peter_puck
-
Posts
321 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by peter_puck
-
-
Yes..we are...if only because Barack Hussein Obama supporters are doing the same thing, going so far as to adopt the middle name "Hussein" to blunt what they recognize as a definite political liability.
The movement is hardly a mass one, and it has taken place mostly online, the digital equivalent of wearing a button with a clever, attention-getting message. A search revealed hundreds of participants across the country, along with a YouTube video and bumper stickers promoting the idea. Legally changing names is too much hassle, participants say, so they use “Hussein” on Facebook and in blog posts and comments on sites like nytimes.com, dailykos.com and mybarackobama.com, the campaign’s networking site.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/us/polit...wned4Yt1Kw6PImg
They are just mocking how silly this Hussein thing is. Really, what is the point using his middle name but to appeal to biggots ? What does his middle name have to do with ANY issue of importance to the United States ?
-
It doesn't really make any difference. As far as the man on the street goes Chretien is a crook, and will be forever held responsible (justly so imo) for overseeing sponsorgate, and for protecting the people involved.
I think this is part Chretien's point. He will be viewed as being a "crook" despite the fact that there is no real evidence he was. Part of the reason people have this impression is that they A) misunderstand Gomery's report, and
paid more attention to Gomery's off the cuff statements rather than the report. -
Gomery was NOT proven anything. All the judge said was that his comments in an interview allowed for the impression of bias. He did not say that Gomery was wrong, and in fact, we all know Gomery soft-soaped Chretien's clear and obvious guilt.
Evidence ?
-
McCain is surely not going to lose. He's doing the right thing by disassociating himself from the "swiftboaters" but the fact is that Saddam B. Hussein Osama Obama is just too inviting a target not to draw swiftboaters. "
The problem is that the that the "Saddam B. Hussein Osama Obama " line of reasoning only appeals to really stoopid people that aren't likely to vote for anyone not endorsed by the klan.
You also have to remember that switf boating is about rewards too. Many of those involved in these type of dirty attack adds later got rewarded by Bush. I really doubt McCain would do that sort of thing. Many of the really good swiftboaters were involved in pushing Bush past McCain, and I think McCain holds a grudge.
Also, the real dirty money comes from the Christian right. How eager are they to switfboat for a candidate not has not only said they deserve a special place in hell, but who has also called them "agents of intollerance" ?
-
Actually, what they are doing is emulating the United States....not overtaking it. The Chinese graduate students come to the USA, not vice-versa. Only India sends more students to the USA, and they have a huge (English) language advantage.
As mentioned before....when China finally gets to the Moon, the Americans will wave on their way to Mars.
Actually, the number of foreign students had been declining (although the dollar's collapse has been helping to slow this down)
No, they are not overtaking the US YET, but they are catching up in a big hurry. The US has a technical advantage right now, but China is training far more engineers and scientists. Is there any reason that there greater number of scientists will not outproduce are smaller number ?
-
Means absolutely nothing at this stage...remember when Hillary Clinton was most favored too by the "polls"?
The only poll that counts is in November.
You gotta screw up pretty bad, or get swiftboated to loose that sorta lead. Since McCain has stated there is a "special place in hell" for swiftboaters, it is unlikely that they will come to his aid (really a shame we get a really decent politician for a change and he is going to loose because of it)
-
IF anyone watch TV last week, you may have hear Bernier say that he didn't know anything about Julie's past. Well, it could be true but I don't think people outside of his riding believe the tale. Just like he didn't REMEMBER leave any important papers at Julie's place, its been report this is a habit of his leaving things behind. He may be a nice guy but he's definitely NOT meant to be in any minister.
What worries me is that it took him so long to say this. It implies he was waiting to see what came out before he made a statement. Not wanting to say something that could be proven wrong later.
-
Let's assume this is a real concern. Which strategy would give those people in the third world the best chance:
1) Aggressive CO2 emission reductions schemes that increase third world poverty by denying them access to low cost energy sources like coal.
2) Focus on economic development which will give third world people access to the agricultural technologies that they will need to adapt.
For me 2) is clearly the better bet since 1) would not only increase suffering due to greater poverty it will likely not be enough to stop CO2 levels from increasing.
How about 3) Adopt sane energy policies in Western countries. Why are oil prices so high for third world countries ? What have global warming advocates done to increase the cost of oil to the third world ?
