It may well be that the long winter of 2007-2008 came just in time to avert the disaster that would ensue if the general public ever took environmental hysteria seriously.
What does ‘the general public’ think? From the unanimity of the media (not excluding this week’s ‘green’ Time issue) one might conclude that there is no disagreement over the truth of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). While many people during this winter may joke, “Another twelve inches of global warming fell this morning,” most of the public (which does not, as a whole, frequent right-wing blogs) has no likelihood of even hearing a contrary word.
The situation is much worse, because all of the presidential candidates are in lockstep with the AGW alarmists, and all favor draconian anti-’carbon’ measures, like carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, and ‘CO2 sequestration’ that if implemented would cripple our economy for decades.
I cannot put this too strongly:
Someone has to get to Senator McCain and (a) disabuse him of the ‘truth’ of AGW; (b) urge him get out in front of the issue by challenging the left’s domination of energy policy for the past 40 years (no drilling, no refineries, no nuclear power, now limits on coal-fired electric plants and ‘sequestration’ folly).
The AGW hypothesis has been proven false: no warming for the past decade; ocean cooling for the past five years; and the engine of the AGW models (positive feedback from water vapor) has been shown to work in reverse (negative feedback from clouds); and of course we had a record cold winter in the northern hemisphere.
The McCain campaign should craft a new Energy for American Growth policy: drill in ANWR and offshore; build fast-breeder nuclear plants (no waste); promote clean-coal technology and coal use (we are the Saudi Arabia of coal); and no more talk of anti-carbon measures.
The ‘general public’ knows in its heart that the AGW hysteria is a scam and a hoax, and it will get behind the candidate who has the courage to stand up to the leftist enviro-whackos and Algorites and say so.
Does McCain have the smarts, and the courage, to do it?
The ‘general public’ knows in its heart that the AGW hysteria is a scam and a hoax,
/Mr Lynn
I am afraid that you might be giving the “general public” a benefit of the doubt that they don’t deserve. I hope that I am wrong in this assessment, but I hear people discussing this and am amazed at the amount of belief in the man made global warming/the United States is the biggest polluter mentality.
As I have previously noted on the last “endless winter” thread, that is why I live in Florida! Today will be about 82 and as usual, living so close to the gulf coast, there will be a light sea-breeze. You might want to consider taking a little vacation in Florida John.
I hope that I am wrong in this assessment, but I hear people discussing this and am amazed at the amount of belief in the man made global warming/the United States is the biggest polluter mentality.
As I have previously noted on the last “endless winter” thread, that is why I live in Florida! Today will be about 82 and as usual, living so close to the gulf coast, there will be a light sea-breeze. You might want to consider taking a little vacation in Florida John.
Groan. SusanGo, I promised myself I wouldn’t read any posts by you this weekend.
I’m with you on doubts about the general public and this issue. I’ve talked to too many people who are sure that hysterical environmentalists are correct on this one and are ready to accept almost any “solution” politicians propose. In this case, Chicken Little isn’t crying, “The sky is falling!” Instead, he’s running around crying, “Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is rising.”
In a way this is a “crisis” just made for politicians willing to exploit it. Ironically, because we have not had another 9/11-like attack, people have the luxury of obsessing about this.
. . . I’m with you on doubts about the general public and this issue. I’ve talked to too many people who are sure that hysterical environmentalists are correct on this one and are ready to accept almost any “solution” politicians propose. In this case, Chicken Little isn’t crying, “The sky is falling!” Instead, he’s running around crying, “Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is rising.”
I started out my post above by questioning John’s assumption about the skepticism of the general public. My point, though, was that this grudging acceptance of AGW is based on the continual flood of one-sided coverage: TV shows, magazine covers, newspaper articles, school programs, Algore’s movie, etc., etc.
I do suspect, however, that there is considerable underlying doubt, especially after the brutal winter have the country has been through: hence the jokes about “12 more inches of global warming,” and “we sure could use some of that there global warming here!”
If some prominent people, especially the Republican presidential candidate, had the gumption to stand up and shout, “The Global-Warming Emperor is wearing no clothes!” I’ll bet you’ll see a pretty quick turnaround in public opinion.
