"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-- H.L. Mencken
and to paraphrase hlm.....
Global warming is also a form of worship. The worship of scaremongers by sheep.
-- donk.
19 comments:
You really haven't explained why so many eminent scientists are joining this "plot". Just for the money? Then, I suppose, they fabricate all the measurements from all the studies that have been done in the last few years.
Bush said more research needed to be done. It has been and is being done and it supports manmade global warming. So says the National Academy of Science and numerous other scientific bodies.
But you prefer to believe the small number of dissidents (who also get money--from Exxon and other oil interests).
I go by the science. You go by, well, I still haven't figured it out.
Gary, you are not a scientist, you aren't going "by the science" you are choosing a side that you feel is more credible.
Lets put all money aside for now since EVERYONE gets paid in one way or the other.
Here's the point. There are capable and reputable scientists on both sides of this issue. Algore and company want to say the discussion is over but it's not.
If you can't argue the science you attack the scientists for their funding. That's all we ever get.
Who knows what the motivation is for these scientists on either side? Money? Notoriety? Politics? Hopefully it's mostly just science. We don't know, but we know the science isn't settled, we know there is no consensus, we know that the earth's atmosphere is always changing and has been since the begining of time.
I can't tell you why these scientists believe as they do or even IF they actually believe it, but Galileo was put in jail for saying the earth rotated aroung the sun.
Here's the question that i want answered;
Why does algore and company want to shut down the discussion? What's the motivation for that? and if he really believes that the earth is nearing it's end, and we all need to change our ways to save it, then why won't he commit to changing HIS ways?
Personally i think he's full of shit, but hey maybe he just feels that the elite should be able to do whatever they want and only the lowly mouth breathers like us should have to sacrifice?
Either way the guys a dickhead.
i watched part of that hearing. it is so obvious these republican senators are out to put a gun to al gore head for messing with the status quo. actually, these guys were pretty comical in their attemppts to say that they know "the science" ... especially that guy from texas. it was comical, yet very sad and scary at the same time. what are these guys afraid of?
i personally think the sheep here are senators from texas and other oil and energy states ... their hefy contributors have the guns to THEIR heads if they don't stop al gore in his tracks.
As a example of how "science" should work, look no further than the classic Bohr Einstein quantum mechanics debates.
Not a bunch of knuckleheads claiming that their observations are fact without question and all those in disagreement are "skeptics"
Thats not science, thats religion.
...but the real money to be made here is not from big oil, as they have profited in the past and will continue to profit in the future regardless of any caps cafes or kyotos that may be implemented.
...it is the new green morality cottage industry that stands to profit the most from doing nothing and those that cant see that are, well you already know, sheep.
The only difference is that "big oil" will have earned their profits.
On a side note, dont y'all just feel stupid continuously blaming "big oil"? Dont you feel like hypocritical whores every time you fill up your gas tank? Isnt it apparent that you are being spoon fed a "villian" because the higher beings dont think you are intelligent enough to understand anything more complicated.
Do you still look under your bed for bogeymen before you go to sleep?
BOO!
don't you feel stupid talking about "green morality cottage industries"?
here in the united states it's been the innovators and the risk takers who have seen needs and openings in the marketplace and exploited them, and thus become multi-million and gazillionaires themselves.
i have no problem with "big" anything per se. "big oil" does not want these alternative industries to grow and threaten their bigness that's all. fund the small innovative business and see what happens. don't squash them.
Once again anita you have ad-hominem attacks instead of facts.
Again, lets put the money aside because i do believe algore has some skin in that game too... wouldn't you agree? In fact, isn't it more likely that he's full of shit since he not only has a movie to sell, but a "carbon credits" company?
As the donkey said already, the oil companies will profit regardless. If the regulations make it more expensive for them, they will just make it more expensive for us. Let me know when you think we will stop needing oil in the world, and that's when the oil companies will need to worry about you flat earthers.
Now again i will ask the main question which is;
WHY DO ALGORE AND COMPANY WANT TO CALL THE SCIENCE SETTLED AND END THE DISCUSSION?
and
IF THE EARTH IS "IN THE BALANCE" WHY WON'T ALGORE COMMIT TO CHANGING HIS WAYS AND REDUCING HIS OWN ENERGY USE?
Again, i think the guys just full of shit, Bush showed the way with his energy efficient very "green" home. Why won't your boy do the same?
Struck a nerve huh Anita?
Who are you suggesting should fund the "small innovative" businesses? Big business? Big brother? That sounds remotely like socialism. Wait nothing remote about it, thats socialism.
Maybe the "small innovative" businesses should just build a better mousetrap or shut the fuck up.
Anita, we don't have a problem with innovative businesses, and in fact i don't have a problem with algores bullshit movie or his carbon credits scam. Make all the money you can is my feeling, but don't go to congress and try to TAKE MY MONEY and put it in YOUR POCKET.
And THAT is the crux of the whole thing isn't it? Marx would have loved the kyoto deal wouldn't he?
so what if al gore has skin in the game? i would too if i could. he's not a saint like brother donkeyhue here.
who should fund the small firms ... some people and venture capital firms are already funding the small companies. and yes, one or another needs to come up with a better mousetrap and shut the fuck up and make his or her gazillions.
problem is, that that better mousetrap is a little late in coming because the car and oil companies and big utilities have driven the conversation and bought the politicians going long back. owners of the "status quo" are running scared. it's so obvious.
oh, why aren't THEY making the better mouse trap? they have the capital and resources.
and i'm not "attacking" anyone here. i'm having a "conversation" ...
