(Title Provided by the donkey)
"The earth is warming. Temperatures at the Earth's surface increased by an estimated 1.4°F (0.8°C) between 1900 and 2005. The past decade was the hottest of the past 150 years and perhaps the past millennium. The hottest 22 years on record have occurred since 1980, and 2005 was the hottest on record." (Pew Research Center)
"The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous obvious factors. “On record” obviously means a very short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked this claim in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps after decades of “sprawl” (growth), cement being warmer than a pasture." ( Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" )
Now that i have your attention........ I keep mentioning scientists who argue that man made global warming is mostly just bullshit, and the "intellectually lazy and easily frightened" among our readers respond NOT with science, but with ad hominem attacks on the scientists claiming that they're all paid by the big bad Exxon corporation and even though they're professors of climatology at Harvard and other prestigious universities, they're selling their souls for some green backs. Now normally i'm no defender of college professors who i think tend to be ultra left wing politically correct flunkies, however who the hell else are you going to turn to for this kind of information? Really, besides bureaucrats and college profs who the hell has the time to study these things? The rest of us have to work for a living...... But i digress (always wanted to write that)
Here's the thing, If you're going to attack the scientists on the Exxon payroll, you have to attack EVERYONE who is getting paid by ANY group with an agenda one way or the other. But you say there's more scientists on one side of the issue than the other? Well maybe that's because there's more MONEY on one side than the other.
"In accusing ExxonMobil of giving "more than $19 million since the late 1990s" to public policy institutes that promote climate holocaust "denial," Senate Inquisitors Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller slandered both the donor and recipients. Moreover, this is less than half of what Pew Charitable Trusts and allied foundations contributed to the Pew Center on Climate Change alone over the same period. It's a pittance compared to what U.S. environmental groups spent propagating climate chaos scares. It amounts to 30 cents for every $1,000 the United States, European Union and United Nations spent since 1993 (some $80 billion in all) on global warming catastrophe research. And it ignores the fact Exxon's grants also supported malaria control, Third World economic development and other efforts."
Read it here my furry friends...Baaaah Baaaah
19 comments:
Well, first, I will go with the Pew Center over some author who has written a book with a lot of cartoons. Not to mention the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Intergovermental Panel of Climate.
Even if the skeptic's motives are pure as the driven snow, they are still a minority, and a shrinking minority at that. Doesn't necesarily make them wrong, but doesn't make them right either.
Thanks for making my point for me gary. just keep following the herd now... go ahead... don't form your own opinion, don't use common sense, and don't worry about it, because the rest of the herd is right there with you.
Why dont you address the points he makes as opposed to resorting to a schoolyard version of "my source will beat up your source".
Youre like a broken "intellectually lazy and easily frightened" record.
Say hello to Little Bo Peep for me.
Following the herd? There is a scientific consensus on this issue, at numbers over 90%, according to the IPC and metareviews of the scientific literature. I've said that this does not NECESARRILY make the majority right (just probably, in my opinion.) What more do you want? Why are you so sure the minority is right?
Because if you actually try to address the points, he doesnt read them anyway. You guys never answer anything.
1.You are not looking at goals.If a drug company paid the FDA to say that a pill was safe when it wasn't, and another group set out to at least find out for the sake of the public and their safety, I fail to see how you can equate these agendas and motives. One is a commitment to public safety, the other a concern for profit. Its possible though to appreciate profit AND safety. Make good drugs AND not kill people.Free market does not mean "do anything".
2.You say it will hurt the economy. Then you talk about how great the economy is. Well, then now is a good time! When things are strong, as opposed to the future problems even right wing economists anticipate. Why not transition to other energy forms NOW?
Response??? Whats your argument?
3.In your writing, there are no win-win capitalism-environmental scenarios. And thats just ignorant. Perfect capitalism does not exist any more than perfect communism exists. neither in the extreme make any damn sense.
4.Thats why you cant seem to get past alternative energy being anti-business. Its just a lack of understanding about the fact that many jobs CAN be created and many new industries are emerging.
When people stopped using horses and bought cars, America adapted!
5.Your view is actually very ANTI AMERICAN and ANTICAPITALIST because you presuppose that America cant deal! America has been at the helm of progress. Why do you think business is incapable?
6.What do most greens have to gain by perpetuating mythology?
7.You say what they gain is support to take over energy Chavez-style. But not all climate scientists are anti-capitalists. Some do not favor ANYONE taking over energy industries. Response?
What is THEIR motivation? Most scientists work without fanfare, wealth, or notoriety.
Im just curious, because we know why energy industries would want to suppress science. But why would people without any evidence of vested interest? Profitless people?
Just to be contrarians?
It cant be because they have concerns, or correlate climate change to other issues? It cant be motivated by having children or grandchildren?
OK so you dont believe in global warming. Fine.
