Kyoto Protocol

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: Kyoto

And at the end of 50 years of implementation, improving, and strict enforcement by all signatories, the net result to the planet will be virtually the same as if it hadn't been implemented at all.

Well I guess some people figure it's all in God's hands...so what the f*ck hey...

I'd rather see society err on the side of caution though...God's not the most reliable dude in the universe...

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

Rev,

No, what you are doing is perpetuating a fallacy based in 19 century thought and 20th century technology because you are afraid you will be negatively impacted.

As long as you continue to deny reality, you’ll not be able to make any progress. I will not be negatively impacted whatsoever by new tech. Quite the opposite. What will impact me is an increase in taxes to pay penalties for a treaty that has no hope of achieving it’s goals.

New technology creates wealth. Period.

Now you’re talking economics, and you’re somewhat stymied by your leftist viewpoint. (Socialist economist = oxymoron)

What good is TV? Not much, but it creates wealth.

Interesting you should mention TV. That’s the example I love to use when explaining just how technology creates wealth. You aren’t old enough to remember when colour TV came on the market, but I am. It was invented in the ‘30’s but didn’t come on the market till ’67. I cost the average working man an entire month’s wages. Now you can buy a much better colour TV for 1 day’s pay of the average working man. That’s how wealth is created, when the consumer can buy more for less because technology makes it better and less expensive.
A few years ago, an economist came up with a good formula for just how wealth is created in this way, involving the technology gap (technology developed but not yet implemented), the technology by which resources are manufactured, and the technology by which they are used. He was able to show how wealth is virtually limitless. But just developing and implementing new technology won’t do it. It has to reduce the cost of goods or services in order to do that. The TV only creates wealth by being much cheaper than before, and is only affordable in the first place because other previous technological developments have created wealth that gives the consumer a disposable income in excess of his needs.

The lack of implementation is because the old technologies are being protected. Do you electric companies want people using solar and wind generators instead of buying electricity from them? Do you think the oil companies like the idea of alternative fuels?

When there's profit to be made, there will be a company putting it on the market. You cannot long keep technology suppressed. It's virtually impossible to corner any market in todays economy.

Canada has gotten rich by being a trading nation and part of what we have always traded is technology. There is no reason to think that tradition would not continue.

Canada has gotten rich because of entrepreneurs who were able to take advantage of things like property rights, capitalism and free enterprise. Any time our government gets involved in economic ventures, it’s generally a disaster. (Remember Canadair?)

We have the Ballard fuel cell. It's running some buses right here in Winnipeg as a matter of fact. Those same buses can, in times of emergency, also be used as electrical generators. There is also a company here in Winnipeg that has designed and built a hydrogen dispensing unit that looks very much like a self-serve gas pump.

Hydrogen is a viable fuel right now. Not only that, but the two things needed to produce hydrogen...water and electricity...are two things that we have in abundance. Manitoba, Quebec, and BC stand to become as rich as Alberta in a hydrogen economy.

What is keeping it from becoming a viable fuel? A lack of infrastructure...there is no place to buy hydrogen...and a lack of interest from the automakers...there is no reason why fuel cells cannot be placed in vehicles.

There’s a town in the central States somewhere that has had busses running on hydrogen for decades now, but as a fuel it’s still not viable because at present it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen than it can then produce, making it an energy negative fuel. As for the Ballard fuel cell, one of those automakers (Daimler-Chrysler) is a partner and has contributed millions to it’s development (along with the Canadian taxpayer). Once it becomes truly viable in every sense, they’ll have it on the market in a big way because they know the massive profits that will accrue to them.

Most of what keeps the prices high is that, because they are not in general usage, manufacturing prices are still very high. If more were being produced the prices would come down in a hurry.

When they can be manufactured cost effectively, and operated cost effectively, they will be on the market in a big way. That’s always the way with free enterprise.

There was hardly any public pressure before Kyoto. The agreement served to get people interested. It also served to make the naysayers look like a bunch nattering nabobs of negatism, if I might steal a phrase from Spiro Agnew's speechwriters.

Whoever would have thought that Spiro would still be remembered so long? But I guess you just can’t remember the earlier pressure. It was there from environmentalists and the public long before Kyoto regarding all things to do with pollution and environmental concerns. All kinds of predictions of doom from the time you were born. Kyoto’s biggest accomplishment was to get a lot of people brainwashed.

US corporations, especially those involved in the energy and auto industries, show absolutely no signs of being inventive or innovative. They have fought advancement every step of the way.

