Executive Orders and Falling Space Rocks



By Mr. Curmudgeon: 

During his State of the Union address, President Obama said that if Congress fails to pass draconian environmental legislation “to protect future generations,” he will direct his “cabinet to come up with executive action we can take … to reduce pollution, [and] prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change …”

Should America, if not the world, breathe a sigh of relief?

Friday, an asteroid estimated to weigh 10 tons and no bigger than a large kitchen table, streaked across the sky above Russia. Moving through Earth’s atmosphere at 33,000 mph, the shockwave preceding the fiery rock bounced off the Russian tundra and slammed back into the meteor, triggering an above-ground explosion that toppled nearby structures and injured more than 1,000 people. Mr. Obama’s cabinet will have to tackle our planet’s near-earth-object problem once they save us from Al Gore’s invisible friend – global warming.

Executive Orders certainly impede the actions of a free people, engendering a god-like sense of omnipresent power in the mind of the pen-wielding signer, but it can’t slow or stop the solar system’s deadly, whirling debris. There is a lesson in all this: reality is far too complex for mere mortals to predict let alone manage.

In a letter dated July 3, 1776, John Adams confided to his wife Abigail that “succeeding generations” of Americans would celebrate the 4th of July “with pomp and parade … sports … bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other…” One month later, Gen. Washington’s Continental Army suffered a crushing defeat at the Battle of Long Island.

It would be seven years before Britain officially ended hostilities in America. Furthermore, the United States would not see a Pacific territory admitted into the Union until California brightened the constellation of stars on our flag in 1850. How could Adams know his nation would gain her independence and expand from sea to shining sea; that future generations would travel across North America in covered wagons or over asphalt ribbons in vehicles powered by fossil fuel, courtesy of dinosaurs annihilated by a massive meteor?

He didn’t. Adams believed liberty unleashed the creative impulses in a free people. That America’s unpredictable future was made more secure if built by free individuals working in cooperation with one another. That can’t be commanded into existence by autocrats with the stroke of a pen, or planned by commissions comprised of all-knowing bureaucratic “experts.”

Will all who predicted Russia’s meteor encounter please raise your hands … anyone … anyone at all? Why didn’t the fundamental transformer of America’s future “prepare our communities for the consequences” of an impending asteroid impact during his State of the Union harangue? It’s strange that utopians, who claim the power to mold the future, continually fail to predict it. An inconvenient truth, as Al Gore might say.


  1. There are certain arguments for global warming that the left has adopted, just as there are certain arguments against global warming that the right has adopted. The ones for the left tend to follow what observations and deductive reasoning has to offer, while the right's argument denies that. There are many things that humans do not have control over, and scientists agree on this. However, when it comes to things like global warming, or global climate change or whatever you want to call it, the same scientists who agree that we can't predict everything are going to tell you that this is the one thing that we can predict, and even slow down. The only reason for the right to deny climate change seems to be to separate themselves from the left as much as possible, and not for the safety of our planet.

    • The childish assumption of the left is that Earth is now as it always has been. During its 4.5 billion-year history, the Earth has been a molten ball of lava, a water world, host to jungle continents packed with dinosaurs and an Ice Age freezer. The geologic record shows the planet has experienced at least five extinction events, probably due to asteroid impacts. In short, existence on Earth is not static. If they want to “save the planet,” environmental toddlers will have to board their imaginary spaceships and warp-speed their way to a Utopian world outside our solar system … if not galaxy.

      Just in passing, the so-called “science” you put your childlike faith in was proven to be, well, less than scientific. Leaked e-mails proved the University of East Anglia – the clearinghouse for phony “global warming,” or “climate change,” or whatever they call this brand of hooey these days (see, change is the only constant in life) – cooked its data to match their climate models. They also warned scientific journals not to print peer-review articles critical of these Super Mario models.

      In the end, global warming is as real as your average comic book villain. But it gives emotional adolescents that believe in it an opportunity to play the super hero and … “save the planet!”

      –Mr. C

      • Emails have supposedly been leaked and still 98% of the scientific community believe them to be true. Some would say that it shows how detached the scientific community has become, while others would say those emails have been taken out of context, which if you haven't guessed already, is the stance that I take. We aren't trying to save ourselves from our inevitable demise. We are trying to save ourselves from our own mistakes.

        Even if you don't believe in this brand of hooey, we do live on a planet with a polluted atmosphere, that is only polluted because of what we have put in the air. If you want to go one step further and deny that, we are also living on a planet which is becoming more and more dangerous for us to live on because the ozone that has once protected us from the harmful UV rays that come from our closest star is disappearing. This is not a natural occurrence and although we cannot stop it, it is our fault as human beings.

        The comic-book villain we are going up against is a very real, very dangerous one, and we created it. Even if our attempts at stopping it are unsuccessful, we might as well not kick ourselves while we're down, and try to do something about it.

