waldo Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 which scientists are being referred to in that meaningless poll... the denier scientists or the real scientists an unfortunate point for you within that (albeit meaningless poll)... joe public hasn't followed the scurrilous denier hacked email campaign... why... even the White House gate-crashers get more traction! Which is why it will be very hard for the alarmists to explain away the UEA emails with convoluted, nonsenscial logic. People understand what a 'trick' to 'hide the decline' means and they understand 'we can't explain the cooling' means.Interesting... you would bank on the general scientific ignorance of joe public, influenced by the fallacious denier campaign to purposely misconstrue… notwithstanding the complete absolute refutation of those 2 examples you pompously tout. C’mon… put both of them up… there’s no shortage of go-to sites that have torn the denier hacked anal line-by-line parsings apart… shredded them, and shown the deniers for all they are. Actually, Hackergate is proving to be very worthwhile in showing the depths the denier side will sink to. In any case, we have additional perspective to go along with your monstrous conspiracy claims that include all scientists (well… except denier “blog scientists”), and all scientific organizations/institutes/society’s/etc….. all conspiring to keep the denier down! We can now add that you’re quite happy to accept the general scientific ignorance of joe public – so long as it suits your purpose/agenda. Quite telling – indeed. I don't like it but it is reality that cuts both ways. e.g. the alarmists would not have gotten away with the nonsense about 'the science being settled' and 'sceptics are shills for oil companies' if the public had the capacity to investigate such matters deeply. except... the science is settled - feel free to bring anything forward to put a dent into that overwhelming consensus that climate change is occurring and that mankind is the significant cause of global warming. except... (some) sceptics/deniers have been proven to front for “big oil” (& “big tobacco”)... receiving significant monies from “big oil”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 This is fun: ... this Climate Denier Crackpot Index is funnier - if it didn't track reality so closely: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 ... this Climate Denier Crackpot Index is funnier - if it didn't track reality so closely: too true ...I bookmarked it, I'll have to share with my friends... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 We have a carbon tax in BC, Michael. Cap and trade is looming on the horizon (hopefully the revelations will delay it). You perceive a large political push but claim inaction. Carbon trading has become a part of the economy if you haven't noticed. Maurice Strong is very proud of that fact. Most of it is pushed from the global political community. Corporations have to be perceived to be green to be credible enterprises these days. This is not 20 years of inaction - it is fifty years of lobbying and promoting a cause. The climate became a concern in the sixties, with global cooling and the coming ice age. It continued in the seventies with acid rain. It built up force in the eighties and nineties and here we are today - actively dumping fertilizer in the ocean for the purpose of absorbing carbon. And you perceive inaction? I'm astounded. Is it not true that Maurice Strong has a rather substancial business interest in China?China is strongly opposed making any reductions in their own emission levels.So is it fair to assume that Maurice Strong will reap an enormous financial windfall from all of this cap and trade nonsense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) feel free to bring anything forward to put a dent into that overwhelming consensus that climate change is occurring and that mankind is the significant cause of global warming.Feel free to bring forward any conclusive evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming and that reductions in CO2 with have any significant effect on climate change in the future. You will find that none exists and the opinion of scientists who depend on fearmongering to get government funding means squat when there is no evidence to back it up.feel receiving significant monies from “big oil”.Monies which are peanuts compared to the groups which are funded by "big green". Edited December 4, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Feel free to bring forward any conclusive evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming and that reductions in CO2 with have any significant effect on climate change in the future. You will find that none exists and the opinion of scientists who depend on fearmongering to get government funding means squat when there is no evidence to back it up. Monies which are peanuts compared to the groups which are funded by "big green". Game, set, and match. Well played sir. It is unfortunate that only a few people get to see these well thought out arguments as the site traffic to MLW is rather small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) Yes, Michael Hardner, it could be just as simple as omitting a single word... oh, like the