Our energy pig economies have used up all the cheap oil so that they have to buy the expensive oil. There is a guy down my street driving a hummer on a half hour commute. He is in a bidding war with someone in Africa trying to find fuel to pump clean water to a village. If we had been proactive and started to conserve years ago, there would have been enough for both.
-
Roy Spenser does not dispute the right of his employer to control what he said and did not say in public when he was acting in is role as a scientist for that employer. He simply found an employer that would let him speak his mind so it is unlikely that he would have kept documentation to prove what happened years later. IMO, NASA did nothing wrong when it tried to stop Hansen from abusing his credentials as a NASA scientist.
Yes it did. BTW, it was not "NASA", it was political appointees within NASA. "NASA" itself was shocked and made it very clear that scientists views were not to be censored (like had happened all over the public service under Bush). The fact that it is "unlikely htat he would have kept documentation" is laughable. Right up there with the people who believe there really was a 200 mpg carburator that was stolen by oil industry spies.
Gore collects 100K for each speech he gives on GW. He has an interest in numerous businesses that stand to make a lot of money governments start regulating CO2. There is no lack of evidence of financial conflicts of interest when it comes to Gore. Hansen is a little harder but I suspect his primary motivation is ego - he loves the spot light and wants a place in history.You missed the point. I said if someone knew they were lying and knew that their lying would cause harm then they should be punished. Now it is very clear to many scientists that elements of the anti-AGW movement are lying for money. Sure Gore does make lots of money for speaking (as does Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, and any other number of ex politicians). However you do not have one iota of evidence that Gore knows he is lying. Imagine the trial: " I just relied on the opinion of every major scientific organization and thousands of peer-reviewed papers". THere is a small chance he could be wrong...but there is no way anyone outside of the kooky world of climate denial could state he knew he lied)
With this, I think I am going to have to leave this line of debate. I really lack the time to chase your tinfoil hat army accross the internet anymore.
-
IF Israel does strike then get ready for the end of the Middle-East as we know it because there won't be nothing left after the nukes go off! Russia and China have already said they will strike back whoever does harm to Iran. Plus, tit will put all the NATO forces in danger of being killed along with the millions of people that live in that area. There are other ways to handle Iran and bombing is not one of them and if you think the price of oil is high now, if this happens you'd be lucky to find gas.
How are China really going to strike back against Israel ? The both have large armies, but I don't think either is really capable of harming Israel with anything other than nuclear weapons. That is not going to happen
-
I hope not. I don't believe in one superpower. The world is all of ours, we all have to live in it, and as such, should not be subject to any one nation's "powers." Having said that, I hope no other nation emerges to simply replace the U.S. in that role. Depending on the nation, one might be hoping that the U.S. had that position again; but no matter what nation(s) it would be, the EU, for example, they would soon be 'hated' too because that's generally what happens when one gets power-- and that's also many people's reaction to power.
I really think it is going to be China at the rate its going. It is gaining rapidly in almost every area where the US has had an advantage in the past. It is also a more functional society than the US. They don't have one lawyer for every 300 people like California does. They don't have the massive welfare state or prison system to weigh them down. They don't really have to worry about public opinion. They graduate massive amounts of Science/Engineering graduates.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't admire their policies, I am just saying they are gaining rapidly, and at this rate, will overtake the US at some point.
-
Well...if we are going to attack Stephen Harper's "approach to any policy challenge", then let's look at the facts.
Fact: Liberals champion them selves as Environmentalists, and the ideal party to curb Global Warming.
Fact: Under the Liberals Green House Gas Emissions rose by nearly 33%
Look at the growth of the Canadian economy during that same period. Economic growth caused the increase in greenhouse gases.
I see your point that the Liberals didn't do a heck of a lot during those years (then again, it wasn't as clear an issue), but to blame them for economic growth seems a little silly.
-
So you woudl be OK if a oil company started handing out "prizes" to scientists who do research that it likes?
Gee. That got you upset. Any chance that you have enough self-awareness to realize that the accusations of 'oil-money' given to skeptics are of similar nature but repeated endlessly through the internet until people like you assume they are true?
The Milroy link was in the tobacco papers. Ball's funding was rooted out by a investigation by the U of Calgary.
The links between these people are well documented.
You on the other hand parrot right wing talk show hosts talking points. You should no that those things are not meant for the rest of the world, only the true believers.
