http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.htm l Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was calledwithout ironythe climate change "consensus." Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s. but its OK really because *Antarctica protected from global warming by hole in ozone layer* http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/world/Antarctica-protected-from-global-warmin g.5871004.jp tying two scams together! But at least we know why the oceans aren't rising, its because the ice is thickening.... or is it really? *Nations will vanish and millions lose their homes to rising seas* http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6938378.ece Very convenient that CRU has disposed of raw data, if they ever had any, but what they have is promised to be released. If, when reviewed by folks not on government payroll or grants, the conclusions hold up, then we will have settled science. Not as long as Phil peer reviews Michael and Michael reviews Phil. And maybe intelligence insulting stories like the two cited above will cease. This history of climate studies is only 30 years old. A fascinating history. Once this current nonsense blows over, maybe we can get to the real science of climate, to understand the mechanisms of why weather works and get away from the politics and BS. Mike *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Mike Euritt wrote: > If, when reviewed by folks not on > government payroll or grants, the conclusions hold up, then we will have > settled science. Science is never settled. New ideas poke at old ideas. Its the way things work. > > Once this current nonsense blows over, maybe we can get to the real science > of climate, to understand the mechanisms of why weather works and get away > from the politics and BS. You have already made up your mind Mike. Why even consider data? Jim et al *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:08 AM, James Farrelly <JFarrelly5_at_comcast.net>wrote: > > You have already made up your mind Mike. Why even consider data? > > The age of the Internet. Everyone's enough of an expert to have an opinion that's just as valid as the opinions of anyone else and a platform from which to utter it. This, apparently, includes me. The AGW skeptics obviously consider this a political debate not a scientific one. AGW is perfect for this because, as Kruger explained, there is no way to "prove" any of it until it's too late. Paul, who used to do computer models, is suspicious of computer models. So, for him, there is no use quoting computer models (which were so useful in designing atomic bombs). Mike distrusts "government" so anything funded by "government" is automatically suspect. All their suspicions are bolstered by the scientists themselves, who are unfortunately human. Being human they frequently also have their own political agendas and their own human foibles so there are enough anomalies in the presentations for skeptics to point to them and have their own "ah ha!" moment. So, some of the scientific debates *are* somewhat political and when it becomes openly political the skeptics see no reason not to push the argument farther in that direction. After all, the liberals started it. The "destruction" of the "raw data" is, for a skeptic, just another link in the plot. No single institution or person has the "data" of course. There is too much of it for any single depository and much of it is in the notebooks of people who simply recorded it every day for 35 years or so and then, maybe, published an analysis of that data. Lots of this raw data is destroyed yearly but now it becomes part of the "plot". And the simple fact that no single person can understand all the data - even if they had all the data - means that it's a simple matter to draw opposing conclusions using whatever data (outdated, out of context or from some blog) available. I imagine a lot of the environmental scientists are somewhat surprised to find themselvs part of a liberal plot. But I think it's interesting that most of the current "debate" (if you can call it that) is among people who aren't, themselves, involved in the science. Most of the environmental scientists I know see this as a side issue and pay little attention to it. Now, I can see quite easily how corporations can decide to fund studies determined to confuse the issue. Corporate finagling is, after all, why we have anti-trust laws. But I have yet to see anything that would cause so many governments to all behave in exactly the same way. Mike thinks that the funding is the culprit and that only scientists who are willing to skew their analysis of their data in the proper way get the money. Mike probably sees no difference between ExxonMobil subsidizing a "study" and the National Science Foundation subsidizing a "study". To a skeptic the only difference is that the NSF money is involved in the vast conspiracy to.... to..... well, no one has actually said why they want to do it. But whatever it is it will surely cost us money. And raise taxes. For me, the humorous part is that apparently studies funded by ExxonMobile, Chevron, Dow and the like are just going to give us the straight scoop. I believe that like I believe Marlboro Lights are good for me. And as far as suspect government money....well, you do realize that the USA subsidizes ExxonMobile - the world's most profitable corporation - with public money don't you? For me it boils down to this. While I have no doubt that money from ExxonMobil may have strings attached, I can't see why money from the NSF would have them; especially when the conservatives controlled the process for 12 years. It seems to me that if Mike is right then government funding would skew the results one way for a while and then the other way for a while. And I can't see why money from NSF would influence scientists in Russia, Chile, Finland and others operating under so many different political schemes. I am becoming more convinced every day that the skeptics suspect a vast world-wide conspiracy because, in the last analysis, that's the way they'd do it if they had the chance. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net PS: I didn't kayak today. I'm sick. My wife thinks I'm sick because I kayaked Sunday. