Filed under: Capitalism, Freedom, History, Politics | Tags: Despotism, Liberty, Tyranny
I frequently recommend the conversations that Peter Robinson has with various guests on the Hoover Institution’s “Uncommon Knowledge.” Paul A. Rahe (pronounced Ray) is Professor of History and Political Science at Hillsdale College, and holds the Charles O. Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in the Western Heritage.
Professor Rahe’s scholarly career has been focused on studying the origins and evolution of self-government within the West.
In the first chapter of five, Professor Rahe defends his position that President Obama’s health-care proposals “presuppose the administrative state’s assuming a power over our lives that is nothing less than tyrannical.”
In the second chapter, he explains the nanny state. There is a nanny in all of us, he says, but it’s hard to explain why anyone would choose life under a nanny.
In the subsequent segments, Professor Rahe ranges through Tocqueville, soft despotism and its roots in America, and discusses the inevitably of the all-encompassing welfare state. And then takes up the question of whether we can recover our liberty.
Each segment is only about 7 minutes long, not much time even in a busy day; but if you are like me, you will find the conversation so fascinating that you can’t stop.
Iran announces huge nuclear expansion:
Iran’s Government today announced plans to build ten new uranium enrichment plants and said work would start within two months.
Each site will be the size of the existing Natanz plant with the aim of producing between 250-300 tonnes of uranium a year. [read more]
More of the “change” conservatives tried to warn people that Obama would bring.
Filed under: Law, National Security, Politics, Terrorism | Tags: Civilian Trial, Islamic Terrorism, Military Commissions
But that was then and this is now. Do they not understand the dangers and the consequences, or do they just not care?
Filed under: Health Care, Politics, Progressivism, Taxes | Tags: Democrat Demagogues, Liberal lies, Obama
At National Review Online, Ramesh Ponnuru commented a few days ago in the Corner:
In the primaries, Obama distinguished himself from Clinton on health care by opposing an individual mandate. In the general election, he distinguished himself from McCain by opposing taxes on health benefits. So now he is trying to pass bills with both an individual mandate and taxes on health benefits—and his supporters are saying that Congress should go along because he won the election.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Entertainment, Humor, Politics | Tags: Family, Frasier, Thanksgiving
(h/t: Kathryn Jean Lopez)
Filed under: Energy, Environment, Freedom, Science/Technology | Tags: Climate Gate, Meteorology, Roy Spencer PhD
Dr. Roy Spencer is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is also a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. (Try getting all that on a business card). They supply the temperatures that we can count on. He has testified before Congress a number of times, and he is the author of Climate Confusion , a perfectly splendid book that we recommend in the sidebar.
In the book, Dr. Spencer explains in simple terms just how the climate system works and what we know about it and what we don’t know. No wild claims, a mild voice for a climate skeptic, that much denigrated type of individual, quite a few cartoons, and only a couple of simple graphs — the kind devised for laymen. It is a good read, and illuminating in the nicest way.
Dr. Spencer has a website where he both talks about the latest global temperature anomaly, but also explains “Global Warming 101.” He has a great sense of humor as well, as a visit to The Eco Enquirer will show.
Here are a few of his comments on the elitist roots of global warming alarmism:
The hundreds of e-mails being made public after someone hacked into Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system offer a revealing peek inside the IPCC machine. It will take some time before we know whether any illegal activity has been uncovered (e.g. hiding or destruction of data to avoid Freedom of Information Act inquiries).
Even mainstream journalists, who are usually on board with the latest environmental craze, have commented on this blatant display of hypocrisy. It seems like those participating – possibly the best example being Al Gore — are not even aware of how it looks to the rest of us. (…)
A few of the CRU e-mails suggest that manipulation of climate data in order to reduce the signature of natural climate variations, and to exaggerate the supposed evidence for manmade climate change, is OK with these folks. Apparently, the ends justify the means. (…)
Hopefully, the scientist is more interested in discovering how nature really works, rather than twisting the data to support some other agenda. It took me years to develop the discipline to question every research result I got. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and very difficult to be right.
Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming. Can the IPCC scientists admit the same thing?
Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works. The ‘data spin’ is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
You can find the whole essay here, as well as the guide to Global Warming 101.
Filed under: Economy, Energy, Environment, Taxes | Tags: ClimateGate, Computer Climate Models, Religion of Global Warming
Attaching the “gate” syllable to any hint of scandal, is a quick but trite way to say “pay attention, this is a scandal.” ClimateGate is a big one, but easily misunderstood. Climate “skeptics” do not claim that there has been no global warming. They quite agree that over the 20th century the earth warmed by around one degree.
The earth is always warming and cooling. The argument exists entirely about computer climate models that project a drastic warming in the future. Skeptics point out that the earth has been cooling since 2003, as the sun has gone quiet with almost no sunspots and there has been no warming at all for at least ten years. Climate models are unreliable, unable to predict today’s climate.
Skeptical scientists point out that increases in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere follow increases in temperature, and therefore cannot be the cause of global warming. As the earth has cooled , the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to climb. But not to worry, CO2 is not a pollutant, only a trace gas. The much-feared “greenhouse gases” are composed largely of water vapor — clouds, fog, mist.
Scientists are human, and have all the flaws that the rest of us have. Greed, covetousness, laziness, ambition and a tendency to make mistakes. Some of the best hypotheses just don’t prove out. The emails and documents of ClimateGate indicate a fair amount of that, but some fraud and attempts to silence those who disagree as well. The big deal is what governments and the media have done with the misinformation.
The quantity of things on which governments have rushed to spend trillions to prevent climate change, banish carbon dioxide, prevent dangerous rise of the seas, ban the drilling for carbon-based fossil fuels, tax the economy into poverty with cap-and-trade laws — is almost endless. The list goes on and on. I saw a photo yesterday of a Dutch ship spraying sand which the tide would carry in to reinforce the dikes that protect the Netherlands against the rise of the seas predicted by computer climate models. This is costing billions, and the seas won’t rise.
Europe is far deeper into the religion of global warming than we are, but governments believe far more than their people do. It is hard to tell if government bureaucracies actually believe that climate change is a real problem, or if they just believe in using a ‘crisis’ to gain power and increase taxes. I think it is safe to assume that our representatives do not go home at night, after a hard day of failing to read the legislation they vote for, to study up on the science of climate change.
Carol Browner, socialist climate czar, said that “the science is settled.” Nothing to see here — just move along. She added that she would stick with the “consensus” of the 2,500 (what?) climate scientists on the IPCC. (Ms. Browner, the UN’s IPCC states clearly on their website that they do not do original science). And there is no “consensus” in science. See Scientific Method.
Well, there you have it. Obama will go to Copenhagen and promise to reduce CO2, which will only happen if the economy falters further. The EPA and the Department of Energy will spend vast sums encouraging solar energy, which will produce small amounts of energy only when the sun shines. They will spend even more on wind energy, which will continue to produce only a miniscule amount of our energy needs when heavily subsidized. Nothing will change. The “science is settled,” and “consensus” rules.