The most transparent administration evah strikes again

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Submit a FOIA request to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to release certain agency documents related to the issue of global warming, and what do you get? I simply can’t add anything to this.

Unbelievable.

(Via ST reader Sev)

Cross-posted to Right Wing News, where I am helping guestblog for John Hawkins on Sundays.

Pelosi to wavering House members: Be willing to sacrifice your jobs for healthcare “reform”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Via AP:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue’s massive role in this election year.

Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, Pelosi said in an interview being broadcast Sunday the ABC News program “This Week.”
“We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress,” she said. “We’re here to do the job for the American people.”

It took courage for Congress to pass Social Security and Medicare, which eventually became highly popular, she said, “and many of the same forces that were at work decades ago are at work again against this bill.”

It’s unclear whether Pelosi’s remarks will embolden or chill dozens of moderate House Democrats who face withering criticisms of the health care proposal in visits with constituents and in national polls. Republican lawmaker unanimously oppose the health care proposals, and many GOP strategists believe voters will turn against Democrats in the November elections.

Pelosi, from San Francisco, is more liberal than scores of her Democratic colleagues. But she generally walks a careful line between urging them to back left-of-center policies and giving them a green light to buck party leaders to improve their re-election hopes.

Newsflash, Nance: Most politicos – including you – vote in line a majority of the time the way their constituencies want them to, no matter whether they are considered “moderates” or diehard liberals or conservatives. And this year more than any in recent memory, politicos – moderate and liberal alike – in your party are paying the price for lining up against them and with the left on big ticket items like healthcare “reform” (see the respective elections of Senator Scott Brown, NJ Gov. Chris Christie, and VA Gov. Bob McDonnell. Most polls are pointing to significant Republican gains in November for a reason: Just a little over a year into the HopeNChange administration, people aren’t liking what they’re seeing and are turning to the GOP for solutions.

Pelosi’s comments smack of desperation. Democrats are so hellbent on passing any healthcare “reform” bill that they’re begging their moderates to risk their jobs for it which, in effect, risks the left’s majority in the House? Is the Obama administration so desperate to pin an “accomplishment” on our celebrity President that they would endorse what the House Speaker is asking moderate Dems to do? Bring it on, PelosiCo. Keep putting your moderates between a rock and a hard place on healthcare “reform” and we’ll see what happens in November.

Oh, and BTW, Medicare is bankrupting this country faster than you can say “loser.” It’s a bloated, out of control bureaucratic nightmare that needs the type of reform that you and your party would never accept. Bad comparison.

B. Daniel Blatt adds:

Nancy knows her history about as well as she knows economics. It hardly took courage to pass those bills which were popular even before they passed. And today, there are concerns about the fiscal solvency of both programs.

Is Mrs. Pelosi thus suggesting that the Democrats’ proposed health care overhaul will soon also face financial problems?

Her arrogance–and that of the Democrats who continue to push this–is simply amazing. They claim they know better than the American people what’s good for them. They keep pressing forward on this–as if one more push will break the pattern of public opinion consistently moving against them since the debate began. And the tide will finally turn. Well, now she seems to have given up hope of catching a wave and is now saying that, well, public opinion doesn’t matter because we know what’s best.

Even if their knowledge comes from policies which have never worked in the real world and are similar to those which have not brought the desired results in jurisdictions which have tried them.

Andy McCarthy has a different take:

Consequently, the next six weeks, like the next ten months, are going to be worse than we think. We’re wired to think that everyone plays by the ususal rules of politics — i.e., if the tide starts to change, the side against whom it has turned modifies its positions in order to stay viable in the next election. But what will happen here will be the opposite. You have a party with the numbers to do anything it puts its mind to, led by movement Leftitsts who see their window of opportunity is closing. We seem to expect them to moderate because that’s what everybody in their position does. But they won’t. They will put their heads down and go for as much transformation as they can get, figuring that once they get it, it will never be rolled back. The only question is whether there are enough Democrats who are conventional politicians and who care about being reelected, such that they will deny the leadership the numbers it needs. But I don’t think we should take much heart in this possibility. Those Democrats may well come to think they are going to lose anyway — that’s why so many of them are abandoning ship now. If that’s the case, their incentive will be to vote with the leadership.