There are a lot of big corps who will first try to protect their position, but it’s practically impossible to corner any market in today’s economy, and eventually they will yield to competition. Many technological advances come from the States, but have a hard time getting implemented there and are then exported to countries like Japan and even Canada (I know of one local example) before being adopted back in the US in order to compete.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

Zen,

Who said anything about completely limiting emissions? That would be absurd. A gradual reduction in green houses gases would afford us more time to look for a real solution. Why does it have to be an either or solution ?

Actually, I said that. Use some logic here, if the global climate is heating up as much as is claimed from human emissions, and has been for the past century, and the result will be the doom they predict, then there is no alternative; emissions must be eliminated. To do any less would be only to delay the catastrophe for a few years. Kyoto, which will have no effect, is completely useless to “save the planet”. To have an effective first step, there would need to be massive reductions of emissions.

It is completely inept to watch something happen that can be stopped just because a proposal doesn't go far enough. Its like the ...Oh they'll find a cure for...insert illness or addiction here...before I have to worry about it. It may justify it to your own mind, but actually seeking out help or changing your lifestyle to accomodate a solution to a distinct probability is by far a better alternative.

It’s much worse to delude people into thinking that something like Kyoto will save the world when it won’t actually have any effect at all.

As for a wealth transfer...that usually ends up increasing the amount of productivity and profit because you are now creating new markets for your product.

You misunderstand “wealth transfer”. That refers to taking money from us and giving it to other countries, or money from you and giving it to someone else. There’s no increase in productivity, only a confiscation of our profit and giving it to someone who hasn’t earned it.

Don't believe me...then why are our politicians and businesses courting India and China ? (rhetorical) You don't think our companies are eager to trade with the burgeoning middle classes in these countries ? Its all about profit and margins.

It is indeed about profits and margins. And we are courting business in those countries because there are growing markets there as their economies grow and their middle class burgeons. All due to massive economic growth, massive increases of consumption of resources including coal and oil, with the result of massive increases of emissions.

The reality is that any solutions and technologies created by those concerned by global warming are likely to save the North American economies.

North American economies will do fine as long as the governments allow the people to have property rights, capitalism and free enterprise, free from needless beaurocratic restrictions. New technologies will only add wealth if they reduce costs.

 

[zenfisher]

RE: Kyoto

No I think you misunderstand wealth transfer, EF. Look at it this way...Welfare and unemployment are programs that are paid into by the more affluent and middle class of a society. The taxpayers support those down on their luck. By paying into these programs it enables the less fortunate to buy food, pay rent, buy clothes for their kids, etc. Where do they buy the clothes...from merchants. While there are those that think that if we eliminated these programs there would be an ease of the tax burden...They don't realize that the economy would actually be hurt because now there would be less people buying a merchants goods.

The same thing would hold true for countries. The transfer of wealth would enable them to buy technologies that would help improve their situations which in turn would be good for North America because they are buying newer cleaner technologies. This would in turn reduce the dependancy on older fossil fuels and the older production methods.

You are, like so many today...only focusing on the end result. Your not taking into consideration what needs to be done to make those first steps. As the old saying goes...The journey begans with a single step. In this case a baby step. You keep saying only a few years. It was only a few years from when the Russians launched sputnik to The US landing on the moon. Remember the Commodore 64...that was only a few years ago. A lot can be accomplished in a few years...

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

No I think you misunderstand wealth transfer, EF. Look at it this way...Welfare and unemployment are programs that are paid into by the more affluent and middle class of a society.

Unemployment (EI) is funded wholy by the employees who are then elegible to collect if necessary. That leaves only welfare.

By paying into these programs it enables the less fortunate to buy food, pay rent, buy clothes for their kids, etc. Where do they buy the clothes...from merchants. While there are those that think that if we eliminated these programs there would be an ease of the tax burden...They don't realize that the economy would actually be hurt because now there would be less people buying a merchants goods.

When welfare programs are too generous it encourages some people to feed off the toil of others rather than make an effort to earn their own money. (I've know a few of these personally, and believe me, if we had a guaranteed income program here I would quit my job and retire.) Welfare recipients do spend their money into the economy, but if that money had been left to the people it was taken from do you think it would just disappear? No, it would have been spent and invested, further boosting the economy. It's a good thing to have a safety net for those who need help, but it's also a bad thing to make it too generous.

The same thing would hold true for countries. The transfer of wealth would enable them to buy technologies that would help improve their situations which in turn would be good for North America because they are buying newer cleaner technologies. This would in turn reduce the dependancy on older fossil fuels and the older production methods.