word, "increased" - “the lack of increased warming”… but a word really unnecessary given the context of the email thread topic/discussion. But hey now! It could also be just as simple as adding a single word... "global"... a word that doesn’t actually exist in Trenberth’s statement.... Waldo, if it were just a question of Trenberth's email, you may have a point. But the evidence is far too broadspread. To quote Shakespeare, there is something rotten in the State of Denmark.ooohhhh, the deniers are thrashing and frothing to no end over this Nature article... but articles like it are showing up now throughout the blogs and into the mainstream. We should expect to see a revamped strategy from the denier camp... "to arms, to arms"... "aoooga, aoooga! I find this idea of "camps" unhelpful. Your verbiose style does not advance things either.It's the true believers who are now the deniers. You deny false data. You deny data manipulation. You deny the concerted effort of silencing dissenting views. You deny it all, when it's all right in front of you to see.Shady, this is the irony. The Gods must be laughing. To call intelligent sceptics "deniers" or "denialists" is truly a travesty.Riverwind, BTW, was patient and assiduous in responding to various 9/11 conspiracy theorists. He pointed out their errors, rather than call them names. While this situation is different, I feel that so-called "denialists" such as Riverwind are the true intellectual descendents of Galileo. There is a reason that we call it the scientific "method". Whether AGW or 9/11, Riverwind's method is, well, methodical. (I suggest that you download the thread and do a search on Riverwind.) snicker... without the models... the CO2 problem in 6 easy steps... without relying on climate models...Riverwind... Q.E.D.? The greenhouse effect is not an issue. The planet Venus is ample evidence. The Sun heats the Earth like a microwave oven. The Earth radiates heat like a toaster. No question there.The problem is the "forcing" variables. Nobody really knows what these are: CO2, methane, water vapour, etc and what effect they have in what measure and where and when. some 20% of adult Americans still believe the sun orbits the earth, only 10% of Americans don't know what radiation is, 42% believe they've been in contact with the dead, 60% believe a 900 yr old man built an ark for two of every animal on the planet....any poll asking Americans anything concerning science is worthless, they're a land of scientific ignoramuses... Here, I tend to agree with wyly. In a perfect world, popular vote should not settle this debate. But we live in a world where experts are imperfect and the only oversight we have is a committee haphardly chosen by ordinary citzens. We call it democracy. Is democracy short-sighted? No. Ordinary citizens, voters, pay taxes and care about their children and grandchildren (and indirectly but logically about their great great grandchildren and so on). Why have children and raise them if you don't care about the future? Democracy's not the issue.Nevertheless, in civilized democracies, scientists once had the ear of voters. I fear that this Climategate has turned honest scientists, in the eyes of voters, into PR charlatans. This is sad and Michael Mann and Phil Jones, in their well-intentioned zealotry, have caused a great harm to scientists worldwide. Then again, I suppose that the change was inevitable. Such is life. IMV, there are two great calamaties in this hack/release of data: a few scientists have abused the reputation of many honest scientists and the MSM (TV/newspapers) has been upstaged. (It is comical to see newspaper columnists, TV and radio tell listeners/readers to go to the web for further information.) In any case, we have additional perspective to go along with your monstrous conspiracy claims that include all scientists (well… except denier “blog scientists”), and all scientific organizations/institutes/society’s/etc….. all conspiring to keep the denier down!This is an interesting aspect to this scandal. Global warming (AGW) became the "politically correct" version of climatology. How did that happen?John Kenneth Galbraith referred to "conventional wisdom". He meant received truths, generally accepted, that invariably benefitted the rich. I disagree with Galbraith on almost everything - including the idea that conventional wisdom benefist the rich. AGW doesn't benefit the rich. But I am curious to know how AGW became conventional wisdom? Answering that question may become a topic for numerous dissertations. except... the science is settled - feel free to bring anything forward to put a dent into that overwhelming consensus that climate change is occurring and that mankind is the significant cause of global warming.except... (some) sceptics/deniers have been proven to front for “big oil” (& “big tobacco”)... receiving significant monies from “big oil”. "Settled"? Like Newton's theory of gravity?