But thats not the only problem.
What about peak oil, and supply? What about the fact that economies are growing elsewhere and demand for oil GLOBALLY has gone up?
Even if you reject the entire premise, its an economic reality that new sources will become more difficult and tougher to refine. Why not start now, using renewables anyway?
Why not give "enemies" the least amount of money as possible? Why keep the people who hate America awash in perpetual wealth?
Do you have any reason why renewables are a lose situation for people regrdless of your position on global warming????
Oh, and for whatever it's worth, Christopher Horner is a lawyer not a scientist, and his organization the Competitive Enterprise Institute has received millions from Exxon.
Thats a dangerous assumption EB.
Nowhere have we said that we are against alt fules, in fact we are strong proponents and of the mind that if there were no more petrol tomorrow we would all be driving coca-cola cars by next week.
...but thats not the issue here.
Lily what the hell are you talking about? Kyoto? Merck-gardisil?
First of all for you to say we don't answer anything is ridiculous since we put our position out front for everyone to comment on.
Kyoto wouldn't "hurt" the economy, it would CRUSH the economy and it's nothing more than a socialist power grab since it would do NOTHING to help the environment.
We have nothing against alternative energy and in fact we're all for it, but we're not interested in the government telling us that we can't drive the cars we want to drive and we can't own power boats and we have to use solar energy even though we don't like it. If it's better cleaner cheaper and more efficient then PRIVATE INDUSTRY will make it profitable and it will become more popular.
Finally, as i put in the post, there's more MONEY in being a global warming alarmist than the other way around. That is the main motivation for these scientists along with the follow the herd mentality that you seem to think scientists are immune to. Plus you have it backwards, if they claim global warming is a problem they aren't contrarians, they're in the majority where it's warm and safe and nobody will take their grant money and classroom away.
Take the emotion away for a minute and look at it logically.
The arguments against my side that i kept hearing were:
1. they're paid by exxon, to which i answered that your side is paid a lot more.
2. they're taking only a very short term view: to which i have answered that it's YOUR side that has a short term view since they were the same scientists that were saying we were cooling only 30 years ago.
3. why wouldn't we do it just in case? to which i answered and will answer again that it's not worth it! there is no current man made solution to "global warming" that won't cripple our economy.
There's your answers AGAIN.
Not doing something about global warming will hurt the economy more than doing something. Developing new technologies will probably help the economy actually.
Oh, and by the way, the author of the article you quoted (from the Moonie Times)is with the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
which gets money from Exxon.
We are at or near the point we were with smoking a few decades ago when all the scientists on the other side were paid by Big Tobacco.
I am not talking about just Kyoto as that is certainly not the only plan out there. EVERY thing we can do to reduce emissions helps. Its not Kyoto or do nothing. Again, extremes with you people!
I think it is very inconsistent to say that you are not against alternative energy but dont have any answer for who will pay to transition the infrastructure.
You can SAY you support things but who will pay for it? How is it fair to open up public land for oil extraction and then its unfair to charge the companies? That seems like ONE source. Who provides security? OH but thats ok because we need oil. Well we need milk too, are you in favor of milk subsidies? labor subsidies?
Giveaways like that seem kind of...communist dont they? You act like its all about punishment. Fact is there are examples of public support for Big Oil and nobody asks for a penny back.
The other stuff aside: You mention not wanting the government to tell you you cant have your motor boat. Your cars. Why does emission technology take that stuff away? It doesn't.
Do you know what Conservatives say though about those questions? Look into it.
We can raise CAFE standards, and that would go along way.
We know who lobbies to prevent efficiency. I am not sure how knowledgeable you are about energy technology but...somebody has to lobby FOR efficiency. If not for global warming, for security. Cost.
How can anyone be for alternative energy, but not have a plan to phase it into our economy? (if you do, please explain)
How can you support alternative energy but enable the suppression of efficient technology? (If you have a plan, please explain.If there are people on the right who support efficiency, correct me.)
How can you rationalize security and resource subsidization but the slightest talk about higher taxes for energy companies is socialism? If I have mischaracterized your view on energy input cost capture plans, please explain.
How can anyone worried about the economy rationalize waiting until a crisis point to confront oil depletion? If thats not what you are suggesting, please explain.
i never said kyoto or nothing. I said NO to kyoto. I haven't read about any other plans.
transition what infrastructure? for what? all the wind powered cars?
Charge the companies for what? For allowing them to risk hundreds of millions of dollars and create thousands of jobs to take the chance that in 15 years they might break even on their investment IF they can get the oil out of the ground in a tough environment AND the price of oil doesn't go down to the levels it was at 5 years ago which would mean it would take 25 years to break even?
Nobody is asking for a penny back? you did so in this comment! are you serious?
I didn't say emissions standards took anything away. i don't know where you're going with that.
