Hurry to Pass Big Stuff Now and We’ll Fix it Later (Promise!)

As I’ve pointed out, one of the arguments made by the Healthcarism advocates was that we must pass something, anything and “the warts can be removed later.” Apparently, that attitude exists amongst global climate changistas, too (h/t):

Some researchers have argued that it is unfair to attack the IPCC too strongly, pointing out that some errors are inevitable in a report as long and technical as the IPCC’s round-up of climate science. “Part of the problem could simply be that expectations are too high,” said one researcher. “We have been seen as a scientific gold standard and that’s hard to live up to.”
Professor Christopher Field,director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution in California, who is the new co-chairman of the IPCC working group overseeing the climate impacts report, said the 2007 report had been broadly accurate at the time it was written.
He said: “The 2007 study should be seen as “a snapshot of what was known then. Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong we can fix it next time around.” However he confirmed he would be introducing rigorous new review procedures for future reports to ensure errors were kept to a minimum. {emphasis added}

Let’s look at what I emphasized:
1) “…errors are inevitable in a report as long and technical as the IPCC’s round-up of climate science.”: Yes, it is a compounding kinda thing: the bigger the report, program, idea, the more likely there will be mistakes, oversights, fraud, waste, abuse….
2) “…the 2007 report had been broadly accurate at the time it was written.”: Global Warming? That’s soooo 2007. Good thing there was enough resistance to that “consensus” about the inevitability of global catastrophe. If we’d all marched along blindly, can you imagine the sort of already obsolete government regulations and restrictions we’d have had? (Hope I’m not speaking too soon…)
3) “The 2007 study should be seen as “a snapshot of what was known then. Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong we can fix it next time around.”: There it is. Based on “what we knew then” we were harangued about the need for the massive imposition of “environmental” safeguards that will impact the global economy negatively. And we’re assured that things will be fixed next time around–just like health care.
How confident are you that a massive governmental program will be flexible enough to integrate such “change” on the fly? Or that the political will is there to do it. (Social Security, anyone)? No, every time I hear promises about fixing problems down the line, I recall that infamous line from Animal House about trust. My guess, in the wake of the Scott Brown win, is that most Americans are a little wary of Big Government for much the same reason.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Warrington Faust
Warrington Faust
11 years ago

I have been asked by several “Liberal” friends “why do conservatives oppose universal health care”.
They seem unable to understand that it is not universal health care that we oppose. What we oppose is a half baked, government run, plan; which no one has read, which is voted on in secret after “compromises” that result in one state being free of additional taxation.
I frequently ask if they can recall that it took FEMA 7 days to get water to the stadium in New Orleans. They are unable to recall that. Or, suggest that mistakes happen.
Would you want FEMA in charge of your heart attack?

Donna
Donna
11 years ago

Sounds like when they were passing the prostitution law this past “special” session. Most of the quotes were “I know it isn’t the best law, but we need something now and we will fix it later”

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.