Pelosi channels her inner Mussolini?

November 30, 2009

Nice to know that Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way of shoving nationalized health care down our throats:

As Harry Reid’s health care bill moves to the Senate floor, the debate over Obamacare finally begins in earnest. Shouldn’t the Constitution be part of that debate? By what authority, after all, could Congress force all Americans to buy health insurance?

In a recent press release, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argues that constitutional objections to the individual mandate are “nonsensical,” because “the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”

Anyone with a modest knowledge of the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution (Okay, okay. That lets out 98% of the population) should be aghast at reading that. Her assertion isn’t just questionable; it’s not merely wrong. No, Speaker Pelosi’s belief in the unlimited power of Congress is utterly antithetical to every principle on which this country was founded. It’s not unconstitutional, it’s anti-constitutional. Madison, Jefferson, Washington, and Adams would be doing a collective face-palm if they were around to hear this.

For Pete’s sake, Nancy, our Revolution was fought against the tyrannical actions of the national legislature in London. Do you really want to be the George Grenville of the 21st century? Should we be comforted to know that the third-highest officer in our government is a constitutional illiterate and a barely concealed statist?

The Constitution established the federal government as a limited government of defined powers; those powers not expressly granted to it were reserved to the States or the People. It was intended to check and limit the power of the legislature, not grant unlimited authority to remake the nation according to your progressive fantasies, you nitwit! Article 1, section 8 defines Congress’s power. You might try reading it sometime.

I’ve finally figured it out: the use of the word “democratic” in “Democratic Party” is an ironic joke.

And the joke’s on us.

(hat tip: Weekly Standard)

Advertisements

This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

November 29, 2009

An excellent summary in The Telegraph of what happened in ClimateGate and why it’s significant. The money quote:

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Do read the whole thing.


Who’s who in ClimateGate

November 29, 2009

You can’t tell the players without a program:


The dog ate my data!

November 29, 2009

The scientific-fraud scandal that’s rocked the Global-Warming Cult is rapidly moving from outrage to farce. First the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) refused for years to release their raw data and programming code, conspiring to resist UK FOIA requests. Then, after emails and code were leaked indicating extensive data manipulation and efforts to corrupt the peer-review process, word comes today that CRU has agreed to release their data. A victory for transparency, right? It’s the beginning of the restoration of trust in science, no?

No.

In fact, the London Times Online reports that the data, if it is released, is not the raw data. The CRU threw that away.

Climate change data dumped

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.

In other words, “Sure we’ll share the data. And, aren’t we nice? We cleaned it up and made it all pretty for you. Look! A hockey stick!

I’d ask how dumb they think we are, but they’ve already answered that question.  Waiting

The CRU data set has been one of the primary sources for researchers around the globe conducting their own investigations into global warming. The refusal to share the raw data itself is bad enough (Good science depends on letting others test and challenge your theories.), but then to admit you tossed the original data, that only the manipulated data is available and that others will just have to trust that your corrections were appropriate is nothing short of appalling. Without the original, raw, unadjusted data to test against, the CRU data set is worthless and likewise any research based on it

And yet these are the same people who demand we regulate and massively tax the world’s most productive economies to deal with a crisis they claim is proved … by this same data.

The real crisis is when crooked science meets stupid politicians.

RELATED: More on the revealing comments hidden in the CRU’s program code; Hot Air on weird science; Michael Mann, the originator of one of the now-discredited hockey sticks, is now under investigation by his employer, the University of Pennsylvania, in the wake of the CRU revelations. Information on the other debunked hockey stick. Climate Skeptic translates the double-speak in the CRU’s announcement that it had destroyed the raw data. Sister Toldjah wants a show of hands to see who believes the CRU’s excuse.


Climategate’s Perry Mason moment

November 28, 2009

Quote of the day, from Steve Milloy:

First, by admitting that we “are nowhere close” to understanding atmospheric energy flows, the much-vaunted Trenberth has trashed all the climate models on which the gloom-and-doom IPCC forecasts are based. If energy flows in the climate system cannot be accounted for, then they cannot be modeled — and there can be no basis upon which to make predictions of future temperatures.

That’s case closed, right there. But there’s more.

To find out what else there is, and why this is a “Perry Mason moment,” read the whole thing.

After these last few revelations (and you can bet there’s more to come), the “science” of Anthropogenic Global Warming has about as much credibility as a game of three-card monte.

TRANSPARENCY: Don’t take my word (or anyone else’s) for it – search the emails in question for yourself.


A trillion for ObamaCare? Piker!

November 28, 2009

I’ll see your measly one-trillion dollars and raise you five-and-a-half trillion more:

One gimmick makes the new entitlement spending appear smaller by not opening the spigot until late in the official 10-year budget window (2010–2019).  Correcting for that gimmick in the Senate version, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) estimates, “When all this new spending occurs” — i.e., from 2014 through 2023 — “this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period.”

Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance.  When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax.  When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending.  But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending.  That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan.  And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs.  When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4).

Here’s where things get really ugly.  TPMDC’s Brian Beutler calls “the” $2.5-trillion cost estimate a “doozy” of a “hysterical Republican whopper.”  Not only is he incorrect, he doesn’t seem to realize that Gregg and I are correcting for different budget gimmicks; it’s just a coincidence that we happened to reach the same number.

When we correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion.  That’s not a precise estimate.  It’s just far closer to the truth than President Obama and congressional Democrats want the debate to be.

And this yet another example of why the progressives in Congress don’t want anyone to actually read the bills before voting on them: we might actually learn what disasters-in-waiting they really are.

(hat tip: Hot Air)


Good Climategate reporting from the MSM?

November 28, 2009

Yesterday I took a couple of well-deserved potshots at the American media for doing its best to downplay the growing scandal over the ClimateGate emails. Well, in the “to be fair about it” department, CBS posted a very good article at its web site: Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails.

Color me surprised.