The Goracle
Seeing as how cap-and-trade legislation is about to be implemented by our President and Congress, and 2,300 lobbyists (a 300% increase in the last 5 years) are vying for influence over the newer, greener, more expensive energy sector, I thought another perspective on global warming climate change might be in order.
Last week, the Heartland Institute sponsored the 2008 International Conference On Climate Change in New York City. Unfortunately, the Conference, which consisted of 200 climate change scientists who are largely NOT man-made global warming alarmists, was completely ignored by the mainstream media. Undoubtedly, this was due to the fact that there is virtually no media presence in a little, out-of-the-way burg like New York City. NYC only has a few local mom-and-pop media outlets, such as NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, the Associated Press, the New York Times, etc. Nothing that could really reach a mass market. Plus, Octomom was putting in a bid on a house, so the media's attention was diverted to more important matters than whether or not climactic Armageddon was going to occur. Last week was also 'Get Limbaugh' week for the mainstream media, so they were very busy.
Al Gore and other well-known man-made global warming alarmists were invited to speak at the Conference, but they all refused. The alarmists did send in some professional hecklers to disrupt the proceedings however, all in the spirit of open scientific inquiry, I'm sure.
Wait until you hear what a bunch of lunatic fringe nutjobs these man-made global warming skeptics are, and since when has skepticism had any place in science, anyway ? Here's how Conference host Joseph L. Bast describes these loons:
We have with us, tonight and tomorrow, more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change, from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States. They come from the University of Alabama, Arizona State, Carleton, Central Queensland, Delaware, Durham, and Florida State University. From George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, James Cook, John Moores, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics. From The University of Mississippi, Monash, Nottingham, Ohio State, Oregon State, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. And from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, the University of Virginia, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. And I apologize if I left anyone out. These scientists and economists have been published thousands of times in the world’s leading scientific journals and have written hundreds of books.
Obviously, they all must be corporate toady, fundamentalist, dittohead freaks on the payroll of FoxNews and the oil companies, as the Algoreans would say. Real scientists like the Algoreans know you must demonize, marginalize, ignore, and libel any heretical, blaspheming skeptics who question the true and infallible scientific doctrine. The sky IS falling, dammit, and the Algoreans are not amused by any contradictory data. Facts only confuse people.
But if any of you out there still bitterly cling to that failed idea from the past known as the scientific method, I highly recommend giving the linked website a thorough read. The sky may not be falling, and even if it is, it may not be for the reasons you think. Enjoy (but don't tell anyone you read this. You don't want the global warming police on your case, man. Keep it on the downlow until the current PC virus (Political Correctness) passes and free speech comes back into style).
P.S. – This post will self-destruct in, oh, about 4-10 years, depending upon Algore's latest revised prediction of doom.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Climate change or global warming, whatever you want to call it is real, no matter what the esteemed scientists at the International Conference on Climate Change say. Obviously the climate is an extremely complex system to study and people can manipulate the data as they want, but why would the vast majority of scientists allow themselves to be duped? If you remember about 30 years back when the debate was over ozone layer depletion you could find people denying any link with CFC's, yet now that they have been phased out by the Montreal Protocol the ozone layer is recovering. It seems to be that if you don't like what the science is telling you just find some other scientist to agree with you and make unsubstantiated claims. Kind of like those who think Intelligent Design is science and not religion.
I heard Al Gore wasn't there because of a recent sighting of ManBearPig.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf69EEL3WBk
Excelsior!
Your post has a very strong victimization feel to it. As if a whole above-reproach group of serious folks are, somehow, victims of some global warming conspiracy.
Silly.
Bubba makes more sense.
Al Gore, to most reality-based folks an intelligent person, is continually mocked and ridiculed for his sound science-based conclusions.
According to King, while he joins in with the mockery and ridicule, we're all being duped by a mass of scientifically based conspirators who are leading us astray, while victimizing the real "truth" tellers.
It's just silly.
How can you make assumptions of the climate of the earth and the way it works on 125 years of records and the rest hypothosis. Sure science is impressive but can be so skewed to find a desired result. To not take both side into consideration is ludacris. To have one man say it is so and to have that one man have thousands on his payroll to prove it is also. Especially if that man's business and the way he is getting rich is by funding business's that are going to save us from this problem. Sound fishy? If we use their science there is proof that the earth has been hotter and cooler over the millions or billions of years this rock has been floating through space. Could that have been prevented? Was it? No. Because the earth and climate has cycles. WHy is it different this time? Is there climate change? Probably the climate perpetually changes and the earth acclimates and heals itself just like the human body. It has for millions of years. Can WE do anything about? Probably not. It isn't needed. It isn't possible. Man is selfish and will destroy himself. We can't get people to agree on when life starts let alone when it will end. Man is here to survive but will not make himself uncomfortable to do so, especailly modern man. Is the climate change our fault. Probably not. But maybe to a certain degree. Maybe if we didn't destroy our environment.
