Last week during Snowmageddon, I missed posting the awesome igloo that Senator Inhofe and his family built in DC.

As a former constituent of Al Gore and one of the voters that helped protect the country from having that lunatic in the White House, I thoroughly enjoyed Senator Inhofe’s antic.

Climate change hasn’t gotten much coverage here simply because I’m not a scientist. I took a few climatology courses in college, so I’ve followed the issue of global warming closely. However, I’m not qualified to debate the nuances of this issue.

Why am I writing about it tonight then? Because it frightens me that the EPA is about to launch regulations similar to cap-and-trade.

Amidst Climategate and IPCC revelations that keep leaking out and weakening their “claims” that the earth is warming, should a regulatory agency radically change how energy is taxed and used in this country?

According to a Pajamas Media article, Senator Inhofe is once again drawing attention to the questionable science behind the policies regarding climate change. Last week, he gave a floor speech questioning the EPA:

Inhofe’s speech didn’t directly call for any particular action on the part of Congress, but it did point out that the Obama administration has asserted that if a cap and trade bill doesn’t pass, it could achieve similar effects by a simple finding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that carbon dioxide is a pollutant — a finding the EPA actually made late last year. However, as Inhofe pointed out in his on-floor remarks, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson had testified to his committee that the CO2 finding was largely based on the IPCC reports.

Today, the New York Times mentioned the EPA in an article on Obama pondering the use of executive orders:

Mr. Obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused to do so. His administration has signaled that it plans to use its discretion to soften enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, even as Congress considers repealing the law. And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.

Is anyone else bothered that a regulatory agency is about to change policies that could impact every single person in this country based on a politicized science?

Climate change is possible. I’m not one of those conservatives who turn a deaf ear towards environmental issues. I’m probably one of the greener conservatives out there.  As a Christian, I believe that it is our duty to take care of the earth and our environment. However, climate change enthusiasts have gone overboard on this issue.

We should not make any drastic changes to any U.S. policy without being 100% sure of the science that drives it. History shows that science of the moment is not always correct, yet anyone that has questioned the science of anthropogenic climate change has been nearly crucified. It’s eerily reminiscent of how the Catholic Church controlled science and persecuted Galileo and Copernicus when they questioned prevailing thought.

Perhaps I went to an old-fashioned high school, but I was taught that the scientific method questions every hypothesis until all other possible conclusions are ruled out. There are endless hypotheses that have not gotten much press or consideration in policy debates. Senator Inhofe is absolutely correct in questioning regulations and bills regarding climate change.

In light of the revelations of the East Anglia CRU and the IPCC coming clean time and time again, neither President Obama, Congress nor any regulatory agency should even consider acting on climate change. This entire issue should be tabled for a while and allow the science community to debate without politics or agenda.

It bothers me that we’re not even allowed to debate this issue. The science is questionable, yet believers expect us to blindly follow their views and radically change our lives. That is not acceptable. We should not be called stupid or ignorant because we dare question policy changes. If scientists and believers are so confident in their research and findings, they should welcome rigorous debate and questioning and not bully those of us who are cautious.

Michelle Malkin has a post up today about new revelations from the IPCC and East Anglia.

It’s a good sign when you scare the European establishment.

I’ve been mocked and derided for writing about the emerging force of women on the right. Well, the Guardian has a story today on Rep. Michele Bachmann. Hmm…maybe I’m not so far off. The Guardian includes the typical drivel about conservatives (nutjobs, far right extremists, possibly dangerous, angry, blah, blah, blah), but the article has some interesting points.

“Politics on the right used to be a parlour game played by old, white men,” said Bowler. Palin changed that and Bachmann has followed. They have replaced the dulcet tones of grey-haired Washington senators with Midwestern vowels and Alaskan twangs. They have risen swiftly through careers forged a long way from Washington, wearing their outsider label as a badge of pride. They have given conservatism the look of a middle-American suburban soccer mom with first-hand experience of raising a family in tough times.

I would argue that Bachmann was first (elected in 2006), but Palin was thrust into the spectacle of American media  and became a well-known figure far faster than Bachmann. However, I agree with the sentiment in the quote. Bachmann and Palin fairly represent the women engaged in Tea Parties. These aren’t your rich, affluent Federation of Republican Women types but grassroots activists.

As the article notes, there are comparisons between them. I’ve met both, and they’re both very nice, genuine women. I think they have differing roles and would agree that Bachmann’s political career probably has a longer lifespan. That’s not to say that Palin doesn’t have a bright future, but I hope she stays more movement focused.

I can only echo Michelle Malkin’s sentiments:

Yes, we’re “extreme.”

No apologies here for being extremely outraged at Washington’s ongoing generational theft, extremely mortified at our imperiled national security, extremely aggravated at the globe-trotting groveler-in-chief, and extremely disgusted with business-as-usual cronyism, pay-for-play thuggery in the Obama White House.

This is no time for mealy-mouthed moderation.

The only thing kowtowing will get you is rug burn.

Other women that should scare the Guardian are Virginia Foxx, Jean Schmidt and Tennessee’s own Marsha Blackburn.

An interesting post on Alternet calls out a hypocrisy on the left that I’ve often noted: it’s ok to slander conservative women.

From the Playboy article this summer to the recent comments made by Alan Grayson, to the left it’s ok to use profanity when righ-of-center females are in question. Between all of the feminist blogs, books and articles that I read, I get the picture that the most hate group in the country are women who refuse to be liberal. Tana Ganeva writes:

When Alan Grayson called a female corporate lobbyist a “K-Street whore” — and was attacked as crude and sexist at the same time that he was lauded as gutsy and honest — he played a role in a familiar script: hero of the left (MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher) attacks female villain (Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin) using sexist language. Progressive feminists soul-search about liberal misogyny. Mainstream media talk about sexism for 5 seconds. Then the media move on, and no one learns a thing. Repeat.

To a certain extent, I get it. The 24/7 news cycle makes ad hominem attacks necessary. When all you have is a :30 second sound bite, do you go for the attack or make a rationale point? The right is just as guilty (albeit without the profanity) as the left. We don’t have time for a lengthy scholarly debate. Civility has never existed in politics, we’re just more aware of it now due to our media-saturated society.

(more…)