And what if said presidential candidate were also to say this: “We’re not going to put the brakes on the American economy by kowtowing to a false theory. We’re going to make energy cheap and plentiful in order to fuel American growth for the 21st century. We’re going to dig more coal, and drill for more oil, and build nuclear plants, because these are not the problem; the problem is pretending they are bad for us, and bad for the environment, just to tax and control you more. So I’m proposing the Energy for American Growth initiative, and the day after I take the Oath, it’ll be before Congress”
What then? I’ll bet the American people will rally to this positive message: “No more head in the sand! The sky is NOT falling; we don’t have to turn the lights out. It’s going to be a bright morning again in America!”
Full disclosure: I am not now and have never been an advisor to a political campaign--and the one time I’ve offered advice, I was ignored.
I think a political campaign where one actually wants to win is not a good place to try to educate. We shall see but I think Obama’s response to the Rev. Wright controversy by giving a speech to “educate” us about race was a mistake. If you want to run campaign as an educational tool to raise a single issue ala Forbes and the flat tax, that’s another thing.
McCain is stuck dealing with appealing to public perception as it is. Education is a job for someone like Newt Gingrich.
I agree with you that there are a lot of people who have doubts about anthropogenic global warming. Considering how one-sided the propaganda is on this is, it’s amazing that any doubters remain. However there are many people who believe in AGW and why alienate them when you are trying to win an office.
One ominous sign is that many people who say they are concerned about anthropogenic global warming are doing very little voluntarily to change their lifestyles. If they really believed it they all would be living as Ed Begley says he does. When they don’t voluntarily change, it usually means that they are looking for feel-good legislation that will mostly affect all the rest of us. Ouch.
I think a political campaign where one actually wants to win is not a good place to try to educate . . . .
It may not take much education. While some people are predisposed to fear and anxiety about the future, most Americans are not. John McCain needs a galvanizing message. At the present he is glumly accepting the Democrats’ mantra of “people are hurting,” and “these are difficult times.”
He’s talking about the economy, but the economy, energy, and drastic measures to counter ‘climate change’ are all linked. “American Energy for American Growth” will turn this dour message on its head. It will galvanize the conservative base, which is worried sick about McCain’s evident caving in to the doom and gloom crowd. And it will encourage everyone else, except the chronic leftwing naysayers.
This is McCain’s chance to jump out in front with a positive, life-affirming, pro-growth, pro-American energy message.
>>Education is a job for someone like Newt Gingrich. . . . they are looking for feel-good legislation that will mostly affect all the rest of us.(Evon)
Someone also has to get to Newt Gingrich. Have you seen his ads with Nancy Pelosi? He’s drinking the kool-aid, too.
But no one is getting to anyone. Gingrich has appeared on Sean Hannity and gone blissfully unchallenged. That doesn’t surprise me too much (I think Hannity’s a lightweight), but Newt even uttered something about carbon caps to Rush Limbaugh . . . unchallenged. I haven’t had a chance to listen to Rush in a while. Any update on that?
Evon, you’ve given me an idea for a class-action lawsuit. AGW laws will disproportionately hit people like me. How about “Cameron’s Law”? I’ll see how much carbon Cameron Diaz is burning and how little the related taxes affect the level of luxury in which she lives. Then I’ll point out how I can’t afford to buy a fricking set of matching towels because of my tax burden. I’ve picked Cameron Diaz because of that idiotic show “Trippin’,” although I’m just as bitter about other celebrity lecturers.
I forgot about those Pelosi-Gingrich ads. Has the world gone nuts?
Of course, if I hadn’t just been on a kick reading about the Ice Age, I might have been taken in also. Well, probably not--I also was reading a lot of conservative blogs.
I’m not expecting a lot out of John McCain. He wants to be President and is listening to his advisers. If he gets elected, we Conservatives will have to flood the White House with letters and emails practically every time an issue comes up.
If Hillary gets elected, probably nothing will help. I once wrote a letter to President Clinton opposing something and got a letter back thanking me for my support of his position!
. . .McCain is stuck dealing with appealing to public perception as it is. Education is a job for someone like Newt Gingrich.
As Miss O. points out, Newt is a lost cause. That ad with Pelosi was simply appalling: “We have to deal with climate change.” Newt is consumed with pretending he’s a technocrat, so will agree with practically anyone. His ideas about medical care are absurd, too.
But surely someone on this board knows people in the McCain campaign organization. And surely some of them can talk some sense into McCain’s obstinate head.
