31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

[/SIZE][/FONT]More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"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," the petition states. "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." [my emphasis]
The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.
(Story continues below)

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson.
WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.
Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.
"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.
In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."
The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "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," he wrote.
Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.
"The proposed agreement would 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," Seitz wrote.
Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "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."
He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.
"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.
"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.
"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.
He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.
"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.
The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.
In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.
"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.
The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.
"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.
The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."
The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.
Source
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
This topic is old news and old Bull$hit.
It only takes 2 minutes of googling to find that this is BS. In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world." When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists,"

It seems your argument has already been tried and dismissed.

In the event that you were correct in your assertions, a "what if" scenario, I would have to ask: so what?

By picking out minor errors like the petition may have some unscrupulous signatories or it was started by busy people who don't police it to your satisfaction, there is still the very real and solid argument that the erosion of freedom by the enviro-Nazi has debilitated the USA ( I would include Canada also). That the strongest asset of democracy, that is: the freedom of people within a democracy to solve problems a central government can't, is being destroyed. That the "global warming" hysteria and propaganda machine is destroying us. I already made this case in another post before finding this argument.

It isn't that we are going to save the world as the enviro-Nazi would mislead us into believing that we, as a society, feel we must slit our collective wrists for, but rather for the most lofty goal of saving millions of people who cannot adapt to environmental changes quickly enough to survive. So it isn't a global threat the enviro-Nazi oppose but global change; this is to say, that like a bunch of frightened old ladies, they would like the world to stay the same and preferably forever. This explains very well why the enviro-Nazi can't see or understand natural patterns of global weather - or even solar patterns; it does not suit their agenda.

So we will thus cripple ourselves to save people who will continue to pollute at an astonishing rate.

Maybe a solution is to find something else for the enviro-Nazi to cling? To provide some other "feel good" self-righteous movement with fewer consequences, so the rest of us won't have to pay so dearly for their drive to prove their worldliness. There has to be some way to contain this latest baby-boomer post hippie movement! I think it is too much that we should sit by and watch that generation **** the world up anymore than it already has.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
How about a quote on the futility of consensus.

The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.

That's from Fred Singer, the organizer of NIPCC, that's Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. His signature is on that list. Of note, he also said that the "science is settled." He's a real waffler, so long as the situation is favourable.

So really, who cares how many names there are there, opinion is meaningless in publications. It doesn't matter what you think, but what you can show. So what if someone have a BS in biology. You don't even need to do a research project to get a degree.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Scott Free

This whole mess was already posted here a few years ago. I could have added my name to that list along with whatever qualifications I wanted to give myself..

You talk about enviro-nazis like they were a group plotting world domination/destruction/whatever. The IPCC are a group of working scientists who have no power to order you to do anything. Al Gore's movie was not rocket science. It had a few warts but generally, though it had a few minor mistakes, it was correct information.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Scott Free

This whole mess was already posted here a few years ago. I could have added my name to that list along with whatever qualifications I wanted to give myself..

But you didn't and neither did I, as didn't many millions of other people with character enough not to. I will concede that the number 31,000 may be inflated by people with less character but I can not concede to your straw man argument attempt at making the list meaningless.

You talk about enviro-nazis like they were a group plotting world domination/destruction/whatever.

I think my love of hyperbole is superseded only by the enviro-Nazi love for it. :lol:

The IPCC are a group of working scientists who have no power to order you to do anything. Al Gore's movie was not rocket science. It had a few warts but generally, though it had a few minor mistakes, it was correct information.

A few minor mistakes?!?! An argument for anything can be made if a few minor mistakes is permitted.

How about a drastic exaggeration of consequence? That is no "simple mistake" IMO. It is a colossal mistake!

I am not going to change my lifestyle, destroy my freedom, ruin the future of my child and her children, etc, to save a few million people. Unfortunately, though, it isn't my decision; it is being made for me; forced on me; because of Al Gore and the IPCC. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for helping them; I'm just not in favour of shooting myself in the head to do it.

These same people we would destroy ourselves for are doing nothing themselves to "save the planet."

So while the decision to doom my future children's lives is being made by the idiots in power, the futures of the "saved" children are brightening specifically because they burn coal in the factories where they work to make cheap trinkets they sell to us!
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The list is meaningless Scott. What any group of humans thinks doesn't matter one bit as far as the physics is concerned. That's why consensus in science is dumb. It's evidence that matters.

Just curious, but have you actually read the information on that site? The "paper" that is accompanying that document? The association that believes there is no right to health care (apparently life and liberty don't include health care for this bunch), the association that opposes evidence based medicine!

