Global Warming denialists well-funded, create perception of "heated debate"

O

Onceler

New member
This article nails it. First, they argued that the planet is not warming at all. Then, the earth is warming, but the cause is natural. Now, the earth is warming, but it won't be that significant, and who needs snow, anyway?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

The fossil fuel industry finances a lot of the propoganda. And let's not forget Philip Cooney, who was appointed by Bush to the Council on Environmental Quality after being a lobbyist for the Petroleum industry, and resigned after it came out that he redacted sections of official reports tying man's activities to climate change. Oh, and then he went to work for Exxon/Mobil the next day.
 
I'm in the middle of reading this (long piece) but i have to pull quote this out:

"Sununu's side won. The Rio treaty called for countries to voluntarily stabilize their greenhouse emissions by returning them to 1990 levels by 2000. (As it turned out, U.S. emissions in 2000 were 14 percent higher than in 1990.)"

Gosh, you mean voluntary compliance massively failed? That comes as a huge shock. I really thought the cons were onto something with their "voluntary compliance" for corporations, and was hoping that after corporate america showed what a success it was, we'd move to that voluntary system for civilian laws.
 
That was a great article, thanks for posting it.

What I always wonder about these people, the lobbyists and the politicians who take money to deny this, is, don't their children and grand children have to live in this world too? I wonder, how they justify it to themselves.

"All the Democratic presidential contenders have called global warming a real threat, and promise to push for cuts similar to those being passed by California and other states. In the GOP field, only McCain—long a leader on the issue—supports that policy. Fred Thompson belittles findings that human activities are changing the climate, and Rudy Giuliani backs the all-volunteer greenhouse curbs of (both) Presidents Bush."

Not surprising about Giuliani and Thompson, but what a shame about McCain with the war. I could have lived with some of the other things I disagree with him about, but he had to turn into a neocon. And he had some decent positions, like this one.
 
Darla said:
I'm in the middle of reading this (long piece) but i have to pull quote this out:

"Sununu's side won. The Rio treaty called for countries to voluntarily stabilize their greenhouse emissions by returning them to 1990 levels by 2000. (As it turned out, U.S. emissions in 2000 were 14 percent higher than in 1990.)"

Gosh, you mean voluntary compliance massively failed? That comes as a huge shock. I really thought the cons were onto something with their "voluntary compliance" for corporations, and was hoping that after corporate america showed what a success it was, we'd move to that voluntary system for civilian laws.
Click to expand...
Man, what a shocking letdown. I was really looking forward to that halcyon day when we'd evolve to "voluntary compliance" for property rights.
 
This is yet another way elites are indexing "success" and "goodness" against a datastream they can control: "official atmospheric numbers". if they can pass legislation legitimizing this spurious relationship, they can effectively control the chemical processes allowed all citizens on earth by manipulation of their monopolistic datastream.
 
Onceler said:
This article nails it. First, they argued that the planet is not warming at all. Then, the earth is warming, but the cause is natural. Now, the earth is warming, but it won't be that significant, and who needs snow, anyway?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

The fossil fuel industry finances a lot of the propoganda. And let's not forget Philip Cooney, who was appointed by Bush to the Council on Environmental Quality after being a lobbyist for the Petroleum industry, and resigned after it came out that he redacted sections of official reports tying man's activities to climate change. Oh, and then he went to work for Exxon/Mobil the next day.
Click to expand...

First, they argued that the planet is not warming at all. Then, the earth is warming, but the cause is natural. Now, the earth is warming, but it won't be that significant, and who needs snow, anyway?

I easily remember cons lecturing me that there was no warming trend. It was just normal year to year variation, and anyway, the ground based temerature readings were wrong. The "urban island" effect, if you remember that tale.
 
Cypress said:
First, they argued that the planet is not warming at all. Then, the earth is warming, but the cause is natural. Now, the earth is warming, but it won't be that significant, and who needs snow, anyway?

I easily remember cons lecturing me that there was no warming trend. It was just normal year to year variation, and anyway, the ground based temerature readings were wrong. The "urban island" effect, if you remember that tale.
Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of people on message boards say things like 'it's 20 degrees here today where I live, and those stupid liberals think there is global warming". And that's in this article too. It'd be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
 
Most cannot see or comprehend the golbal view of climat and warming/cooling.
I too have seen in pmany places, this winter sutre was cold therefore global warming is a myth.
With global watrming climatiolgical patterns will change some areas will be cooler and some warmer. Some agricultural zones will no longer be able to be used, etc...
Seal level is rising and some islands have already been flodded out in the Indian Ocean at least. Others are predicting being being awash in 10 years or so. I would not want ocean front property in FL now. Will they expect the govt to pay them for their land when it goes awash ?
 
"What I always wonder about these people, the lobbyists and the politicians who take money to deny this, is, don't their children and grand children have to live in this world too? I wonder, how they justify it to themselves."