---- Waldo, you raise the issue of Big Tobacco. In the 1950s and 1960s, cigarette companies denied/refuted links between tobacco use and cancer. What did scientists do? They presented their evidence, and in the face of questions, they went back and checked their data. By the 1970s, the link was clearly established. (In fact, the link was clearly established in the 1950s.) Cigarette use dropped in the 1950s. Since then, it has been a result of market forces. Waldo, I can understand your comparison but it is wrong. And let me explain why. We need to protect the environment but environmental protection is not a partisan left/right issue (anymore than tobacco and cancer are a left/right issue). When environmentalists used the Left to protect the environment (or rather the Left used the environment to advance its agenda), they both made a big mistake. Edited December 4, 2009 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 If the science on climate change has been manipulated,and it increasingly looks as if it has to some extent,some questions must be asked as it relates to the larger picture... Why and for what purpose??? Two reasons I can think of: To satisfy the craving of these people for control over other peoples' lives. Absence of a crisis means that people are free to consume. Horrors; and To keep the research $$$ flowing in. No crisis, no problem to solve, no grants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 I stand corrected. I looked into this, and the status is that we've ratified it, but the current government doesn't appear to be acting towards reducing targets. CTV News - Kyoto & Canada Q&A Nor did the Liberal government that ratified it. Oh, I forget, Dion did name his dog "Kyoto". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Riverwind, BTW, was patient and assiduous in responding to various 9/11 conspiracy theorists. He pointed out their errors, rather than call them names. While this situation is different, I feel that so-called "denialists" such as Riverwind are the true intellectual descendents of Galileo. riverwind a descendent of Galileo...LOL, nearly fell off on my chair reading that, who are you, his mom?...riverwind who said solar water heating wouldn't work in Canada's winter(it's been here for decades)...the guy that said CO2 is not toxic to humans but never heard of sick building syndrome...oh ya he's a science whizz, ha ha...In civilized democracies, scientists once had the ear of voters. I fear that this Climategate has turned honest scientists, in the eyes of voters, into PR charlatans. This is sad and Michael Mann and Phil Jones, in their well-intentioned zealotry, have caused a great harm to scientists worldwide. Then again, I suppose that the change was inevitable. Such is life. in civilized societies scientists don't take part in deliberate frauds like "The Great Global Swindle" Waldo, you raise the issue of Big Tobacco. In the 1950s and 1960s, cigarette companies denied/refuted links between tobacco use and cancer. What did scientists do? They presented their evidence, and in the face of questions, they went back and checked their data. By the 1970s, the link was clearly established. (In fact, the link was clearly established in the 1950s.)what did scientists do, they rented themselves out to Tobacco companies as expert Agnotologists to misdirect the public into believing tobacco did not cause cancer, then did the same again to claim 2nd hand smoke did not cause cancer, they deliberately lied and misdirected to delay legislation...it wasn't evidence that brought down big tobacco Agnotologists it was a tobacco employee Dr Jeffrey Wigand that exposed Big Tobacco deliberately addicting consumers..Cigarette use dropped in the 1950s. Since then, it has been a result of market forces. no it's the result of good science overcoming professional Agnotologists...We need to protect the environment but environmental protection is not a partisan left/right issue (anymore than tobacco and cancer are a left/right issue). When environmentalists used the Left to protect the environment (or rather the Left used the environment to advance its agenda), they both made a big mistake. excuse me, I've never been in a forum yet where if the political issue of left or right has been raised it is always done so first by the right, and this forum is no exception...the left doesn't see it as a political issue but purely of science and the environment...and seeing as you raise the issue of it once again as "environmentalists used the Left to protect the environment" once again the right makes the environment a political issue instead of the science issue it is....the Godwin Law(in reverse, insert leftie/commie) once again raises it's ugly head, it was predictable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) solar water heating wouldn't work in Canada's winter(it's been here for decades)Solar water heating cannot provide 100% of a household's needs year round. The amount available in the winter will be much less that in the summer and there will always need to be a fossil fuel/electric backup system. that said CO2 is not toxic to humans but never heard of sick building syndromePlease explain what sick bulding syndrome has to do with CO2?In any case, whether you are willing to acknowldge it or not the scientific case for CAGW depends on a set of unproveable assumptions. The only reason that people think it has merit is they have managed to adjust the climate models, the temperature records and the paleo-studies to provide a semi-consistent picture based on the those assumptions. However, the