If you'd do a bit of research into some of those countries you'd find that monetary aid to them merely enriches the ruling elite, and practically none reaches the people. The rulers in most of these countries have policies and laws which are designed to keep their people poor, and themselves in power and rich. Nigeria's politicians have siphoned off more than 220 billion pounds since independance in 1960. Robert Mugabe drives the streets of Harare on the way to the opening of parliament or to the massive palace he's having built for himself in an open Rolls while his bulldozers destroy the homes and gardens of the poor. Wealth transfers will only enrich the rulers of these countries and will not be used for technological improvements or emissions reduction, and most definitely will not reach the people or in any way enrich their lives.

The journey begans with a single step. In this case a baby step.

In this case, no step at all. A step that goes nowhere does not begin the journey. Kyoto would have no effect on climate change even if human emissions caused the problem.

A lot can be accomplished in a few years...

Yes it can, especially when it comes to technological development. But wouldn't it make more sense, instead of giving money to other countries, to put it into technological development? Kyoto would accomplish nothing. Cutting worldwide emissions by half might get us a few years, but it would take an awful lot of new technology to basicly eliminate emissions, which, as I've pointed out, is necessary if the global warming scenario is as bad as the doomsayers are insisting.

 

[zenfisher]

RE: Kyoto

Again you want results NOW. This is not the way life works.You didn't pop out of the womb knowing what you know now. You weren't able to navigate through the world immediately. Things in life take time. This is merely one step...You want the solution before you do the work. Rather than planning a little ahead, so that you can thoughtfully resolve a problem. The proverbial ostrich if you will. While you've got your head in the sand the lion is about to pounce.
Safegurds can be put in place to ensure countries are following the rules, man read your little catch phrase.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

As long as you continue to deny reality, you’ll not be able to make any progress. I will not be negatively impacted whatsoever by new tech. Quite the opposite. What will impact me is an increase in taxes to pay penalties for a treaty that has no hope of achieving it’s goals.

The goal is attainable though. The only people talking about tax increases are the scare-mongers.

Now you’re talking economics, and you’re somewhat stymied by your leftist viewpoint. (Socialist economist = oxymoron)

Now you are perpetuating a myth that's so stupid it does not deserve an answer.

Interesting you should mention TV. That’s the example I love to use when explaining just how technology creates wealth. You aren’t old enough to remember when colour TV came on the market, but I am. It was invented in the ‘30’s but didn’t come on the market till ’67. I cost the average working man an entire month’s wages. Now you can buy a much better colour TV for 1 day’s pay of the average working man. That’s how wealth is created, when the consumer can buy more for less because technology makes it better and less expensive.

But what good is the television industry...the part that makes the most money is crap. Bad sitcoms, pseudo scientific shows, and "news" that tells whatever lies the corporate owners tell it too. There is only a handful of decent programming and it tends to generate the least wealth.

A few years ago, an economist came up with a good formula for just how wealth is created in this way, involving the technology gap (technology developed but not yet implemented), the technology by which resources are manufactured, and the technology by which they are used. He was able to show how wealth is virtually limitless.

So what? Economists sell us all kinds of pipe dreams. Did he take environmental costs into consideration? Of course not, they never do.

When there's profit to be made, there will be a company putting it on the market. You cannot long keep technology suppressed. It's virtually impossible to corner any market in todays economy.

Bullshit. The government is kept from regulating things by their corporate buddies. The current rules were written by corporate lackeys and for the the old technology that the corporations are promoting.

Canada has gotten rich because of entrepreneurs who were able to take advantage of things like property rights, capitalism and free enterprise. Any time our government gets involved in economic ventures, it’s generally a disaster. (Remember Canadair?)

Governments create trading opportunities and sign trade deals, EF. I said nothing about creating Crown corporations or anything like that. I do know that crowns can be profitable. There are many examples of that...mostly in the area of energy, actually. Nice try though.

There’s a town in the central States somewhere that has had busses running on hydrogen for decades now, but as a fuel it’s still not viable because at present it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen than it can then produce, making it an energy negative fuel. As for the Ballard fuel cell, one of those automakers (Daimler-Chrysler) is a partner and has contributed millions to it’s development (along with the Canadian taxpayer). Once it becomes truly viable in every sense, they’ll have it on the market in a big way because they know the massive profits that will accrue to them.

It's viable right now. What is missing is the infrastructure. Like I've said many times before, we have a huge advantage in hydrogen production. If the demand was there we would build the facilities. It's attitudes like yours that keep things from moving forward.

