The Green Agenda

[Moonlight Graham]

There are people who work in the "green" industry that do have an agenda which is money and/or profit driven, but just as there are people in the skeptic circles who have an agenda with energy corporations. 2 sides of the same coin looking for coin. Not to say all or even most people on either side are in it for the $$$, but it interests do play a part in environmental debates.

The tricky part is distinguishing the honest scientists from the dishonest ones, and/or the impartial data from the "agenda" data. This the thing that pulls my hair out because it's so hard to know whom/what to trust on either side.

[lukin]

There are people who work in the "green" industry that do have an agenda which is money and/or profit driven, but just as there are people in the skeptic circles who have an agenda with energy corporations. 2 sides of the same coin looking for coin. Not to say all or even most people on either side are in it for the $$$, but it interests do play a part in environmental debates.

The tricky part is distinguishing the honest scientists from the dishonest ones, and/or the impartial data from the "agenda" data. This the thing that pulls my hair out because it's so hard to know whom/what to trust on either side.

You're absolutely right in the fact that it is hard to know who to trust.

I have a serious problem with young kids being indoctrinated with green-activism in public school classrooms. Seriously, there are teachers who tell 7 year olds that if we don't change our ways, the earth will be destroyed in 10 years. This is just one example of how the greens are pushing their agenda.

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...

climate change provides the greatest opportunity to

bring about justice and equality in the world."

- Christine Stewart,

former Liberal Canadian Minister of the Environment

[waldo]

The media constantly harps on citizens the evils of "big-oil". However, "big-green" outfits stand to profit billions at the expense of the average citizen. Waldo, you can go through life with your head in the sand, but I am tired of millionaires/billionaires like Al Gore telling me I have to downscale my modest living to save the earth, while guys like him, Richard Branson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and many other jet-setting hypocrites live a life of luxury while polluting the earth at much faster rate than average folks.

clearly... you're a deep thinker... even though you can't seem to reach beyond vague generalities, innuendo, conspiracy angles, unsubstantiated claims... and minutiae. Notwithstanding, of course, the broad based distortion you parrot.

[waldo]

I have a serious problem with young kids being indoctrinated with green-activism in public school classrooms. Seriously, there are teachers who tell 7 year olds that if we don't change our ways, the earth will be destroyed in 10 years. This is just one example of how the greens are pushing their agenda.

citation request

[lukin]

citation request

Personal experiences don't require citations.

[waldo]

I have a serious problem with young kids being indoctrinated with green-activism in public school classrooms. Seriously, there are teachers who tell 7 year olds that if we don't change our ways, the earth will be destroyed in 10 years. This is just one example of how the greens are pushing their agenda.

citation request

Personal experiences don't require citations.

excellent! It's always refreshing to realize over-the-top, grandiose, unqualified and unsubstantiated platitudes can be reduced to anecdotal self-serving... "personal experience"

[Michael Hardner]

I doubt you'd ever get a straight answer but I believe he/she would consider the answer to be "No".

Of course there are two sides, and skeptic viewpoints should always be treated seriously and debated on the merits of the data.

There is also the public sphere of debate, which needs to stay in touch with what the scientific community is saying.

[waldo]

Of course there are two sides, and skeptic viewpoints should always be treated seriously and debated on the merits of the data.

as is the scientific norm

There is also the public sphere of debate, which needs to stay in touch with what the scientific community is saying.

Michael, as you're responding to Simple:

People have

NOT

been asked whether they want to pay the REAL price of meeting the "targets" that warmers say are required so that we do not destroy our way of life, if not our planet.

we see a line of (Simple) thought that doesn't even factor the scientific climatic affects/impacts. It doesn't necessarily matter that Simple can't actually qualify his interpreted "REAL price" for whatever prevention/mitigation/adaptation measures are/will be necessary... Simple's long established act has been to vilify proponents of the AGW theory as "catastrophic doomsayers" - and now... we have Simple playing his own catastrophic doomsday card in speaking to "destroying our way of life, if not our planet". Oh my!

[lukin]

excellent! It's always refreshing to realize over-the-top, grandiose, unqualified and unsubstantiated platitudes can be reduced to anecdotal self-serving... "personal experience"

Have you been in a public school lately, waldo? I'll guess the answer is no. Al Gore must love guys like you.