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Craig: If you are sick today, it may be the H1N1 virus. On the other hand, you may have the H2N3 virus, which is "dance fever". Turn on the radio and play a little Bee Gee's music, and you'll soon have your diagnosis. Hope you feel better in time for Wednesday's paddle. BRC Quoting Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com>: > For me it boils down to this. While I have no doubt that money from > ExxonMobil may have strings attached, I can't see why money from the NSF > would have them; especially when the conservatives controlled the process > for 12 years. It seems to me that if Mike is right then government funding > would skew the results one way for a while and then the other way for a > while. And I can't see why money from NSF would influence scientists in > Russia, Chile, Finland and others operating under so many different > political schemes. > > I am becoming more convinced every day that the skeptics suspect a vast > world-wide conspiracy because, in the last analysis, that's the way they'd > do it if they had the chance. > > > Craig Jungers > Moses Lake, WA > www.nwkayaking.net > > PS: I didn't kayak today. I'm sick. My wife thinks I'm sick because I > kayaked Sunday. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Jim, are we skeptics really more set in our beliefs than those who believe in AGW? I agree with you that science is never settled, which makes it even more puzzling when we hear from people on the AGW side who dismiss us based on their seeming ultimate truth! Despite our positions, I don't think Mike or I want to ignore the data, but the point may be moot according to this from the TimesOnlineUK: "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based." Seems the scientists decided for us that the data was irrelevant! Mark ----- Original Message ----- You have already made up your mind Mike. Why even consider data? Jim et al *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Mark Sanders wrote: > Despite our positions, I don't think Mike or I want to ignore the data, > but the point may be moot according to this from the > TimesOnlineUK: > "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted > throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their > predictions of global warming are based." > > Seems the scientists decided for us that the data was irrelevant! OK, you win. You found ONE sentence in a mass market news source that MAY cast some doubt on literally thousands of peer-reviewed climate studies. And when were these data "thrown away?" Look it up. It wasn't in response to the deniers. Meanwhile, let's ask the University of East Anglia: "The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRUs peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform year-on-year increase in global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future. It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change. Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come to the same conclusion. The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. This includes a commitment to the international peer-review system upon which progress in science relies. It is this tried and tested system which has underpinned the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is through that process that we can engage in respectful and informed debate with scientists whose analyses appear not to be consistent with the current overwhelming consensus on climate change The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information. Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia." Steve -- Steve Cramer Athens, GA http://www.savvypaddler.com *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
When it comes to data analysis, I believe the University of East Anglia is number one, followed closely by the University of West Anglia and the University of Central Anglia. However, their football teams are terrible, and none are in the top 25. Brad Quoting Steve Cramer <cramersec_at_charter.net>: > Mark Sanders wrote: >> Despite our positions, I don't think Mike or I want to ignore the >> data, but the point may be moot according to this from the >> TimesOnlineUK: >> "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted >> throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their >> predictions of global warming are based." >> >> Seems the scientists decided for us that the data was irrelevant! > > OK, you win. You found ONE sentence in a mass market news source > that MAY cast some doubt on literally thousands of peer-reviewed > climate studies. > > And when were these data "thrown away?" Look it up. It wasn't in > response to the deniers. > > Meanwhile, let's ask the University of East Anglia: > > "The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from > the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the > climate science research published by CRU and others. There is > nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed > publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and > related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific > investigation and interpretation. CRUs peer-reviewed publications > are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming > scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced > by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land, > and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform > year-on-year increase in global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 > years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth > will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for > the foreseeable future. It is important, for all countries, that > this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in > greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of > climate change. Respected international research groups, using other > data sets, have come to the same conclusion. > > The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific > integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. This includes a > commitment to the international peer-review system upon which > progress in science relies. It is this tried and tested system which > has underpinned the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on > Climate Change. It is through that process that we can engage in > respectful and informed debate with scientists whose analyses appear > not to be consistent with the current overwhelming consensus