When they can be manufactured cost effectively, and operated cost effectively, they will be on the market in a big way. That’s always the way with free enterprise.

You know as well as I do that it's mass production that brings prices down.

Whoever would have thought that Spiro would still be remembered so long? But I guess you just can’t remember the earlier pressure. It was there from environmentalists and the public long before Kyoto regarding all things to do with pollution and environmental concerns. All kinds of predictions of doom from the time you were born. Kyoto’s biggest accomplishment was to get a lot of people brainwashed

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are wrong. There is no brainwashing, just science. People are being made aware of it and want a change as a result. Kyoto is having the same effect that Silent Spring did...it has raised awareness.

There are a lot of big corps who will first try to protect their position, but it’s practically impossible to corner any market in today’s economy, and eventually they will yield to competition. Many technological advances come from the States, but have a hard time getting implemented there and are then exported to countries like Japan and even Canada (I know of one local example) before being adopted back in the US in order to compete.

The biggest industry on the planet, one that controls the global economy, is the one trying to keep competition out. They have an insane amount power, which might explain the insane things they do and say. t goes a long way to explaining the blather of those that blindly follow them too.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: RE: Kyoto

Again you want results NOW. This is not the way life works.You didn't pop out of the womb knowing what you know now. You weren't able to navigate through the world immediately. Things in life take time. This is merely one step...You want the solution before you do the work. Rather than planning a little ahead, so that you can thoughtfully resolve a problem. The proverbial ostrich if you will. While you've got your head in the sand the lion is about to pounce.
Safegurds can be put in place to ensure countries are following the rules, man read your little catch phrase.

No I don't want results NOW. What I'm saying is Kyoto is totally useless as a first step because it accomplishes nothing. If you want to do something to solve a problem you have to do something that actually has a desired effect. Instead of wasting money on Kyoto, do something useful. And if the problem is actually as bad as you say it is, don't pretend that reducing emissions to below 1990 levels is an effective action. Tell the truth about what needs to be done.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

The goal is attainable though. The only people talking about tax increases are the scare-mongers.

Yeah, right. Government spending more money without increasing taxes. What do you suppose, they'll borrow it?

But what good is the television industry...the part that makes the most money is crap. Bad sitcoms, pseudo scientific shows, and "news" that tells whatever lies the corporate owners tell it too. There is only a handful of decent programming and it tends to generate the least wealth.

Whether it's good or not is irrelevant in this case. The TV was used as an example of wealth creation. And programs generate income, not wealth.

So what? Economists sell us all kinds of pipe dreams. Did he take environmental costs into consideration? Of course not, they never do.

Weren't you a fan of technology? You gave me that impression.

Bullshit. The government is kept from regulating things by their corporate buddies. The current rules were written by corporate lackeys and for the the old technology that the corporations are promoting.

Our government regulates far too much, and by doing so stifles innovation. And maybe you live in a backwater community that hasn't seen change in the last century, but the new tech surrounding me is mind boggling.

Governments create trading opportunities and sign trade deals, EF. I said nothing about creating Crown corporations or anything like that. I do know that crowns can be profitable. There are many examples of that...mostly in the area of energy, actually. Nice try though.

There are indeed a few CCs that make money, BC Hydro and ICBC here for instance, but too often, their interferance in the marketplace merely props up failing companies to the detriment of those who are profitable.

It's viable right now. What is missing is the infrastructure. Like I've said many times before, we have a huge advantage in hydrogen production.

Yeah, like lots of electricity. I don't know about other provinces, but BC is a net energy importer. We start using our power to generate hydrogen and we're going to have to buy more electricity from things like coal fired generators.

If the demand was there we would build the facilities.

The demand is there. People would love to drive hydrogen fueled cars. I'd like one myself. But the reality is, it isn't viable yet, and your wishful thinking won't make it so.

You know as well as I do that it's mass production that brings prices down.

To a point, yes. Technology is the other determinant of prices. Back to the TV example: Colour TV was invented in the '30s, but didn't come on the market for 30 years because they couldn't be made cheap enough. Manufacturers know all about mass production, and they take it into account when considering new products.

...it has raised awareness.

Awareness yes. Knowledge, very little. Polls show most Canadians in favor of Kyoto. They also show the same percentage of people know nothing about it. I still go with brainwashed.

The biggest industry on the planet, one that controls the global economy, is the one trying to keep competition out.