I don't have a plan to phase in efficient technology but i don't think we need one. If it's efficient the market will make it happen. i don't enable suppression of efficient technology and i'm not aware of any system or organization that is in favor of suppressing efficient technology. Everyone with a brain supports efficiency in every aspect of life and business.
i don't rationalize security or resource subsidation. I also don't believe in windfall profit taxes. penalizing success leads to failure or at the very least it stifles growth and risk taking.
i do not believe in waiting for a crisis point for anything. I don't believe we are headed for a crisis, but either way i don't trust the government to plan ahead and save me from any crisis that might come up.
And that i think is the difference between us and you. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you think the government should and will provide for your future. We believe that the free market, if left to it's own devices will provide for our future. Do you think the people at exxon are stupid? do you think they aren't working on alternative energy sources? Don't you think that if solar panels on my roof were more efficient than oil heat i would already have them? Don't you think that if hydrogen fuel cells could run my car for half the price i would be driving a hydrogen powered car? Don't you believe that EVERYONE would? Don't you think the oil companies and car companies know this? If it wasn't for the federal government my electric bill would probably be a 10th of what it is because it would be provided by nuclear power! If it wasn't for the libs we would have more refineries and gasoline would be cheaper and we would be drilling in ANWR for a decade already and oil would be cheaper and we would have leverage over our enemies.
The free market is the solution, not higher CAFE standards. commie.
I should say the free market is the solution IF there's a problem. Again, i don't think we have a global warming problem.
....and if that doesnt work we can always throw a rock concert.
"...and if that doesnt work we can always throw a rock concert."
and i'm only going to that one if megadeth will be there.
(hey, i have standards you know.)
That was kicking my ass Rhino? I dont think you ever really get what people write in comments, even when they go to the trouble to spell it out. Yes, you addressed your view of extraction costs and I do get that view. But then you got weird, denying peak oil and calling CAFE standards communist.
When you say people like me that think the government will take care of everything, you aren't getting what I am saying. You are reducing everything into a commie discussion again which is totally not what I said at all.
Honestly I think you are just not informed on basic energy policy, what the plans are, what the numbers are, and what the reasons are for different approaches.
If you think oil extraction is limitless-how can anyone argue with that level of discussion? Its silly. They are doing that in third grade right now.
You cannot look at EMOTIONLESS numbers of cars in places like India and China and say that oil consumption is not going to become a problem that is best addressed sooner rather than later.
Do I think the government is the answer? I didnt say that. But its always ALL OR NOTHING. Your arguments are always about extreme views which most people dont have.
Its either government OR private industry and neither can join together in any kind of way? Steps? progress here and there, with profit? Again I think its possible and you dont.You say do nothing, and ZERO personal changes. Dont take my SUV, and dont make it more efficient!
Everything is an extreme position with you. Did I ever say only government can solve this? No. But its governments job to work for the public and the job of corporations to make money.
Again I say the best scenarios are where people are safe AND people are rich. And thats my view, in a nutshell.
Rhino we PAY the government to advocate for us collectively and I am not sure why you think the government shouldn't within reason WHERE JUSTIFIED. Without any kind of standards, business hurts too. profit hurts.
I dont think I am expecting government to hurt business, I am saying that people have certain rights and the governments job is to enforce them. I am very clear on that.
I have always said that ANY limit on ANYTHING should be justified. That includes business. That includes your neighbors.
I have the right to not be murdered or stolen from,etc. so I expect my government to provide the protection I pay for out of my taxes. I have the right to run a factory, but not the right to pollute your family. So government is paid to be my advocate because information is assymmetrical, our society is about the balance: to weigh protecting the public with promoting an environment conducive to business which is a stable country with uniform standards optimal for economic growth.
Rhino for the last time I have never said anything EVER even remotely big government.
I know that nuclear power is a supposedly clean option, but if you study the history of plant operations and disposal problems I dont think its as simple as you think. Thats why you have a closed plant in Shoreham right now.
Oh yeah- that the government bailed out! They could not make it safe so the public inherited it-isnt that right? You like government then I imagine.
What about the waste? The safety? The potential for terrorists to get their hands on materials? These are not petty concerns, and proponents of nuclear power dont address them reasonably either. Can you?
Now youre just embarassing yourself...
What about the waste
What about the waste
What about it.............
so do i buy the pool heater or not? and will Al Gore garentee a temp my pool will be each year.
So anyway lily, i don't believe that we have a global warming problem.
That was the reason for the post. You want to switch it to drugs, energy policy, people stealing from you or whatever the hell you're writing about.
The ONLY argument i get from the other side is that my sources are paid by exxon. The CLEAR POINT of the post is that your side is paid a lot more and has a lot more to lose if they're wrong.
Did you want to address that? No? i didn't think so.
Post a Comment