They laugh at our pain

Last week Mr Ebell gave an interview to a friendly radio station.

In every hearing that... was held in the Senate on Global Warming, there have been leading Democrats who start pounding the table and emphatically telling all of us: "This hearing is ridiculous, the time for talking is past, we need action, we should be marking up legislation today."

Well now, Barbara Boxer, the very radical Senator from California, is replacing Jim Inhofe... as chairman of the environment committee. She has said, "Well, you know, uh, we're going to have two global warming subcommittees, and a very long series of hearings." So they're going to keep talking about it (laughs)... So while the planet fries, the Democrats are going to keep talking (more laughter).

Look, we know the political system is dysfunctional and is good at denying reality for years on end until there is no one left alive. Mr Ebell is exactly the kind of person who is the source of the problem.

There was more giggling over in the White House when Bush was asked for a comment about his war of choice.

The President of the United States: It's bad in Iraq. Does that help? (laughs).

You wouldn't see him laughing if it was his own kids who had died. Presumably he cares more about them than any other United States citizen. It's very easy to imagine Mr Ebell laughing over the shut-down of the Gulf Stream. All that suffering and hunger that would result over in Europe just makes him chuckle.


Meanwhile, in the Supreme Court the case for whether excess CO2 is a threat to life, as the people who actually know about these things say, or plant food, as the CEI vegetables say, has been heard. The CEI filed a brief in an attempt to refute the scientific claims. Since no one at the CEI does any science, all they can do is rely on the work of scientists which, since it's almost all entirely unambiguous on the subject, they must willfully misstate.

One such scientist, Curt Covey, was quoted. He had a look at the CEI brief and wrote a letter explaining how they got it wrong. The CEI, being a body that has no interest in the truth, has of course not made any corrections or apologized for any errors. They never do. Their job is to lie and mislead the public. An apology wouldn't make sense.

Curt Covey observed that the CEI had cherry-picked one result of several multiple runs of the climate models covering different scenarios, saying that what they had selected was:

...one possible future, but it's never been clear to me (or to anyone else I know besides Pat) why the other possibilities -- all of which involve more global warming -- should be ignored.

Well, it's a little irritating how the scientists are so gentle with these dipsticks, because it is absolutely clear why they always ignore certain facts. It's because they believe that their policies are more important than overwhelming reality. As such, they ought to have as much access to the Supreme Court or any other mechanisms in government as a wino from Prague. Just because they dress well and can speak coherently, doesn't mean they don't stink.