Some people wonder how the AGW/Skeptic arguement can fall so neatly along Dem/Rep lines. It does seem a bit strange. So here I provide a snippet where Barack Obama states he will use cap and trade to bankrupt the coal industry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ Why worrry so much if AGW is really occuring if you can use it to promote your agenda when you're so sure it's the right thing to do anyway! We eat too much meat, we drive big cars, we like A/C--these are bad!! We seem to have babies just to spite the environmentalists! How convenient that we can use this controversy to further our agenda! We have to tax you to high heaven to protect you from yourselves! What an utopia we'll create! I don't have to believe that the govment is conspiring with scientist to falsify data to find a reason for them to exploit it. There is a political party who feels government is the answer to all our problems and would love to create a multibillion dollar tax structure to be in charge of setting it all right. Yeah, I agree, it's very cynical and yes I believe it. I believe we're warmer now then we were 20 years ago. I'm not convinced we're outside of the range of past warming periods. I'm not sure even if we accept AGW that it will be cataclysmic or that there is any feasable way to curtail the change. I'm absolutely sure that the money projected to be used to sequester CO2 or to bankrupt industries could be used to much greater effect to mitigate any consequences and or help alleviate greater ills in the world. I put great faith in science, but I don't believe scientists are immune to money or hubris. That doesn't mean I think that most of the people studying AGW are corrupt. If we agree that we've warmed a bit this last half century, it is reasonable and prudent to study the fact. The talk of tipping points I find too reminiscent of Chicken Little. I'm a skeptic TRYING to keep an open mind, but the recent climategate news only makes it harder. And the fact that I've yet to hear one proponent of AGW admit that these leaked emails at least suggest some inappropriate behavior is making it even tougher! Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Jungers So Mark... if you do nothing else please address this. What evidence is there - other than "it's obvious" - to show that there is an agreement among governments to stifle research results that do not agree with AGW. Corporations deny AGW because it fits their priority... it will impact their profits. This makes sense. Government support AGW for.... what reason? More taxes? Why would the Bush administration do that? This is the key to the credibility of your argument. Craig *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Wed Dec 02 2009 - 06:36:54 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:31:38 PDT