toldailytopic: Man made global warming crisis: is the hoax finally dead for good?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
drbrumley
Well-known member
Why ‘Environmentalists’ Are Called ‘Watermelons’
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on December 7, 2009 08:07 AM
Because they’re green on the outside and red on the inside, of course. This is not just a clever joke; it’s true with regard to the professional “environmentalists,” if not most of the rank and file. All of their frauds and ruses, from acid rain to cellphone cancer scares, to global cooling, global warming, the “ozone hole,” “climate change,” etc., have one common denominator: They are used to make a case for a massive redistribution of worldwide wealth and central planning of the entire world’s economy. Communism, in other words.
When I spent a year at Washington University in St. Louis twenty some years ago my old friend Murray Weidenbaum told me of a lunchtime encounter he had with another Wash-U. faculty member, Barry Commoner, who is one of the gurus and icons of the environmentalist movement. If you look up Commoner’s books you will find that his arguments always came down to this: All of our environmental problems will disappear if only we would adopt socialism. Anyway, Murray once asked him the following at an informal lunch (paraphrasing from memory): “You environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power, hydroelectric power, coal-fired power plants, natural gas, and all other forms of energy. But energy is the lifeblood of capitalism. Without energy our capitalist economy will be destroyed.”
According to Murray Weidenbaum, who was the Chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic advisers in 1981, Commoner just smiled and nodded approvingly
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on December 7, 2009 08:07 AM
Because they’re green on the outside and red on the inside, of course. This is not just a clever joke; it’s true with regard to the professional “environmentalists,” if not most of the rank and file. All of their frauds and ruses, from acid rain to cellphone cancer scares, to global cooling, global warming, the “ozone hole,” “climate change,” etc., have one common denominator: They are used to make a case for a massive redistribution of worldwide wealth and central planning of the entire world’s economy. Communism, in other words.
When I spent a year at Washington University in St. Louis twenty some years ago my old friend Murray Weidenbaum told me of a lunchtime encounter he had with another Wash-U. faculty member, Barry Commoner, who is one of the gurus and icons of the environmentalist movement. If you look up Commoner’s books you will find that his arguments always came down to this: All of our environmental problems will disappear if only we would adopt socialism. Anyway, Murray once asked him the following at an informal lunch (paraphrasing from memory): “You environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power, hydroelectric power, coal-fired power plants, natural gas, and all other forms of energy. But energy is the lifeblood of capitalism. Without energy our capitalist economy will be destroyed.”
According to Murray Weidenbaum, who was the Chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic advisers in 1981, Commoner just smiled and nodded approvingly
:yawn:
Alate_One
Well-known member
What about all the billions and billions of dollars the coal, gas and oil companies stand to lose if CO2 emissions become taxed or otherwise controlled?
Who wins from global warming being correct? Solar cell manufacturers, people associated with wind farms, maybe nuclear energy proponents.
Who among these do you think has the most money to lobby you and try to convince you of their argument . . .I'll give you a hint it isn't the solar people.
DocJohnson
New member
Read the articles on the volcanic activity under the Arctic. It's not just a single volcano.
True, but only because they aren't retreating globally.
Alate_One
Well-known member
There may be the occasional nutjobs that are interested in communism but most of us are interested in leaving a better planet for our children after us. I'm not opposed to nuclear power, IF done with adequate safety considerations. Coal, Oil and gas are running out regardless. Solar, wind and nuclear could be effectively infinite.
Acid rain is real, so is the ozone hole, global cooling not so much.
DocJohnson
New member
:chuckle: If you think new technology will never be invented, you have much to learn. Just as computers have gone from taking up entire buildings to fitting into the palm of one's hand, energy will also find ways of improving itself. It won't happen, however, if everyone is taxed into the Dark Ages.
Solar and wind have been proven to be totally ineffective as forms of energy.