on > climate change > > The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example > of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which > may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the > nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to > mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. We are committed to > furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult > circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems > and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme > behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant > ways to the publication of personal information. > > Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research > Unit, University of East Anglia." > > Steve > -- > Steve Cramer > Athens, GA > http://www.savvypaddler.com *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Jungers" > I am becoming more convinced every day that the skeptics suspect a vast > world-wide conspiracy because, in the last analysis, that's the way they'd > do it if they had the chance. Well, it was easy to fit the agenda into our continuing "Right Wing Conspiracy"! I guess we could quibble on which side might be part of a conspiracy, but I prefer to err on the side that's not suggesting unprecidented taxes and government control. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Cramer" > Meanwhile, let's ask the University of East Anglia: Isn't that like asking Richard Nixon whether he's a crook? I seem to remember HIS answer! If you're going to quote Professor Jones' response, why not quote a few of his emails: "Why should I make the data available, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" "If they [Canadian researchers Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre] ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone." (This is the supposedly now "lost" data that Craig feels wasn't worth keeping!) "I've just completed Mike [Mann's] trick of adding in the real temps to each series, to hide the decline [in average global temperatures] . . ." Hmm...to hide the decline??? Please tell me how these actions fit into scientific method. If the data is unassailable, what is the danger of providing it to skeptics? But in the end, you're absolutely right: if we can't question the computer modeling, if we can't question whether the scores of BILLIONS of government dollars might color research, if we're supposed to ignore the destruction of data, then we have to accept AGW as a given. Well, that's all for now. I'm off to a conspiracy meeting! Mark Mark *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Mark Sanders wrote: > Hmm...to hide the decline??? Please tell me how these actions fit into > scientific method. If the data is unassailable, what is the danger of > providing it to skeptics? Ah, so you didn't look up when the original data were deleted, eh? Here's a hint: There were few or no plastic kayaks available at the time. Real scientists collect their own data, they don't demand it from others. Steve *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Dec 1, 2009, at 7:07 PM, Mark Sanders wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Jungers" > >> I am becoming more convinced every day that the skeptics suspect a vast >> world-wide conspiracy because, in the last analysis, that's the way they'd >> do it if they had the chance. > > Well, it was easy to fit the agenda into our continuing "Right Wing Conspiracy"! > I guess we could quibble on which side might be part of a conspiracy, but I prefer to err on the side that's not suggesting unprecidented taxes and government control. I agree. If we need to balance the consequences of potential massive population dislocation as sea levels rise and wide spread famine against the consequences potential increased taxes and energy conservation, it certainly makes sense to avoid higher taxes. I hate it when we need to spend money to protect the country. After all, it is not as if any of the bad consequences of global warming will every hurt any of us. It is our grandchildren's problem. It is better to saddle them with a disrupted environment than fiscal debt. When confronted with arguable environmental damage and debt that may or may not happen, it is obviously better to risk a little global warming in the future, than spending money now. After all unprecedented weather is cheaper than changing our lifestyle. If we should make a mistake, erring on worldwide weather is worse than erring on national taxes. That is so obvious I don't see how anyone could disagree. It is a shame that the scientists and all those granola eaters cashing in their bottle returns to fund them have turned this into a political issue when the oil industry and automobile companies are helplessly just going about their business, trying to deal with the world as it actually is. If we want to settle this issue, we need to actually do the experiment and see if the globe gets warmer. Then we can deal with a situation we can all agree on. It reminds me of the controversy over cigarettes. Some do-gooders say that cigarettes are bad for you but the tobacco companies spent their hard earned money to do science and weren't able to find a connection, and the do-gooders go an ignore the results. We should trust the efforts of the industries that will be most effected. After all they have a large stake in getting it right. Their stock holders demand that they plan 100 years in advance even if it costs money in the short term. Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks 54 South Rd Groton, CT 06340 USA Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847 http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/ *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