Again anita you accuse the bigger industies of dubious dealings to make the excuse for the smaller ones.
Is that the only way to succeed in your mind? to bribe the pols with campaign contributions?
And why won't you answer my question?
Why does your side want to END THE DISCUSSION?
And
Why won't algore commit to reducing his own "carbon footprint"?
i think gary has already commented about al gore's 'carbon footprint' ... so i'll defer to him.
MY side wants to have a broad discussion of alternatives and find the facts, YOUR side wants to shut down the discussion with character assassination and claims of "socialism" ...
your claims of naivete are sad and transparent rhino ... you know that the business of washington is lobbying.
Thank you for proving my point Anita, by taking a swipe at my "sainthood" status you verify that this has become a moral issue with you people, and for a group that is so adamant about separating church and state, you sure do seem hell bent on legislating morality.
No anita, it is algore who said yesterday that the discussion is over, that the science is "settled" when clearly it is not.
Gary has not addressed algores refusal yesterday to pledge to try to reduce his carbon emissions, but i don't really expect anyone to address it anyway since that would mean you would have to admit he's full of shit.
Finally, i understand lobbying and i know there is a lot of money on both sides of the issue. What's your point?
I don't think the government should take my money to subsidize oil companies, airlines, farmers, or any other industry. However even MORE importantly, i don't want the federal government taking any more of my liberty because of a scientific theory with more holes than swiss cheese.
It's a scam! You want to scare people into buying bomb shelters for the coming nuke attack from the USSR? fine, but don't ask the federal government to MANDATE it like they want to do with lightbulbs and like they've already done with seatbelts!
1) the science is settled. ask the freakin' climate scientists!
2) global warming is bigger than al gore. seriously, i could give a rat's ass how many SUVs he's got--he's doing a huge public service with his work, and you'd be lucky if he let you lick his ball sweat.
3) everyone gets paid. but by whom? it's clear that oil and gas companies are being incredibly short-sighted (and probably sewing the seeds of their own obsolescence).
but clearly, as your mencken quote points out, the environmentalists are engaged in an orwellian conspiracy to break the will of the people. give me a fucking break.
4) what liberty are you losing? has anyone seriously proposed legislation mandating the use of environmentally friendly lightbulbs? it's not the mainstream environmental view.
i think it's quite sad that your partisan bias against certain individuals like gore can blind you to the most important crisis of our times.
what's even sadder is that ignorant politicans like james inhofe are standing in the way of american ingenuity leading us out of this mess--and earning billions of dollars for american businesses in the process.
1) Wrong. The current warming is settled the cause is not.
2) Wrong. Al Gore has gotten pretty frickin big.
3) Wrong. It is also clear that the enviros have a monetary stake on the grill as well. Whats the point?
4) Wrong. The lightbulb was an analogy (I think) Make no bones about, the legislation is coming.
Whats sad is that you think this is only about Al Gore with The Aurora, its just that he puts himself at the center (goreiocentric) of this issue. When we attack Gore it is deserved but it is also an indictment of the whole damn fraudulent scaremongering movement.
This is a partisan issue and it is the left that has made it so. Al Gore is going to fucking tell me if Im a good person or not. Fuck him.
If you want to make the argument that we need to ween ourselves off foreign oil, I will agree.
If you want to make the argument that we need cleaner and renewable energy sources, I will agree.
If you want to make the argument that we need to be more responsible stewards of our planet, I will agree.
If you want to make the argument that the earth will come to an end if I dont turn the lights off before I head to work, I will tell you to go fuck yourself.
donsky, i don't know how you can say it's settled when there are plenty of climatologists who disagree, but since you are so sure, then riddle me this;
If man/suv's/factories are the cause of climate change, then how do you explain the FACT that between 200 bc, and 600 ad the earth experienced the "Roman Warming period", and then between 600 to 900 came the cold of the dark ages, and then from 900 to 1300 was the "medeival warming period" and then from 1300 to 1850 we had a "little ice age"?
You see as much as you want to believe this bullshit, the FACTS don't match up. All of these other periods of warming and cooling happened BEFORE the industrial revolution! Can you explain this?
Please donsky tell me why you are so arrogant as to believe that all of a sudden it is YOU (man) who has the control over the weather, the temperature, and the sea levels?
and by the way,
We bash gore not because we don't like him (although we don't) but because he's the face of the chicken little contingency.
actually donkey, i wasn't kidding.
California Assembly Member Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), the chair of the Assembly’s Utilities and Commerce Committee, has announced that he is introducing legislation, the “How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act,” which bans the sale of incandescent light bulbs in California by 2012.
Ill give him credit for the title but besides that, well, how can I take anyone seriously from the Valley, and who has opposed alternative off shore fuel plants in the past as it would have been an eyesore for his constituents.
Typical not in my backyard limo lib (also see: Kennedy opposition to Nantucket Wind Farm)
Post a Comment