Posted by WLS:

The provision was inserted late in the legislative process without any notice or debate, though no one seems to have had much of an objection to it.  

It seems that both the majority and minority leadership in the Senate, along with their counterparts in the House, is concerned about the current makeup of the Supreme Court — especially the unpredictable nature of Justice Kennedy - and the uncertainty as to what the future holds in store in terms of possible appointments by the next President.  To address this issue they chose to insert language into the FISA legislation which states that for the next five years, any litigation involving two or more states shall be submitted to Congress rather than the judiciary, and the outcome of the dispute will be determined by a vote of both houses, with the congressional delegations of each state involved in the dispute disqualified from voting.  The disposition of the dispute as established by the vote must also be agreed to by the President for it to be binding on the states involved. 

I suspect this might have something to do with anticipated future litigation between the states over the issue of recognizing gay marriages from California should the ballot initiative in November fail.  Rather than have this issue submitted to an unpredictable Supreme Court, both parties would rather settle the matter themselves in the House and Senate.  

Interesting.

Clarification:  This is a satirical post.  It raises the same issue as that involved in the argument about whether FISA can work to strip or condition the Executive’s commander in chief power under Article II, and whether the President is obligated to respect and abide by a statute which is contrary to a specific Constitutional provision.  

FISA can no more curtail or condition the President’s role as commander in chief than the Congressa nd President can divest the Supreme Court of original jurisdiction by statute as suggested by this post.  

Yet there are those who continue to insist that the President “broke the law” by not going to the FISC to obtain an warrant to do that which Art. II gives him the power to do without the consent or cooperation of Congress or the Court.

[posted by Justin Levine] 

Remember the terrorist attack at LAX in 2002 when the Middle Eastern terrorist killed 2 people and injured 4 near the ticket counter at El Al Airlines?

What’s that you say? You don’t recall it being a “terrorist attack”?? Well I guess you could be forgiven. After all, CNN, the FBI, the Bush Administration and L.A. Mayor James Hahn said that there was “no indication of any terrorism” and that it was just an “isolated incident” that was nothing more than a “criminal act”.

In other words, in the face of so many “experts”, you could be forgiven for not using your own common sense and deliberately choosing to be ignorant.

At the time, media outlets (including the L.A. Times) deliberately chose to be ignorant as well – publishing stories with headline howlers such as “FBI Still Seeks Motive in LAX Shootings.”

Some observers, including Patterico guest-blogger Jack Dunphy called them on their B.S.

Apparently, the L.A. Times managed to grow a brain this week when

  (more…)

[posted by Justin Levine]

In case you still haven’t heard the news, global warming (regardless of its cause) does NOT cause an increase in hurricane activity according to the latest published study.

Knutson said Landsea ”makes a very good case,” but “I consider the science still unsettled.”

Even if the global warming doomsayers refuse to accept the study, the fact that they now admit that the science in this area is “unsettled” represents real progress in their thinking. That is certainly a change in tune from what they have been insisting over the past year. 

I guess this means that we don’t have to worry about more hurricanes on Mars either.

[posted by Justin Levine]

More “consensus” alert here and here.

Questions raised by the first link listed above: 

  (more…)

[posted by Justin Levine]

In case you haven’t come across it already, Professor Richard S. Lindzen’s views are worth a close read. In the current ‘climate’, he should be commended for speaking up.

[posted by Justin Levine] 

Here is an example of a typical lie in the media in order to try and bolster the man-made global warming hysterics out there.

Notice the last sentence of the article -

“Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly ‘dug (his) heels in’ even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.”

The clear implication from this sentence is that Dr. Gray doesn’t believe that the world is “getting hotter” (and therefore, he is a kook who can be dismissed). But that sentence is an out and out lie. Gray has never disputed that the “world is getting hotter”. Instead, (more…)

[posted by Justin Levine] 

I am admittedly confused about one thing: Why is ‘compromise‘ over language necessary when there is supposedly ‘consensus’? That’s ok. Whatever the ultimate outcome is - we can rest assured knowing that it is ’science’. They just apparently need to meet behind closed doors and warn their people ‘not to divulge details of the negotiations’ in order to determine what the ’science’ is.  Obviously. Doesn’t seem political at all.

More global warming ’science’ being reported here.

Hundreds of scientists struggled to find compromise wording Thursday on a landmark report set to declare that climate change is already discernible and could wreak devastation to human settlement and wildlife this century.

