|
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Oil and Coal Money in Politics, its easy, just follow the gravy train
http://oilmoney.priceofoil.org...ph.php?type=congress as Benito Mussolini defined it: “Fascism is the convergence of government and corporate power.” |
||||
|
..... What "Blutarski" specifically wrote is that the article in question demonstrates clearly and convincingly that the great and famous "hockey stick graph" (a foundation stone of the AGW temple of worship) was based upon cooked data and that great efforts were exerted by the perpetrator to avoid discovery of that fact. I do hold the opinion that AGW is an unproven (and probably incorrect) house of theoretical cards, but I did not claim that the article by itself refuted anything other than what I precisely wrote. Your rationale for avoiding to read the article is nothing but a pathetically bald and unjustifiable evasion and manifests a real lack of intellectual objectivity. Are you afraid that the article might challenge some of your comfortable assumptions? It's quite easy to gin up the notion of an "overwhelming weight of data" if one scrupulously avoids and denies anything and everything that contradicts one's dogmatic beliefs. On that basis, please add the 700-odd scientists mentioned in the article cited in my previous post to your proscription list; otherwise your "scientific consensus" myth may be put at risk. BLUTARSKI |
||||
|
..... A completely irrelevant but unfortunately predictable ad hominen attack in response. We are talking about 700+ respected scientists who have officially registered their disagreement with AGW theory. Why aren't you looking at their arguments and weighing them? Too difficult? Too intellectually taxing? Too ideologically uncomfortable? BLUTARSKI |
||||
|
 |
Blutarski, once again you are resorting to your tactic of presenting some dubiously neutral website as evidence for your arguments, and then expecting anyone who disagrees with you to have to verify every last detail before being entitled to give a response. This is the sort of tactic that third-rate conspiracy theorists resort to, but I know you are capable of better than that.
You ought also to perhaps reconsider what you said about grifter2u's last post, where he pointed out where Inhofe got his funding:
This might be a valid argument, except that in earlier postings you had suggested that the politicisation of the debate was because 'an immensely great deal of money is potentially involved', and later said that 'the marketers are trying to subtly re-package the scam.'. It seems to me that grifter2u was doing the same thing that you did, and following the money to see where it lead. Incidentally, I'm not sure that there is anything in my 'dogmatic beliefs' that would lead me to support the anthropogenic climate change theory. Over the years I have come to accept that it is probably correct, and that faced with the inherent uncertainties involved in the question, it is better to play safe and reduce the polluting effects of our lifestyle, rather than risk a catastrophic change. As I understand it, the insurance industry tends to operate on the same assumptions. Which 'dogmatic beliefs' do you think are motivating them? |
|||
|
..... This is just more evasion on your part. Have you bothered to actually read anything yet? I suspect not. Apparently you will resort to any ploy, including the invocation of "Darwinism" and "creationists" (how in the world is THAT apropos to the discussion?) to avoid being confronted by opposing opinions of legitimate credentialed scientists. BLUTARSKI |
||||
|
its perfectly relevant to see exactly who is paying for the senator to peddle that nonsense, and as you noticed by the specific evidence i provided, following the money trail leads to the same predictable culprits
lol you'r so gullible, do you even try and think for yourself at any time and look closer at the value these "facts" have you are presented with from dubious sources. 500 "scientists" means NOTHING (there are several million "scientists" in the world), unless they have the right credentials in THE APPROPRIATE FIELD (climatology), and their research (presuming they have done any, and most of those quoted in the dodgy senators list havnt)is in this field and has been published in respected peer reviewed journals. see thats how science works in the real world, one scientist makes some observations or measurements, it gets published after having gone through some rigorous screening by the editorial board of that journal, then published and other scientists of the field read about it, they then comment on the scientific methods used or do further research to duplicate or built on the previous work, or they make they own scientific measurements to try and refute the previous work which might show different evidence (and hence leads to different theories), and they then write about it in turn in the right peer reviewed journals (so the same rigorous standards apply at each step). once the information is seen as reproducible and reliable, theories are built, hypothesis are made, and these are then verified by other scientists in turn and modifications made if so indicated etc... see nowhere in that chain of scientific discovery does blutarsky right wing opinions matter, neither does the "opinion" of "scientists" in unrelated fields, easy eh  and that is why none of the nonsense you keep quoting ever made it in these peer reviewed journals, because each time on closer scrutiny it doesnt add up. not that this stops the interest groups that are funding it, because all they want is try and pretend there is some doubt or controversy, then weirdo's like you regurgitate it left right and center as if it actually IS fact. i have 3 degrees in a medical area, do you think that gives me the knowledge to go and tell a civil engineer how to build a bridge ? now even if i build toy bridges for a hobby, or read lots of magazines with pretty pictures with bridges, that still doesnt make me qualified to build one safely the closer inspection of the names on the shonky senators list i already previously posted, it showed exactly that the majority of the "scientists" quoted do not even have a related degree, many are not even real scientists, and of those that are 99% are not recognized experts in the appropriate field they are signing the petition for. the same type of lists already started showing up nearly 10 years ago, funded by the same interest groups, and each time on closer scrutiny it proves to be nothing but another con trick. you'r also peddling this as if the list of names is related to some profound new theory that has been discovered, it isnt, its a petition list asking people to put their names on it (and a number of the names on it are not even aware they have been placed on it)
because they already have repeatedly been shown to not be credible, and there is no real "debate". all it is is a creation of a pseudo science myth that is not based on anything factually correct. each time you look closer at one of their "facts" it evaporates and has no credible content. and this is the part you dont even get, to the fossile fuel industry the credibility of their own "arguments" doesnt even matter, they dont care, all they want is to create is enough doubt in the public's eyes (because the involved scientists in the field they cant refute) so that they can continue business as usual and keep digging up more coal and pump more oil out of the ground. in australia alone the coal industry is worth 400 BILLION dollars per year, the motivation of the people that own these mines and industries is not hard to understand eh now if you compare that with the people involved in the IPCC you should be able to spot the difference in credibility of those involved, and that is where the right wing loonies you are quoting always fall down. when you look at the actual facts of the matter a bit closer, the scientific rigor of the IPCC and the consensus of international experts in the field is what really matters.
