See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Facts conveniently brushed over by the global warming fanatics
Source:
SMH.com
URL Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit ... ng-fanatics-20100131-n6fr.html
Published: Feb 1, 2010
Author: staff
Post Date: 2010-01-31 12:23:41 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 3286
Comments: 115
Here are 10 anti-commandments, 10 selected facts about global warming which have been largely ignored amid the orthodoxies to which we are subjected every day. All these anti-commandments are either true or backed by scientific opinion. All can also be hotly contested. 1. The pin-up species of global warming, the polar bear, is increasing in number, not decreasing. 2. The US President, Barack Obama, supports building nuclear power plants. Last week, in his State of the Union address, he said: ''To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.'' 3. The Copenhagen climate conference descended into farce. The low point of the gridlock and posturing at Copenhagen came with the appearance by the socialist dictator of Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, whose anti-capitalist diatribe drew a cheering ovation from thousands of left-wing ideologues. 4. The reputation of the chief United Nations scientist on global warming is in disrepair. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is being investigated for financial irregularities, conflicts of interest and scientific distortion. He has already admitted publishing false data. 5. The supposed scientific consensus of the IPCC has been challenged by numerous distinguished scientists. 6. The politicisation of science leads to a heavy price being paid in poor countries. After Western environmentalists succeeded in banning or suppressing the use of the pesticide DDT, the rate of death by malaria rose into the millions. Some scholars estimate the death toll at 20 million or more, most of them children. 7. The biofuels industry has exacerbated world hunger. Diverting huge amounts of grain crops (as distinct from sugar cane) to biofuels has contributed to a rise in world food prices, felt acutely in the poorest nations. 8. The Kyoto Protocol has proved meaningless. Global carbon emissions are significantly higher today than they were when the Kyoto Protocol was introduced. 9. The United Nations global carbon emissions reduction target is a massively costly mirage. 10. Kevin Rudd's political bluff on emissions trading has been exposed. The Prime Minister intimated he would go to the people in an early election if his carbon emissions trading legislation was rejected. He won't. The electorate has shifted. None of these anti-commandments question the salient negative link between humanity and the environment: that we are an omnivorous, rapacious species which has done enormous damage to the world's environment. Nor do they question the warming of the planet. What they do question is the morphing of science with ideology, the most pernicious byproduct of the global warming debate. All these anti-commandments were brought into focus this past week by the visit of the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, better known as Lord Christopher Monckton, journalist by trade, mathematician by training, provocateur by inclination. Last Wednesday a conference room at the Sheraton on the Park was filled to overflowing, all 800 seats sold with a standing-room only crowd at the back, to see the Sydney public appearance of Monckton, a former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher. At the end of his presentation he received a sustained standing ovation. Monckton is the embodiment of English aristocratic eccentricity. His presentations are a combination of stand-up comedy, evangelical preaching and fierce debating. Almost every argument he makes can be contested, but given the enormity of the multi-trillion-dollars that governments expect taxpayers to expend on combating global warming, the process needs to be subject to brutal interrogation, scrutiny and scepticism. And Monckton was brutal, especially about the media, referring to ''all this bed-wetting stuff on the ABC and the BBC''. There has also been a monumental political failure surrounding the global warming debate. Those who would have to pay for most of the massive government expenditures proposed, the taxpayers of the West, are beginning to go into open revolt at the prospect. Last week the Herald reported that Monckton told a large lie while in Sydney. On Tuesday it reported: ''He said with a straight face on the Alan Jones radio program that he had been awarded the Nobel, a claim Jones did not question.'' The Herald repeated the accusation on Thursday. It was repeated a third time in a commentary in Saturday's Herald. In 2007 the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the former US vice-president Al Gore. The prize committee, in citing its selection of the IPCC, said: ''Through the IPCC … thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of [global] warming.'' Thousands of people were thus collectively and anonymously part of the prize process. So what lie did Monckton tell about the prize? Despite the gravity of the accusation, the Herald never published the offending remark. Here, for the record, is what he actually said: Monckton: ''I found out on the day of publication of the 2007 [IPCC report] that they'd multiplied, by 10, the observed contribution to sea-level rise of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet. By 10! I got in touch with them and said, 'You will correct this.' And two days later, furtively, on the website, no publicity, they simply relabelled, recalculated and corrected the table they'd got wrong.'' Alan Jones: ''But this report won a Nobel Prize!'' Monckton: ''Yes. Exactly. And I am also a Nobel Prize winner because I made a correction. I'm part of the process that got the Nobel Prize. Do I deserve it? No. Do they deserve it? No. The thing is a joke.'' Poster Comment: Still global warming phenomena is an undeniable FACT!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-62) not displayed.
