Remember that time Santa’s little Helper got a credit card? Yeah. That was funny. Even funnier is when you can make your dog a member of a respectable scientific organization whose sound bites and “scientific” polls are often quoted by the mainstream media, which is what Anthony Watts did last year. All his dog Kenji needed was a valid credit card.
Now UCS has come begging again and in the process they’d like you to know that they’re helping to ensure that your new car will cost thousands more due to their efforts promoting more intrusive regulations into industry:
UCS supporters like you helped push through tough emissions standards for new cars and trucks that will require automakers to produce vehicles that emit roughly half of the global warming emissions of a new automobile today.
Thanks, “concerned” “scientists”! Because what we really need at this time of economic uncertainty is products whose costs have been inflated by federal government mandate due to specious, ideologically-driven scientific claims.
But wait, there’s more! They promise that your cash will:
- expose corporations, front groups, and policy makers who mislead the public and undermine understanding of climate science [DENIERS!];
- fight to shut down old and dirty coal plants and increase investment in wind, solar, and other clean, renewable sources of energy [Pay no attention to the flaming, crumpled wind turbine on the horizon!]; and
- actively protect scientists in the government and academia from politically motivated personal attacks. [Remember that time ChimpyMcHitler Bu$h told Jim Hansen to shut his Global Warming hole? God we hate George Bu$h! Don't you?]
The motto they tout on the title bar of their web site is, “Independent Science, Practical Solutions,” but if you look at the “Successes” they’re flogging under each of their areas of concern, you’ll see that they all bend toward Leftist solutions for what Leftists see as problems. And the MSM eats up their conclusions every time. Most notably in this context they’re all in for CAGW (as characterized by the web site ActivistCash–a partisan pro-consumer site):
UCS embraces an environmental agenda that often stands at odds with the “rigorous scientific analysis” it claims to employ. A radical green wolf in sheep’s clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its recommendations reflect a consensus among the scientific community. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Whether it’s energy policy or agricultural issues, UCS’s “experts” are routinely given a free pass from newspaper reporters and television producers when they claim that mainstream science endorses their radical agenda.
Independent? No. Practical? They don’t have to be.
What we have is an organization which will take money as long as it’s green, uses that money to conduct biased polls (“when did you stop beating your wife”-style), declares these polls “scientific consensus”, and then uses them to flog to the media whatever science-y position is fashionable on the Left, which in turn helps to determine what the general public thinks is scientific “truth”.
So keep in mind that whenever you hear a proclamation from the Union of Concerned Scientists about scientific “truth” that they came to that truth mainly by smelling their own vapors. An activity which I’m sure Kenji, like all other dogs, would heartily approve of.
UPDATE
If you look at the UCS begging e-mail, you’ll see a large number of loaded keywords and phrases. Well, alGore has created a new one: “dirty weather“. Watts seems to contend that alGore must be confusing soot with weather or something, but I’m afraid I have to disagree with him. I think what alGore is talking about has more to do with chakra-releasing than the climate.




Snarky Basterd (@Snarky_Basterd) on May 26, 2012 at 8:20 am said:
Union of Concerned Scientists Goes To the Dogs http://t.co/qgiuLvNi #twisters #tcot
Dan Collins (@vermontaigne) on May 26, 2012 at 8:20 am said:
Union of Concerned Scientists Goes To the Dogs: Remember that time Santa’s little Helper got a credit card? Yeah… http://t.co/clQawhPf
Mind-Numbed Robot (@mnrobot) on May 26, 2012 at 8:35 am said:
Union of Concerned Scientists Goes To the Dogs http://t.co/1TiXpEil #tcot #gop #vrwc
kerry (@utroukx) on May 26, 2012 at 10:10 am said:
Union of Concerned Scientists Goes To the Dogs – http://t.co/cC4HMDtG
jefferson101 on May 26, 2012 at 5:29 pm said:
“The cost of electricity will necessarily skyrocket.” Barack H. Obama
But of course, this is a feature, not a bug. We proles live far better than we should, if the economy and the environment were “managed” in the way that was the best for Gaea.