        • That 98% of the scientific community believe in manmade global warming is no more impressive to me than that a majority of doctors once thought bleeding their patients relieved the “evil humors.” Scientific consensus is meaningless. That’s because true science never claims to have a monopoly on “truth.” Science, just like our Earth’s climate, constantly changes. All of today’s scientific “truths” are mere working hypotheses.

          Back in 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from various disciplines related to climate science signed a petition stating, “… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of Earth’s climate.”

          So much for your so-called consensus.

          The operating assumption within climate pseudoscience is that man drives the natural changes in Earth’s climate. That’s not science – that’s religion. Global warming, climate change or whatever environmental Chicken Little’s care to call it, is an invisible article of faith.

          The sophistication of ancient Aztec mathematics and knowledge of astronomy is impressive – even by today’s standards. Nonetheless, the consensus of their “scientific truth” required cutting out the beating hearts of their sacrificial victims. Today’s climate “science” is, like that of ancient Mezzo America, a blend of science and religion.

          So, excuse me if I refuse to throw myself on to the sacrificial alter.

          • 1998 was 15 years ago, and people learn more throughout the years. Not only that but the Oregon Petition which you were referring to has much controversy surrounding it, just as the studies behind climate change supposedly do. There was even a news release after it's signing by the National Academy of Science saying, "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

            So much for your so-called petition.

            The science behind Chicken Little's fears are not religious. They are science. Just because someone calls something a religion does not mean it is. If it were a religion we would see people praying to the goddess of earth, and relying on her to give them the answers as opposed to observing the natural world for themselves. I could easily compare what you are saying to religious rantings but I don't, because I know they are not.

            I respect your skepticism of global warming. I believe you must question everything. But there comes a point where you have to stop pulling the conspiracy card every time the majority of those who have authority on such matters say the same thing: that global climate change is a result of human behavior. I'm just glad the only support you seem to gather is from a fragmenting group of people, whose only political backing is from a political party that doesn't know how to get organized enough to combat "King Obama" from implementing his "communist reforms".

            Climate scientists do not harm human beings. Many have a respect for all life on earth , which is the reason behind their push to get people to understand the implications of their data. You don't have to throw yourselves to the sacrificial alter. Those who do soon realize that it is nonexistent.

          • I am not one of those that consider Obama a Sevngali-like mastermind attempting to bring to fruition the long dead international communist conspiracies of the past. Even the Chinese gave up on totalitarian communism in favor of totalitarian state capitalism. I see Obama as a symptom of the devolution of American politics from one based on ideas to a philosophy based solely on childlike longings.

            Examples: the belief that government entitlements can be saved by steeling the earnings of generations yet unborn, giving them a massive bill in the form of a $16 trillion debt – infantile; the belief that Washington bureaucrats are the engine of economic innovation and progress – juvenile; the belief that changes in Earth’s ever evolving climate can be stopped by deindustrializing the Western World and effecting a U.N. sponsored wealth transfer to the Third World – childlike naiveté.

            The left/right debate in America is meaningless; neither Barack Obama nor Rush Limbaugh can solve America’s problems. Things will only change for the better when Americans stop thinking like spoiled, silly children and man (woman) up. There is no such thing as a free lunch … or Al Gore’s invisible friend global warming.

  2. Recent studies show the hole in the ozone layer is contracting not expanding. http://www.livescience.com/27049-ozone-hole-shrin

    I want to start by saying I dislike waste. I am all about recycling products from clothes to metals, plastics, electronics, paper. I try to purchase used or refurbished – even recycled when possible.
    That being said, I do not buy into the religion of climate science.
    People sure have short memories. When I was little (1970's) it was predicted that , because of "man's" CO2 pollution, the pollution would have an effect on the earth much like a visor or tinted windows and our earth would begin to enter an ice age by the 1990's or early Y2k. When that didn't happen, science shifted gears and insisted it was not cooling that was happening but rather warming. Recently it was stated that science concluded that warming was not happening but now it is the presence of extreme weather.

    • Extreme weather comes in cycles that science can’t explain. Climatologists have no explanation for the trigger that caused Earth’s various Ice Ages. Some think it may have been changes in ocean currents, others that solar activity played a part. But no one knows for sure.

      There is a famous painting by German artist Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze of George Washington crossing the Delaware River. In the painting, Washington’s men push floating chunks of ice away from the boat as it sails toward the Hessian encampment in Princeton, New Jersey, to do battle. For years the painting was considered an historical embellishment because that river does not freeze during winter in modern times. However, in Washington’s day, the Earth was in the grip of what climatologists call the “Little Ice Age,” which lasted from 1550 to 1850.

      Extreme weather (climate change) has existed on Earth long before man began pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It’s 100 percent natural.

      –Mr. C