42 Responses to ** Saturday TV: Global Warming Scam **

• 41. MidnightRacer December 3rd 2009 - 20:19:09 |

  Sure have. I’m always looking for reasons for why people do what they do. That research you mention (20+ years ago) indicated an Ice Age – not AGW (the oppoosite of warming). Could there be some who are concerned for the world? Absolutely. But isn’t the truest form of sincere concern supported by an exacting determination of threat? Or, what happens when the science contradicts the initial premise – and that the premise you presented has fail? Do you, as a real scientist, ignore it and force your hypothesis on the populace by trickery, banning peer review and removing grants from those who present contradicting evidence? One of the worse outcomes of science is intentional human error in the data by way of manipulation. Worse yet is trying to erase and destroy any evidence to the contrary. You cannot do this and call it science.

  Let me say this, if the same scientists and anti-pollution groups had come out and said that the usage of more and more fossil fuel vehicles and plants would lead to more and more respiratory problems, especially in the young and elderly, near cities which are blanketed by emissions pollution, and the science backs it up as it does, then I’d say the government would be admirable to requiring more efficient vehicles, plants, and try to reduce such pollution. Same goes for the environment (dumping, hazardous materials/waste, etc). But that’s not what’s going on here. Like the institution of the church so many centuries ago, they claim infallibility, destroy the careers and reputation of anyone who offer contradicting evidence as some kind of moral sinner who needs to be destroyed, ridiculed, and banned from a public voice. The Cap & Trade system is the result of the total control of the world, taxation as punitive measure for a flawed premise lacking any evidence and proof. We’re supposed to just take it?

  Review that chart in the linkk I supplied above. At present time, we’re at a historical low for volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. What is CO2? Plant food. Why didn’t the Earth get destroyed when CO2 was 6000 ppm 600 million years ago – instead of leading to a boom of plant life? What was the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age all about when cars didn’t exist?

  Should humans with better technology strive to be more efficient and responsible? Of course.

  Should one group of humans scam another with a false premise, hide it, destroy the careers of those who question it (as seen in the emails hacked), and we all just go along with the scam – even if it means some countries harm their economies to follow it while other nations don’t have to abide by the same self injury? That’s a question for each to answer.

  In response to matt1122 who said:

  MidnightRacer, have you considered the possibility that the scientists you speak of took that action because they are overzealous and truly believe it’s crucial to the survival of humanity that they convince the rest of the world that we need to take action now? Not everyone was involved in this “conspiracy” of yours, either. There is 20+ years of research before these guys came into the picture that still support the Global Warming model to some extent.

  Note: I haven’t read the leaked emails, and they could say “we need to do this to get rich, yo!” I doubt they do, though.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

• 42. jazzeru December 9th 2009 - 13:04:55 |

  it’s called manufactured doubt, this is an excellent article for those of you interested:

  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/07-1

  Let’s look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That’s five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

  Chevron $6,485,000
  Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
  BP America $4,270,000
  ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
  American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
  Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
  Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
  Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
  Shell Oil Company $950,000
  Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
  Williams Companies $920,000
  Flint Hills Resources $820,000
  Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
  National Mining Association $770,000
  American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
  Devon Energy $695,000 Sunoco $585,000
  Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
  Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
  Peabody Energy $420,000
  Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
  America’s Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
  Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
  El Paso Corporation $261,000 Spectra Energy $279,000
  National Propane Gas Association $242,000
  National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
  Nexen, Inc $230,000
  Denbury Resources $200,000
  Nisource, Inc $180,000
  Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
  Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
  Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
  Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
  Tesoro Companies $119,000

  Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

  Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
  Nature Conservancy $650,000
  Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
  Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
  National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
  Sierra Club $120,000
  Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
  Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

  If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don’t even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

  
  

  Login or Register to reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.