Walter Russell Mead pronounces the demise of the global warming movement.
The global warming meltdown confirms all the populist suspicions out there about an arrogantly clueless establishment invoking faked ’science’ to impose cockamamie social mandates on the long-suffering American people, backed by a mainstream media that is totally in the tank. Don’t think this won’t have consequences.
The current iteration of the movement may be in its death throes, but the corpse will keep trying to crawl out of its casket over the next few years.
In an interview today with George Stephanopoulos, Obama proved that he still doesn’t get it.
Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.
Get it? It’s all Bush’s fault. The guy’s been gone for a year, and the rabble is still mad at him, and took it out on Coakley. Yeah, that makes sense.
Personally, I hope Obama keeps living in his little fantasy world, thinking that all the country’s problems belong to his predecessor, and he’s just the clean-up guy struggling against an overwhelming mess. The more he talks like this, the greater the Dems will suffer come Nov. 2.
UPDATE: Also from the interview:
We lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values.
Uh, B. O., that’s the problem. The American people don’t need or want someone to tell them “what their core values are.” They already know that. They want somebody to listen to them explain those values. The sneering, dismissive treatment of the tea parties over the last year is precisely what has gotten the Dems in so much hot water.
It must have really frosted the editors at the Boston Globe to post this map of the results of today’s senatorial election. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) — wow, that looks awesome.
Follow this link to the actual web page to see the county-by-county mouse-over results.
This video has made the rounds on the internet. Awesome. Expect more of this sort of thing between now and November 2.
Regular readers of this blog know that many of my posts on the global warming controversy end with this prediction: “The current approach to the global warming issue will someday be taught in universities as a good example of how not to do science.”
Perhaps we have reached that point much sooner than I expected. Andrew Revkin (NYT) links to a published essay by Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech, that directly addresses young climate scientists, encouraging them to learn a lesson from the Climategate scandal that is still unfolding.
If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc.
From the comments to Revkin’s post:
The sad thing is that scientists are supposed to be skeptics. The minute someone becomes convinced that they know it all is the minute they make the transition from scientist to ideologue. To question, to doubt, to double-check, to scrutinize: this is what it is to be a scientist. A scientist should accept someone else’s statement as the unvarnished truth simply out of respect for them or their position. And a scientist should never ridicule someone for expressing doubts about the accuracy of the data, the methodology for collecting them, the methodology for interpreting them, and the conclusions drawn.
True science has never been the issue in this controversy. Practiced with integrity and openness, science is humanity’s friend. It is when science becomes tainted with political ideology that it becomes corrupted and harmful.
Dan Gerstein takes a hard look at Obama’s inner circle in the West Wing and sees a campaign organization, not a governance council. The stifling political mindset is setting up the Chief for failure.
The president’s top advisers are not just overly political, they are almost totally political. Indeed, this West Wing is stacked with “hacks”–campaign professionals who are acculturated to think, act and win in the hothouse environments of elections, not to govern a bitterly divided country in extremely difficult times.
Of course, this is precisely the opposite of what we were promised last year.
Tristan Yates documents ACORN’s history of shaking down banks for millions, with the help of The Community Reinvestment Act.
ACORN perfected this “pay for protection” business model in the 1990s. And it is a business. While some of the ACORN organizations are non-profit, others are not, which means that by working together they can get the best of all worlds: political actions, union-style organization, tax-exempt status, privacy, and profit.
And the politicians who enabled this racket get gobs of votes. What’s not to like about it?