ClimateGate: Data Fraud is the Method, Statism is the Goal
Posted on December 5 2009 3:00 pm
With ClimateGate broken wide open, you knew it was only a matter of time before Congressâ€™ leading crusader against global-warming alarmism, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), entered the fray.Â Last night on Fox, he and Sean Hannity had an interesting discussion about the scandalâ€¦but it could have been better if Hannity had let his guest make the point he was trying to make.
The Senator pointed out that itâ€™s not just right-wing corporate shills who think ClimateGate is a real problem for the environmental Left, recounted his meetings with skeptical scientists who were being shunned from the discussion, and blasted the White Houseâ€™s insistence on clinging bitterly to bad data.Â Inhofe also said:
Barack Obama â€œis gonna go [to Copenhagen] with two messages that are really pretty scary.Â One is, I think, that heâ€™s gonna announce that the United States is going to reduce by, uh, I think they said 17 % by 2020.Â Now, thatâ€™s not gonna happen, but a lot of people over there in other countries, they think that if a President says it, they donâ€™t know that we have a Congress [â€¦] and the other one is, which Iâ€™m sure youâ€™ve heard, heâ€™s gonna commit $10 billion a year to, uh, developing nations, to help them, to do something about emissions in their countries.â€
Inhofe was going to expand upon Obamaâ€™s second message, but Hannity cut him off, steering the conversation back to the East Anglia scientistsâ€™ misconduct.Â Granted, hosts have the right to guide the course of their show to keep segments on topic, and ClimateGateâ€™s inherent sleaziness is worth repeating, but weâ€™ve heard it all before.Â I, for one, would much rather have heard more about Obamaâ€™s latest policy schemes, about which even Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) warned the President:
â€œâ€¦the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming [conference],â€ but â€œAs you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.”
And as for the rest of the worldâ€™s contribution to reducing global carbon emissions, National Reviewâ€™s Greg Pollowitz reminds us that it depends on what the meaning of the word â€˜cutsâ€™ is:
â€œGovernment sources revealed [India] could curb the carbon emitted relative to the growth of its economy â€” its carbon intensity â€” by 24% by 2020.Â The target would mean emissions would continue to rise as the government aims to lift millions out of poverty, but by less than currently predicted.â€
Again, itâ€™s all well and good to remind the American people of the Leftâ€™s propaganda tacticsâ€”repetition is an important part of getting a message acrossâ€”but we canâ€™t lose sight of why they cook the books: to advance their crackpot policy initiatives and all-encompassing vision of government authority.