In any case, here is a link that provides the original source (the annual report from the Soros foundation): http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...s-annual-reportI have read the Soros foundation report. I ask you again, where is the evidence of Hansan being paid $750 000 by Soros ? I think what you are getting at is that some conservative talk show host took the entire budget of one program and said Hansan COULD have gotten that much because thats how much was in the entire budget.
BTW how can you accuse me of looking at some blogs that you mentioned (Exxon secrets and smogblog) when you get you news from "newsbusters". A site that exists to counter "liberal bias in the media).
Same thing happened to Roy Spencer when Clinton/Gore was in charge. Spencer was specifically prohibited from expressing his views on climate change when he appeared at a congressional committee. Spencer resigned from NASA because of the interference. Why didn't the media jump to his defense then? Where was Soros with his $720K to defend "whistleblowers"?First of all, what evidence do you have that Spencer was censored besides some things he said to right wing talk show hosts long after the fact ? The NASA report has emails, memos, morons trying to defend themselves. What do you have ? Besides, the NASA scandal was not just about climate.
It is a two way street. Let's say the skeptics are right and the CO2 effect is overrated and the planet starts to cool over the new 20-30 years. Should Hansen and Gore be charged with "high crimes" for misrepresenting the science and pressuring governments to waste billions? If not then you should be condemning Hansen's comments instead of trying to rationalize them.If Hansen misrepresented the science for financial gain and was aware that his actions would cause a great number of deaths, then yes he should be. Same with Gore. The problem is you have no real evidence that Gore and Hansen have done that.
It is worth noting that I became a skeptic because of rhetoric like Hansen's - The rhetoric made me suspicious because scientists that talk and act like religious zealots cannot be trusted to look at the science objectively.I find it odd, because many of the people on the other side don't act like religious zealots - they are religious zealots. (many happen to be supporters of intelligent design)
Scientific American's unwarrented and unprofessional attack on Bjorn Lomborg was another incident that demonstrated that something was seriously wrong in the scientific establishment.I don't know about you, but REAL SCIENTISTS must get a little angry at POLITICAL SCIENTISTS like Bjorn Lomborg who misrepresent stuff. I guess it comes down to who you trust, Scientific American or a guy with a Phd in political science. Do you believe the AMA or Tom Cruise when it comes to medical decisions ?
"
Bjørn Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned a Master's degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen in 1994.
"
-
So you woudl be OK if a oil company started handing out "prizes" to scientists who do research that it likes?
Gee. That got you upset. Any chance that you have enough self-awareness to realize that the accusations of 'oil-money' given to skeptics are of similar nature but repeated endlessly through the internet until people like you assume they are true? The scientists who speak out against AGW alarmism do so because they believe the "consensus" is wrong and that anti-CO2 policies will cause more harm than good. It is not because of any "oil money".
In any case, here is a link that provides the original source (the annual report from the Soros foundation): http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...s-annual-report
Same thing happened to Roy Spencer when Clinton/Gore was in charge. Spencer was specifically prohibited from expressing his views on climate change when he appeared at a congressional committee. Spencer resigned from NASA because of the interference. Why didn't the media jump to his defense then? Where was Soros with his $720K to defend "whistleblowers"?
It is a two way street. Let's say the skeptics are right and the CO2 effect is overrated and the planet starts to cool over the new 20-30 years. Should Hansen and Gore be charged with "high crimes" for misrepresenting the science and pressuring governments to waste billions? If not then you should be condemning Hansen's comments instead of trying to rationalize them.
It is worth noting that I became a skeptic because of rhetoric like Hansen's - The rhetoric made me suspicious because scientists that talk and act like religious zealots cannot be trusted to look at the science objectively.
Scientific American's unwarrented and unprofessional attack on Bjorn Lomborg was another incident that demonstrated that something was seriously wrong in the scientific establishment.
The rediculous defence of the hockey stick study was the final piece of evidence that the scientific establishment was not deserving of trust and that we needed to demand a lot more in terms of proof before we could embark on a massive social experiment.
-
I am really think logic is lost on you. You complain about the AGW movement being based on "lies and half truths". You then fill this forum with exactly that. Then you respond to my post about your half truth and lies by posting more lies and half truths.
Mr. Hansen has received numerous grants from political activists interested in promoting the cause:He has received prizes for his work. (Heinz award and the Dan David Prize) These are similar along the lines of the Nobel prize and have gone to all sorts of different people. Thats because he has been a decorated scientist for years. He is recognized by other scientists. He was asked to brief Cheney and the Bush cabinet on (until he turned on them) These types of prizes are all over the place, there is a big difference between that and getting a secret "consulting fee" under the table.