How the hell are you going to trust a paper from a medical association that opposes evidence based decisions? What do you think that says about their standards for academic diligence? That's like a physicist who believes we live in a geocentric universe.

These are questions you should be asking yourself when you read this stuff. More importantly, it's questions that the petitioners should have asked before they gave their name. At least if they have any skepticism at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: karrie

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
Still another anti truth thread about global warming!

It reports that American scientists reject the idea of gw. But it fails to note that Bush's Republican dominated party accepts the notion and pays BILLIONS every year in research because of it.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Quoting Scott Free
A few minor mistakes?!?! An argument for anything can be made if a few minor mistakes is permitted.

How about a drastic exaggeration of consequence? That is no "simple mistake" IMO. It is a colossal mistake!

Al Gore's movie made the assumption and or assertion that since the industrial revolution the CO2 and other greenhouse gas content of our atmosphere has risen because of man's industrial endeavors and that there is a connection between that greenhouse gas and the rising global temperatures. In the period between the industrial revolution and now, we have pumped billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere along with other greenhouse gasses like methane and CFCs. Are we so stupid that we think we can do that with no consequences? The fact that the world is warming is not in doubt, nor is the fact that the Arctic ice is melting. Global warming because of industrial pollution is a good first hypothesis, and one that we had better examine very closely before we laugh it off like fools.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Well. you all can go ahead and slit your wrists I just wish you weren't going to take me along with you.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
For the sake of balance, here is the list of 100 or so most prominent climatologists who believe man-made catastrophic global warming:

Celebrities:

Al Gore, B.A. Government (no science degree)
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Prince Charles of Whales, B.A. (no science degree)
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma

ABC - Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News (no science degree, not a meteorologist)
CBS - Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater (no science degree)
CBS - Katie Couric, B.A. English (no science degree)
CBS - Scott Pelley, College Dropout
NBC - Ann Curry, B.A. Journalism (no science degree)
NBC - Anne Thompson, B.A. American studies (no science degree)
NBC - Matt Lauer. B.A. Communications (no science degree)
NBC - Meredith Vieira, B.A. English (no science degree)

Al Sharpton, College Dropout
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Britney Spears, High School Dropout
Bruce Springsteen, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Cindy Crawford, College Dropout
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
Jennifer Connelly, College Dropout
Jessica Simpson, High School Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Kanye West, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Lindsay Lohan, High School Dropout
Ludacris (Christopher Bridges), College Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Matthew Modine, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Neve Campbell, High School Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Ted Turner, College Dropout
Tommy Lee (Thomas Lee Bass), High School Dropout
Uma Thurman, High School Dropout
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout

Politicians:

John McCain, B.S. (Graduated 894th out of 899 in his class)
Newt Gingrich, Ph.D. Modern European History (no science degree) (Hypocrite)
Pat Robertson, B.A., J.D., M.A. Divinity (no science degree)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, B.A. Government, J.D. Law (no science degree, 'recovered' Heroin addict)

Scientists:

Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)
Gavin Schmidt, B.A. Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)
James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, Gavin Schmidt's Boss)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine, D.Sc. Biophysics
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
Michael Mann, A.B. Applied Math, Physics, M.S. Physics, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)
Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics

Social Scientists:

Ronald Bailey, B.A. Philosophy and Economics (Science Correspondent, Reason Magazine)
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I think T's point bears repeating, especially since no one had the good manners to address him.

"The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands."
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
For the sake of balance, here is the list of 100 or so most prominent climatologists who believe man-made catastrophic global warming:

Celebrities:

Al Gore, B.A. Government (no science degree)
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma

In spite of Walter's slavering insults, the IPCC panel of scientists are well qualified, working scientists
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I think T's point bears repeating, especially since no one had the good manners to address him.

"The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands."

Science relies very heavily on consensus (show of hands) and peer review.

Also, the debate isn't whether GW is happening but rather that it isn't going to destroy the world (as claimed) and so maybe a more rational and level headed approach is warranted? You know, instead of destroying the last shreds of competitiveness we have to save an undying planet, maybe there is a more rational solution?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Science relies very heavily on consensus (show of hands) and peer review.

No it doesn't. Do you know how peer review works?

Also, the debate isn't whether GW is happening but rather that it isn't going to destroy the world (as claimed) and so maybe a more rational and level headed approach is warranted? You know, instead of destroying the last shreds of competitiveness we have to save an undying planet, maybe there is a more rational solution?

There is indeed some scientists who say the world is not warming. But there is no peer reviewed research that claims the world will end because of it. You're looking in the wrong places for rational approaches if you think that's what the debate is framed around.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
No it doesn't. Do you know how peer review works?



