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
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.
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?