Don’t seem to be disappearing by the hand of man.
I’d almost feel sorry for that idiot Al Gore, if he wasn’t such a sanctimonious hypocritical carbon-belching schmuck.
[Early afternoon update]
As noted in comments, the former vice president has suddenly decided that he had better places to be than Copenhagen.
Following up on yesterday’s star chamber in Congress, Jon Goff points out that when it comes to safety, NASA is comparing apples to eggs when it comes to Constellation versus commercial crew requirements.
India won’t sign any binding carbon reductions. They’d be crazy to, just when they’ve finally thrown off much of the socialism that has held them back for decades, and are finally bringing their people out of poverty, particularly when it’s based on flimsy science, and economic ignorance. The Warm-monger religion demands that they remain in poverty for the good of Gaia, but they’ll stick with their traditional beliefs, and fully bellies.
[Update a couple minutes later]
More from Shikha Dalmia:
The resulting emission cuts won’t even make a dent in global temperatures. India’s per capita energy consumption is 15 times less than America’s and half of China’s—the two biggest polluters. To be sure, President Obama is poised to pledge to cut U.S. carbon emissions 80% below 2005 by 2050 at Copenhagen. But it’s an empty promise because there is little to zero chance that he will be able to get Congress to go along. China too announced plans—modest by all accounts—to curb its emissions. So India will certainly face pressure at the conference to act, despite the fact that bigger polluters won’t.
But as a developing country, India can least afford to give up its right to consume as much energy as is necessary to deliver all Indians a living standard comparable to the one that rich countries take for granted. There is every reason to believe that the new License Raj will damage India’s economy every bit as much as the old one in the preliberalization days, when India’s growth rate remained stuck at around 2%. This would be unfortunate at any time, but especially now, when the West itself is in the middle of a huge rethinking on this issue.
Yup.
It’s about to hit:
I cannot think of any instance where the EPA depended so heavily on non-EPA synthesis reports to justify proposed regulatory action in their almost 39 years of existence.
As a result of this EPA decision, the EPA’s fortunes in regard to regulating GHGs are directly tied to the fate of the IPCC reports.
Let the lawsuits begin.
[Late afternoon update]
Here we go. CEI has petitioned the EPA to suspend its CO2 regulations.
[Bumped]
The Huffington Post is desperately trying to fend off Climaquiddick, but Newbusters isn’t having any of it.
…but not scientists. Some thoughts from John Derbyshire.
Some thoughts on petrodollar Jihad.
…of the virtual newsroom:
Here you have two young conservative journalists, O’Keefe and Giles, possessed of a keen philosophical eye, a knowledge of technology (cameras, microphones videotape, the Internet) and a fat and inviting liberal fish in a barrel known as ACORN. Imagination conjured as to how they will approach their story — they go out and conduct their very-old style journalism investigation. Story in hand, Andrew Breitbart of Breitbart.tv in the Internet division takes the handoff. He sends a virtual memo to talk radio row’s Beck and Hannity. Who in turn are both Fox News stars. Five…four…three…two…one. Bang! Within a virtual instant, the Virtual Newsroom has just blown in the hull of the good ship ACORN, its stunned survivors racing around the deck of a political Titanic as Breitbart, O’Keefe and Giles are powered by the engines of the Virtual Newsroom. The full power of the Virtual Newsroom kicks in. Talk radio shows light up the call screeners screens. The newspaper and magazines kick in, in print and online. The lights are on in the Fox studios as the surging Fox audience gapes at a federally funded organization strategizing on prostitution. And…lights out for ACORN. Or more accurately, considerably damaged and suddenly congressionally unfunded. And the coverage from what’s left of the liberal mainstream media in all this? Next to zero.
… The problem for American progressives today — be they the activists of ACORN, Van Jones, the So We Might See group or others — is that they are unaccustomed to finding themselves on the receiving end of this kind of attention from the journalists, commentators, investigators, talk radio hosts, television stars and authors of the Virtual Newsroom. It is safe to say that whatever else went on in the three stories listed here, the scoundrels at ACORN, Mr. Jones, and the So We Might See-ers were taken aback at the fact they — they! — were suddenly under the Virtual Newsroom microscope for their public activities. Accustomed to velvet-gloved treatment from their progressive buddies in the Old Media, they simply never factored the existence of the Virtual Newsroom into the equation.
Newsflash to progressives. The Virtual News room is here to stay. Not only is it not going away — in spite of whatever shenanigans may be going on behind the closed doors of the FCC — it is gaining in both size and strength.
It may be saving us from the “progressive” drumbeat that has come from the media for decades. You can see why the administration wants to tighten control.
…of Climaquiddick. Thoughts from Ron Bailey.
I still haven’t had time to read it, but Victor Davis Hanson has some thoughts:
Avoiding the V-word. Concluding the war seems to be the theme, as opposed to winning the war. “Breaking the momentum” of the Taliban, unfortunately, is not the same as crushing and humiliating the enemy. “Ending the war successfully” lacks the force of “defeating” the enemy and securing “victory.” Rather than talk for ten minutes in soaring platitudes, we need 20 seconds devoted to the notion that we will win, the Taliban will lose, and Afghanistan will be secured. His emphasis on civilian and political strategies is fine, but those strategies are first predicated on security. If you are surging, then, darn it, tell the American people that we will secure a military victory.
The Democrats remind me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa is Joan of Arc:
“God told you to lead us to what?!”
“Victory!”
“Victory? We’re French, we don’t even have a word for victory.”
We have one, but they seem allergic to it. All the Democrats know how to do with wars is “end” them.
[Update a few minutes later]
There is one good thing about the president’s new Afghanistan policy — Joe Biden is opposed to it, so it has that going for it. Also, I’m not a huge Rick Santorum fan, but he has a good question:
Can anyone give an historical example of a war that was won after one of the warring parties announced when it was going to stop fighting?
If so, it was won by the other side.
[Update a few minutes later]
Five questions about Afghanistan.
[Mid-morning update]
If there was any doubt in Tehran that no serious effort would be made to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, that doubt was markedly diminished, if not extinguished, last night. And the gleam of adventurism in Mr. Putin’s eyes shines brighter today as well.
The dog whistle in last night’s speech alerted a few wolves as well.
It may have been too much of a straddle.
[Update a few minutes later]
Counterinsurgency incoherence.