BeyondStageOnePolitics.com
“Our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve . . . a budget surplus.” John F. Kennedy

Voice-over

My recent political voice-over demo. See Contact for manager's information.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Nov 25 2009

The Global Warming Debacle

C.M. Phippen

Do those who believe in anthropogenic global warming want us to take them as seriously as they take their own science? If the debate about global warming, uh, climate change, is going to be about truth rather than about selectively choosing the data which validates one’s ideological leanings, then it’s time to fess up and have an open, honest debate.

For years scientists who questioned the popular theories being used to produce politicies which would turn our economy upside down were publicly humiliated and berated, and many claim they were denied research funding as a result of their findings. The questions are mounting regarding the science that has been used to “prove” the political “facts” many would like us to believe. So, before we transform our entire economy based on what could be false premises (at the same time increasing the cost of living of every single American), let’s allow for some rigorous scientific examination.

Information has been released making clear that not only did some scientists attempt to blackball others who disagreed with their climate-change predictions, but they would also seemingly be willing to, in violation of law, hide the data used in making their predictions. It seems that any intelligent individual, believer or not, is at this point forced to ask a few questions. Why is it so important to not allow access to the data? If the research is legitimate, won’t the data bear that out? Is this all truly “settled science,” or has the consensus we keep hearing about been simply based on suppression (or worse) of some of the evidence?

The complaint we heard over and over, for eight years with regard to George W. Bush, was that he only sought out the opinions of those who agreed with him. That is a discussion for another day (one long past), but on the global warming issue there seems to be genuine proof that did occur. Rather than debate those scientists point for point who disagreed, the attempt was made to blackball; if that didn’t work, these leading climate scientists would call it bad science and pretend to ignore it. Sounds a bit like the way Al Gore has handled the intellectual rigors of the very same issue from a political angle.

Let’s have a debate, and let’s have it on the issues at hand, please. In a recent statement by the University of East Anglia, found on their web site, it is noted, “The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.” Notice their focus is the debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider regarding the issue they refuse to debate – climate change itself. Apparently that is because this is settled science? Of course this isn’t political. They say so themselves!

For a political movement intent on fact-checking SNL skits, I would think someone who supports the politically correct global warming hysteria would have the intellectual curiosity to fact-check some of the climate change data. Unfortunately, according to many in the political community that apparently supports sloppy science, that would make you an uneducated fool. Which leads me to yet another question: Just what does rigorous scientific debate entail in this new world? I am not a fool, nor am I uneducated, but I am so very confused!