“Saturated fat does not cause heart disease”—or so concluded a big study published in March in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. This is the lead line from “The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease” from the the May 16th edition of the Wall Street Journal. The article then goes on to discuss the faulty research that generated this ‘link’ between saturated fats and heart disease. And, the unhealthy unintended consequences of ill-health and obesity over the last 50 years. Unintended consequences pushed by a bandwagon of food and agriculture business interests, medical organizations and, of course, the government.
The latest of which led to Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity drive and her latest school lunch requirements. Requirement so execrable, that most of these tax-payer funded lunches are landing in the garbage cans of our nations school lunchrooms. So execrable, that school districts are completely bailing out of the school lunch program and passing on the federal funds that go with it. But what is foregone in terms of federal funding is vastly overwhelmed by the buckets of federal dollars that, over the last 50 years, have gone into ‘fighting’ this crisis. And, even more billions, in the form of Medicare and Medicaid dollars fighting such problems as diabetes and obesity that may be the very consequences of substitution of saturated fats for unsaturated vegetable fats.
Pseudoscience, faulty science, science by consensus. And, the wreckage of unintended consequences. How could all this happen? It can and it has been happening repeatedly for at least the last 100 years.A century ago, Eugenics was all the rage. Somehow we were going to save the human race from itself by breeding superior humans and curtailing the breeding of ‘unfit’ humans. No one could really define what such were–I guess it was what pornography was to Justice Potter Stewart, “I know it when I see it.” That subjectivity translated into support by the likes of Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, funding by the like of the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, and the public support of a who raft of prominent artist and the like of the early 20th century. In had practical consequences such as forced sterilizations–in the good ole’ USA. And, all of that happened before Hitler stepped up to the plate.
In the end, did it really do anything in improve the human race. Between Stalin, Mao and Hitler, some 100 hundred million lives were snuffed out. 100 hundred million ‘undesirables’ eliminated from the gene pool. Pretty rigorous testing of the hypothesis. For that, we have, at least in Germany and Russia, demographic disasters with birth rates so low that their respective populations are imploding. For whatever they have in ‘superior’ breeding stock, they may very well be not around in a generation or two.
Then, we go on to man-made global warming. Again in disarray. In disarray because they’ve been caught massaging the data to fit the narrative of their foundation and governmental patrons. We have the Climate-gate of 2009 with the ‘hide the decline’ emails hacked from East Anglia. We further have the news that East Anglia University, one of the three major repositories of temperature data isn’t. Apparently, the raw data was discard for ‘enhanced’ data.
Then, we have Mann’s infamous ‘hockey stick’ debunked. But, not before it centered in the UN’s IPCC’s climate report.
Finally, we have skeptical and opposing views, by otherwise bona fide scientists being purposely kept out of allegedly ‘peer reviewed’ scientific journals. Moreover, other scientist have been hounded out of their institutions for expressing their objections and skepticism.
But, despite this billions of tax dollars continued to be wasted to prop up this pseudoscience. Solyndra, bankrupt at the cost of half a billion dollars. With Solyndra, scores of other bankruptcies in battery production and electric car production. Then, thanks to the CAFE standards, we bear the cost of increasingly expensive cars and trucks. Expensive to design, build, buy and maintain. Cars that are more dangerous because they are lighter to meet these standards. Lighter cars will have less structural rigidity.
Incandescent light bulbs replaced by governmental fiat with compact fluorescent bulbs ladened with mercury. It will be decades before we finish paying for these regulations. Regulations that are increasingly appearing to be crony capitalism and rent seeking.
This all leads to the common denominator that is governmental participation. There are plenty of idiotic ideas out there; ideas that if left alone will die their very deserved death. Until the 800 pound gorilla of governmental money and fiat enters the picture to supercharge a bad idea into bad public policy. Bad policy based on half cooked ideas. Half cooked ideas that happen to serve someone’s agenda.
The other common denominator is the fact that too many scientists are willing to sell scientific integrity on the altar of lucre.
So, lets make the internet really work for us. Since most research is at the behest of a governmental grant, public money places that research into the public domain. It time to create the software and the requirements to place all the research data, especially the raw data, on the internet to be accessible to anyone. We’ve essentially already done that with medical data (the NSA knows) with the push for electronic medical records.