circular nature of climate science logic where the assumptions are used to justify changing the real data collected to better match the assumptions means that we have no real evidence that the assumptions are true. The entire theory could collapse on itself if someone demonstrated that some of the key assumptions are wrong. More importantly, there are some plausible hypotheses that could invalidate these assumptions if we could collect data over a long enough period of time (30-50 years). Edited December 4, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 August1991, your sermons from the mount are most insightful – if only we could have you engage in the actual discussions, we would be so richer in your infinitesimal musings. => At least we agree on one point… the Trenberth hacked email incident is a case point example that showcases the depths the deniers are willing to sink to in outright falsifying a hacked email, in distorting it out of context and purposely, with malice, hyping it as a “smoking gun” against climate change/AGW. However, if you feel there is more to “it” than this Trenberth case point example, that it’s far too broad spread, as you say… certainly step up and have at er – you know… come down from the mount. => As for your consternation towards the use of the word “camps”, perhaps we could use the more favoured words of the denier camp… “cabal”… or perhaps… “climatati”. Do either of these work better for you? => … a descendent of Galileo… yiminy… your pontificating seems to know no bounds. Perhaps you missed the recently posted Climate Denier Crackpot Index – 40 points are awarded for comparisons to Galileo. Feel free to claim those points or apply them (or portions therein) to your proxy. => Now, you state you accept the greenhouse affect… just you have difficulty with the forcings… the, as you say, “what, where, when and measuring effect”… that nobody really knows. Are you looking for absolutes – or do you have a pet % figure of certainty you’re looking for? Given the overwhelming prevailing state of the science, acknowledged levels of understanding with applied estimates/ranges and inherent/assigned uncertainties, radiative forcings are well established and recognized. But again… are you looking for absolutes – or do you have a pet % figure of certainty you’re looking for? Certainly, the established science awaits new and countering alternatives from the denier camp… those that can stand the weight of scrutiny. Hey now, I understand Pielke has offered up something, although it doesn’t seem to be fairing too well (you know, standing up to real science). In any case, as offered previously – feel free to dismiss them (and by inference, the overwhelming state of the science). Also feel free to provide your more preferred alternative(s), while emphasizing how it/they fit to your, as yet, unannounced degree of acceptable certainty. - Radiative Forcing Components IPCC AR4 - Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing - Hansen etal. 2005 - Efficacy of climate forcings Abstract: Paper: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH Graphic: Estimates of Climate Forcings => within your personal offered evaluation of Hackergate, you could offer examples of, as you say, zealotry (“well intentioned”(?), or otherwise)… you could state/suggest how anything related to the apparent principals of, as yet, unfounded denier claims, rises above/beyond to encompass, as you say, “scientists worldwide”. Short of that, it’s just your personal offered evaluation. As for your seeming naivety towards the state of blogs vs. mainstream media – go figure – my impression was you more versed. => Your equating prevailing science to “political correctness” is most bizarre. => That you would wrap the issue of climate change/AGW (solely) around environmental protection is most telling… that you would deny the polarization and divisiveness this issue brings forward between “the left” and “the right” is inconceivable – this has been… and continues to be… one of the most politicized issues of our time. The offered analogy between the climate change denier campaign and that deployed by “big tobacco” is sound given the similarity of tactics and principles involved… inclusive of existing principles that have participated in both campaigns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 China is strongly opposed making any reductions in their own emission levels. China sets first targets to curb world's largest carbon footprint The Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, will attend the Copenhagen climate talks next month, the government said today, as it unveiled firm targets for curbing the world's biggest carbon footprint for the first time. A day after the US president, Barack Obama, confirmed he would attend the early stages of the conference, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, said Wen would join the gathering, which aims to set a global strategy for reducing emissions. China announced that it would cut emissions of carbon relative to economic growth by 40% to 45% by 2020 compared with 2005 levels. "This is a voluntary action taken by the Chinese government based on its own national conditions and is a major contribution to the global effort