[waldo]

I have a serious problem with young kids being indoctrinated with green-activism in public school classrooms. Seriously, there are teachers who tell 7 year olds that if we don't change our ways, the earth will be destroyed in 10 years. This is just one example of how the greens are pushing their agenda.

citation request

Personal experiences don't require citations.

excellent! It's always refreshing to realize over-the-top, grandiose, unqualified and unsubstantiated platitudes can be reduced to anecdotal self-serving... "personal experience"

Have you been in a public school lately, waldo? I'll guess the answer is no. Al Gore must love guys like you.

buddy, if you're going to start a nothing thread and attempt to support it up with empty posts, it's only right you close out with a whimper... ah yes... the last vestige of the climate change denying vanquished... invoking Pliny's Pope!

really, c'mon... if all you wanted to do was offer up a book recommendation, surely you didn't need to start a thread - hey? One would have thought you might actually have something concrete, something specific, to discuss. Apparently... not.

[lukin]

excellent! It's always refreshing to realize over-the-top, grandiose, unqualified and unsubstantiated platitudes can be reduced to anecdotal self-serving... "personal experience"

buddy, if you're going to start a nothing thread and attempt to support it up with empty posts, it's only right you close out with a whimper... ah yes... the last vestige of the climate change denying vanquished... invoking Pliny's Pope!

really, c'mon... if all you wanted to do was offer up a book recommendation, surely you didn't need to start a thread - hey? One would have thought you might actually have something concrete, something specific, to discuss. Apparently... not.

Waldo, you haven't offered any worthwhile comments to this thread. What is your impression of Al Gore? Please answer this simple question. Is it worth paying him 150k to tell us how to live our lives while he flies around the globe in a private jet, being transported to speaking engagements in limousines or those evil gas-guzzling SUVs? Give an opinion for once instead of relying on someone else.

[waldo]

Waldo, you haven't offered any worthwhile comments to this thread. What is your impression of Al Gore? Please answer this simple question. Is it worth paying him 150k to tell us how to live our lives while he flies around the globe in a private jet, being transported to speaking engagements in limousines or those evil gas-guzzling SUVs? Give an opinion for once instead of relying on someone else.

buddy, c'mon... give us something to work with. Obviously you're a neophyte, one caught up in the inconsequential minutia. It was actually quite funny watching you prance around and drop, verbatim, your quotes from "The Green Agenda" site... geezaz... at least have the stones to credit your parroting! Uhhhh, what was your agenda again?

[lukin]

buddy, c'mon... give us something to work with. Obviously you're a neophyte, one caught up in the inconsequential minutia. It was actually quite funny watching you prance around and drop, verbatim, your quotes from "The Green Agenda" site... geezaz... at least have the stones to credit your parroting! Uhhhh, what was your agenda again?

How come you refuse to answer my simple question on Al Gore? Are you consulting with your consultants before you actually give an intelligent answer?

[lukin]

Aren't you big on actual quotes?

What do you make of Christine Stewart's quote?

Edited July 23, 2010 by lukin

[Shady]

you reek of conspiracy…

This from someone who insists that the oil industry is behind all skeptic scientists and/or spokespeople. Wow. Irony doesn't getting any better than that!

[Pliny]

excellent! It's always refreshing to realize over-the-top, grandiose, unqualified and unsubstantiated platitudes can be reduced to anecdotal self-serving... "personal experience"

What's your personal experience, Waldo? Oh...I'm sorry you don't have any. Everything must be peer reviewed and published or you didn't experience it.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Pliny

[lukin]

What's your personal experience, Waldo? Oh...I'm sorry you don't have any. Everything must be peer reviewed and published or you didn't experience it.

Waldo offers nothing of substance. he can't form his own opinion. He is a useless debater.

Waldo doesn't realize that carbon credits - BIG business. That's what the Green agenda is all about...making money at the expense of the middle class.

Edited July 24, 2010 by lukin

[waldo]

Waldo offers nothing of substance. he can't form his own opinion. He is a useless debater.

buddy, I've demonstrated your formed opinion is verbatim cut/paste from that "Green Agenda website"... not only did you not credit your repeated parroting source, your substantive capabilities see you even titling this thread by the same name. Your own opinion?