And, its necessary, since science has taken a big credibility hit. Climategate has more than shown that scientists are most human, subject to the pressures of money, group acceptance and celebrity. Fine, if that’s the case, then at least make the data behind ‘scientific’ assertions available to allow even some rube in the middle of fly-over country like Wyoming the opportunity to verify the truth. Further, destruction of research data should be regarded as destroying government property and prosecuted as such.
Finally, someone in the world of science, in the fraternity of those that call themselves ‘scientists,’ need to realize that sacrificing scientific integrity at the feet of governmental funding has cost science it’s badly needed credibility. You don’t need a degree to know that scientific method requires experimental results to fit reality. The Copernican theory of the earth orbiting the sun was based on hard data and a majority vote. Fundamentally, I believe huge swaths of the public will no longer take ‘science’ at face value; the white coat is no longer trademark of integrity.
Last winter flies in the face of warming alarmism. So, pardon the skepticism. Computer models will only do what your underlying assumptions will tell it to do; so get your noses out from behind you computer screens and shovel the snow like I did repeatedly last winter.
And, would McDonald’s please bring back french fries fried in beef tallow.
I think grape was the flavor served by Jim Jones.
The analogy is apt bacasue any veneer of science on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGM) has been stripped away by the fraud scandal over massaged data and cooked books at East Anglia’s CRU. It was further heightened by the fact that the raw data of a compilation of 150 years of climate data was discarded with only the ‘enhanced’ data, derived from this raw data, now remaining.
So, as the jets of the worlds leaders, prime ministers, presidents, strongmen and potentates darken the skies over Copenhagen next week, we find we have a meeting that will discuss all sorts of new extra-national governmental bodies mandating economy and job killing mandates. The convenient excuse of global warming, now ‘climate change’ since the earth has been cooling for the last ten years, is now gone. Gone because any basis in scientific research, by the admission of some of the ‘scientists’ at CRU, have been cooked. Gone because the raw data to support this bogus research has long since been placed in the dumpster behind the CRU.
By the way, notice, despite the fact that ‘climate change’ is a tacit acknowledgment that the earth has been cooling, not warming, the proposed solution remains unchanged; the regulation of carbon dioxide. A good liar needs a good memory.
And, another aside. I read that when then vice-President Al Gore flew to Kyoto in Air Force One, he burned up some 69,000 gallons of gas. Moreover, every time Air Force One flies the President or vice-President, another two or three Air Force cargo planes accompany Air Force One to carry extra security gear and personnel, the presidential limo, other security vehicles and, of course, the TelePrompter. Carbon footprint anyone?
So, we come to a utterly pointless meeting, to discuss an alleged environmental problem, that has no basis in fact. Those facts are now moldering in some anonymous landfill. So, we now have to believe made up facts based on our trust of ‘scientists’ who destroyed data and fabricated research. Take it on faith. We go from the realm of science to religion. Faith to drink the UN Cool-Aid and spend trillions of dollars for a problem that doesn’t exist.
First, you don’t throw out raw data. And, the excuse that there wasn’t room when moving the CRU from one building to another simply doesn’t hold water. Universities have vast libraries to archive millions of books and other matter. For heaven’s sake, my alma mater, Northwestern University, had room to hold a comic book library. Seriously, if the space problem was so bad, you could have rented a space in some local U-Store-It facility near the campus. Yet, somehow, 150 years worth of climate data, acquired at the cost of billions of dollars–tax dollars I might add–was just thrown out. Real scientists do not throw out raw data. Period.
Something else is going on. I think the real Cool-Aid is the fact that this whole crisis was ginned up to create an excuse to create a regime of further taxation and governmental control. Carbon dioxide is the perfect vehicle for the ultimate VAT tax. Tax and regulate our breath.
Moreover, the fix was in even a decade or more ago. This massaging and destruction of data was done by climate experts who knew the weaknesses of their assertions. These people knew and had to be prepared to explain away periodic warming and cooling periods for the last two millennia; the Roman and Medieval warming. The cooling that started in 400 A.D. (and coincided with the fall of Rome and the ushering in of the dark ages) and the Little Ice Age that just ended in the 1850’s. They had to anticipate the fact that these warmings and coolings would not have the convenient explanations of the industrial revolution and the internal combustion engine. In order to nail down carbon dioxide as the culprit, these ‘researchers’ had to conjure up data that downplayed or ignored two millennia of warming and cooling. And, simultaneously play up this latest warming as particularly exceptional. The ‘hockey stick’ graph is the most egregious example of this systematic fraud.