.
.
.
#63. To: purpleman (#54)
Not true. In Canada the Bark Beetle has created even more CO2, felling the forests as the tree stubs rot on the ground. Please read your own comment, commercial greenhouses as though these resources feed 6.7Bn people around the world. An incredible analogy with backyard watering hoses and constant human manicure operations within a contained greenhouse of exquisite academic quality. I disagree with you. Are you arguing that sustainability is achievable with increasing human population growth? How is, "management" going to ensure sustainability concepts towards your world-wonder? You claim that the Canadian/Alaskan perma-frost line is diminishing what about in Norway, Russia, Finland? Too many people with too little resources while government extracts my tax dollars to fill the differences. Catastrophes are one thing. Mother nature calls on all of us. Yet, the changes around the world must be addressed with responsive understanding that each and everyone of us is capable to modify the environment. Wrong! Fresh water supplies are falling precipitously. Are you saying that a denser population group distribution creates additional personal liberties and freedoms? Less dense since we can spread out more easily. Do you want to live in Minnesota? I didn't think so, for one thing your solar electric would stink there. I don't know what you mean by this question. Are you saying I should read a book by Ted Nugent?
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
You're not really reading what I post are you?
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
Not your links. Put your arguments in line. You haven't answered my question about water for agribusiness yet, either.
The REAL problem is not addressing a rebuttal of and about some off-the road poster's comment concerning further restrictions about laizzez-faire or capitalism. It is about our very survival. The world is dying.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
You don't really think that the world owes us a living, do you? It'll do just fine without the human race. If we can't survive what's ahead, then we weren't flexible enough.
Not from a C02 O'd. The planetary ecosystem is severely out of equilibrium and we may even have passed the point of no return, but CO2 is the least of our worries. Neither is Glowbull Warming. Toxic pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere and the water table are lardering the system with toxins.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
The greatest prosperity of men and women has been without government of any kind. You can read this same point on just about any chit-chat website. Today, the advertised government slogan is "carbon units" to make you free. What makes you think that the slogan, tomorrow won't be "your blue-eyes"? What will happen to you when the government has ultimately claimed you are a carbon deficit?
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
As I looked around the Internet from China, India and even America ... all I see are vibrant idiots showing their hands on and towards a "fix" global warming phenomena through government control. Can it be fixed?