Grouped in national delegations, the climate specialists remained huddled in a European Commission conference room late into the night, hammering out the document’s all-important summary for policy makers — a guideline for government action — only hours before its scheduled release Friday morning.

Several sharp disagreements impeded progress, one Western delegate said.

Whereas Europeans sought to include stronger language and hard numbers warning about the dangers of global warming, the United States favored general statements about trends, he said.

“The Europeans want to send a strong signal. The US does not want as much quantification,” he said during a break in the negotiations, which have been underway since Monday.

China and Russia, he continued, have sought to excise some passages from the summary asserting that climate change had already had negative effects around the globe, arguing that the data in the 1,400 word main study is not solid enough to be included in the key policy document.

Now that sounds exactly like the kind of science I learned about in school - free from political considerations and biases…Can’t wait to read this ’scientific’ report.

As the AP noted in the first link above -

(more…)

[posted by Justin Levine] 

I believe that author Michael Crichton is a prophet and the savior of mankind. The Christon has come to dispense with the Goreacle…

Ok, maybe not that. But Crichton is one of the most sensible voices in the global warming debate that I have come across.

I urge everyone to read a recent interview he gave on the issue.

I linked to this Crichton speech in another post in this series, but I didn’t really emphasize it at the time.  Crichton’s “Aliens Cause Global Warming” speech is must reading. I dare say that it is some of the best writing he has ever done. The scientific community should take it to heart.

Just a brief sample of a speech that is solid gold from start to finish - 

Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

What does that do, huh? Does that blow your mind?? THAT JUST HAPPENED!

[posted by Justin Levine] 

This series of posts isn’t just to spout off my own personal opinions (after all, who really cares?), but to stimulate a much needed debate. However, one commenter asked me a legitimate question - what exactly do I believe or not believe as a self-proclaimed “skeptic” on the global warming issue.

In a nutshell -

(more…)

 [posted by Justin Levine]

Remember Carl Sagan? He wasn’t only a famous astronomer, but he was a self-proclaimed “skeptic” who tried to convince himself and others that he was dedicated to scientific principles over “pseudoscience and irrationality”.

However, that didn’t prevent him from falling into the common trap of using his “scientific credentials” to try and feign credibility on topics well beyond his area of scientific expertise: nuclear war, SDI, environmentalism, etc.

Part of this came from an internal contradiction in Sagan’s outlook. As David Morrison explains -

(more…)

[posted by Justin Levine] 

Have any of you actually seen “The Great Global Warming Swindle?” - the British documentary that debunks “An Inconvenient Truth” and the global warming fear mongers?

Do yourself a favor. Set aside 75 minutes to watch this vital program from one of numerous video sharing sites across the Internet. (If you are guilt ridden over copyright concerns, I can only say that it is your loss if you still wish to be as informed as possible over the global warming non-debate debate.)

It traces how current global warming theory got started and explains the evidence showing that it is actually global warming that causes increased CO2 - not the other way around. After considering the program’s claims, go ahead and (re)read the U.N.’s current summary on the issue and ask yourself what it has really shown.

Purveyors of man-made global warming theory refuse to recognize that some of the strongest critics of the theory are lead authors of the IPCC reports that they have come to fetishize. A number of them are featured in the documentary. (It also debunks the argument that all of the critics are simply on the payroll for big oil. There is little media scrutiny concerning the billions that are now behind research that is specifically tailored to try and legitimize global warming theory.)

As long as they show this program in schools, then I would be fine with showing “An Inconvenient Truth” and any other global warming documentary they want to try and rebut it.

Will Jonathan Chait have the guts to watch it and comment directly on it? I doubt it. If we follow Chait’s logic then, it must be proof that Democrats simply don’t believe in science.

But it will be fun to watch the religious zealots come out of the woodwork again to post comments here taking me to task for “refusing to believe settled science”. Grab some popcorn and observe their hyperventilations.  And yes, you read the title of this post correctly -  This is only part 1 of a contuning series. There will be future posts to also help bring forth the Pavlovian green spittle.  Cheers!

[posted by Justin Levine]

[posted by Justin Levine]

Time Magazine:  June 24, 1974      [hat-tip: The John And Ken Show]

Proving the continued resiliency of apocalyptic belief.

Are you really sure that you want to stand by these statements Megan? Do you really think that man-made global warming is “largely settled” and “not worth debating”?? Is that because you can provide links showing as much? Or can you only cite other scientists who simply proclaim that it is “settled”?