The whole field of climate research is suspect. None of its researchers any longer deserve a presumption of innocence or the benefit of the doubt. Every piece of research needs to be carefully re-inspected. The stuff out of East Anglia’s CRU is categorically useless. Without the raw data and the clear dishonesty of its key researchers these is no way you can go through the archives of ‘enhanced’ data and back track to the raw data. How can you? How can you know how each data point was massaged? Did one data point have some value added to it? Another, some value subtracted? Perhaps yet another data point was divided by the square root of the sum of Raquel Welch’s vital measurements from her 1967 movie One Million Years B.C.
And, since similar climate data sets at NASA and NOAA are under the care of the same cabal of climate groupies, this data and research is suspect as well. Hopefully, the raw data is preserved and not being cared for by your local Browning-Ferris guys. If this data has been destroyed, I hope some enterprising DA will be asking our ‘scientists,’ under oath, before grand juries, pointed questions as to how it came to pass that government property was systematically destroyed.
Powerline brings up a good point that the most damning e-mail from the hacked East Anglia climate files was written in 1999. But, this no where near exonerates the pack of rogues of who have been pushing the anthropogenic global warming (AGM) fraud.
The authors of these e-mail, as the putative experts in the field of global climate changes would have had the most detailed knowledge of the weaknesses of their AGM arguments. They, for example would have known about the Roman warming (about 300 BC to 400 AD) and the Medieval warming (about 900 AD to 1300 AD) periods. They would have also know about the bad effects of the global cooling following those warming periods. Little events, like, the fall of Rome and the ushering in the dark ages; literally and figuratively. Or, with the onset of the little ice age, in 1300, the black plague.
Could it be, that maybe the books were being cooked, even back in 1999, because these researchers needed to make this latest bout of global warming look really bad? Did they need a little extra to explain away the fact that the internal combustion engine wasn’t around for the Roman or Medieval warmings?
We know from the asides and the chatter that these ‘scientists’ were engaged in a political agenda. They’re entitled to their opinions, political and otherwise. But, the tenor of these e-mails demonstrate that these guys didn’t check their personal opinions at the door when they punched the clock going to work at East Anglia.
And, if they did have an agenda, what was it? Were they out to ride the hobby horse of AGM with the goal of pinning the blame on carbon dioxide? Was the goal of making carbon dioxide the ‘fall guy’ the creation of rationalizations to further agendas of global governance in the name of cutting green house gas emissions? Or, to create a case for the regulatory monstrosity that is the cap and trade bill voted out of the House earlier this year? Or, an excuse to create a economy and job killing tax regime that is integral to this House bill?
Did these researchers know that there were serious shortcomings to their AGM theories that would eventually see the light of day? Did they, even in 1999, have to manufacture data to create air tight case that there is global warming, show that it was worse than any other such on record and then create the inference that carbon dioxide is the culprit to segue into the the above agendas?
Okay. This makes me a right-wing conspiracy nut-job. But, the raw data that these ‘researchers’ and ‘scientists’ are sitting on are courtesy public money and government grants. Likewise, these guys are getting paid to write these e-mails via grants that come from public monies. My money. My tax dollars.
But, there’s a simple solution to this problem. It involves taking a page from the campaign promises of our el maximo leader, Obama. Transparency. I simply propose that the raw climate data, in large part paid with my taxes, be completely and with reservation, placed in the public domain. No hacking necessary. Put all the raw data on the internet. All of it.
Here we wait, with baited breath, as to whether the Detroit auto makers will be bailed out or will have to file chapter 11. If GM has any sense, it’ll take chapter 11. Because if it doesn’t, it will become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic party.
As things stand now, GM (I use GM as shorthand for GM, and Chrysler) is a welfare agency funded by the manufacture of expensive luxury cars, large SUV’s and trucks. And, as a bone to be tossed to the environmentalists, also manufactures small cars at a loss. It provides lavish health care benefits and pensions for a retired workforce that outnumbers the number of UAW workers actually on the production line. Through the “job bank” it runs a de facto unemployment agency. Essentially, GM runs a social security agency, a medicare agency and unemployment agency. Car manufacturing is just a side line activity.