A lot of industries, all over the world, are like that. They don't succeed very long.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

I was going to answer point by point, but then I saw this in the evolution thread:

Creationists often pretend that getting criticism that points out their ideas are completely invalid is a validation. It's enough that they can get a scientist into a debate; even if they are hopelessly outclassed, babble and lie and treat a scientific debate as if it were a tent revival, they will afterwards strut and preen and pretend that their participation alone makes them a legitimate member of the scientific community. Dawkins made this point in his essay, "Why I won't debate creationists".
. . .
Intelligent Design creationism is a load of horseshit. What has happened is that the movement has made some inroads solely in the political and legal arenas, where the absence of a scientific basis for the belief is little handicap, and now scientists are rousing themselves to point out its glaring deficiencies. This is not a sign of its growing importance. It's a sign of growing corruption that demands a response. Read the books. Scientists are not coming out and saying that there is something to this intelligent design idea; they are announcing, with near unanimity, that it is worthless crap, junk that has no place in the lab or the schoolroom.
And the reason ID doesn't have any place in the scientific or academic communities is because it doesn't play by the rules of science.

In order for ID to be considered a scientific theory (as opposed to a religious hypothesis), it needs to jump through all the other hoops that legitimate theories do. The two most important things are that it needs to be testable and it needs to incorporate and/or explain every other bit of scientific data that's come along so far (and no, "the devil's trying to trick you" doesn't count). If we can't find ways to scientifically bolster the ID hypothesis, then it doesn't deserve to be considered science, just like every other crackpot idea that's come and gone.

If you pick up a soccer ball with your bare hands and run toward the goal, you might score a lot of points, but that doesn't mean you're playing soccer. Likewise, if you explain everything by saying it's the work of a god supreme being intelligent designer, it doesn't mean you're playing science. This fact needs to be repeated again and again.

Perhaps the most disingenuous thing about arguing tactic of creationists is that they're allowed to keep going back to the drawing board and change their story. By letting them keep retreating long enough to reinvent new justifications for the garbage that they've (as Kevin Drum put it) "reverse-engineered" from the Bible, we're essentially serving as beta-testers for their "horseshit". Each time we point out he tiny flaws in their hypotheses, they come back with a slightly modified version of the same crap.

Which leads me to the ultimate problem with Creationism. Perhaps the biggest scientific rule they're breaking is that they're starting with their conclusions and working backward from there. Science is all about using the facts that are available to us to try to explain the world. Creationists on the other hand are trying to find the facts that support their predetermined view of the world. This isn't science, but they already knew that.

To go back to my half-assed analogy for a moment, by taking the debate out of the scientific community into school boards and local legislatures, not only have creationists picked up the ball and started running, but they're ignoring the real referees and appealing to their friends sitting in the stands instead. So, while arguing our case is probably the best tactic, it's hard to resist the urge to refuse playing with a bunch of cheaters.

Just replace "Creationist" with "global warming denier/anti-Kyoto denizen" and it pretty much sums things up.

 

[zenfisher]

RE: Kyoto

Do you really think it is a simple task to get 200+ countries with 200+, idealogies,ambitons , hopes,etc to agree on anything ? Again it is a rhetorical question. That's why any starting point is a good thing. Even if everyone hasn't signed on your at a point to start to make real changes. Denying there is a problem and waiting for the problem to come to full fruition before you do anything is foolish. Its akin to starting to plan for your retirement when your 64.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: Kyoto

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

I thought you had made a mistake and posted on the wrong forum, Rev, but I see that you’re just using an analogy. Trying to kill 2 birds with one stone? No matter. Like you I’m not going to answer point by point, but I will take one sentence to show that your article is wrong:

Scientists are not coming out and saying that there is something to this intelligent design idea; they are announcing, with near unanimity, that it is worthless crap, junk that has no place in the lab or the schoolroom.

Are they now? Well, here are a few quotes:

Cosmologist Sir Martin Rees, Royal Society Professor at Kings College, Cambridge and the UK Astronomer Royal in a review article on the anthropic principle published in the journal Nature

Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences and these do warrant some explanation

Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton:

The problem here is to try to formulate some statement of the ultimate purpose of the universe. In other words, the problem is to read the mind of God.

Vera Kistiakowsky, Professor of Physics emerita at MIT:

The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.

Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics for the discovery of the cosmic background radiation:

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say “supernatural”) plan.

Alexander Polyakov, then a theoretician and fellow at Moscow’s Landau Institute, now one of the most prominent figures in theoretical physics and one of the most well-known string theorists at Princeton:

We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it. So there is a chance that the best of all possible mathematics will be created out of physicists’ attempts to describe nature.