I really don't get that. They either have an extraordinary ability to rationalize anything, or they have no conscience.
 
uscitizen said:
Most cannot see or comprehend the golbal view of climat and warming/cooling.
I too have seen in pmany places, this winter sutre was cold therefore global warming is a myth.
With global watrming climatiolgical patterns will change some areas will be cooler and some warmer. Some agricultural zones will no longer be able to be used, etc...
Seal level is rising and some islands have already been flodded out in the Indian Ocean at least. Others are predicting being being awash in 10 years or so. I would not want ocean front property in FL now. Will they expect the govt to pay them for their land when it goes awash ?
Click to expand...

Of course they will. Some of the biggest conservatives I have known were the first ones on the dole.
 
Onceler said:
"What I always wonder about these people, the lobbyists and the politicians who take money to deny this, is, don't their children and grand children have to live in this world too? I wonder, how they justify it to themselves."

I really don't get that. They either have an extraordinary ability to rationalize anything, or they have no conscience.
Click to expand...

That's true, and I think that the only ones who can know for certain which one it is, is the person themselves.
 
Onceler said:
"What I always wonder about these people, the lobbyists and the politicians who take money to deny this, is, don't their children and grand children have to live in this world too? I wonder, how they justify it to themselves."

I really don't get that. They either have an extraordinary ability to rationalize anything, or they have no conscience.
Click to expand...


I can't believe bush fans were willing to spend a trillion dollars on iraq, on the remote chance that the secular dictator saddam might someday give nukes to an avowed enemy of his - islamic extremists.

But, they don't want to spend a dime to take mitigating measures to address the high scientific probability that climate change will have adverse global effects on us.
 
Cypress said:
I can't believe bush fans were willing to spend a trillion dollars on iraq, on the remote chance that the secular dictator saddam might someday give nukes to an avowed enemy of his - islamic extremists.

But, they don't want to spend a dime to take mitigating measures to address the high scientific probability that climate change will have adverse global effects on us.
Click to expand...

Of course Global Warming is not going to rape our women and put us through shredders? Leave it to a leftie to come up with this kind of stupit arguement, which, I skewered with my posting skills. You lack a certain posting gravitas? Are you a man? I try to take it easy on the leftie ladies, butt, the men are fair game, as in, all is fair? LOL
 
Sweet, sweet trolling... LOL.

I believe that many of those who deny Global Warming believe that solutions will long become reality before the devastating effects cause serious consequences to the planet. They are likely the product of the "necessity breeds invention" type of thought.
 
RJS said:
Of course Global Warming is not going to rape our women and put us through shredders? Leave it to a leftie to come up with this kind of stupit arguement, which, I skewered with my posting skills. You lack a certain posting gravitas? Are you a man? I try to take it easy on the leftie ladies, butt, the men are fair game, as in, all is fair? LOL
Click to expand...


Climate change, ultimately, has the potential to cause more shortage, loss of habitat, death & suffering than any terrorist could imagine in their wildest dreams. What a ridiculous comparison.

It would be nice to see some consistency among the "pre-emptive action" crowd....
 
I really wish people would get off the whole "It is man that is causing global warming.... No it is natural argument". For it really does not matter. What matters is reducing pollution. Quit spending money trying to argue who caused what and start coming to the realization that the money would be better spent coming up with solutions rather than blame.

Pollution is bad for us and for the environment. This by itself should be reason enough to invest heavily into alt energy and other ways to reduce pollution.

National security is another. We are far too dependent on foreign energy sources. This by itself is also a reason to find those clean(er) energy sources.
 
Superfreak said:
I really wish people would get off the whole "It is man that is causing global warming.... No it is natural argument". For it really does not matter. What matters is reducing pollution. Quit spending money trying to argue who caused what and start coming to the realization that the money would be better spent coming up with solutions rather than blame.

Pollution is bad for us and for the environment. This by itself should be reason enough to invest heavily into alt energy and other ways to reduce pollution.

National security is another. We are far too dependent on foreign energy sources. This by itself is also a reason to find those clean(er) energy sources.
Click to expand...


Cool - I agree with the Freak!

Spot on. I've always said that - regardless of the cause - it makes a whole lotta sense to accelerate the transition to renewables for a variety of reasons (you pointed out the 2 biggest)...
 
Superfreak said:
I really wish people would get off the whole "It is man that is causing global warming.... No it is natural argument". For it really does not matter. What matters is reducing pollution. Quit spending money trying to argue who caused what and start coming to the realization that the money would be better spent coming up with solutions rather than blame.

Pollution is bad for us and for the environment. This by itself should be reason enough to invest heavily into alt energy and other ways to reduce pollution.

National security is another. We are far too dependent on foreign energy sources. This by itself is also a reason to find those clean(er) energy sources.
Click to expand...

CO2 is not recognized as a pollutant, in the traditional sense. Its not carcinogenic, its not toxic, and not an odor or olfactory nuisance.

You can't regulate it, unless and until its legally recognized as a pollutant. And the only scientific basis for doing that, is to recognize that emissions of CO2 contribute to climate change.
 
I think we have waited long enough to take action that we will pay a price, the only question is how large the bill will be in terms of environmental change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top