The whole shell game worked as long as there was cheap gas. But, the environmentalists over-reached, when their nirvana of four-plus dollar gasoline hit last summer. Then the whole game of selling large cars to subsidize small cars and a welfare agency fell apart when the environmental wing of the Democratic party decided, in the name of global warming, to declare a jihad on the internal combustion engine.
And, “bankruptcy is not an option” Pelosi is trying to have her cake and eat it. She wants to prop up GM Welfare, Inc. as payback to Big Labor. And, she wants to appease the green crowd with “fuel efficient” cars. What this bailout will do, especially with a “car czar” in Obama’s administration will result in is subsidization of UAW membership, working and retired, and diktats for econoboxes that you’re going to have to give away. The Trabant comes to America! Maybe each should have a bust of Nancy as a hood ornament. We could augment the Pelosi car lineup with the Lada and the Skoda. Back in 1992, I drove around in a Skoda in Iceland; it had a manual choke. Manual choke, like the one on your lawn mower. Never saw one in a car? I thought so.
And, all the assumptions that drive the green agenda are suspect to say the least. Global warming is in the process of being debunked. And, Dr. Chu, our new Energy Secretary, doesn’t impress even waving his gold bauble he got in Stockholm. Also, with economic growth, jobs and a recession, possibly a depression, this green agenda is going to be a real loser at the polls come 2010.
It’s not that GM makes bad cars. They make good trucks, SUV’s and large cars. These big cars are more comfortable, have greater utility and are safer. You’re going to make ten trips in a smart car if you’re going to get enough groceries home to feed your family; I’ll pass on that fuel economy. While you may use said car as a single passenger for a good deal of the time; there comes many a time when you indeed need the extra space for, say, the hockey team and their attendant massive duffles of equipment. And, yes, I know. Your not supposed to have a family because of each child’s massive carbon footprint. “Enlightened” Americans realize that abortion is so much more environmentally sensitive.
Big cars are safer, because mass is greater structural rigidity. You can put all the airbags in you want; add one hundred pounds of structural steel and it’s just safer.
And, given a choice most people prefer them to any tin bucket with pie-pan wheels. Start with Obama; he’s got an SUV for his family. His new presidential limo is based on a Chevy 2500 chassis. Also, watch, all of his Hollywood celebrity friends pulling up for the inauguration in their 10 mph limos (after arriving in their private jets). You’ll see the typical elitist conceit that all of this “sacrifice” and “save the earth claptrap” is for other, lesser people.
Over in Europe, manufactures such as BMW and Mercedes Benz make very substantial cars for rich customer who can afford and otherwise don’t care about $9 per gallon gas. Somehow, when given a choice, this claptrap of global warming, carbon footprints seem to go down the drain.
Any bankruptcy court will immediately see the value of GM and its American counterparts. All three of these American manufacturers make light trucks and SUV’s that are very much desired. Stripped of its money-losing domestic small car operations all three of these companies can make motor vehicles that will attract customers. Also, there will still be a vast market for spare parts and service.
If Pelosi has any smarts, she’d best dump her green crowd since $4 per gallon gas is going to lose more elections than win them. She’d also be well served to abolish CAFE standards and drill, drill, drill.
The Democratic overreaching begins. It looks like Waxman is going to oust Dingell as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. What we have is the hard left of the Democratic party driving policy; in this case energy policy with complete obeisance to the environmentalists. Translation, global warming with cap and trade.
So, just when the economy is tanking, we’re going to be faced with artificially high energy prices to “encourage” us to switch to “alternate, green” energy. This encouragement will be in the form of the return of four-dollar plus gasoline. If this represents a pattern we’ll see more killer tax and spending policies coming out of other parts of Pelosi’s Congressional Empire.
Obama’s, like pirate Jack Sparrow, has just been tossed up on a desert isle with a pistol and one bullet. He’s all alone. What Obama will have to realize is that his getting into subsidized housing on 1600 Pennsylvania is all and the entire bone that the Democratic leadership is willing to give to its black constituency. As far as they’re concerned, the legacy of Obama is getting elected. Whether he’s successful in his own right is not their problem.
From Pelosi’s and Reid’s point-of-view, picking off enough Republican Senate and Congressional seats and putting Obama in the White House was to give them the running room to pass their agenda. And, in particular, before any backlash in the 2010 mid-term elections, jam as much stuff through this two-year window of opportunity. For Pelosi in particular, and her power barons in the House leadership, being almost immune to any voter backlash, they will have their agenda and to hell with the other rats, Democratic and Republican, on the sinking ship. Obama’s going to have to realize he’s one of those rats that Pelosi could give a rat’s ass about.