Fang Lizhi, Chinese political dissident and astrophysicist and his wife Li Shu Xian, physicist:

A question that has always been considered a topic of metaphysics or theology, the creation of the universe, has now become an area of active research in physics.

I’ve only scratched the surface. I could go on and on, but that’s enough examples. There are all kinds of them in the various fields of science, contrary to what you believe and Dawkins says. Some of them are atheists, some are agnostics and some are deists and theists. Some of them (the atheists) make the statements without fully comprehending their import, and then get upset when creationists use them to support their positions.

Likewise when it comes to Kyoto. Bjorn Lomborg, avid socialist, openly gay professor, came across the writings of Julian Simon, who, as you most likely know, maintained we are not going to hell in a handbasket and things are getting better all the time. He presented some of Simons’ work to his students and they all had a good laugh, and then Lomborg assigned them the task of proving Simon wrong by using the procedures he was teaching them. They were all rather stunned when the result was to prove Simon right, and that got Lomborg to actually do some unbiased research into the claims of the environmental industry. The result was “The Skeptical Environmentalist” of which I’m sure you’re aware, and he too is very upset that “right wingers” use his work to support their position. But this contradicts your contention that all serious scientists support Kyoto.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

That's why any starting point is a good thing.

But Kyoto isn't even a starting point.

Denying there is a problem and waiting for the problem to come to full fruition before you do anything is foolish.

Deciding that there is a problem and then wasting vast resources on nothing more than a symbolic gesture is even more foolish.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

Extrafire, nobody, not the freaks from the oil industry and not Lomborg, have been able to take apart global warming theory.

I used the analogy of the anti-evolutionists because they are using the same methods...quoting out of context, the selective use of data, presenting non-scientific data as if it were scientific, misusing the peer review system when they bother with peer review at all, and outright lying to the public for their own political purposes.

The people you quote, those you believe and look to for support, are lying to you. They are lying to everybody, they are doing it for their own personal gain, and they are endangering us all by doing so. They are nothing more than snake oil salesman.

That would make those who buy what they are selling nothing more rubes.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: RE: Kyoto

Extrafire, nobody, not the freaks from the oil industry and not Lomborg, have been able to take apart global warming theory.

I used the analogy of the anti-evolutionists because they are using the same methods...quoting out of context, the selective use of data, presenting non-scientific data as if it were scientific, misusing the peer review system when they bother with peer review at all, and outright lying to the public for their own political purposes.

The people you quote, those you believe and look to for support, are lying to you. They are lying to everybody, they are doing it for their own personal gain, and they are endangering us all by doing so. They are nothing more than snake oil salesman.

That would make those who buy what they are selling nothing more rubes.

Well, I guess you really believe that, but having seen so much lying from the environmental community in order to advance their agenda, I almost never take their word at face value. They're playing us all for suckers.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

So all of the credible scientists on the planet are just radical environmentalists out to steal your money? Heard that one before.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: RE: Kyoto

So all of the credible scientists on the planet are just radical environmentalists out to steal your money? Heard that one before.

No, but if you want funding you give the funder what they want to hear, and the radical environmentalists have a lot of pull with government now.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

The funders...those who aren't connected with the oil companies...want to hear the truth. There is evidence from all kinds of seemingly disparate branches of science that global warming is occurring. There is evidence that ties it to the industrial revolution in time.

You are insisting that there is a conspiracy among thousands and thousands of scientists with little or no connection to each other and supporting a small group who are all connected through those with a vested interest in continuing to burn fossil fuels.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: RE: Kyoto

The funders...those who aren't connected with the oil companies...want to hear the truth. There is evidence from all kinds of seemingly disparate branches of science that global warming is occurring. There is evidence that ties it to the industrial revolution in time.

You are insisting that there is a conspiracy among thousands and thousands of scientists with little or no connection to each other and supporting a small group who are all connected through those with a vested interest in continuing to burn fossil fuels.

There is also evidence that ties it to natural causes.

Not a conspiracy as such. Most definitely there are some whose purpose is to mislead. They focus mainly on government and media to promote their agenda. Then there are others who want funding and know which side their bread is buttered on, and give their customers (govt's) what they want. There are many who have accepted without question the global warming proposition because they have complete trust in the system, and also accept without question that anyone who bucks the system is either a crackpot or in the pay of the oil corps. Global warming and Kyoto are the "accepted wisdom" of the day, and as in past decades and centuries, most people accept the accepted wisdom without question.