Don't forget that there are plenty of ways in which corporate entities
can benefit from global warming legislation if they play their cards
right. If they put money in the right pockets, and a "carbon
surcharge" is added to every gallon of gasoline, an oil company would
stand to make a lot of money- maybe not as a direct 1-1 payment for
every gallon of gasoline sold, but certainly in the form of grants
intended to help them research ways to "clean up" their acts.
Dividing the government and global corporate structures into two
distinct and opposing groups is a fool's task. Who do you think
ponyied up the cash to get the politicians elected in the first place?
Before anyone jumps on me for it, yes, I am aware of the contridiction
between this and a previous post. I had a moment of foolishness when
thinking about business, and considered that some of those companies
may be being attacked by this- no doubt some are, but I don't imagine
you have to scratch very deep to find a whole lot of connections to
Rest assured, it is and will continue to be "business as usual". The
big boys beat their drums to confuse things, they make out, and the
rest of us get screwed while we continue to pay their bills.
The big issue with "global warming" is the Kyoto Accord, in which
everyone but the US is saying in effect "the US must clean up its act
but the rest of us don't have to". If the US signed it then they
wouldn't have anything to whine about, at least not until they started
freezing to death in the dark. But who in his right mind would agree
to such a thing?
Cite your references, please?
As I mentioned, the EPA spent $20 million to investigate this debate,
and is aggresively funding research into this issue.
Yet since 2002 they have stopped publishing results of the funding.
Here's the research the EPA initiated:
Ask yourself why the EPA has not published the results of their research.
They could report that global warming is true, false, or inconclusivie.
They have not published anything. They went from 20 reports a year to zero.
Also consider that the scientists *TRIED* to publish the reports,
"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned
Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800
federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about
interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies
reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly
500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from
publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150
climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political
interference with their work over the past five years. "
"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the
former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White
House Council on Environmental Waxman said."
Is it science, or is it the government?
Perhaps the EPA wanted to find some scientists that would publish
documents that proved global warming was a myth, but was unable to
find any scientists that would prostitiute themselves by lying.
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:51:27 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
Now let's see, you've admitted that the EPA newsletter is not a
peer-reviewed journal and yet you're on about how they haven't
published results of research and are using the lack of that
newsletter, which is not the proper venue for reporting the results of
research, as evidence that they are not reporting such results.
This is called "circular reasoning" and is a logical fallacy.
One would expect research results to be reported in peer-reviewed
journals, not government newsletters.
All of that sounds very dire however how do you know that the results
in question supported global warming and were not related to, say,
mercury in vaccines, or o-rings in solid rocket boosters?
If you work for the government then you do what your boss says. Same
in industry. That is the nature of the employer/employee
Did your buddy Grifo mention the EPA specifically as one of those
"multiple agencies" or do you have another source or are you just
jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence that you have
By the way, you're starting to sound like a broken record. It used to
be that if you repeated something often enough people would believe
it. Now they wonder what line of bullshit you're trying to sell them.
You might want to consider revising your tactics.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:18:09 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
So you're saying that the newsletter didn't contain any results? Just
a list of them? Well, then how does its existence or nonexistence
have any relevance at all? That's like saying that if someone stole
the card catalog at the library its absence would be evidence that the
library contains no books.
are not given credence in scientific journals.
Since you seem not to be inclined to look it up yourself , I typed :
ExxonMobil global warming deniers
into Google. The first item was:
It is not a scientific journal but they have facts to back up what they say.
"News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to
undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to
overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil."
"Mother Jones has tallied some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that
either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global
climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of
"skeptic" scientists who continue to do so."
However, I'm sure you will not allow this to undermine your skepticism. But
you were civil, so I have replied.
(BTW, I have over 400 people blocked in the two newsgroups I read regularly.
Chances are I won't see responses to my posts, especially if you are not
civil or are an idiot, IMNSHO.)
If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are
biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically
rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly
What do "policy groups" have to do with science?
So they admit that there are "skeptic" scientists.
I doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions.
They also love to be first with groundbreaking research.
Scientists ARE biased against bad science. If the facts can't be
proven, then it's not science.
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
No. The facts CAN be proven ... it's the conclusions that are still at
We are between a rock and a hard spot. By the time there are enough
facts to draw incontrovertible conclusions there may not be any
opportunity to alter those conclusions.
And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large enough
to have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that the US will
be unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing nations of China and
India look to be harder hit than the US. The US has already gone through
its coal stage, but those other countries are just now amping up to an
industrialized society. The US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps
even move beyond petroleum fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars
to secure the supply of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar
sums in obsoleting those fuels.
Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to get
there, would it make sense to use this one up?
Then why push the envelope on what this planet can recover from?
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
The US "obsoleted those fuels" in the '50s. But the same crowd that
is jumping up and down and screeching Something Must Be Done About
Global Warming now jumped up and down and screeched Something Must Be
Done About Nuclear Power and between picketing, sabotage, lawsuits,
and lobbying managed to make it so expensive to start up a new nuclear
plant that the utilities finally gave up on them and went back to oil.
The big problem with fixing the problem in the US is that the econuts
don't want any of the solutions that can actually _work_, they want
some new miracle or else they want to do away with all technology.
The trouble is that we don't know what the envelope is or what
constitutes pushing it or, if "global warming" is in fact the result
of human activity what the consequences of _stopping_ that activity
_Something_ is keeping the glaciers from coming south again. Can you
prove that it's _not_ the emissions that you want to stop? Can you
prove that it's not part of a completely natural ending of the ice
ages and the beginning of a return to the normal, non-glaciated state
of the planet?
