Earlier this week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it's contemplating new "rules" that would allow it to control the emissions of "greenhouse gases" -- such as our own exhalant, CO2 -- as it has made a determination that "global warming" is a detriment to "human health".
First of all, here are some problems for "climate change"... enthusiasts:
Most importantly, by the Climate Research Unit's (CRU's) own admission after their emails were revealed, the original data from which they derived ALL their modeling is no longer available. I mean... Huh???
We're supposed to just take their word for it? Without the original data, it's absolutely impossible to perform any meaningful peer review process whatsoever.
Further, in the scientific community you NEVER discard the original data from which you arrive at conclusions you want to call significant. Otherwise you can no longer prove your thesis. In any normal scientific discussion, that ALONE invalidates any conclusion you've reached, because you can NO LONGER PROVE IT, and the process can't be duplicated and/or verified.
That's like convicting someone on a criminal charge just on the say-so of the DA.
Nuh-uh. No can do.
Secondly, it's perfectly clear from the emails themselves that the CRU team went out of their way to stifle and discredit their opponents, in unethical ways.
Now, I don't know about you, but I spend a lot of time discussing politics, and I ENJOY it when an opponent tries to argue with me, because I'm so solid in my positions, and grasp of the facts and history involved, that I always view it as an opportunity to state my case, and maybe even win a convert.
The only time I ever hear someone claim "the debate is over" is when their position is so weak they're afraid of losing the argument, and of looking foolish in supporting a ridiculous position.
The polar ice caps on Mars are also melting, yet there's a curious lack of people and SUVs there. Funny how the climate changers always try to ignore that. I've yet to hear someone respond to that when I bring it into the discussion.
So, the whole idea of formulating radical social and economic policy on nothing more than a SWAG -- Scientific Wild-Assed Guess -- that isn't even supported by any direct and verifiable scientific data is preposterous.
Enter the EPA.
First of all, by using the rulemaking process, the EPA -- and Obama, who as President can direct the EPA's head to implement his own policies -- is circumventing the normal legislative and political process involved in imposing new law on the country. The rulemaking process is one that's ripe for abuse, and has led to governmental overreach in the past. This has in turn led to several Supreme Court decisions, some of which have supported and some vacated various rules imposed by some of the governmental agencies.
But it's even more instructive to think about the root cause of this problem: the very existence and creation of the EPA.
The EPA was created by Richard Nixon -- a Republican -- by executive order in 1970. Not an act of Congress that went through a legislative process, but the stroke of an executive pen. By a member of the "party of conservatism".
This is the danger of "moderation" on political issues by the GOP.
The first question that occurs is: where did Nixon get the authority to create such an agency? It seems to me that falls under the purview of the powers of Congress, not the President.
But more importantly, we see once again what happens when "conservatives" follow a policy of "moderation": inevitably, liberals win enough elections to come to power, and use the tools that have been put into place -- either directly by, or with the cooperation of Republicans -- for purposes other than their original stated intent. The EPA was originally (and unconstitutionally) created to deal specifically with the 1970s problem of toxic waste sites, but has now amassed so much power it has been dictating to individual states what laws they must impose to address much broader "environmental concerns", and is now proposing such a massive usurpation of regulatory authority that it will have the ability to dictate virtually every facet of private endeavor and behavior.
All thanks to a Republican.
This is why it's essential that we as conservatives demand that the GOP live up to its stated purpose as the upholders of traditional conservative values and defenders of the Constitution, not only in words but in actions. This is why we must absolutely reject "moderation" as an acceptable standard of behavior. This is exactly why I, and so many others, refused to vote for McCain in last year's presidential election, and on a state level refused to vote for Schwartzenegger either time he ran for Governor.
Unless things in this country change significantly, it's not a question of whether or not the bus of state drives over the cliff, but only a question of how fast it's going when it crashes through the guardrails.