First Things First

Remember how climate-change skeptics -- those who don't buy into the 'fact' that anthropogenic (mankind's fault) global warming exists -- have been derided as "deniers"?

In the wake of the release of those emails from the CRU -- emails which sure as heck suggest that decidedly unscientific methods have been used to 'prove' it -- well, the shoe's on the other foot now, eh?

The White House on Monday made exceptionally clear that it wants nothing to do with the furor over documents that global warming skeptics say prove the phenomenon is not a threat.

Despite the incident, which rocked international headlines last week, climate science is sound, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed this afternoon, and the White House nonetheless believes "climate change is happening."

"I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," he said during Monday's press briefing.

Obama's own EPA commissioner, Carol Browning, also declares that there's nothing to see here, move along, move along.

And now comes the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to blandly assert that nothing's changed:

There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.

Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel's fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.

The emails were made public this month after a hacker illegally obtained them from servers at the university.

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

As the very first commenter noted, "Problem is that the peer review process that he is referring to is exactly what is being compromised. The burden of proof is solely on the scientists, and until we see all the data who can know the truth about this?"

So... who are the climate-change deniers now?

Found (via an email from a RootsWeb list) a fascinating website today: Old Fulton NY Post Cards. The name's outmoded, since the site offers access to some 10 million scanned pages from newspapers all over New York State with (with an emphasis on the eastern part of the state).

Here's an interesting anecdote from the March 6 1953 edition of the Niagara Falls NY Gazette:

When Senator Joe McCarthy came to New York last Saturday for the televised hearings of his investigating committee, he went to the Federal Court house by BMT subway. He got lost for 30 minutes in the New York underground. McCarthy, incidentally, had to fly to an airfield covered with snow, and was assigned to a small plane which had skis. He told the pilot he was sorry to have him make this trip in such bad weather. "Oh, I'm delighted to do it," the pilot replied. "Five more flying hours, and I'll get my own pilot's license."

Cue the rim shot!

The site, by the way, will prove interesting to those (like me) interested in things historical and genealogical.

Unlike the previous post, this is not a parody. This guy is the chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party -- a state which has the nation's highest unemployment rate. He knows how to
bring Michigan back:

First, we’re proposing that all employers in Michigan be required to provide affordable, quality health care for their employees and dependents or pay a penalty. We have more than 1.2 million people in this state who do not have health insurance. Many of those people are employed but their employers do not provide health insurance.

Most likely because they can't afford it. And ObamaCare isn't gonna help in the long run.

Second, we believe the minimum wage should be increased from $7.40/hour to $10/hour. ... Study after study has proven that raising the minimum wage would not deter job creation in our state.

Sure they do. I'd love to see them, because I seriously doubt they really show that. But okay, let's take this guy at face value: if that's the case, why not boost the minimum wage to $50/hour? Or $100/hour? That'll solve the problem! For about a week, before businesses -- who, unlike this tool, know damn well that there's a direct correlation between cost and profit -- go out of business.

Next, cutting utility rates by 20 percent would be a significant savings to both consumers and businesses.

No doubt. Of course, it'll kill the companies that provide utilities, along with the suckers who invested in them.

Much more could be said, and The Blog Prof says it.