in tackling climate change," the state council was quoted as saying by the Xinhua news agency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) China announced that it would cut emissions of carbon relative to economic growth by 40% to 45% by 2020 compared with 2005 levels.Smoke and mirrors - they are just trying to fool the sheep.But what do the numbers actually mean?A 40-45% cut in carbon intensity in China is essentially business-as-usual as projected by the IEA. According to the IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 (p. 350), here are China's GDP and CO2 projections under its BAU "reference scenario" (with GDP in 2008 PPP dollars): 2007 -- 6.1 GtC and $7.6T 2020 -- 9.6 GtC and $18.8T These numbers result in a decrease in carbon intensity of GDP of 40% by 2020 (from 2007 values, China's pledge is off a 2005 baseline, so right in the middle of the 40-45% range). http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/12/chinas_carbon_intensity_pledge.shtml Edited December 4, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 This is fun: ... this Climate Denier Crackpot Index is funnier - if it didn't track reality so closely: more fun: The Rules - All I’m asking for is evidence of your AGW claims. Surely that’s not too much to ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Smoke and mirrors - they are just trying to fool the sheep. http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/12/chinas_carbon_intensity_pledge.shtml setting aside the fact the post was in response to a false claim that China hasn't made any reductions - that it's opposed to making reductions, why so hesitant to publish Pielke's article from his own website? in any case, you're missing the point. Without formal announcement tied to an "intensity target strategy", China - on it's own volition, has previously introduced policies to cut carbon intensity. This formalizes China's current efforts and associates it to a defined target. It doesn't matter beans whether you or Roger call it BAU... it's China's going in state for the Copenhagen meeting/negotiations... a state they had not previously formalized to a defined intensity target. Your labeling that formal announcement of a negotiation start point as "smoke and mirrors"... that it's simply a measure to attempt to deceive... show's some naivety on your part. Do you really believe China wouldn't recognize the intense scrutiny their formal announcement would come under... that they could attempt to hide, to deceive? really, c'mon... do you think China is so artless as to believe that this (now formally announced) target number wouldn't be analyzed and severely scrutinized by other governments, investigative/analysis outlets? Of course it would, absolutely it would - and it has - go figure! It's called negotiations, so all sides are lining it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) do you think China is so artless as to believe that this (now formally announced) target number wouldn't be analyzed and severely scrutinized by other governments, investigative/analysis outlets?As I said it is intended to fool the sheep.China and India have made it clear that they think AGW is non-issue and if western governments want to kill their economies then they are free do so. The only thing they care about is not being perceived as the climate "bad guy" while they go on doing whatever the would do anyways. They are using these bogus promises to setup the US as the fall guy and thanks to our clueless media they will get away with it. Edited December 4, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Not a chance. All we have is a coalition of different groups collaborating on promoting alarmism because it suits their self interest. e.g. NGOs want increased aid to the developing world - climate change is an excuse to increase funding. Environmental groups see humans as a cancer on the planet - climate change allows them to push policies that control what the human cancer is allowed to do. Bankers are looking for new ways to make money - carbon trading create a massive new market to exploit. Industrial giants want profits - green technology mandates bring in cash. None these groups has anything other than climate change in common but the confluence of self interest has created a massive movement that has consumed every leader in the world. Very good post! Conspiracy theories are so deflecting. There is no conspiracy that can explain all that is happening. As you illustrate a movement of varying interests explains what is happening much better. It would be stopped if the most powerful interests wished it to be stopped but there is no will to stop it on any front. We do not need a conspiracy to destroy ourselves, we can do that on our own unless if we choose to remain ignorant of truth. The truth is, the environmental movement does perceive man to be a cancer on the planet and with climate change has gained everyone's interest - resourceful politicians have not let that fact gone unnoticed and in their usual manner "are not letting a good crisis go to waste". We must caution ourselves though and ensure we adopt good housekeeping methods. The environmental message is not entirely without reason which is why it has gained such wide support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 You have a strange definition of 'force'. If corporations opt to be green, then that's their option. People are being convinced, one by one. Even the climate change deniers, who initially claimed that the earth wasn't warming, have changed tack. We're in much better shape, in terms of dialogue, as a result. Climategate may bring skeptics into the fold, and ultimately, could lead to general consensus - with a large vocal minority dragged into it after being given due process. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. I do not claim that good housekeeping is not reasonable, Michael. My only claim is of political opportunism and that much of the activity is the result of alarmist hyperbole. By force, I mean the encapsulation of necessary action in political law. The redistribution of the wealth of nations as contained in cap and tax legislation is an example of the use of force. It's intent to resolve a problem combines with the usual political opportunism to use a crisis to further concentrate and consolidate Statist powers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Good ol Rex. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8 Well, it seems like it is starting to make headlines now. But the MSM has done a fine job of holding it off thig long. I can understand why someone would want to supress these hacked emails. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394483.stm http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/03/al-gore-cancels-climate-lecture-copenhagen/ Al Gore cancelling speaches about global warming. Guess he wants to avoid this debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 I do not claim that good housekeeping is not reasonable, Michael. My only claim is of political opportunism and that much of the activity is the result of alarmist hyperbole. Alarmism abounds in all areas of life, and in all pathways of politics. By force, I mean the encapsulation of necessary action in political law. The redistribution of the wealth of nations as contained in cap and tax legislation is an example of the use of force. It's intent to resolve a problem combines with the usual political opportunism to use a crisis to further concentrate and consolidate Statist powers. Unfortunately for your philosophy, private individuals and their companies can't be relied on to solve problesm. This is a truism that caused the establishment of the welfare state in the first place. If companies and individuals voluntarily took steps to address perceived problems, then it would be a much better world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Very good post! Conspiracy theories are so deflecting. There is no conspiracy that can explain all that is happening. As you illustrate a movement of varying interests explains what is happening much better. It would be stopped if the most powerful interests wished it to be stopped but there is no will to stop it on any front. We do not need a conspiracy to destroy ourselves, we can do that on our own unless if we choose to remain ignorant of truth. The truth is, the environmental movement does perceive man to be a cancer on the planet and with climate change has gained everyone's interest - resourceful politicians have not let that fact gone unnoticed and in their usual manner "are not letting a good crisis go to waste". We must caution ourselves though and ensure we adopt good housekeeping methods. The environmental message is not entirely without reason which is why it has gained such wide support. interesting tact - even the deniers are accepting to the ludicrousness of their much touted (but failed) conspiracy theory of world-wide collaborating scientists. They want a do-over to now (also) include, as described, "NGOs, environmental groups, bankers and industrial giants". But, damnit... it can't be referred to as a conspiracy (that's just so deflecting, ya know). So... it's all about aligning towards a common goal that perpetuates varying self interests (but whatever you do, just don't call it a conspiracy). Apparently, no one... anywhere... actually accepts the overwhelming state of the science, and no one... anywhere... actually wants mitigation/adaptation for other than "varying self interests". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 The gift that just keeps on giving. A string of emails that show how CRU has no problems accepting money from "big oil". In fact, it actively seeks it out! A handy link to keep around the next time some alarmist tries to dismiss sceptics as shills for "big-oil". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 John Kenneth Galbraith referred to "conventional wisdom". He meant received truths, generally accepted, that invariably benefitted the rich. I disagree with Galbraith on almost everything - including the idea that conventional wisdom benefist the rich. AGW doesn't benefit the rich. But I am curious to know how AGW became conventional wisdom? Answering that question may become a topic for numerous dissertations.Maurice Strong, Power Corp. and their ilk aren't among the rich? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 talks about some of the emails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.