It’s one thing to arrive on the platform after the train has left the station. It’s quote another to want to change its direction once it’s left. But that’s what ol’ Ma’am Boxer is trying to do.
With two of the leading scientists behind the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) either under investigation or stepping down (while under investigation) and the Australian Senate rejecting “Labour party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s carbon emissions bill by a vote of 41-33“, the debate on global warming has shifted, yet Mrs. Boxer, the chairman of the Senate committee which considers climate issues, its Environment and Public Works Committee, acts as if little has changed in the past two weeks. She finds the real problem is the stolen e-mails, not the doctored data on which she has based her complex cap and trade bill: ““You call it ‘Climategate’,” the Democrat inveighed, “I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate'”.
And on she blustered, “”Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not?” No, Ma’am, that’s not the main issue, the main issue is whether if there is global warming, it is caused by human activity. And the temperatures these past ten years don’t show much of a warming trend.
She does want to investigate the hacking. And is right to do so. But, try as she may, by making that the focus on her inquiry, she blinds herself to the reality of the climate science. With each passing day evidence drips out showing calling into question the AGW theory. The original data have been destroyed. Other raw data haven’t been released. AGW proponents have attempted to suppress the work of skeptics while trying to intimidate and/or discredit them and the journals where they publish their findings.
The hacked e-mails are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg which doesn’t seem to be melting, but solidifying. And the e-mails only help bring to light information that was already out there, but which folk like Mrs. Boxer have been ignoring. And they help confirm theories that skeptics of global warming have been putting forward.
But, Ma’am will have none of this. Whistleblowers are only allowed to confirm her theories. When they help uncover evidence which calls hers into question, well, they must be investigated. Yet, as David Harsanyi reports, in the past, she has been quick to praise whisteblowers:
But could this possibly be the same Boxer who once sponsored the The Military Whistleblower Protection Act.
The same Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer who held hearings over a Environmental Protection Agency whistleblower who claimed the Bush administration had an unwillingness to address greenhouse-gas emissions.
Many of those seem like reasonable protections. How about protecting the people who exposed potential scientific fraud funded by government?
Well, not when that fraud helps serves the narrative she wants to tell. Last year, she accused the Bush Administration of a “Cover Up” on Global Warming and demanding the EPA “release every document” related to the controversy. Now, she wants to investigate the release of e-mails which show a cover up of even greater magnitude.
Perhaps, she should welcome these e-mails. They help us realize that anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as significant as some had feared, thus radical legislation of the type she has proposed is not necessary. Such legislation would impose countless costs and regulatory burdens on businesses, large and small alike. Those burdens would make it difficult for them to expand and grow, meaning fewer jobs for Californians, the people she was elected to represent.
Without this bill then, there will be a better chance for economic recovery in the Golden State. So, it’s strange that Mrs. Boxer would want to change the narrative on the East Anglia e-mails. Because, as the Australian Senate understood, the current narrative suggests that additional burdens on business aren’t necessary to prevent global warming. And Mrs. Boxer could help her constituents by opposing such burdens.
She, more a partisan demagogue than a California representative, she seems hellbent on increasing government regulation. And putting more and more of her fellow citizens out of work.