as Benito Mussolini defined it: “Fascism is the convergence of government and corporate power.” |
||||
|
..... Andy, don't insult me and yourself with this "third rate conspiracy" accusation. All I have asked you to do is READ the material offered - something which you steadfastly refuse to do so far. No one has asked you to parse and verify "every last detail" before responding, have they? That is your own imaginary construct. If you fear you are unable to comprehend the scientific material and logic contained therein, how were you able to embrace and be convinced by the arguments of the other side?
..... Grifter attempts to equate a 4 or 5 figure political donation to an expectation of Dow Chemical alone to reap >>> 4 to 6 BILLION DOLLARS <<< from cap and trade! A completely ridiculous analogy. You're just engaging in more evasion, Andy. The fact that the report was sourced via a Republican politician's website is completely extraneous to the contents and value of the report itself, reflecting as it does the informed opinion and analysis of 700+ scientists. Would you feel better if you could D/L the report direct from the US Senate website? If so, here you go - http://epw.senate.gov/public/i...84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9 Now you can read the report on its own merit without the dark and ominous shadow of Jim Inhofe as a subtle Blutarski subtext.
..... The insurance industry operates actuarially from empirical and historical data and cost/risk analysis. Dogma has nothing to do with their operations. On the other hand, as far as the positions and proposals of the AGW movement are concerned, I see no RELIABLE empirical data and absolutely ZERO cost/benefit analysis. BLUTARSKI |
||||
|
..... Grifter, you haven't bothered to read the offered material either, have you? I'd suggest the question of relative degrees of gullibility remain a very open question. BLUTARSKI |
||||
|
 |
Meh, arguing with Mortoma and similar guys is like arguing over Apollo 11 landings. No matter what evidence one side comes up with, the other one will not believe it anyway... Sooner or later it comes down to "my scientists are better than yours" fest. Somehow I feel this thread will end its life "prematurely", being closed by one of the mods.
Blutarski at least takes an active part in conversation, not just writing two tyrades about "stupid hippies"... Although I'm somewhere in the middle of opinions here, with a slight lean towards "the theory seems to be more or less plausible" option, I have to agree with radicals as far as two things are concerned: extreme "tree hugging hippies" are as bad as their opponents from the other side of the barricade, plus, there are quite a few opportunists who feel they can make some serious money on this new, trendy and catchy subject of climate change. It makes finding objective sources more difficult, if not close to impossible. Cheers - Art  Old warbirds, old race cars (and then young girls  ) forever! |
|||
|
you'r not paying attention the figures i quoted you demonstrated how to just one politician they donated well over half a BILLION dollars over an 8 year period, not sure how you can try and pretend now that this is peanuts and out of proportion with their revenue. frankly if they could, they wouldnt spend anything on buying political favors, they'd probably like to keep the money to themselves and just buy another lear jet or holiday island. aside from the one politician we just discussed, there are many more like him that are keen to take the money (just look at the website i previously quoted showing who gets these donations in american federal politics), and there are many other non-politicians to, usually industry insiders who then later pretend to be "neutral experts". annually these donations from the fossil fuel industries go into the billions of dollars globally. keep in mind that this total global industry is a multi trillion dollar industry anually
we already covered that, the majority of the "scientists" you keep referring to do not have appropriate qualifications in this field to comment, and NONE are recognized experts in the field of climatology. note that inconveniently for you, any "expert" needs to be recognized by his peer group as such, needs to have a publication track record in the right scientific journals, not just bought by an interest group to be a voice piece and then made a pretend expert while not being qualified in the field. its funny to note that out of desperation the fossil fuel industry now set up their own pretend journals because they couldnt get their crap published in the real rigorous journals. as Benito Mussolini defined it: “Fascism is the convergence of government and corporate power.” |
||||
|
au contraire mon ami, i have been following the argument for about 30 years in the general science arena and am all to familiar with it, the junk you are quoting contains nothing new and is rather boring really, rather then spike any new interest. its the same tiresome misrepresentation of a few trivial peripheral facts that are unrelated to the core of the argument. i have looked at them in depth in the past, and each time those misrepresentations are a dead end and turn out to be shonky "science", willfully misleading, or downright lies. and it is also always the same interest groups that are pushing the $$$ cart behind it, no surprises there either. i have also looked closely at the arguments on the "man made climate change" side, and it is clear for anybody with even a basic scientific background that there are some very real concerns there. largely what seems to be developing now, again based on OBSERVATION and direct measurement (rather theoretical models open to speculation), is that it is developing into one of the "worst case scenarios" they had originally feared (but that is another conversation). what people like you dont seem willing to understand, is