I might also point out that these prizes are public record. The junk science guy you quoted in the other post connections were only reveled when secret documents were exposed. Ball's funding was revealed only by an investigation by the U of Calgary.
While I am at it, I might also point out that I have not brought up Dr Hansan - you did. AGW theory is about the work of 1000's of scientists. Anti-AGW is composed of a handful of scientists, and as I pointed out, many of their motives are questionable.
Including $750K from Soros: http://www.topix.com/news/global-warming/2...rge-soros-moneyThis is a lie. Show me a REAL source that states Hansen got $750 000 from Soros. Not a blogger who quotes another blogger who quotes another blogger. Not someone who says "he could have got up to $750 000. A charity funded by Soros has a program that helps protect whisteblowers. Hansen states the he got free legal advice from them - do you any evidence to prove him wrong?
Lets not forget what started this either. An effort by Bush political appointees to censor science at NASA. NPR was denied interviews because it was "liberal". One Bush appointee demanded that the word "theory" be placed before every occurance of the word big bang.
The NASA inspector general found compaints of political interferance to be waranted:
http://oig.nasa.gov/investigations/OI_STI_Summary.pdf
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798It is not clear to me why a person who makes such statements should be considered to be able to objectively evaluate the scientific evidence.
What exactly are you objecting too ? The "high crimes" comment ? It is a bit over the top, but think of it this way. Tobacco executives stated that cigarettes were good for you even when they knew they would kill you. The objective of these statements was to encourage people to smoke. Many of the people who followed that advice died because of the lies of the tobacco industry. Many people have also likely died because of Milroy's denial of the effects of second hand smoke. Now, on some moral level, lying to make a profit that results in someone dying is immoral. The same applies to global warming. If Exxon knows that current policies will result in the death of a million people in Bangledesh but pay people to lie in order to hide the fact, you could argue that is a crime.
-
Here is a good summary of the issues when it comes to calculating the CO2 sensitivity: http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html
I am really trying to get away from this debate, but this link made me cringe. Is there a less credible guy in the whole AGW world than this guy ?
This is the guy who did not disclose he was a paid advocate for the tobacco industry WHILE he was appearing as a expert of junk science on Fox and discussing the junk science of second hand smoking. Not only that, he allowed the tobacco companies to edit his website (the one you quoted). He also discussed his upcoming articles with them.
The only way this was ever discovered was that the connection was in that hoard of legal documents that came out as part of the tobacco settlement.
Exxon gives large amounts of money to foundations that happen to be run out of this guys basement.
You really need to find better sources of information.
-
Sigh....a superpower's work is never done.
Few more terms of Bush policies, you might not have to carry the superpower burden anymore.
-
What is tiring is you think that websites such as 'desmog blog' and 'exxon secrets' actually contain anything other that lies, half truths and propaganda.
I am going to have to look at those sites....but while I am here...
You and fellow posters speak of half truths and lies, but half truth and lies is all I get out of you and the whole anti-AGW movement.
I get "hey there is no consensus, look at the senate list of 400 prominent scientists". It turns out almost none are "prominent", a good hunk don't even have Phd's at all. Many of those who do don't have them in science.
I get "hey, there are plenty of peer-reviewed anti-AGW papers and as proof I get a link that contains A) Pro AGW papers,
Papers that are submitted to journals that no one recognizes in the scientific community and C) papers written by people lacking the proper background.I get post calling Dr Ball Canada's greatest climate scientists. They I find out why you don't like to quote from him anymore.
I go to anti-AGW websites and I find information to confuse the uneducated. I find people trumpeting meaningless correlations. I find long debunked studies been shown to an audience that does not know they have been debunked.
Almost the entire anti-AGW movement is based on lies and half-truths.
It is ridiculous that you seem to think that any association with 'oil money' automatically taints everything that someone has to say but you imply all of the money given to alarmists is free of all strings.Oil money does not automatically taint everything. But it seems rather disturbing how many global warming skeptics can be tied to oil companies. It is even more disturbing that they go to great lengths to hide their ties to big oil Furthermore this money seems to be spent on publicity rather than science.
In fact, there is more money to be made promoting climate alarmism than climate realism. If you really believe that money taints research then you should be extremely sceptical of climate alarmism.If I found out that the bicycle industry was behind a study, I would be more suspicious of it. You have to realise, however, that most of the core AGW theories were developed long before it became an issue. Most of the basic science supporting this came about long before it became a political issue.