Obama’s no longer from a safe seat. His legacy, if he wants a positive one, will require more that being a first in the form of high melanin content. He will need a track record of accomplishment to secure a real place in the history books. A record of accomplishment that will secure him a second term. A record of accomplishment that will allow him to retain running room with regards to working with congress. A record of accomplishment that will allow him to pull a country out of a recession and not degenerate into a depression; and not have his one-term presidency tarred as Hoover II (or Carter II).
In short, Obama will need to realize that he no longer lives in the bubble of pre-ordained elections of the Chicago Democratic machine. He needs to truly in the center and start playing football between the 40 yard lines. Frankly, he need Senator McConnell, his GOP caucus and enough blue-dog Democrats to form a governing coalition. Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, Schumer, Frank, Rangell are not his friends.
Now, we have the prospect of all sorts of federal interventions into the private sector. The latest is a proposal to bail out Detroit’s Big Three automakers. And, in this red-hot political climate, it looks like the tax payer may be on the hook for yet another economic disaster. Yet, for all of the valid arguments about the moral hazard of such interventions, we enter the conundrum of greater economic interventions into the private sector engender more and render simple economic activities political. A phenomenon alluded in the The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek.
Detroit’s problems are to some extent a product of their own making. But, some of these problems are because of events and situations created by situations that are political. In many respects, many of the problems that the Big Three auto makers were facing were being solved until the latest gas price crunch. And, four dollar gas was a situation created in Washington D.C.; not in the free market. Energy production has been a political football for the last several decades. The result is no meaningful expansion of energy production. Off-shore drilling, ANWR, new refinery construction, nuclear power all no, no, no and no. Do the thermodynamics, wind and solar aren’t going to be major players–ever.
The sudden rise in gas prices suddenly upended a recovery plan, particularly for GM, by rendering the very vehicles GM planned to sell untenable in this market. And, for many who in the name of global warming (er, now change) this was exactly the plan. So what Detroit planned to sell and what, with cheaper gas prices, consumers wanted was suddenly upended by political decisions and activities designed to specifically thwart such free market exchanges of such goods. What was an aesthetic on the part of some people who felt that others shouldn’t have access to such horrible goods as SUV’s and full-sized pickup trucks became reality by convoluted government fiat. Government fiat that systematically constrained domestic energy exploration driving up energy prices.
In the end, the simple act of pulling up to a gas station and paying money for a simple commody such as gasoline now becomes a political statement. And, as government intervention becomes even more omnipresent, with taxpayers holding the bag for even more economic activities, suddenly everyone’s private economic choices become everyone’s business; they become political.
Smoking in private establishments was once a decision by the bar owner to weigh the economic consequences of whether it was more profitable to allow smoking or not. It now morphs into laws in Southern California to ban the construction of new fast-food emporiums because of the “unhealthy” food served. In Chicago, it becomes a ban on foie gras. Or, for the Democratic convention last August, ridiculous requirements on the types of food to be served–including the color. Or, Palin mentions nary a word on abortion or guns, yet her actions draw the rage of the bi-coastal elite. The mere act of knowingly giving birth to a Down’s baby, her private decision, is political.
It frankly becomes tedious to live each day having to somehow justify private decisions to every nit-picking activist who lose sleep nightly worrying that somewhere, someone is having a good time and I have to stop it. Wouldn’t it be nice if what we eat, drive, pump or shoot would be regarded as our own business; and none of your damn business.
And, wouldn’t be nice to recognize that there is enough creative energy out there to insure pleantiful and cheap energy without the belief that government has to somehow conjure up that creativity with taxes and regulation.
Drill for oil and watch gas prices drop. Detroit problem solved without a penny of tax money committed.
There’s a recent story of a woman in Britain who had an abortion, followed by sterilization so as not to burden the earth with her consumption of the earth’s finite resources; or reduce her carbon footprint; I can’t remember the precise reason. Apparently, she didn’t care enough to eliminate herself as well.
Then, there’s information that a tankful of ethanol consumes enough corn to feed a person for an entire year. Also, the creation of that gallon of ethanol consumes enough energy so as to create no net gain in energy available. The ultimate farm program–grow corn and then burn it.