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
They can only accomplish this feat with the rally cry of folks like you spewing the government mantra that CO2 is the culprit. I agree with the 31,000 plus scientists who have signed on to the petition claiming this entire global warming is a farce, a scam, a blatent attempt to implement global control over the people. 31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an understanding of the scientific method, and a mental model that encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines. This model serves as the basis of their thoughts about scientific questions. When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about aspects that interest him. A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. To view the entire article in html, 150-dpi PDF, 300-dpi PDF, 600-dpi PDF, Spanish or figures alone in powerpoint or flash, click on the appropriate item in this sentence. The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal. The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy. Purpose of Petition The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis. Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency. It is evident that 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,486 American scientists are not “skeptics.” These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth. How Petition is Circulated This petition is primarily circulated by U. S. Postal Service mailing to scientists. Included in this mailing are the petition card, the letter from Frederick Seitz, the review article, and a return envelope. If a scientist wishes to sign, he fills out the petition and mails it to the project by first class mail. Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project. A scientist can also obtain a copy of the petition from this Internet website, sign, and mail it. Fewer than 5% of the current signatories obtained their petition in this way. Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers's credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer's name to the petition list. Here's the link to the petition: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php Al Gore is crying big crocodile tears. You can now dispute the petition and the 31,000 plus scientists Buck. You worry about carbon deficits.......I won't.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
I didn't.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
That is your choice. However, you often comment that the factual basis of the hypothesis has been determined and that there is no debate. This is not true. There is plenty of debate. Some scientists are even debating the effects of the SUN on the climate. Imagine that--the sun having a correlation with temperatures. Some scientists are returning to previously held views regarding global cooling, which was the big fear spewed in the '70's. Many find the notion that CO2 is to blame ridiculous. Do the views of these scientists within this field of expertise have any merit Buck? Do they have no say in the debate that was supposedly settled?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Yeah ... Kepler's epicycles are convincing the world and finally demonstrating the world towards methods of energy conservation.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
You're used to foruming with people who are sympathetic to your cause, aren't you?
Not at all but I see no reason to continue a conversation with someone who isn't going to even look at the material provided.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
You're expecting me to take an off-site link as your argument? You've got to be kidding.
My answer was in the links.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
So this "farmfriend" moniker of yours. You're still lobbying for agribusiness, right?
No but I can't explain to you in a short post what it took him a whole book to explain. The post of his at FR I linked to is a good start even though it is about energy not water. Same arguments apply but you won't even go read that. So again, what is the point in even having a conversation with you?
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
I never lobbied for agribusiness. I lobbied for the Grange. Founded in 1867, the Grange is the oldest general farm and public policy organization in the United States. They are grass roots, not agribusiness. And no, I'm not even a member of the Grange now.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
You want me to visit Free Republic?
Painful as it may be, yes, just that one post. It is worth it. OR you can go here and read a synopsis of the book: "The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
Don't goe to FreeRepubulick..... I swear, the power there is to persuade you into a fascist agenda. I tried it once ..... I am considered a bad, bad boy.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
Why wouldn't privatization be just as corrupt as what we have is today? If the government is corrupt, private control could be just as well.
Furthermore, if natural resources were privatized, where would public policy come into play? If there's public input, then how is it truly privatized? This doesn't make sense. It sounds like a method for getting the corporations back into control over the resources they've always wanted.
Third party verification and liability insurance.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
It's not.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
So you just want us to trust you. That's not very reassuring.
How would third party verification and insurance be better than congressional oversight and executive authority? Who appoints the third parties? Who keeps them from profiteering from collusion with the corporations? This is corporatism.
You could easily appoint me, "buckeroo" as your tyrant taking so-called concepts into our new world vision. One of my first acts: 1) no more give-aways. Note: no guarantee towards the above without massive infusion of dinero.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
Perhaps. But there are lots of things we can do without being leeches on the taxpayers and electric ratepayers. Do you know who uses the power you generate in the middle of the day when nobody is home? The answer is nobody, you are being paid for power that nobody needs. The rest of us honest ratepayers pay for the power you generate that nobody uses. Next question, how do you get power when the sun isn't shining? Solar that works without sunlight? No, it's coal, gas and oil. All you would have to do is get some batteries and get off the grid. But you refuse to live by your own motto: "everyone of us is capable to modify the environment". But not you, you got a special deal to sell your useless power to the power company even though we taxpayers subsidized your installation. Then you expect power whenever you feel like it, when your solar can't provide it. And you expect it at low rates instead of the peak rates that it actually costs. So answer this: why are you on the grid? You are certainly not doing anything useful for the environment while you leech off the grid.
Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle
This is corporatism. You do understand the concepts of third party verification and liability insurance don't you? UL is a perfect example. When was the last time you worried about being seriously harmed by your coffee maker? Do you think we need congressional over sight for small appliances? Ok, you're a pig farmer. You're saying you need congressional oversight and regulations (which we all know are currently corrupt) to protect the local creek. I'm saying that you need certification from a third party that you are using best environmental practices, waste and run off containment etc. You need this to cut your liability insurance costs, liability against damaging the creek of course. Now should you damage the creek, your insurance covers the cost of clean up. Your insurance goes up, possibly to the point of putting you out of the pig farming business. It is in your best financial interest to protect that creek. Let's use Exxon spill in Alaska as an example. Government regulation didn't protect us from that did it? But if they had to carry liability insurance against environmental damage they would have been using double hulled ships already. No accident. Using double hulled ships would have cut their insurance costs and thus would have been in their financial interest. Get it?
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
Before pursuing your question I want you to know to know that I highly respect your many and varied posts concerning financial matters that affect all of us whether you agree with my opinions or not; it is clear, you are wise by all posts and standards; and more than that, you really care about the world around us. So, don't be afraid to belt out your personal opinions. Our dialogue makes the world happen. I shall attempt my most heartfelt and genuine capability to say that I want to answer your questions: True. I received a government stipend to help pay for the system I designed. There are no answers to any local energy methods. Here, in Southern California I capitalized on the normalized climate. "The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
This is corporatism. No, what is going on now is corporatism. Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. Is that really what you are advocating? It is exactly what the environmental movement has given us.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
Here's a graph that will help you understand why your solar power is useless. http://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html Since it is from Calif, it is directly applicable. First look at the red line, that's your power usage and everyone else's. If you are a typical user you will use power mostly from 5PM to 10:30PM. How much power are your solar cells generating then? Zero. Next look at the green line, that's power available to the system. Note how 28000 MW can be supplied during the middle of the day when your solar cells are working (except when it is cloudy). Note how only 23000 MW are being used. How much power does the system need from your solar cells? Zero. How much are you being paid for your unneeded power? Full price. It is simply an unrealistic subsidy for your political correctness. Another thing to think about. Where does your neighbor get his power? From your solar cells? Well only when they are working. Suppose a cloud comes along, then where does you neighbor get his power? From the grid which includes whatever they need to generate power when no solar is available (e.g. a storm) Final step: when you are using your power from 5 to 10:30, where does it come from? Did you store it during the day in batteries? No you leech it from the grid at low prices. It comes from coal, gas and oil. You have done nothing to save the environment. There is the same amount of coal, gas and oil capacity and when you "supply" power to the grid you are not saving any coal, gas or oil since, as I pointed out above, your power is unreliable. You can, of course, change the entire equation by disconnecting from the grid. But I doubt you will do it since you are getting a subsidy for supplying politically correct, but actually useless electrons. Plus you get power at cheap rates when it is most expensive to generate. That brings up the other possibility, if you want to do something good for the environment, use no (zero) power from 5 to 10:30 in the evening. But I don't think you will do that either.
Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle
How does that relate to vast arrays of aqua fir, mineral and floral resources, such as our national parks and forests? Sure, you can have companies attempting to "steal" value from customers, but after a few are shocked, they'll just stop buying coffee makers. Industrialization requires risk taking, hence the occasional failure. But things have gotten better. Our air is cleaner, much cleaner than it was just 20 years ago. We can still require environmental insurance with our present system. So no, I don't get it. I'm not about to turn our parks, our water, our air, and anything else in the environment back over to the corporations. The proper thing to do is fix government. If we don't do that, things will just keep getting worse. This all reminds me of Ron Paul saying he didn't want to close the borders with military force because sound economic policy would "fix it." He didn't even really care about illegal immigration in the first place. The people and their governmental representatives care about the environment. Corporations could care less, and no amount of legislation will make them do it.
Until you disconnect from the grid you are not energy independent.
Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle
Says the former lobbyist. I'm not buying it. We have national forests, protected water tables, clean air, good wetlands. Some could be better. Things would be a lot worse if they were privatized. What we need to do is get our governments cleaned up. You won't have any better situation without doing that, no matter what you're proposing. Protecting the common good is always going to require sound government, which we lack. But at least citizens take interest in the environment, and it's not on the other side of the planet (unless you count the carbon dioxide situation).
Like that has anything to do with it. I lobbied Grange policy. As I said, that was grassroots. I take it you have never watched Overview Of America. Your collectivism is disgusting.
"The only thing better than a Federal Reserve audit would be a Federal Reserve autopsy." ~ unknown
Incorrect.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." -- Ronald Reagan, circa 1976
You're the one lobbying for corporate control, which is one step removed from the people, of our entire set of environmental resources. As even a good Bircher can tell us, corporations are now part of the communist control over America. So you're arguing for completing the cycle. I'm saying we're lucky that we have any control at all over our natural resources, and that resulted from a tug-of-war between the corporatists and the people who actually care about the environment.
Comments (104 - 115) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Insects True, winter kills them and they generally like the warm weather, but adaptability is in our favor, not theirs. Your mention of the pine bark beetles means we have some work to do (harvest the pine and plant alternatives). A good analogy is the storm of 1962 which took down 15 billion board feet ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day_Storm_of_1962) The pine bark beetle kills a few billion board feet at most. In 1962 we didn't throw up our hands, we did something: built roads and harvested the wood.
spindly plants You are going to have to be more specific. There are numerous commercial greenhouses with double the normal CO2 getting thicker growth and 30-40% greater yields.
the natural environment is jam-packed with humans Not a warming issue at all and not an argument against more fish and game. With less winter kill and more vegetation there will be more game.
tundra is eroding Permafrost is melting, but tundra is not eroding more since the surface always thaws regardless of GW. If you are talking about along the Arctic Ocean, that's a small area and is manageable.
Everyone's quality of life is diminished How?
reduced risk of catastrophe if there is cooling (e.g. large volcano) Something like the supervolcano Toba 70k years ago would wipe out most of humanity. Our puny global warming would not help. But there are much more likely eruptions that would cool the planet a degree or two C for a few years. Those would wipe out crops with summer frosts. GW would help blunt the impact of such an event. Note that there are not similar catastrophes on the warm side, there is no such thing as "volcanic summer" or "nuclear summer".
Global Warming phenomena is removing clean, natural water capabilities and capacity around the world Not really. Where glaciers have melted the same precipitation (or more) falls and can be dammed. The Great Lakes dropped for a while, but now they are rising again since 2008. Increased warming means increased precipitation, plain and simple. Where it falls might chance, but that's what dams and pipelines are for.
#64. To: Deasy (#62)
These are not reasons to privatize our natural resources.
#65. To: farmfriend (#64)
(Edited)
#66. To: farmfriend (#59)
#67. To: buckeroo (#66)
#68. To: buckeroo, farmfriend (#66)
The world is dying.
#69. To: abraxas (#58)
You can't have your global warming cake and eat it [too] without the government regulating the oven that it was cooked in and the units of carbon produced in the baking process.
#70. To: Original_Intent (#68)
... but CO2 is the least of our worries.
Dear Heavenly Father .. please take the nitrous-oxide, down-town brown bag off of O_I's snout. It just isn't becoming of an otherwise fine poster.
#71. To: Original_Intent (#12)
A show of hands please.
#72. To: buckeroo (#69)
What will happen to you when the government has ultimately claimed you are a carbon deficit?
#73. To: abraxas (#72)
31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
#74. To: buckeroo (#73)
I didn't.
#75. To: abraxas (#74)
Some scientists are even debating the effects of the SUN on the climate. Imagine that--the sun having a correlation with temperatures.
#76. To: farmfriend (#64)
You're not really reading what I post are you?
#77. To: Deasy (#76)
You're used to foruming with people who are sympathetic to your cause, aren't you?