The earth isn't sick, it is changing, growing old, it is a living entity that we have only scratched the surface of understanding. It especialy doesn't need a snake oil salesman as it's doctor.
Perhaps I'm wrong but the Heartland Instittue is a group of libertarians and conservartives. The same people that feel second hand smoke isn't harmful. I also heard from real sources that of the 500 scientists that were included in the Heartland funded report, at least 45 didn't even give permission for their names to be used. They were also forced to change the name of their report.
I'm sure litigation will soon follow.
It's funny how you get a group of Cons together. Have them pick through real scientists writings for the minutia that may contradict something. Like one scientist says a .5 degree Farenheit increase, and another says a .6 (and the Cons call that contradictory and false). And you flat earth thinking Cons call it science.
Funny how libs can accept a .5 or .6 raise in temperature and call that a valid concern. The sky is falling now raise up your hands and give us your money, because as all libs know the more money you throw at a problem the more it is likely to be fixed. LOL. Sheep, here's your sign.
Um King, I think you meant to link to the 2009 Hearland conference because the 2008 conference was more than a week ago.
Try this one on for size.
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html
I find it funny that all of these people commented without reading the article. Way to have an informed discussion.
You mean it's 2009 already ? Boy, my nap was longer than I thought.
Seriously though, thanks for the correction Roy. That's what I get for writing posts in the middle of the night.
I expected that certain posters here would ignore the material and automatically put down all scientists who strayed from the man-made global warming alarmist opinion. I described those types in my post. They didn't disappoint.
global warming(to gradually be replaced by the term climate change) has become so BIG it doesnt matter what the truth is all that matters is that it has become the new game in town. The productive drones will be made to sacrifice their lifestyle and personal rights by the elite under the quise of saving the planet and lifting the poor out of their misery. This will provide the political elite, financial elite and the special interests the ultimate route to increase their power and control in the name of saving the planet and social justice.
I see no way to prevent this power grab there is too much to be gained by the powerful and those dreammng of being at the top of the food chain. As a low level productive drone I will be faced with two choices. One, accept the crippling increases in my small business energy costs and accept the fact an ever increasing portion(in this case to help pay the engery costs of others) of my dwindling income will be confiscated and diverted to those less fortunate. Two, close the doors of my business and remove myself from the insanity despite the effect it will have on my employees.
If anti-Gore, anti-human-caused-global warming advocates are to be believed…..we are to accept a proposition that hundreds and hundreds of scientists are conspiring with one man, Gore, to advance Gore's individual motivation of personal greed, which, simultaneously, financially cripples all Americans.
Those concerned about the human causes of global warming desire to reduce our fossil fuel burning, which creates greenhouse gases. Any attempt to do so is regarded as a financial raping of economic interests who, most likely, will pay more for energy as a result.
Yet, nothing is said about the financial raping we all took one short year ago, thanks to balls-to-the-wall capitalistic oil companies.
Cap and trade or a carbon tax would result in higher energy costs initially….but over the long haul it would break the cycle of a monopolistic oil industry which periodically sticks it to us financially.
Those who argue for a continuation of the status quo are arguing for more-of-the-same dependency on financially destructive carbon-fuel-based capitalists.
I don't get it.
Many of the early advocates of global warming are questioning the science behind the claims and more and more experts are going public with their doubts. Apparently it is safe to vacation at the beach again. Al has dropped his doomsday hurricane predicitons from his slide show. Why, perhaps because global cyclone activity has gradual reduced to the lowest in 30 years.
Rev,
I thought this was supposed to be about science, not about destroying the oil companies or advancing an agenda.
I don't doubt that Algore believes what he says about man-made global warming (mostly). I also don't doubt that many other scientists believe it. I was only raising the fact that there are also hundreds and hundreds of other scientists who don't believe it. I was also raising the fact that the Algoreans feel compelled to demonize those other hundreds and hundreds of scientists, which is never a good thing in the pursuit of scientific truth. Science and a closed mind are mutually exclusive.
And speaking of motives, the environmental lobby wanted to get rid of fossil fuels long before global warming ever became an issue. Global warming gives them justification. How convenient.
angryc,
Then add in the fact that the cap-and-trade advocates are not telling the truth about the effects of that policy. I keep hearing them say it will reduce CO2 emissions by 15-20%. That is a huge distortion of the actual effect, because man-made CO2 is only responsible for a tiny fraction of overall atmospheric CO2, between .2 and 3%, depending on who you believe. If we use a middle figure of man-made global warming being responsible for 2% of all CO2, a 15% reduction in that would only reduce CO2 by three-tenths of one percent, not 15%. That small reduction leaves me pretty skeptical about whether cap-and-trade would have ANY effect whatsover, other than to transfer large amounts of wealth into some influential pockets.