Its good to finally see a CEO fighting back and throw the bullshit flag on the enviromental shakedown artists, not to mention that this is just about the best quote Ive seen describing the eco-vangelists....
"Some wealthy elitists in our country," he told the audience, "who cannot tell fact from fiction, can afford an Olympian detachment from the impacts of draconian climate change policy. For them, the jobs and dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than statistics and the cares of other people. These consequences are abstractions to them, but they are not to me, as I can name many of the thousands of the American citizens whose lives will be destroyed by these elitists' ill-conceived ‘global goofiness' campaigns."
-- Bob Murray
link
19 comments:
The only thing more expensive than doing something about global warming will be not doing something about it.
So you quote the CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, with interests in coal,speaking before The New York Coal Trade Association about global warming. I see the article also quotes "Timothy Ball, a renowned environmental consultant" as blaming global warming on sun spots. Dr. Ball is with The Natural Resources Stewardship Project, founded in October 2006, with close ties to energy lobbyists.
Have either of these two gentlemen published anything in the scientific literature about global warming, or are they just whores?
Once again Gary you ignore the point of the post and resort to your usual ad hominem attacks.
Whats your point?
That the coal industry shouldnt have a say in this matter? Coal is evil? Coal is the new Big Bad Oil?
Your argument holds no water. Its selectively hypocritical. Money is being made on both sides of this issue, but you only hold it against those that disagree with you.
No rational person, alarmist or realist, can disagree with this quote... that there will be significant costs if the alarmists have their way, costs to life and liberty, costs that have here to now been largely ignored by the ecovangelists.
Looks like you got the memo that the Exxon rebuttal is out and that peer reviewed publishing is in.
Do you ever think for your self?
As I said it will be more expensive not to address global warming. As to your other points I have noticed a few things:
1) The skeptics never seem to do actual research or publish in scientific journals. Why is that?
2) The skeptics are paid by Exxon but apparently not to do research, only to make speeches and write op-ed pieces.
3)The skeptics deserve to have their say, which they certainly do, but not only are they in a small minority among scientists but they cannot seem to support their position with actual scientific studies.
Since only wingnuts and people paid by Exxon deny global warming, and I am in neither category, I will continue to give much more weight to the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue.
Erroneous, erroneous on all counts.
Really?? Then please be so kind as to direct me to:
1) a couple of peer-reviewed articles by skeptics
2)a couple of skeptics who do not receive money from Exxon or energy interests
Also, while you're at it, refute the claim that the skeptics are a small minority of climatologists. Several meta-reviews of the scientific literature support my position.
I dont know Gary how bout...
Nasa, Science Daily, Science Magazine, 17,000 scientists, The Niels Bohr Institute, National Climatic Data Center, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
To name just a few...
All cited by us, all ignored or attempted to be discredited by you. FYI every single scientist that you cite has been compensated for their work as well, I hope you are aware. As has been pointed out there is as much if not more money following the herd of global alarmism. Your Exxon argument is bunk.
I do not attempt to say the climate realists are a majority, I hope we are. All great scientific achievements are the result of the skeptic and not the sheep.
Natural occurences and historical warming/cooling cycles do not fit neatly into your ideological and political movement so you, like the UN, like the IPCC, like all the Algorians ignore it, and that my friend is a slap in the face of the scientific method you claim to value so much.
You deny the science because you fear it and obviously do not understand it, in all due respect you are unworthy of my time on this subject..
Now I am done with you today, as your tomfoolery has become a nuissance to me as you have yet to address a single scientific fact we have presented. Its okay, we understand that you are incapable, its not your fault.
Your ad hominem attacks are beneath the collective intellect of The Aurora.
Get back to me when you can make an actual point as opposed to spewing the liberal cliffnotes rebuttal about Exxon and peer review publishing. In other words, when you get an original thought on this subject let us know.
Until then, save us the regugitations.
"Nasa, Science Daily, Science Magazine, 17,000 scientists, The Niels Bohr Institute, National Climatic Data Center, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."
I asked for articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Or at least news reports about them, OK? If any of those 17,000 scientifists or NASA researchers or whatever have ever done any actual research and published the results, let's see it.
Science magazine, the only scientific journal on your list is certainly one of the most prestigious scientific journals. What global warming skeptic has published there?
I don't deny the science. I want to see it.
You mention NASA. Let's see what NASA has to say.
"Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect."
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
Hmmm, the The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration seems to accept global warming as well:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1
NASA is a big org Gary,
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
OK the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine supports your position.
"The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
so is The NOAA
The Earth has experienced other warm times in the past, including the Medieval Warm Period (approximately 800-1300 AD), the mid-Holocene (6,000 years ago), and the penultimate interglacial period (125,000 years ago). These warm periods are described in the sections below
Paleoclimate for times before 2,000 years ago are also useful because they reveal the full extent of natural climate variability. These older records show that climate has changed abruptly in the past, and also reveal a remarkable correspondence between carbon dioxide change and temperature change during the Earth glacial cycles, described in the sections below.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html
Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 14th Centuries
Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today. In the early days of paleoclimatology, the sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records were interpreted to indicate that there was a "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures were warmer than today. This "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum," was generally believed to extend from the 9th to 13th centuries, prior to the onset of the so-called "Little Ice Age."
In contrast, the evidence for a global (or at least northern hemisphere) "Little Ice Age" from the 15th to 19th centuries as a period when the Earth was generally cooler than in the mid 20th century has more or less stood the test of time as paleoclimatic records have become numerous. The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
Doesn't this go against your thesis? The information you posted refutes the "Medieval Warm Period."
"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."
Well I figured Id kill two birds so to speak.
That the earth has experienced climatic cycles and that scientists can be wrong.
Well, I wouldn't deny either and neither would anyone else. The skeptics could be wrong too the, right? Just like the smoking causes cancer skeptics, paid for by the tobacco companies.
the point is that murray is using the alarmist bogeymen to perpetuate an outright lie: that improving the environment and growing the economy are mutually exclusive.
they're not.
of course there are nutjobs out there who would sooner see the economy die than a spotted owl, but they're a minority of environmentalists.
and i guess they attract attention to the issue, but is it the right kind of attention? we'll see.
i agree with donsky. good environmental policy, whether you believe the doomsday scenarios or not, is a good thing for the economy overall. coal and petroleum based industries, as well as the bulk of the american car companies, whose bottom lines are dependent on gas guzzlers, are fighting change, that's only to be expected, but it's not doing anything to ensure their long-term survival. they'd be much better off taking a longer-term perspective than the short-term one they are taking now. more and more people are becoming environmentally conscious (whether you like it or not) and that is going to leave these industies out in the cold. they will become extinct. like the dinosaurs. or the thousands of animal species that have already become so due to global climate change.
Dsky,
of course there are nutjobs out there who would sooner see the economy die than a spotted owl, but they're a minority of environmentalists.
Well actually the democrats now hold the majority, I guess you missed the '06 elections.
Anita,
Theres a big frickin difference between good enivormental policy, which it sounds like it suprises you to know that I am all for, and doomsday scaremongering end of the world luddiction policy.
The future is going to look back and call y'all jackasses. The same as we now look back at the great eco frauds of the past. I just hope you hippies dont cause too much damage.
future?
future?
there will be no future if you don't move to a sod hut with no electricity!
didn't you see my movie?!?! it won an OSCAR!
DIE! you're all going to DIE!
p.s. gore in '08!
Post a Comment