| 9.8.11 @ 4:42PM
If Huntsman could reverse the 20,000 year (so scientists say) global warming trend and bring back a 1 MILE thick sheet of ice over Manhattan Island, I'd vote for him!
Kingofthenet| 9.8.11 @ 4:46PM
Oh Snap! What will Perry do?
http://www.mail.com/scitech/ne.....-teaser1-1
Occam's Tool| 9.8.11 @ 5:36PM
King, for those of us who have no problem with evolutionary theory (thus I was taught in Hebrew School), what's MUCH more important about Perry is keeping taxes and spending low. POTUS has got nothing to do with or in opposition to, teaching Evolution in school. Perry is not a moron. He's not touching that issue in office with a 10 foot pole. He's got the economy, the economy, and the economy to worry about, as well as Iran.
CalMark| 9.8.11 @ 5:38PM
I'm amazed how ill-informed politicians seem to be. Or if they're not, why they don't speak out.
Just say that the universities leading the charge in England and Virginia are destroying and otherwise denying access to their data. Their researchers are plotting how to avoid scrutiny by their peers.
Call it what it is: academia's version of Enron. It's not science; it's fraud.
Mike| 9.8.11 @ 9:02PM
Excuse me while I stall for time to figure out how to disavow the parts of the President's job proposal that were crafted by Republicans
A Random Friar| 9.9.11 @ 12:12AM
I believe it's "Miss Sakamoto." But a fine cultural reference!
yisong| 10.27.11 @ 2:25AM
Discussion Bearing failure of general conditions
The gradual expansion of the surface spalling, and often extended to the deep, forming deep peeling. Contact fatigue spalling is a failure of deep fatigue source. http://www.1stbearing.com