Political Science

The president’s inaugural address removed any doubt that he and his leftist cohorts who are now the ruling class in America will be pushing aggressively for the entire progressive wish list.

With healthcare and financial reform already in the books, Obama will be particularly aggressive on those leftist policies which he has always wanted to enact but did not pursue in his first term for political reasons.

He has already achieved a $600,000,000,000 tax increase.  Efforts to outlaw more weapons and increase federal gun control laws are in high gear.  Immigration reform – perhaps even with actual changes in the law rather than by executive proclamation this time – will soon hit the legislative docket.  And then there is the issue the president elevated to newfound prominence in his speech – climate change.

Those of us who grew up being taught that science was about facts – that’s why it’s science as opposed to art – have had trouble coming to grips with climate science being reduced to pure politics.

We have for years been witnessing a circular debate over climate change – formerly called global warming until the left discovered that the cataclysmic warming trend about which they had warned us has slowed down or stopped.  Nevertheless, the majority view has been formulated in large part by an academic community dependent on federal grants that essentially require them to serve as an amen chorus on climate change.

But that’s hardly the end of it.  While the environmental extremists continue pushing their political science, they also continue trying to shut down debate by demonizing those who dare to disagree.  Their claim that their climate change agenda is based on what they call settled science is patently false, but they label those who refuse to go along as deniers.  The parallel to those who denied the holocaust is unmistakable and shameful.  But this is also political science…straight out of the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals playbook:

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.

Another defining feature of Alinsky is the permanent campaign.  The president is acting like he is still running for office, and has morphed his successful re-election campaign operation into a grassroots lobbying organization that will press a bold, full-throated leftist agenda.

Most of us are incapable of understanding the breadth of science regarding the environment.  And thus we are unable to evaluate this debate properly – with pure science rather than junk science.

In the absence of such ability, we should do what we do any time we are purchasing goods, services or information about which we know little.  Consider the source, or more specifically the history and track record of that source.

Nothing represents the political mainstream any better than Time Magazine, and as the dueling magazine covers pictured above clearly demonstrate, the same crowd that was warning us of an impending ice age 30 years ago, are now warning us of the opposite.

Though the extremists have tried to argue that any and all dramatic changes in weather (cooling, warming, any natural disaster) can be incorporated into their climate change manifesto, do you trust or attach credibility to sources that have completely reversed their position?  And not just from one conclusion to another, but from one catastrophic conclusion to another.

Indeed, it seems any alarmist clarion call will do for the left, as long as it requires wrenching changes in our way of life, more burdens on the business sector, and of course, as always, more government control.

Even though we have more coal than any nation on earth and rising energy costs, we have already seen the virtual death of the coal industry in the wake of the president’s proud assertion that new EPA regulations will essentially stop any expansion of this industry.

And the left knows full well, and in fact embraces, the staggering costs associated with global efforts to address this climate change, even though they as much as admit that US acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol and other crippling global regulatory schemes will not make any appreciable difference in the temperature of the planet.  But instead of doing the logical thing and rejecting the treaty or its tenets, they respond by stipulating that it will take not just this, but many more such treaties to fix the problem.

That is a truly frightening proposition, because it is based on the essential premise that governments can change the weather.  Think about that.  What kind of arrogance is required to believe, as Obama famously claimed about himself, that politicians can control the rise of the oceans and the fall of the planet?

The victim in all this is legitimate environmentalism.  We should be continuing our largely successful efforts to reduce litter and curb air and water pollution, and striving to reduce energy consumption and develop alternative and clean sources of energy through a free market.  But this legitimate environmental agenda is entirely undermined by the purveyors of an extreme agenda based on political science.

You know what happened to the boy who cried wolf.


  • Rick

    A few issues:

    FIrst, why would it be odd that science has reached better conclusions in the intervening 25 years?

    Second, there is no slowing in the warming trend. you can cherry pick some data to show hiccups in the trend, but over the last several decades it’s an unambiguous warming trend. That’s not even disputed by most conservatives at this point.