It doesn't matter. Algore has become a multi-millionaire simply by scaring people, and scientists depend on our tax dollars in the form of government grants. Money is everywhere except in the hands of the average citizen who ends up paying in the end.
Alate_One
Well-known member
drbrumley
Well-known member
What about the billions of grant money from the government? Ever think about that?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Thank you thank you and thank you
drbrumley
Well-known member
Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists
by Ron Paul
Statement before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009
Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''
Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org.
The peer-reviewed summary, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.
Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.
In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz – past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world – wrote:
"The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.
We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.''
Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.
Yet, we will soon be considering so-called "cap and trade'' legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. "Cap-and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of "global warming'' and "climate change'' advocates – claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz' petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.
It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.
Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.
While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom.
In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.
by Ron Paul
Statement before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009
Madam Speaker, before voting on the "cap-and-trade'' legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.''
Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at www.petitionproject.org.
The peer-reviewed summary, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide'' by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.
Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.
In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz – past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world – wrote:
"The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.
We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.''
Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.
Yet, we will soon be considering so-called "cap and trade'' legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. "Cap-and-trade'' will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of "global warming'' and "climate change'' advocates – claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz' petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.
It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.
Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.
While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom.
In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.
DocJohnson
New member
If the earth is warming, sea levels will become lower.
If CO2 gases are polluting the atmosphere, world temperatures will become cooler.
You can't have it both ways!
Alate_One
Well-known member
The problem is market externalities. The price that all of us pay for carbon emissions, sulfur dioxide pollution, particulates and ground level ozone is not factored into the price of gas and oil. The only way to put those into the price of coal and oil is to tax them.
Otherwise you wait till the fossil fuels run out and you have a train wreck in terms of energy supply not to mention climate and health.
Is that why countries around the world are investing in both?
This is a new solar technology with potential to supply a very large proportion of our energy needs.
Or maybe its because there's plenty of potential energy to be had, its just coal, oil and gas are far too cheap.
So there's Algore profiting and . . .. Algore? You know that scientists interested in basic climate research get paid regardless of what the publish right? They don't make any more money from climate change.
DocJohnson
New member
So what? At least the average person will have money of his/her own to make it through the crisis. What you're considering is milking John Q. Public for every dime he has so he'll be left with nothing!
Alate_One
Well-known member
I just linked the most recent data and the best you can do is link to one person's opinion?
Um the link for cooling traces back to an article from The American Conservative Union Foundation. Not heard of any peer reviewed papers coming from them.
How about you stop spouting non-science garbage and find out what the science actually says . . . .
DocJohnson
New member
That's baloney. The grant covers the cost of their research. The money the researchers make beyond that is dependent upon whether or not they can get schmucks like you to believe them enough to buy their published research material.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I was just talking about this very thing on the other green thread. Here's Van Jones:
“Right now we’re saying we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco-capitalism where at least we’re not, you know, fast tracking the destruction of the whole planet.
Will that be enough? No it won’t be enough. We want to go beyond systems exploitation and oppression altogether; but that’s a process.
And I thing what’s great about the movement that’s beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence, and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both very pragmatic and very visionary.
So the green economy will start off as a small subset, and we’re going to push it, and push it, and push it, until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”
Will that be enough? No it won’t be enough. We want to go beyond systems exploitation and oppression altogether; but that’s a process.
And I thing what’s great about the movement that’s beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence, and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both very pragmatic and very visionary.
So the green economy will start off as a small subset, and we’re going to push it, and push it, and push it, until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”
| VAN JONES SHOCK ADMISSION: Goal is Complete Revolution | |
Alate_One
Well-known member
Its more about milking the oil companies than the average Joe. We give people incentives and give payouts to other options. This is how government encourages behavior.
If we DON'T do something we'll end up with a train wreck later, either from climate or from running out of a resource.
The questions isn't "do we pay?" it's "do you want to pay now or later?" think about the next generation when you answer that.
drbrumley
Well-known member
- Status