I showed the brazen distortion and out of context nature of one of your offered quotes - you didn't even have the integrity to bother acknowledging that distorted quote mining and your failed parroting... and you expect one should entertain your other self-serving quote mining from agenda driven sources?

after continued prodding, you finally summarily categorized "the climate change debate" to what had been, up to that point, your broad based blustering and generic labeling of "the green agenda", of "eco-activists", of "green activists", of "eco-propaganda", of "eco-activists", etc. Are there agendas on both sides of that debate? Is there politicization from both sides of that debate? Wow - what a revelation! Many MLW posts, through many MLW climate change related threads have addressed just that... agendas and politicization on both sides of the debate. However, one could quite literally flood this thread with lengthy properly cited and sourced references that clearly outline the measures taken by such groups as Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Cato Institute, Heartland Institute, Pacific Research Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute, Scaife Foundations, Heritage Foundation, etc., etc., etc. C'mon, are you really that naive?

you've not offered a single, substantive, cited example... of anything. When pressed directly for a citation to support one of your claims, you mouth-off that your personal experience doesn't require a citation. As I said, you've offered nothing but a series of over-the-top, grandiose, unqualified and unsubstantiated platitudes - that's it... and from that you have the temerity to speak to debating prowess. Notwithstanding, as I said, your deep thinking that appears to limit you to vague generalities, innuendo, conspiracy, unsubstantiated claims... and minutiae. You've taken the narrowest of pursuits and proceeded to summarily dismiss anyone... anyone... that advocates for the theory of AGW climate change, as being a part of what you designate as "the green agenda". Again, are you really that naive... and that simple in your perspective, understanding and views?

lukin... champion of the downtrodden average citizen... defender of the middle class!

...the greens are out to make big bucks at the expense of the average citizen.

That's what the Green agenda is all about...making money at the expense of the middle class.

[WIP]

The book "Green Hell" by Steven Milloy does a great job of explaining the goal of green activists. I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know what is really happening with all this eco-propaganda we are continually fed.

Yet another stupid example of attacking any attempts to challenge the suicidal course that the mega-oil companies have put the world in. One year after Exxon/Mobil sets another record profit of 45 billion, and we're supposed to take their side against movements that want to find ways of curing the oil addiction. The drug dealers have lots of money to buy hacks like Steve Milloy to write propaganda against any and all perceived enemies of oil addiction.

[WIP]

However, one could quite literally flood this thread with lengthy properly cited and sourced references that clearly outline the measures taken by such groups as Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Cato Institute, Heartland Institute, Pacific Research Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute, Scaife Foundations, Heritage Foundation, etc., etc., etc. C'mon, are you really that naive?

Cato and the conservative "think" tanks are getting the bulk of their funding from oil and coal companies. They spread money for propaganda far and wide, even funding a number of high traffic right wing bloggers to write pro-oil propaganda. But at least they have a motive! Anyone who is working on Exxon, BP, Chevron or Shell's behalf for free is a fool!

[lukin]

Cato and the conservative "think" tanks are getting the bulk of their funding from oil and coal companies. They spread money for propaganda far and wide, even funding a number of high traffic right wing bloggers to write pro-oil propaganda. But at least they have a motive! Anyone who is working on Exxon, BP, Chevron or Shell's behalf for free is a fool!

How much money has the World Wildlife Fund received from the EU?

Anyone who sees AGW as a scam are paid for by big-oil....that is ridiculous. Carbon trading will be a billion dollar industry, and will do nothing to curb harmless greenhouse emissions.

[lukin]

buddy, I've demonstrated your formed opinion is verbatim cut/paste from that "Green Agenda website"... not only did you not credit your repeated parroting source, your substantive capabilities see you even titling this thread by the same name. Your own opinion?

I showed the brazen distortion and out of context nature of one of your offered quotes - you didn't even have the integrity to bother acknowledging that distorted quote mining and your failed parroting... and you expect one should entertain your other self-serving quote mining from agenda driven sources?

after continued prodding, you finally summarily categorized "the climate change debate" to what had been, up to that point, your broad based blustering and generic labeling of "the green agenda", of "eco-activists", of "green activists", of "eco-propaganda", of "eco-activists", etc. Are there agendas on both sides of that debate? Is there politicization from both sides of that debate? Wow - what a revelation! Many MLW posts, through many MLW climate change related threads have addressed just that... agendas and politicization on both sides of the debate. However, one could quite literally flood this thread with lengthy properly cited and sourced references that clearly outline the measures taken by such groups as Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Cato Institute, Heartland Institute, Pacific Research Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute, Scaife Foundations, Heritage Foundation, etc., etc., etc. C'mon, are you really that naive?

