Robert Tracinski levererar igen:
I was very surprised to wake up a few days ago to discover three inches of snow on the ground — in Virginia, in April, while our lilacs were blooming.
Must be that global warming.
It was a perfect concretization of a wisecrack that’s been going around for years: we’re supposed to believe that climatologists can predict the weather for the whole globe a century from now — when they still can’t predict the local weather for tomorrow.
Behind that wisecrack is a more serious and profound point about the status of climatology as a science. Last year, for example, advertisements for Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth featured a hurricane emerging from an industrial smokestack. It was an attempt to cash in on predictions of an unusually heavy hurricane season, allegedly caused by global warming. Yet last summer, hurricane activity precipitously dropped, and not a single hurricane made landfall in the United States.
Given that we’re being asked to rely on this kind of climate prediction as the basis for massive new regulations that will overturn the whole basis of our economy, we need to ask a crucial, fundamental question.
Is climatology a science?
Läs hela här.
Förnuftets kalla och oresonliga röst 
Tracinskis förra artikel, ”Guilty Until Proven Innocent”, är också bra. Handlar om att USA:s högsta domstol har fattat ett beslut om att bevisbördan nu är omvänd: man måste bevisa att ett utsläpp av t.ex. koldioxid *inte* är skadligt, innan man får göra det. Ett citat:
”Seeing the popularity of Al Gore’s traveling tent revival act, many of us have been preparing for a long and bruising public debate on global warming and a political battle royal over whether to impose a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. We weren’t happy that we would have to fight this battle, but we could at least hope that an extended public debate would give us a chance to cool the global warming hysteria and point out the disastrous consequences of a ‘carbon tax’ or the fuel-rationing scheme of ‘cap and trade.’
But the Supreme Court is now telling us that the whole game is over before it even begins: the Clean Air Act, passed some thirty-odd years ago, already demands total government regulation of the lifeblood of the economy. Their decree cuts off the debate.”
Rätt olycksbådande, faktiskt.
Miljöfråga!
Många socialist skyller frifart är olämplig för miljö men jag tror inte stor skillnad avgas mellan frifart och 110 km/tim på motorvägar. kanske det är 10% mer avgas frifart än fartgränsen
http://flavianopolis.blogspot.com/2006/11/frnuftets-rst.html