At the end of the summit debacle, President Obama put the best face on a bad day by indicating that he intended to push ahead with socialized medicine and face the electoral consequences (“that’s what elections are for,” he concluded). He’s right about that. For Republicans, it won’t be enough to fight this thing, then deride it if Democrats pull it off, and finally coast to a very likely electoral victory in November. The question is: What are you going to do to roll this back? What is your plan to undo this?

Food for thought.

Related:

Fox News: In light of climate scandals, where’s the Goracle been?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Fox News reports on a question a lot of climate skeptics have been asking in light of the various climate scandals that have rocked the agw world to it’s cold, calculating core: Where’s the Goracle?:

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize and an Oscar for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. But in the last three months, as global warming has gone from a scientific near-certitude to the subject of satire, Gore — the public face of global warming — has been silent on the topic.

The former vice president apparently finds it inconvenient even to answer calls to testify before the U.S. Senate. You can call him Al . . . but he won’t call back.

On Tuesday, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe — a prominent skeptic of global warming theory and the Republican leader of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee — issued a request for Gore to come testify on global warming. In an interview with FoxNews.com, Inhofe said he wants Gore to appear because “it will be interesting to ask him on what science he based his movie,” a film the senator considers “science fiction.”

Gore has yet to respond, but that didn’t prevent him from causing a stir at Apple’s shareholder meeting Thursday. According to CNET, Gore was seated in the first row while several stockholders bashed his high-profile views on climate change. One reportedly said Gore “has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted.”

Gore did not reply, and he has not commented on his blog or Twitter feed.

[…]

Since his appearance at the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Gore has been reluctant to talk to the media, making only a handful of public appearances.

On Jan. 16, he spoke at the American Library Association conference at the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center, and he signed copies of his newest book, Our Choice: How We Can Solve the Climate Crisis. On Feb. 22, at the IBM Pulse Conference in Las Vegas, Gore commented on how the environment was a fantastic business opportunity.

“We are in the presence of one of the greatest opportunities in the history of business to become much more efficient and eliminate waste, pollution and losses all at the same time,” he said.

The media, meanwhile, have started to ask why the world’s most famous advocate of all things green remains mute on the growing chorus of opposition.

“The godfather of climate hysteria is in hiding as another of his wild claims unravels — this one about global warming causing seas to swallow us up,” the editors of Investors Business Daily wrote on Tuesday. “We’ve not seen or heard much of the former vice president, Oscar winner and Nobel Prize recipient recently as the case for disastrous man-made climate change collapses.”

While this is all true, it’s not exactly news because the Goracle, like most agw alarmists, consistently refuses to debate any and all climate skeptics who put themselves out there as being willing to take him on in a one on one on the issue of “man-caused climate change.” What is news, however, is that the Goracle – who typically only takes on his critics from safe distances where he won’t be questioned on his claims – is not addressing the various climate scandals at all at any of his public appearances. He’s not saying yay or nay one way or the other on any of it. For a guy who normally isn’t hesitant to brand anyone who criticizes and casts doubt on the “settled science” behind “man-made” climate change, he’s been surprisingly quiet which, ironically, speaks volumes.

Related to all this, could the agw community be turning over a new leaf – for the better?

World weather agencies agreed this week to enhance data-gathering significantly and allow independent scrutiny of raw figures used in assessing climate change amid charges by critics that global warming scientific data were skewed.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) made the concession after an outcry over e-mails revealing that researchers in Britain had suppressed certain data to bolster claims of global warming. Critics also said some of the manipulated data were included in a 2007 U.N. report on the subject.

Britain’s Met Office formally submitted a proposal that scientists around the world undertake the “grand challenge” of measuring land surface temperatures as often as several times a day, and it was approved in principle by about 150 officials at a WMO meeting in Antalya, Turkey.

“This effort will ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all methods are transparent,” the Met Office said, though it added that “any such analysis does not undermine the existing independent datasets that all reflect a warming trend.”

It also said that current measurements were “fundamentally ill-conditioned to answer 21st-century questions, such as how extremes are changing, and therefore what adaptation and mitigation decisions should be taken.”

Prominent agw skeptic Steve McIntyre seems optimistic about the WMO proposal. What do you think? I’m especially interested in hearing what those of you who have been on the front lines of this battle for years have to think about it. Does it represent a positive turning point for the scientific community or is it all just more smoke and mirrors?