Good research? You got to be kidding. Most of the latest research consists of finding new and interesting ways to manipulate any real data that happens to contradict the climate models. I noticed that realclimatepropaganda has yet another paper where the the alarmists have gone back and "adjusted" inconvenient measurements for ocean heat content. Another recent paper proposed that wind speed measured by tracking weather balloons is a better measure of temperature than the actual thermometers attached to the balloons! These kinds of tactics should raise warning flags for any objective person who is understands the scientific method.It continues to amaze me how you can figure all this stuff out yet it fools all those guys with Phds can't. Do you ever consider that maybe you are falling victim to the "lies and half truths".
And they had a point in the 50s. However, each smoker that died from lung cancer became an independent experiment result and once enough people died the statistical link between tobacco and cancer became too strong to ignore despite the fact that it is virtually impossible to prove a causal link.They had a point in the 50's ? The "junk science guy" was working for them in the in the 80's, and the climate scientist you listed said it much later than that. Do you really think you should be trusting such people ? I really think I would have a better chance getting an honest answer out of a politician than an anti-AGW "scientist"
-
For starters there several are scientists who dispute key parts of the AGW alarmists claims (Linzden, Spencer, Christie, Pielke, Loehe, Svenmark, etc). They are in the minority but there are bona fide scientists with long publishing records. There are also published economists that strongly dispute the economic portions of the IPCC report (Lomberg, McKitrick).
Lets look at your list:
Richard Lindzen:
Receives money from oil interests and has been associated with groups that recieve money from the oil industry groups. In the past he has questioned the link between smoking and lung cancer.
John Christie:
He did a study with a number of individuals that "disproved" AGW. This was the one that the science fiction write used. Problem was of course, the study was crap. Most of the people who worked with him on it agree it is fataly flawed. No known connection *yet* to Exxon
Spencer
No knwn connection to Exxon (that fact that articles written by him have this under his name tells you a lot)
Has spoken out in favor of intelligent design. At one time was part of the "it is really getting cooler" movement.
Most of his old work is clearly debunked, though it comes up from time to time
Pielke
I have already talked about him
Craig Loehle
He is an ecologist. From what I can tell, his only published papers on global warming are in that journal whose editor has not taken a univeristy level science course.
I really tire of this. The point is the number of scientists with RELEVANT degrees who are not paid for their opinions who are strong AGW critics is VERY small.
For decades the consensus was that stress and lifestyle choices were the cause of ulcers. It took one scientist a decade or more to establish that ulcers were, in fact, caused by bacteria. In the end he was forced to deliberately infect himself with the bacteria to prove the causal link. Before the 'consensus' shifted he was ridiculed by the establishment that pointed to the hundreds of peer reviewed papers showing the causal link between stress and ulcers.There has been a lot more money put into global warming than the cause of ulcers. Every argument put up by anti-AGW types has been shot down by good research. Is there a 0 percent chance that AGW is wrong ? Well ...no..but its getting closer by the day.
There are other numerous examples of situations where the 'consensus' was wrong and a minority of scientists were right. In the long run science is self correcting and bad science will be quietly discarded, however, once a certain idea is established as the 'consensus' it will take decades to over turn it.This was the EXACT argument that the tobacco companies used for years (and would have used for another centure if they could). They had the same small minority of scientists just like you do. Some of them have actually moved on to get into the big buck game of AGW denying.
We don't have decades to wait for for the scientists to hash it out because major policy actions are being demanded today and the cost of being wrong on CO2 is as huge as the cost of being right and doing nothing.Lets say we take your path....not cut back on carbon output. Then we run out of oil and all the bad things you are talking about happening anyway.
For that reason we need to be proactive when it comes to looking at the sceptical views and those outside the climate science community need to insist that the traditional way of resolving disputes with the consensus is not good enough when so much is on the line.We should not be playing around with measures like carbon taxes or carbon caps because such measures are too blunt and the potential for unintended consequences is huge. We also have to be realists and recognize that technology will likely allow us to limit our CO2 emissions once the human population has stopped growing but that it will likely take 100+ years. Politicians promoting "plans" to stop emissions growth in 10-30 years are simply pandering to the public.Peak oil renders that sort of logic moot. At our current rate of growth, we will have wiped most of our fossil fuels.