Or, perhaps, if it were the best for those doing the managing, ‘ya think?
I’m still buying more ammo, as should we all.
For The Record: I’d just as soon get Cancer as I would be put in a situation where I have to start shooting at people. Sadly, though, both things are possible.
I’m scarcely a threeper. I might not even be a seven percenter. Maybe the 9th or 10th percentile, actually, but I concluded that things could get way ugly about 20 years ago, and I’m not going to be unprepared if it does get that way.
The only problem with it all is that once you get me started, I am going to be a problem for whoever yanks my chain hard enough to get me going.
I’ll build my own coal (or wood, or junk tire, or whatever…) fired boiler in my backyard, and heaven help the EPA if they come mess with me.
But, by then, I doubt if it’ll just be me they will have to mess with.
Starless on May 27, 2012 at 6:59 am said:
But of course, this is a feature, not a bug. We proles live far better than we should, if the economy and the environment were “managed” in the way that was the best for Gaea.
It is the Left’s contention that us flyover Proles are all thalamus and the only way we will take actions contrary to our midbrain impulses is if they’re forced upon us, no matter if there is observable proof that those actions are counter-productive or not.
I consider myself “pro-environment”, “pro-solar”, “pro-wind”, etc–I guess you’d say I think of myself as pro-progress. I’ve recycled for decades but when, for example, I read that the lion’s share of the newspaper I’ve carefully sorted out ends up in the landfill, I feel more than a little bit deceived. Or when I know that photovoltaic cell efficiency is still quite crappy (I believe the best is still only 30% in a lab) and wind turbine efficiency is even worse, I have a hard time taking seriously people who scream in my face about how we must force expensive and large-scale implementation of these technologies RIGHT NOW.
Like the electric car–for decades we’ve been told that the reasons it hasn’t been adopted is because Big Oil and Big Auto have conspired to suppress it and because consumers are too dumb and selfish to change. No, the electric car continually failed because every single one offered to consumers has been utter shit as a car.
If $500 million in federal taxpayer money were to go into real R&D for real “alternative” energy technology, I would be all for it. Instead, it goes to scam outfits designed to line the pockets of the politically connected like Solyndra.
I’m not going to sacrifice for that kind of crap nor should any other American.
jefferson101 on May 27, 2012 at 6:19 pm said:
Oh, my. Electric Cars!
Now there is the ultimate confluence of insular liberalism, urban chauvinism, and Nanny State stupidity encapsulated. Everyone ought to have one, right? “For the Planet!!!”
Yeah, right. Everyone who lives in an urban area, (where there is already public transportation available) could really use one. The rest of us, not so much.
I could, in fact, use an electric vehicle to go back and forth to work, because I’m only about 8 miles from work. But that’s the only thing it’d be good for. Anywhere else I go is beyond the range of an electric, so I’m going to have to have a real gas-powered vehicle anyway.
Anyone want to guess how long it would take me for an electric vehicle to start paying off, given the 100 or so miles a week I’d actually be able to drive it? Once you figure in replacing the battery pack, does never sound about right. It’d be rusted out before it quit costing me twice much a mile as gasoline powered transportation does.
I really need a short range spare vehicle for $40K. That’d be almost as expensive as four more years of Obama would be, and I can’t afford that either.
Starless on May 28, 2012 at 6:54 am said:
If somebody could produce an electric car with cost, performance and lifespan comparable to an IC vehicle, they would likely sell very well (as someone in the Snow belt, I’d be happy with the superior torque) but reality is demonstrating that they’re not there yet and may never get there. They refuse to see that guilt and legal mandate can only go so far as long as the practical technology is inferior to what we’ve already got. I know all about conservation, CO2, greenhouse effect, and all of that, but when I slide into a snow bank or ditch on a township road when the temperature has crept below optimal for a battery, the on-demand 4WD power of an IC pick-up isn’t a want, it’s a need.