Saturday, December 3, 2011

Newt: What's the magic there?

What’s new today

Story #1 tells us that Gingrich may have pulled off a genius move by debating Jon Huntsman.  He makes Romney look as if he’s scared to do it and Huntsman is given a forum.  Huntsman if he gains support may take it away from Romney.  #2 looks at what Gingrich’s attractiveness is to the Right.  Finally Story #3 is a long article I’ve pulled some paragraphs from which tells you about the latest emails in the Global Warming proponents. 

1.  Genius Move by Gingrich

NEWT GINGRICH HAS INVITED JON HUNTSMAN TO ENGAGE IN ANOTHER LONG LINCOLN-DOUGLAS STYLE DEBATE ON DECEMBER 12, in Windham New Hampshire. Newt did a similar debate with Herman Cain earlier this year. Huntsman accepted.

It's a genius move for Gingrich, and a good one by Huntsman. Romney has declined an invitation to engage Gingrich in this kind of debate.


Gingrich believes that he can beat anyone in a debate and will look smarter than any of his opponents. The more air-time he gets, the better for him….

Gingrich also makes primary voters feel that perhaps he could goad BHO into a series of open debates. 

2.  What the Right Sees in Gingrich

A lot of people I talk to can’t fathom why Newt Gingrich is actually winning. The latest narrative — and I think there’s truth in it — is that VOTERS ARE HUNGRY FOR SOMEONE WHO WILL “TAKE IT TO OBAMA.” Clearly, Gingrich’s debating ability is key. Republicans are chomping at the bit to see him debate Obama. But I think THIS URGE IS DEEPER THAN A DESIRE TO SIMPLY WATCH HIM BEAT UP OR ATTACK THE PRESIDENT RHETORICALLY — THEY ALSO WANT HIM TO INTELLECTUALLY FLATTEN HIM — to out-debate him.

There are other reasons. Some voters are romantic; they want to believe in something. They want to be (as unconservative as it may sound) a bit revolutionary. There’s nothing romantic or revolutionary about Mitt Romney. GINGRICH SUPPORTERS MAY BE DELUDING THEMSELVES, BUT AT LEAST HE IS, AT LEAST, EXCITING. HE HAS PANACHE.

He’s also a happy warrior. He has energy. He loves campaigning. It makes him stronger, not weaker. And it shows…

I think the author is right.  The Conservatives don’t just want to beat Obama, they want to discredit the left’s belief that they are the intellectuals in the political arena.  They aren’t and Gingrich will help to make this evident to everyone. 

3.  Climategate Part 2

The conventional wisdom about blockbuster movie sequels is that the second acts are seldom as good as the originals. The exceptions, like The Godfather: Part II or The Empire Strikes Back, succeed because they build a bigger backstory and add dimensions to the original characters. The sudden release last week of another 5,000 emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University​—​ground zero of “Climategate I” in 2009​—​immediately raised the question of whether this would be one of those rare exceptions or Revenge of the Nerds II.

Before anyone had time to get very far into this vast archive, THE CLIMATE CAMPAIGNERS WERE READY WITH THEIR CRITICAL REVIEW: NOTHING WORTH SEEING HERE. OUT OF CONTEXT! CHERRY PICKING! “THIS IS JUST TRIVIA, IT’S A DIVERSION,” climate researcher Joel Smith told Politico. On the other side, Anthony Watts, proprietor of the invaluable skeptic website, had the kind of memorable line fit for a movie poster. With a hat tip to the famous Seinfeld episode, Watts wrote: “THEY’RE REAL, AND THEY’RE SPECTACULAR!” An extended review of this massive new cache will take months and could easily require a book-length treatment. BUT READING EVEN A FEW DOZEN OF THE NEWLY LEAKED EMAILS MAKES CLEAR THAT WATTS AND OTHER LONGTIME CRITICS OF THE CLIMATE CABAL ARE GOING TO BE VINDICATED….

…One thing that emerges from the new emails is that, while a large number of scientists are working on separate, detailed nodes of climate-related issues (the reason for dozens of authors for every IPCC report chapter), THE CIRCLE OF SCIENTISTS WHO CONTROL THE SYNTHESES THAT GO INTO IPCC REPORTS AND THE NATIONAL CLIMATE REPORTS THAT THE U.S. AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS OCCASIONALLY PRODUCE IS QUITE SMALL AND PARTIAL TO PARTICULAR OUTCOMES OF THESE PERIODIC ASSESSMENTS. The way the process works in practice casts a shadow over one of the favorite claims of the climate campaign​—​namely, that there exists a firm “consensus” about catastrophic future warming among thousands of scientists. This so-called consensus reflects only the views of a much smaller subset of gatekeepers….

….NO AMOUNT OF CONTEXT CAN POSSIBLY EXONERATE THE CRU GANG FROM SOME OF THE DAMNING EXPRESSIONS AND CONTRIVANCES THAT APPEAR REPEATEDLY IN THE NEW EMAILS. More so than the 2009 batch, these emails make clear the close collaboration between the leading IPCC scientists and environmental advocacy groups, government agencies, and partisan journalists. There are repeated instances of scientists tipping their hand that they’ve thrown in their lot with the climate ideologues. If there were only a handful of such dubious messages, they might be explained away through “context,” or as conciliatory habits of expression. But THEY ARE SO NUMEROUS THAT IT DOESN’T REQUIRE AN ADVANCED DEGREE IN PATTERN RECOGNITION TO MAKE OUT THAT THESE EMAILS CONSTITUTE NOT JUST A “SMOKING GUN” OF SCIENTIFIC BIAS, BUT A BELCHING HOWITZER. Throughout the emails numerous participants refer to “the cause,” “our cause,” and other nonscientific, value-laden terms to describe the implications of one dispute or another, while demonizing scientists who express even partial dissent about the subject, such as Judith Curry of Georgia Tech.

Since the beginning of the climate change story more than 20 years ago, it has been hard to sort out whether the IPCC represents the “best” science, or merely the findings most compatible with the politically driven climate policy agenda. Both sets of emails have lifted the lid on the insides of the process, and it isn’t pretty….

In a 2008 email from Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University and the Institute of Global Environment and Society to a large circle of IPCC scientists, Shukla put his finger squarely on the problem: “i would like to submit that the current climate models have such large errors in simulating the statistics of regional [climate] that we are not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for ‘action’ at a regional scale. .  .  . IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT POLICY-MAKERS WILL BE WILLING TO MAKE BILLION- AND TRILLION-DOLLAR DECISIONS FOR ADAPTATION TO THE PROJECTED REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE BASED ON MODELS THAT DO NOT EVEN DESCRIBE AND SIMULATE THE PROCESSES THAT ARE THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF CLIMATE VARIABILITY.” Despite this and other cautionary messages from scientists, Jones, DEFRA, and the IPCC charged ahead with the weather generator anyway….

This is an article worth reading.  Check it out, I’ve only highlight a small portion of what’s there.

No comments:

Post a Comment