inauguration day

In Cato’s blog today Roger Pilon takes up the Democratic left’s broad characterization of Tea Party protestors as unruly and misguided because of the taunts of a few reacting to Sunday’s health care vote. Pilon’s main points are three: (1) Pundits are making claims about some protestors’ actions in certain cases without a “shred of evidence”;  (2) even if the allegations are true, the whole Tea Party movement shouldn’t be condemned for the actions of a few; (3) and Pilon’s ending point:

“The symbolism of the Democratic left’s hostility to the ‘tea baggers’ should not go unnoticed.  The tea party movement’s roots are in the American Revolution.  These ordinary Americans are protesting the Washington ’Establishment’ – which presently is the Democratic juggernaut - much as American Patriots were protesting the oppressive British Establishment that was ‘eating out their substance’ with ‘a long train of abuses and usurpations.’  The Democratic left should think long and hard about those parallels.  The times they are a-changin’.”

I’ll second that and also offer some observations of the Democratic lefts’ behavior that was found wanting on a much larger scale.  Remember Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009, with some in the liberal media overcome by emotion as they watched the huge crowds hailing the incoming president?  Was I (no fan of the Bush Administration) the only one discomfited by the crescendo of boos and cat-calls that greeted President Bush and Vice President Cheney (in a wheelchair) as they took their places for the swearing-in of President Obama?  Using the logic of the Tea Party critics, one could say that those hundreds of thousands showing such disrespect tainted all the Obama supporters as a boorish, mean-spirited mob.  But one wouldn’t say that, of course, if one were in sympathy with their sentiments or if one realized that those were individuals acting independently or if one believed in free speech.

Well, the noon temperature in Washington DC at the President Obama’s swearing-in was 28 degrees F., eight degrees colder than when Bush was sworn in eight years ago.

So is that what Bush’s much bally-hooed failure to curb CO2 emissions produced in the way of climate change—a Inauguration Day for Obama that’s eight degrees colder than Bush’s inauguration eight years ago? Shouldn’t more CO2 mean warming, not cooling?

Well, as I said in my earlier post today, this is not scientifically significant. But it is funny.

It’s also in line with the lack of warming of the last decade, and with the global cooling we’ve experienced over the last three years. This has occurred even though atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase. That is scientifically significant—it casts quite a bit of doubt on the climate models that supposedly indicate that higher CO2 levels mean higher temperatures.

By the way, if we forget about Inaugural Day temperatures and compare Bush’s first year in office with his last year, we find global cooling as well. The British Hadley Centre shows a lower overall global temperature for 2008 than for 2001.

So here we’ve got rising CO2 and declining global temperatures. Just what kind of demon gas is this carbon dioxide?

Anyone who lives in the nation’s capital knows that it has been FREEZING, with well below average temperatures. Even today, inauguration day, started out with the wind chill in single digits. It’s good to know that the president already is seeking to fulfill his promise to halt global warming. After all, as candidate Barack Obama told us in his June speech celebrating having locked up the Democratic Party nomination

“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

Of course, I have to say–as a warm weather person, I think we’ve had a bit too much planet healing lately!