They cancelled my conspiracy meeting because I don't have a PhD and am not getting grant money. Unless someone is willing to grant me some money I'm outta luck. I can open up a PayPal account. > Hmm...to hide the decline??? Please tell me how these actions fit into > scientific method. If the data is unassailable, what is the danger of > providing it to skeptics? > I dunno. Ask him. Maybe they're sick of being harassed for this "data" to the point of not being able to do their own work. These guys are not the only ones doing the research and collecting the data, of course. I suspect that they are getting the data from other sources, in fact. I posted one source to Mike Euritt that was quoted in a news media (USA Today, I think). I just stumbled across it, of course. Go read it. It was compiled by two guys who are semi-skeptics and they directly contradict Mike's allegation that the entire globe cooled in 2009. According to them only the central USA and Canada cooled in 2009; the rest of the world warmed by .41C. I doubt that much of the data is secret... but I suspect you would not believe the data from any source regardless. The skeptics have turned this into a political war; you can hardly blame these guys for being secretive. > But in the end, you're absolutely right: if we can't question the computer > modeling, if we can't question whether the scores of BILLIONS of government > dollars might color research, if we're supposed to ignore the destruction of > data, then we have to accept AGW as a given. > But which government? I keep hearing about "government money" but neither you nor Mike nor Paul have ever given me any evidence to show why you think ALL these governments are involved. Mike says that only when non-government and non-grant scientists audit the data can we be certain; who is left? Only scientists employed by Corporations? Do you trust Dow Chemical scientists more than NASA scientists? Why wouldn't NASA color results one way under Bush and another way under Clinton? Is there any evidence of this? Why would a researcher in NZ be under the same gun as a researcher in the Caucasus? Corporations are motivated by profit; they make no secret of this. So it seems that supporting research that results in profit might be a high priority. When ExxonMobil subsidizes a book that is pretty obviously a tool to confuse the issue I'm not surprised. They have a profit motive. What would motivate both liberal and conservative governments of so many separate countries to stifle research that does not support AGW over 35 years? I just watched a television presentation on the Science Channel that showed photos of Alaska glaciers over a long period of time and they are clearly declining. Are these doctored? Is everyone involved in this coverup? 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/ ***************************************************************************
The best summation of this I've seen is encapsulated in a rhetorical question which I'll attempt to paraphrase accurately: "You don't really think that email archive is melting the Arctic, do you?" ---Rsk *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
Sarcasm is good for any argument. :) For me the best argument is one of "least harm" If we act as though the global warming fear-mongers are right and they turn out to be wrong, what is the harm? If we act as if the global warming deniers are right and they turn out to be wrong, what is the harm? If we do what the GW fear-mongers suggest, we waste a lot of money and freedom on reducing CO2 output primarily through reduced use of fossil fuels. If we do what GW deniers suggest, we don't do anything. If fear-mongers are wrong we end up some possible debt some of todays established business interests no longer viable, but there will probably be new ones able to grow and lower CO2 output. Maybe China and India frosts our cookies economically. Our grandchildren go about their business much as we do today. if deniers are wrong we end up with most of the worlds population centers turned to post-Katrina New Orleans, massive economic disruption due to changed agricultural production distribution, and maybe, just maybe a slightly smaller short-term debt than we have already put into effect. I wouldn't be surprised if China and India frosts our cookies economically. Our grandchildren have a heap of trouble on their hands. That is not to mention the years of really bad paddling as the crap that floats off the newly flooded land makes a mess. In 100, 200, 1,000 and 10,000 years we are going to be judged by what we choose to do. If the fear-mongers are wrong, we will hardly be remembered - but maybe snickered at, if the deniers are wrong we will be responsible for a whole lot of blame for not avoiding something we knew about. I don't know who is right, but by the "least harm" basis I agree with the fear-mongers that we should act as though Global Warming is a Real Thing. The downside is so small as to be hardly noticeable in the long term. No matter what we do, 10,000 years from now the fossil fuel industry will no longer exist. The question to me then is: what should we do about it? And to me this is where the politics comes into it. It seems to me the deniers don't really care if they are right or wrong regarding global warming, they just don't like the suggested mechanisms for dealing with it. I don't know if cap-and-trade is a good idea. Sounds pretty contrived to me, so I don't trust it as being effective in an efficient manner. I don't want more government intervention, but when someone comes and craps in my yard, I do appreciate being able to call the police. Government regulation is bad to the extent that it stops us from doing good things, but the market is not necessarily rational, sometimes we need government to put boards up around the sandbox otherwise we will lose all our sand. I suppose you may choose otherwise if you think the worst case scenarios are different. I would be interested to hear how preparation for a false global warming will result in a worse outcome. Nick On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Mark Sanders wrote: > Well, you can't argue with good ol' American sarcasm! > > Mark > > ----- Original Message ----- >> I agree. If we need to balance the consequences of potential massive population dislocation as sea levels rise and wide spread famine against the consequences potential increased taxes and energy conservation, it certainly makes sense to avoid higher taxes. I hate it when we need to spend money to protect the country. After all, it is not as if any of the bad consequences of global warming will every hurt any of us. It is our grandchildren's problem. It is better to saddle them with a disrupted environment than fiscal debt. Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks 54 South Rd Groton, CT 06340 USA Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847 http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/ *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:52 PDT