Environmentalism for Thee; But Not for Me

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges. Where the really big carbon footprint hits the road.

Environmentalists all.

UPDATE: via Instapundit I guess they think that energy conservation and carbon limits, like taxes, are for the little people.

Call it Carbonhagen.

Lines Cross on Obama’s Job Approval

Pollster.com is an average of all polls. The average of all polls now shows Obama’s disapproval of job performance greater than his approval.

Disapprove of job performance is 48.3%
Approve is 47.8%
It was an event when the approval rating fell below 50%, this is a bigger event.

Rasmussen has disapproval at 52% and approval at 47% in a poll conducted 12/3 to 12/5 of 1500 likely voters. Polls of likely voters (those who voted in previous elections) are more accurate of what will happen in an election than polls of registered voters (whether or not they have a voting history) or of adults (without regard to whether they are even registered to vote).

We all told that polls are just a snapshot in time and don’t necessarily show a trend. But Obama’s polls happen to show a consistent trend: down.

Polar Bears Behaving Badly

polar bear
Now it’s male polar bears killing other male’s cubs that is supposed to be evidence of global warming. Pssst: They are not “resorting to killing cubs because their seal hunting grounds have disapeared.” It’s natural behavior. It’s why female bears are testy. Male polar bears have been killing other male’s cubs to bring the female back into estrus so they can mate with her for about 3 million years. It’s evolutionary competition for perpetuating genes of the killer bear over the other bear. (The bear doesn’t know that, it’s just acting naturally, doing what its progenitors did) It’s about wild nature, which is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” (I heard that phrase before I read Hobbes but I thought it was a law firm.)

Is there anything that ever happens that is not evidence of global warming?

Oliver Twist

…the part of Fagin is played by Larry Summers and the part of Bill Sykes is played by Barack Obama.

Will some fortuitous Oliver chance across the paths of these shady characters before they can fulfill their dreams while destroying the market system that created the wealth that they covet?

Yup. Atlas may have already shrugged.

On the failure of the Obama stimulus here

Check this for the failures of government leading to the Great Depression and the current recession.

When Scientists Act Like Lawyers

The problem with the scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University, and global warming alarmists everywhere, is that they reason like a lawyer working on a case rather than as a scientist developing a new theory based upon observation of natural phenomena.

The scientific method involves observation, collection of data, formulation of a hypothesis, followed by more observation and data collection and testing of the hypothesis in an attempt to establish a viable theory to explain something. Often the original hypothesis will have to be changed several times on its way to becoming a credible theory.

That’s not how lawyers work. A lawyer wants to make his client’s case, whatever it is. It may be a good case or it may be a dog. Even if it’s a dog there will probably be some argument that can be made for it, even though there is a far superior argument against it. There may be some evidence that appears to support the client’s theory of the case although there is more and better evidence that works against it.

The lawyer’s task is to advance the best argument that can be made for this dog of a case, no matter how screwy it may be shown to be by reference to the facts. A skillful lawyer must master the rules of evidence and attempt to use them to exclude all of the evidence that supports all other possible theories, so that only the weak evidence that might allow his client to prevail ever comes before whatever tribunal is going to decide the case.

This sounds like a pernicious practice, and it is. But there will be another lawyer on the other side doing the same thing and long ago in England it was decided that the greatest engine for the discovery of truth, in legal disputes at least, was an adversarial system of two trained legal specialists going head to head, a learned judge acting as referee between them, and an impartial and unbiased jury of ordinary people listening to both sides before deliberating on a verdict for one and against the other.

The scientists at East Anglia practiced their trade exactly like I have described the legal process above except they were all on the same side. On the other side was all of us and for a long time our side had all of its evidence excluded from consideration. Like lawyers, the East Anglia scientists went to great lengths to prevent any of our evidence from ever being heard. They did this by intimidating scientific journals not to publish the research of any scientist who did not swallow hook, line and sinker the global warming flapdoodle they were selling, and by demonizing all dissenters as not qualified, or stupid or evil or all three.

The CRU scientists were better lawyers than scientists. They could look good as lawyers because they had what would be but a dream for a real lawyer, namely a judge that would grant every request to exclude all of the other guy’s evidence. Winning your case is easy when you have that deal.

Another Judge Pleads Guilty to Corruption Charges

Another judge has entered a guilty plea to Federal corruption charges in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania. He is the 20th person to be indicted so far in this Federal probe of corruption in the courts.

Being involved in a lawsuit can be one of the most stressful experiences any of us can have in our lifetime. Think how much worse that can be if the judge who holds power over your property, your life savings, your right to live in peace or even your freedom has sold his decision to the highest bidder.

A favorite joke of mine goes like this: The plaintiff offers the judge $5,000 to decide the case in his favor. The judge replies that the defendant has already paid $10,000 to get the case decided in his favor. Then the judge says, “Why don’t you give me $10,000 and I’ll decide the case on the merits.”

I think that’s a funny joke. Then I am reminded that all good humor must involve some element of truth.

Democrats Determined to Make Cuts In Medicare

Almost every election Democrats have for years relied upon being able to scare senior citizens with charges that Republicans want to cut medicare and leave old people out on the street. You may recall the 1996 Democrat political ad that took a short video of Newt Gingrich talking about the government red tape and bureaucracy in Medicare that Republicans had identified as spending money wastefully and that Medicare could be put on a more solvent footing by getting rid of it.

Newt used some unfortunately not well thought out language to describe what Republicans planned to do about the red tape when he said, “We don’t want to get rid of it all at once, we don’t that would be the smart thing to do politically. But we think its going to die on the vine.”

Democrats took that piece of the video out of context and pasted it into a campaign ad saying that Newt was talking about Medicare when he was actually talking about getting rid of red tape to make Medicare sustainable.

Despite Democrat allegations that seem to surface every election cycle Republicans have never proposed any cuts in Medicare. The Democrats were guilty of projection because the Senate Health Care Bill presently being debated in the Senate proposes $500 Billion in cuts to Medicare.

Recently Chris Dodd and other Democrats have tried to deny that they are planning to cut medicare, but its’ right in the Bill for anyone to see. Today Senator McCain introduced an amendment to the Bill to take out all of the Democrat Medicare cuts. The amendment was defeated 58-42. The only Democrats that voted for it were Ben Nelson of Nebraska and James Webb of Virginia. All Republicans voted for it.

Senior citizens take note.

A Socialist Explains Himself

Thomas Horton explains why he is a socialist at Salon.com in Why I Am A Socialist.

You can read it and see if you’re convinced. I wasn’t. Socialists never tell you the real reason they are socialists, which is pretty simple. An honest socialist I could respect, but they’d have to own up to it. If they did that they’d say something like, “I am not satisfied with what I produce myself and I want my fair share of what other people produce.”

That would be an honest socialist. Alas, there is no such thing.

UPDATE: You may say my pithy statement does not explain why wealthy people often support socialist political policies, usually while denying that they are socialists. I have two responses to that. First, the wealthy who support socialist political policies don’t want to spend their own money on them, they want to finance such policies with other people’s money and they delude themselves into believing that is possible. Second, wealthy people are sometimes intellectuals who dislike the fact that capitalism allows for individual decision making leaving little for intellectuals to control. They don’t like that. They like to control things because, as intellectuals, they think they are the only smart ones and therefor they should be the locus of all social decision making.

So there.

As Bill O’Reilly would say, “Tell me why I’m wrong.” You can do that in the comments.