Then, we have the situation of a resurgence of insect borne diseases, particularly malaria in the third world. It seems that the enforcement of our ban on DDT is being enforce world-wide. These poverty stricken countries, unable to afford the more expensive substitutes, elect to do nothing since they cannot. Now malaria, on the wane, has claimed a toll of tens of millions of lives. Is it that the lives of raptors exceeds the value of the lives of our dark skinned brothers and sisters in the third world? Oh, no, such politically incorrect thoughts would never cross the minds of the melanin-challenged directorate of the Sierra Club.
Same said environmentalists will do everything to block any logging activities in our public lands. The result is fuel chocked forest stands that burn with a ferocity that makes firefighting so lethal that lives are now routinely lost fighting those fires. And, somehow, clear cutting is the most horrible fate to befall any forest. Yet, burnt out stands of forest, moonscapes sometimes occupying hundreds of square miles, are somehow more attractive.
A distinction needs to be drawn between the conservation of Teddy Roosevelt and modern-day environmentalism. The former is good stewardship. Use what you need, but don’t waste what you don’t. It is an ethic that recognizes that our natural resources are there for human beings. Human beings are part of the ecosystem. That the one species, made in the image of God, does have a priority and that we have a moral obligationto use those resources to aid and preserve human life.
Environmentalism, however, looks upon man as some alien interloper to be somehow banished. At least those humans that live in fly-over country. Not the ones that assuage their guilty consciences by eating free range chicken at some tony San Francisco eatery on some environmental foundation expense account. Never mind that factory-farm Tyson chicken is, for some families, the only way to afford reasonable priced protein. It is not science, but an aesthetic only of individuals who have the economic wherewithal to spin loopy theories of social ordering. Then have the clout, courtesy their foundations, to buy their way into the halls of power and impose such since their theories will never intrude into their insulated lives; but will wreck devastation upon those less fortunate (and less enlightened) who don’t have the decency to know their places in the environmental new world order.
Scores or more of these troglodytes are rendered unemployed because logging operations are completely shut down for some environmental aesthetic. Never mind that any forest needs to be culled. And, those trees culled can become wood for peoples homes. No, it is far preferable to allow those some fuel chocked woods to burn to the ground rather than allow human benefit in the form of jobs or forest products such as shelter for fellow humans.
Then, we get to the ultimate burning. Corn for ethanol. The ethanol craze is leading to the conversion of crop land to the cultivation of crops merely for the purpose of ethanol distillation. Even rain forests (remember that vogue cause) are being leveled in the name of ethanol. Now, food shortages are leading to food riots in the third world. And, in those same areas, where hope of economic progress was lifting millions out of abject poverty, we are seeing those dreams flattened by rising food prices driving those same-said people back into extreme privation. It is one area where environmentalism has crossed a bright moral line. It is a practice that needs to be stopped because it is literally stealing food from the mouths of fellow humans. Conservatives, like myself, once decried farm price supports. Now, I pine for the good old days of farm subsidies–subsidies that at least lead to farm production that produced food. Food for people to eat.
Finally, we come to the role of pseudo-science, myth, in the role of extending the reach of the environmental aesthetic. DDT is the index case. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, it turns out, played fast and loose with the facts. There is a considerable group of counter-arguments that call into question the validity of Carson’s conclusions. Eagle populations were, in fact, recovering long before the DDT ban because of other legislative measures going back to the 50’s that were successfully protecting our national bird. The DDT ban was a contest of wills and the marker of a committment to the cause of environmental aesthetics, not a regulatory policy scientifically designed to address a specific problem. Yet, the precedent was set. Namely, a green light for any environmental “problem” to given credence with out any evidence to support such a charge. It became the practice to level an environmental charge and force the target to prove the negative. The latest is the fraud known as global warming (or now climate change since warming isn’t quite hold water anymore).
Yet, while this latest pseudo-scientific fad, global warming is finally wilting under data that is implying the opposite (and finally going the way of the such fads as eugenics), it has already left a wreckage of public policy that will take years to sort out. Maybe four dollar gasoline is a God-send to the environmental set, but it has had a devastating impact on the lives of “bitter” America. The plumber that installs your $1500 designer faucet as the tile man installs your granite counter top in your gourmet kitchen comes to your house in full-size pickup because they need them to carry the tools and materials that are part and parcel of their trade–no, it won’t fit in a Prius.