And why is ending glaciation a bad thing anyway? It is not _normal_
for this planet to have significant glaciation. What is your
objection to a return to the normal state of the planet? That there
might be some costs involved in dealing with it? Well guess what, we
deal with it eventually or else we deliberately take action to prevent
a natural event, and that also has economic cost--how much _will_ it
cost to build a refrigerator big enough to keep Antarctica frozen when
the natural conditions that have been keeping it that way end, anyway?
Hey Bill, care to speculate on the fate of any politician who said he was
going to take your car away?
Neat thing is that manufacturers and power generating companies will gladly
use or provide power generated from whatever source we want. Ought to be
easy for an intelligent individual like yourself to chose one. Care to do
I'd be happy to- put a nuclear power plant in my town. No NIMBY here-
that would provide plenty of jobs and cheap electricity.
Even so, we don't really need it in the context of this debate- the
power here is mainly hydroelectric, and has been for some time. Just
wanted to make the point that I have absolutely no problem with one in
my backyard- I'd get a nice fuzzy feeling about it every time I saw
the cooling towers.
I'd be even better if that plant provided low-cost power for a decent
train system that connected cities that had usable bus lines. None of
those things are for environmental reasons- I would just really enjoy
being able to read a book when travelling instead of having to watch
the road- especially with the cost savings that would entail if I did
not need to fill up my gas tank every week and my car insurance was
lower. And I would certainly have no problems at all with a lower
electric bill- especially if that translated into a cheap enough
source of electricity that would make shutting off the gas a good
option and going with baseboards as a cost-saving measure.
Considering the safety record of nuclear power, they could put the
sucker across the street, and I'd have no objections (unless they had
too many really, really, bright lights shining through my windows)
Bill in Detroit wrote:
| We are between a rock and a hard spot. By the time there are enough
| facts to draw incontrovertible conclusions there may not be any
| opportunity to alter those conclusions.
An observation worthy of consideration. It seems to me that a wise
person might well consider the consequences of all courses of action
(as well as the special case of "do nothing").
In the absence of "hard" information, we do well to consider all the
scenarios we can imagine - with an eye toward avoiding the seriously
adverse outcomes. To reinforce Bill's point, I'll point out that
avoidance is not a strategy that can be applied retroactively.
| And there are hard economic decisions attached to ANY move large
| enough to have an impact. Yet ... it seems that most here fear that
| the US will be unfairly hindered. Is that true? The developing
| nations of China and India look to be harder hit than the US. The
| US has already gone through its coal stage, but those other
| countries are just now amping up to an industrialized society. The
| US needs to move beyond coal and perhaps even move beyond petroleum
| fuels. But it is dumping its money into wars to secure the supply
| of petroleum stocks rather than investing similar sums in
| obsoleting those fuels.
Whether we'll be hindered or not is immaterial to the making of the
decisions. If we find that we _need_ to travel from "here" to "there",
the fact that the trip might be uphill or downhill is a secondary
Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies altogether.
The path from where we are to there appears to me to be bumpy and
uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that of preparing our
offspring to make that journey and produce sound decisions en route.
My biggest worry is that we're not meeting that challenge.
| Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to get
| there, would it make sense to use this one up?
Perhaps - perhaps not - but until we know enough to answer that
question it seems reasonable to pass it on in at least as good
condition as we found it.
DeSoto, Iowa USA
Fusion is a "fueled technology". Considering that the amount of
hydrogen in the solar system is many times the mass of the Earth, if
we ever need to move beyond fusion we're screwed anyway.
The main obstacle to getting from here to there is the same people who
are demanding that we abandon "fueled technologies". They seem to
think that solar power is not "fueled" or something. I see little
difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away and using
fuel burned ten feet away.
Define "good condition". If you mean "exactly the same" you will
eventually end up fighting natural processes to keep it there.
J. Clarke wrote:
| On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:28:00 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
|| Ultimately, we'll need to move beyond fueled technologies
| Fusion is a "fueled technology". Considering that the amount of
| hydrogen in the solar system is many times the mass of the Earth, if
| we ever need to move beyond fusion we're screwed anyway.
Umm - ok. I was fairly sure that /someone/ was bound to muddy the
water if I didn't provide anti-nitpick definitions. Let's limit the
discussion to the planet on which we (well, most of us) find
ourselves; and just stipulate that the planet is the recipient of a
bounty of energy produced by a remote fusion reaction for which we
need not provide the fuel.
|| The path from where we are to there appears to me to be bumpy and
|| uphill - and our largest challenge appears to be that of preparing
|| our offspring to make that journey and produce sound decisions en
|| route. My biggest worry is that we're not meeting that challenge.
| The main obstacle to getting from here to there is the same people
| who are demanding that we abandon "fueled technologies". They seem
| to think that solar power is not "fueled" or something. I see
| little difference between using fuel burned 93 million miles away
| and using fuel burned ten feet away.
I've never actually encountered even a single person who demanded that
we abandon fueled technologies in the sense I used the phrase. I can
understand that you are concerned about our hydrogen budget; but I try
to restrict my attention to those things that'll have greatest impact
in the more immediate (say, within the next million years or so) time
With the time frame so restricted, the difference between fuel supply
10' away from you and that being consumed by our sun should be clear
even to the most obtuse among us...
||| Even if we had an alternative planet to live on and the means to
||| get there, would it make sense to use this one up?
|| Perhaps - perhaps not - but until we know enough to answer that
|| question it seems reasonable to pass it on in at least as good
|| condition as we found it.
| Define "good condition". If you mean "exactly the same" you will
| eventually end up fighting natural processes to keep it there.
Yes - I can see that I really should have been more specific about the
DeSoto, Iowa USA
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.