that the risk of these climate changes developing is simply not worth while for humanity as a whole living on a small planet like we are. with finite space, limited resources and the bad habits we have developed since the start of the industrial revolution, we now have a finite ability to cope with humanities "poop" that is accumulating in the various subsystems that form part of the total climate system that controls the planet. just for the sake of a few fringe dissenters that dont agree, we stand to loose to much if it even turns out to only be partially correct. and when these negative changes occur, many will be irreversible if they have been allowed to go beyond a particular point (thats science again, you personally dont need to agree or disagree for this to be true), and once this has happened YOU wont be there to turn them around or take responsibility for it either, and neither will the corrupt psychopathic business men whose self centered and short sighted greed has led us to this. as Benito Mussolini defined it: “Fascism is the convergence of government and corporate power.” |
||||
|
|
|
Blutarski writes:
This is the SAME REPORT! the 'dark and ominous shadow' of Jim Inhofe is there for all to see on the front page. Not that I see much that is dark or ominous about the fact that the US political system is corrupt, this is clear as daylight (not that I'm suggesting it is much better this side of the pond, but that is another matter). Presenting the same evidence twice makes it no more credible. I think the meaninglessness of this list of 'scientific dissidents' has already been exposed by previous postings by deepo_HP and grifter2u, though I notice you have chosen not to respond to their comments on the matter. Can I ask just how much of the evidence which has been presented to you to indicate the unreliability of your evidence you have actually read yourself? The simple fact is we could spend our entire lives doing nothing but reading articles if your method of settling debates was adhered to. If you want to argue something, then do it yourself, don't give us a link with every site you can find that you think you agree with and then expect us to trawl through it before we can respond. If you can't give us at least a precis of what the arguments are yourself, I think that we are then perhaps entitled to assume you either (a) are too certain you are right to actually read the article, (b) consider your time so much more important than anyone else's that it is not worth the effort trying to summarise it, or (c) don't even understand the article yourself. I hope that none of these explanations is correct, but I'd be happier if you could assure me that they are all wrong. |
|||
|
 |
The thing that I notice is you can't win with these global warming people, mostly because it's more politics that science. Did anyone notice that near the end of the article I linked to there was a dude that said basically that even if we are going into a cooling period ( which they finally have to admit now ) that well, global warming will come, you'll see. It's only a matter of time.
There have already been global warming proponents/climate change proponents that say some of the cooling in the last few years is caused by global warming!! That's right, cooling is caused by warming!! And the biggest reason they are using the term 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' is because now they realize they may have to change in mid stream and eventually start saying all the Co2 and pollutants are causing global cooling and maybe an ice age!! Ten years from now you might see commercials suggesting that people "go green" to stave off global cooling! You can't win with these people because, like I said, it's more political that scientific. It's all about scaring people so they can control people and enforce anti-growth, anti-consumption and anti-capitalist policies. That's all it is. |
|||
|
..... So what exactly is your point? Do you think that the AGW movement is funded by bake sales? At the end of the day, it doesn't really make a bit of difference who is on what side of the argument or how much money they push into the pot. The fundamental argument is whether the science is sensible and, despite your wishful thinking that eveyone who disagrees is unqualified or somehow tainted (NEVER the case on the other side, is it?) there are powerful arguments from very well qualified scientists that call the AGW position situation into serious question - especially when the amount of projected spending and economic sacrifices called for are taken into account. While we are on the subject of the qualification of AGW critics, how about this gentleman - Reid Bryson, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd.
..... Don't be ridiculous, Grifter. What you are claiming is utter foolishness, unless you perhaps define "peer group" as only those individuals who believe in AGW. Go to the report and review the credentials of the participating scientists, then come back and tell me that you cannot find any "recognized experts". BLUTARSKI |
||||
|
|
|
All politics put aside, I would not be against any inventions that would reduce or even completely get us away from coal burning or oil usage. You'd have to be crazy to not want alternatives.
What I do have a problem with is politicians forcing major policy changes like 'cap and trade'. All predicated on something that's just a theory that human activity might be causing global warming. It's simply unprovable and when global temperature are indeed dropping overall ( which can be proven ) they need to back off on policies that would drastically affect people for the worse. If global warming was proven then there would be no debate or people arguing against it. After all, there would be proof, so how could anyone argue? But there is no proof, not even close. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