There is indeed some scientists who say the world is not warming. But there is no peer reviewed research that claims the world will end because of it. You're looking in the wrong places for rational approaches if you think that's what the debate is framed around.

The argument here isn't the reality of global warming but the consequences of it. My premise is that claiming the world is going to end or even that global warming is going to destroy mankind is pure horse $h!t. Mankind will survive - Canada will survive and probably even prosper. Some estimates claim Russia may become a new breadbasket for the world! Great news for them!

Change is inevitable, man made or otherwise and by cutting back on energy consumption we are unfairly punishing our industry while those in China and India are pounding us into the ground. The irony is that those very people who may suffer the most are not participating in energy conservation at all!

So my argument is that the wests hysterical "cut off our nose to spite our face" approach is idiotic.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The argument here isn't the reality of global warming but the consequences of it. My premise is that claiming the world is going to end or even that global warming is going to destroy mankind is pure horse $h!t.
Which is why I informed you that there is no research that claims the world will end...nor will it destroy mankind. It will make things difficult for mankind, and will be deadly for some people. That's worth avoiding.

Change is inevitable, man made or otherwise and by cutting back on energy consumption we are unfairly punishing our industry while those in China and India are pounding us into the ground. The irony is that those very people who may suffer the most are not participating in energy conservation at all!

Or maybe by continuing to use inefficient practices, citizens like you and I are the ones suffering. The auto companies fight tooth and nail to avoid making more efficient cars, fossil fueled lobbies fight to avoid renewable energy portfolios, power generators fight to avoid pollution control (you like mercury in your food and lungs?) Don't forget, it took legislation to put seatbelts and air bags in cars, it took legislation to stop emitting SO2 so as to avoid the acid rain. All of these things for the health and safety of you and I and all the rest, but they fight against it anyways. It costs them money. Electricity production could be cheaper, and more efficient, but that doesn't fit the models that have been used over the past 100 years. You can't get a rate increase on a Kw if the price generating, transmitting, and distributing don't become more expensive.

So my argument is that the wests hysterical "cut off our nose to spite our face" approach is idiotic.

If that were the approach, it would be idiotic. Right now there's not much of an approach at all.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Well. you all can go ahead and slit your wrists I just wish you weren't going to take me along with you.

Who in hell suggested we were going to have to slit our wrists? You aren't even forced to give up your gas-guzzling SUV. It is suggested you act responsibly and use energy in a responsible fashion. Somehow you've got the idea that some gestapo-like organization is forcing you at gunpoint to do something you don't want to do. That is just not true. Nothing would make me happier than if our government would bring in legislation making vehicles more efficient. In fact I would outlaw ten cylinder, SUV fuel hogs immediately. Global warming is happening. We are not one hundred percent sure that the vehicles we drive, and industrial waste are causing it but, that is a very good bet. Is there a good reason we should ignore the problem and hope it goes away?
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Which is why I informed you that there is no research that claims the world will end...nor will it destroy mankind.

That isn't how the propaganda is spun: "save the planet."

It will make things difficult for mankind and will be deadly for some people. That's worth avoiding.

Your making assumptions when you use the mass noun "mankind," that is a favorite trick of the propagandist. It will be hard on some people but it will benefit others.

Or maybe by continuing to use inefficient practices, citizens like you and I are the ones suffering.

We are suffering because our industry is being hobbled as are we.

The auto companies fight tooth and nail to avoid making more efficient cars, fossil fueled lobbies fight to avoid renewable energy portfolios, power generators fight to avoid pollution control (you like mercury in your food and lungs?)

The auto industry (like any industry) responds to the market. They will fight any dictates that are not profitable and the majority of people do not want.

Don't forget, it took legislation to put seatbelts and air bags in cars, it took legislation to stop emitting SO2 so as to avoid the acid rain.

Your confusing the coal industry with the auto industry.

All of these things for the health and safety of you and I and all the rest, but they fight against it anyways. It costs them money. Electricity production could be cheaper, and more efficient, but that doesn't fit the models that have been used over the past 100 years. You can't get a rate increase on a Kw if the price generating, transmitting, and distributing don't become more expensive.

This is a conspiracy then? If what your saying is true then I recommend you start an electrical company and undersell the competition. You shouldn't have any problem if your solution can undercut their prices so much.

If that were the approach, it would be idiotic. Right now there's not much of an approach at all.

There is an approach though, in BC we just got a new tax and we can expect taxes everywhere to go up as the government seeks to restrict the use of fuel by the poor so the wealthy can use as much as they want.