you've not offered a single, substantive, cited example... of anything. When pressed directly for a citation to support one of your claims, you mouth-off that your personal experience doesn't require a citation. As I said, you've offered nothing but a series of over-the-top, grandiose, unqualified and unsubstantiated platitudes - that's it... and from that you have the temerity to speak to debating prowess. Notwithstanding, as I said, your deep thinking that appears to limit you to vague generalities, innuendo, conspiracy, unsubstantiated claims... and minutiae. You've taken the narrowest of pursuits and proceeded to summarily dismiss anyone... anyone... that advocates for the theory of AGW climate change, as being a part of what you designate as "the green agenda". Again, are you really that naive... and that simple in your perspective, understanding and views?

lukin... champion of the downtrodden average citizen... defender of the middle class!

Waldo---- proud, obedient puppet of the Al Gore, the world is ending movement.

What do you think of Al Gore and all his hypocrisy? Can you at least answer that.

You still haven't commented on Christine Stewart's comment? Why not?

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...

climate change provides the greatest opportunity to

bring about justice and equality in the world.

- Christine Stewart,

former Liberal Canadian Minister of the Environment

[waldo]

How much money has the World Wildlife Fund received from the EU?

don't know... but you perked my interest - a somewhat high-level 2007/2008 WWF fiscal statement that I looked at lays out that complete 2 year periods WWF income versus expenditure...although the "Governments and Aid Agencies" breakout is not line-itemized. Since you seem to know, why don't you provide the figure, cite your source, indicate your concern with WWF/with the EU funding - if it exists.

Anyone who sees AGW as a scam are paid for by big-oil....that is ridiculous.

"big oil" influence is significant, one of several. Is it an attachment label that can be liberally applied to anyone/everyone/everything... of course not - that would be ridiculous... about as ridiculous as someone, like you, broad-base casting your "green agenda" labeling or showcasing your Pliny Pope fixation.

Carbon trading will be a billion dollar industry, and will do nothing to curb harmless greenhouse emissions.

debate over, for example, the economic merits and emission reduction results of cap™ versus fee&dividend, is legitimate... and ongoing. The fact you have the presence to label GHG emissions as, "harmless", sets you amongst the "fringe of the fringe" - thanks for coming out!

in this, your latest quote fixation example, perhaps you could have the integrity and honesty to actually cite the source/context of the complete quote - from the actual original source it was published in. It's really not that difficult to find the actual source of that editorialized indirect quote attribution... one that most certainly does not align with the words you're quoting. I already dealt with, and squashed, one of your earlier distorted, incomplete and out of context quote mining attempts... that you still haven't acknowledged. But really, again, are you that naive? On either side of the debate you described, would it be difficult to actually find a properly sourced and cited example of something said... that shouldn't have been said? Oh my - you really are a neophyte!

[lukin]

How come you refuse to answer my question on Al Gore?

The ocean produces way more GHG's than humans. Human carbon emissions are very minimal compared to carbon emissions released through natural causes. Roughly 0.28% of greenhouse gases are caused by humans. You're preaching to me that this minute amount produced by humans will have catastrophic consequences. Give a break, waldo. You must stand to profit greatly with the implementation of green technology.

http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/2010/02/nothing-to-do-with-wrestling-either.html

Edited July 24, 2010 by lukin

[waldo]

How come you refuse to answer my question on Al Gore?

just checked back - you made several references to Al Gore but the only question appears to be one of asking, "what I think of Al Gore and all his hypocrisy". As an original symbolic communicator, Gore's work was significant and instrumental... today, he currently holds a much reduced presence or bearing, although he certainly continues to be a target fixation point for... guys like you?

The ocean produces way more GHG's than humans. Human carbon emissions are very minimal compared to carbon emissions released through natural causes. Roughly 0.28% of greenhouse gases are caused by humans. You're preaching to me that this minute amount produced by humans will have catastrophic consequences. Give a break, waldo. You must stand to profit greatly with the implementation of green technology.

you obviously don't understand... don't recognize... the relative imbalance that anthropogenic emissions have to the equilibrium balance. Perhaps you should take the time to investigate the carbon cycle. Equally, you could step forward and substantiate your earlier claim as to the harmlessness of GHG emissions along with this, your latest claim, that ocean CO2 emission accounts for global warming. Denier blog science won't cut it... substantiate your claims with peer review science - thanks in advance.