. . .McCain is stuck dealing with appealing to public perception as it is. Education is a job for someone like Newt Gingrich.
As Miss O. points out, Newt is a lost cause. That ad with Pelosi was simply appalling: “We have to deal with climate change.” Newt is consumed with pretending he’s a technocrat, so will agree with practically anyone. His ideas about medical care are absurd, too.
But surely someone on this board knows people in the McCain campaign organization. And surely some of them can talk some sense into McCain’s obstinate head.
/Mr Lynn
American Thinker did a great job of calling Gingrich to the carpet this week:
<snip>
Which leads to the primary quandary created by the highly regarded conservative’s very presence in such an ad—it broadcasts an acceptance that the actions of man have an impact on climate—a theory never properly tested, much less proven. Moreover, Newt’s suggestion that climate change is addressable in any manner other than adaptive preparation for its natural inevitability undermines the rational demand for empirical-evidence-before-action while supporting the alarmists’ “debate is over” lie. How could the savvy political historian fail to foresee the tactical advantages his attendance would hand the loony Left?
And yet, his timing was actually worse than his reasoning.
Why Now, When the Alarm Bell Grows Faint?
For starters, the “settled science” canard is quickly coming apart at the seams
<snip>
After stating that he doesn’t think there’s conclusive proof of global warming, much less any anthropogenic contribution - a sharp departure from his converse words barely a year old—Newt moves the discussion to conservation and energy policy: [emphasis added]
“There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that’s a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can’t have a slogan of ‘Just yell no!’
I have a different view. I think it’s important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we’re going to get the former. That’s why I took part in the ad.”
Sorry, but that simply can’t hold warming-ocean water. The Newt sitting beside Nancy didn’t say that our country must take action to address a cleaner environment for our children and grandchildren. Nor did he say anything about energy policy—surely no one would deny the benefits of energy independence. No—he stared right into the camera and clearly stated that action must be taken to address climate change.
<snip>
Have you seen it? Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi on TV to demand federal sponsorship of new forms of “clean” energy to combat what Gingrich calls, during the ad, “climate change.” Notice, when you view the ad that Newt does not use the words “global warming.” Does this mean that Gingrich will claim, at a later date, that his effort was actually some kind of clever PR ploy to snatch the issue away from the left?
Reality check for Speaker Gingrich: President Bush and Carl Rove have already tried it ... and failed.
<snip>
Rush Limbaugh has pointed out that the problem with the Bush and Gingrich approach (an approach shared by John McCain) is that political leaders on the right have accepted the premises of the global warming argument and then have tried to mollify or modify the conclusion drawn from those premises.
<snip>
I laughed when I saw Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson sitting on the couch together talking about climate change, but when I saw Newt and Pelosi I about blew chow!!
Where are the electable honest conservatives in government? Where is the common sense in government? What are the conservative think-tanks producing? Are there any?
I’m an uneducated working stiff, but consider myself informed when compared to the average American Im in touch with every day. That’s scary! Politicians dont give the American public enough credit and conservatives that I consider the educated up-scale give them too much credit.
Why? Because I feel that it is the educated, upwardly mobile conservative, not politicians, that have the greatest opportunity to remain grounded in principle while working to shine a light on truth and educate the complacent, too busy to pay attention, average American.
I am just shy of ignorant because I am fortunate enough to have been partialy disabled last year and had time to open my eyes a bit. I came across Power Line and have learned a great deal here. I appreciate it. But, my guess is that 90% of my fellows are either clueless, or they depend on the MSM for ALL of their info… which is basically the same thing.
That isnt going to change by playing the game that is at present being defined by the left.
Bush refused to stoop and refused to fight. McLame has been playing the lefts game and will continue to do so. Yet they are painted as being of the same cloth by the Dims and the MSM.
As far as I’m concerned, conservative republicans and liberal democrats are both responsible for running this country into the ground. And at least the liberals have the balls to go out and fight for their beliefs no matter how misguided they are.
Ive given in to the idea that McLame needs to loose even if that means an Obama president. Unfortunately, it’s gonna take having nothing to protect, before a true and honest, principled conservative will stand up and say it like it is. How sad. I believe the American public is more than ready to get behind a down to earth common sense leader.
I had hoped Fred Thompson would be that voice, but it was wishful thinking I guess.