#78. To: farmfriend (#77)
#79. To: Deasy (#65)
Not your links. Put your arguments in line. You haven't answered my question about water for agribusiness yet, either.
#80. To: farmfriend (#79)
#81. To: Deasy (#78)
You're expecting me to take an off-site link as your argument? You've got to be kidding.
#82. To: Deasy (#80)
So this "farmfriend" moniker of yours. You're still lobbying for agribusiness, right?
#83. To: farmfriend (#81)
#84. To: Deasy (#83)
You want me to visit Free Republic?
This book proposes a free-market environmental management system designed to deliver a product that is superior to government oversight, at lower cost. It provides examples illustrating how the system might work and proposes an implementing legal strategy. Though environmental in origin, the principles this book describes are applicable toward privatizing nearly any form of government regulation.
#85. To: Deasy (#83)
#86. To: farmfriend (#84)
#87. To: farmfriend (#84)
#88. To: Deasy (#86)
Why wouldn't privatization be just as corrupt as what we have is today?
#89. To: Deasy (#87)
It sounds like a method for getting the corporations back into control over the resources they've always wanted.
#90. To: farmfriend (#89)
#91. To: farmfriend (#88)
Third party verification and liability insurance.
#92. To: Deasy (#91)
2) no more free votes.
3) no more free Constitution.
4) Everyone pays their own weight, no matter how massive they are.
#93. To: buckeroo (#63)
with responsive understanding that each and everyone of us is capable to modify the environment.
#94. To: Deasy, buckeroo (#91)
How would third party verification and insurance be better than congressional oversight and executive authority? Who appoints the third parties? Who keeps them from profiteering from collusion with the corporations?
#95. To: purpleman (#93)
Perhaps. But there are lots of things we can do without being leeches on the taxpayers and electric ratepayers. Do you know who uses the power you generate in the middle of the day when nobody is home? The answer is nobody, you are being paid for power that nobody needs. The rest of us honest ratepayers pay for the power you generate that nobody uses.
Next question, how do you get power when the sun isn't shining? Solar that works without sunlight? No, it's coal, gas and oil. All you would have to do is get some batteries and get off the grid. But you refuse to live by your own motto: "everyone of us is capable to modify the environment". But not you, you got a special deal to sell your useless power to the power company even though we taxpayers subsidized your installation. Then you expect power whenever you feel like it, when your solar can't provide it. And you expect it at low rates instead of the peak rates that it actually costs.
So answer this: why are you on the grid? You are certainly not doing anything useful for the environment while you leech off the grid.
I don't understand your perspective. I am interested in changing the world around me. So what if I took advantage of explicit government benefits as I recognized that to make a significant claim and commitment within my neighborhood; I am the first to claim energy independence within my neighborhood.
#96. To: Deasy (#91)
How would third party verification and insurance be better than congressional oversight and executive authority? Who appoints the third parties? Who keeps them from profiteering from collusion with the corporations?
#97. To: buckeroo (#63)
#98. To: farmfriend (#94)
Do you think we need congressional over sight for small appliances?
Ok, you're a pig farmer. You're saying you need congressional oversight and regulations (which we all know are currently corrupt) to protect the local creek.
You're saying that individual examples of failure (Valez oil spill) represent systemic failure. Yet this isn't the case. We've had increasingly better environmental protection since the 1960s. In fact, it was activists who were arguing against public oversight and congressional authority who were trying to get us to stop the legislation that has cleaned up our waterways, protected our wetlands, improved our fuel standards, and whatnot. You're in good company there. You're on the wrong side, as far as I can tell.
#99. To: buckeroo (#95)
I am the first to claim energy independence within my neighborhood.
#100. To: farmfriend (#96)
It is exactly what the environmental movement has given us.
#101. To: Deasy (#100)
(Edited)
Says the former lobbyist.
#102. To: purpleman (#99)
Until you disconnect from the grid you are not energy independent.
#103. To: farmfriend (#101)
Your collectivism is disgusting.
.
.
.