    Third, which is the more likely scenario:
    a) Billions of people burning trillions of tons of complex chemical material over several hundred years have made small but significant changes to our atmosphere; or
    b) Tens of thousands of scientists and grad students are engaged in a global conspiracy to defraud their collective governments, betray their own scientific calling, and perpetuate a theory that they know is false.

    And why would you “follow the money” regarding incredibly modestly compensated scientists yet not apply the same standard to outfits like the American Petroleum Institute?

    • MD Russ


      There is no question that we are going through a period of global climate change, versus global warming. However, the question is how much of this change is caused by human activity and how much of it is caused by the cyclical nature of our planet’s atmosphere. When the last ice age ended about 300,000 years ago, there was an ice cap on what is now the United States that was up to one-half a mile in depth. It melted, creating the Chesapeake Bay and other geographically significant terrain features in its path. At the time, the estimated human population of the entire planet was about 5 million people whose carbon footprint consisted of camp fires.

      What human activity created such a dramatic global climate change then and why are we so arrogant to believe that our activity is now creating another dramatic shift?

      There is an agenda of the climate change alarmists: the industrialized and prosperous nations must redistribute wealth and resources to the poorer regions of the world. Famine, drought, and disease in Africa, for example, is not the result of cyclical climate change but caused by the greedy plundering of the planet by modern civilizations. Oh, the guilt! We must pay reparations!

      Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

  • Rick

    Make that 35 years. Sorry for the typo.

  • Mike Barrett

    I find it is not help full to use such labels as liberal or conservative because they mean different things to different people. But listening to the President, my sense is that he is a centrist, a pragmatist, and a progressive, which to me means, a person with an inclination to get ahead of problems, not just react to them.

    The signature items of his campaign, and as reflected in his speeches since, reveal that he wants to get things done, just like he did by completing the work of republicans who insisted upon a health care system built on a base of private enterprise, and implemented by Governor Romney. He wants strong growth based upon investment in education, science, technology, and infrastructure.
    He wants an aggressive energy policy that continues to improve our energy independence without more damage to our health and environment. He wants deficit reductation which reduces expenses, reforms and simplifies the tax code, increases revenue, and modifies entitlements to insure long term viability.
    Now to me, this is an agenda most Americans can and have supported. Time to get aboard.

    • MD Russ


      The American people got aboard four years ago. Where’s the beef?

      -His health care system will not kick in until he completes his second term. Isn’t that a lot like “we have to pass this bill to know what is in it?”

      -His “strong growth” plan outlined in the $787B Stimulus Bill of 2009 did nothing for education, science, or technology. It focused on blue-collar road construction jobs.

      -His aggressive energy policy did not improve our energy independence. It flushed several billions of dollars down the toilet in loan guarantees to companies like Solyndra, SunPower, First Solar, Brightsource, and 19 other companies that have either declared bankruptcy or are faltering on the verge of bankruptcy with no credit sources other than the Federal government.

      -His reforms of the tax code and reduction of expenses consist of raising taxes on both the wealthy and the middle class, leaving unsustainable entitlements programs intact, and cutting discretionary spending only.

      Obama doesn’t want us to get on board–he wants to throw us under the train.

      • Mike Barrett

        Well nice try at obfuscation, but as far as the opinion of the American People, they agree with my view, not yours.

        • MD Russ

          What makes you think that, Mike? Obama’s approval rating, according to the Gallup Poll yesterday, is 50%, down four points from a week ago despite all the hoopla over his second inauguration. Would you like to compare that with the last few presidents who won a second term? Hint: it is the lowest since Gallup started polling in 1935.

          Obama was reelected, not re-anointed.

          • And pretty much the only reason Obama was re-elected is that the GOP lived up to its moniker “the Stupid Party” by nominating someone who was virtually identical to Obama on policy and had less charisma than Bob Dole.

          • We didn’t do that.

  • “Global warming”-cum-“climate change” is an unmitigated fraud designed to put the most essential element of the economy – energy – into the hands of unaccountable oligarchs.

    Google “Climategate” – the basis for all the envirohysteria comes from scientific fraud coordinated by a group of political activists posing as scientists.

    If you want to be armed with facts to refute the Warmists’ nonsense, I highly recommend wattsupwiththat.com

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.