I tend to post on global warming topics only because most anti-AGW stuff I read insults my intelligence. I really don't see much of a downside for Canada due to AGW (in terms of the economy anyway). We really do not have that much land that will flood, there is huge wealth in the arctic, more land will be open for farming.
Peak oil on the other hand will eventually destroy our way of life.
-
Simplistic thinking, everything is not always what it seems. Tax something to high and all kinds of things can happen. One example. Airlines are struggling to remain afloat due to already high fuel costs, cutting flights and employees, operating their aircraft in the most efficient manner possible, grounding their less efficient aircraft, anything to remain afloat. Air Canada is already considering legal action against Boeing over late delivery of new more fuel efficient aircraft that they desperately need
Okay, you are saying that rising fuel prices are causing airlines to operate in an effecient manner ? You are saying it makes them concerned about flying fuel effecient aircraft. THese are good things, are they not ? I really don't like hearing about half empty airplanes flying around. I really don't see the downside here.
. Now Dion wants to hit them with another stick. Airlines also keep careful records of fuel costs at different locations. They balance those costs against other operating costs on different routes and know at all times at what price point it becomes more economical to tanker fuel from other locations. Say that carrier operates from Vancouver to Los Angeles four times daily and the price differential dictates that filling the aircraft to the max on return flights instead of just taking the amount needed for the trip will save them say just $500 dollars per round trip even though they will have to burn 15 or 20%I don't think this senario will wipe out the gains from ineffecient aircraft that never leave the ground, but if it does, you can simply move to the same system that every interstate trucker has to use. (roughly, you pay the tax where you use the fuel). Problem solved.
-
I guess the big question is do we believe the report...or what? The ol' wait n' see?...build bomb shelters?...expell Lebanese males?...hang the flag upside down?...hord rice?...put out the cat?...read Finnigan's Wake? Help me out here... I've seen no 'sleeper cell' activity in my area...but then I haven't been out in the backyard, yet.
Sign of the times, I suppose. Here's the ABC link to paroooose.
----------------------------------------------------
Consequences, schmonsequences!
---Daffy Duck
I think the chances of something happening are kind of remote. How many times have we heard about "Chatter" regarding a large attack ? How many times has an attack happened ? Would Hezbolah want to risk its fundraising efforts here by doing something like that ?
It could be different this time because the chatter does not take media attention from the latest Bush administration scandal.....but still "chatter" has been useless in predicting anything
-
One good thing about this. It will be the first election in a long time over bold ideas, instead of a "you are sleazier that us" theme that we have had for a while.
-
Who benefits under the Liberal plan to tax home heating oil and gas.
Rich people: People in well-built homes, people in high priced condos in downtown Toronto, people who can afford to lay out tens of thousands to retrofit their homes to high standards of insulation.
Who will get hammered:
Poorer people. Lower income people who live in rental housing which does not have the best insulation, by far, and who either pay their own heating, or who pay it through rent.
Older people: Seniors living in fifty year old bungalows on fixed incomes who can't afford twenty thousand to retrofit them with better doors, windows and insulation.
The optics are not good, especially coming off two years worth of massive price increases in home heating fuels.
I think the absolute opposite is true. This plan has two purposes. One is to address global warming but the other is to shift money from the working to the non-working. People on welfare are going to get huge credits despite the fact they don't even pay for their heating (exactly what happened the last time "energy credits" were given out". I have a friend who lives near a public housing project and he can point out three windows that stay open almost all year. These people will get big bucks, while not giving a dam about energy.
It will be just like GST credits. The poor get the money, the middle-upper class pay the bills.
There are things right now that would - over the long term- actually save people money. On demand hot water heaters (and/or solar assistance), hybrid cars (for some people), proper insulation, passive solar houses. All of these things would not only fight greenhouse gasses, but actually save people money. This is where the money should have been spent.
-
I firmly believe that we should trust the science. That is why I don't believe in AGW. It isn't science, it's politics.
Then why are the people who publish it scientists, while the people who publish rebuttles are politicians or other non-scientists ?
Why does every major scientific organization support global warming ? Are you better qualified than they are to understand what science is ?
Kucinich Forces Impeachment Vote
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
I would not take a lot of comfort in that. Most Nobel Prizes (with the exception of the peace prize) are for old work. Up until recent years, the resources to conduct top level research were only available in the US, Western Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan.
Also, remember two of those prizes belong to Carter and Gore :-)