How can she say this?If you’re wondering how the robot-like march of the world’s politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed “climategate,” it’s because Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don’t give a s*** about “the science.”
They never have.
She says later,
What about saving the planet, you ask? This was never about saving the planet. This is about money and power. Your money. Their power. If it was about saving the planet, “cap-and-trade” (a.k.a. cap-and-tax)—how Big Government, Big Business and Big Green ludicrously pretend we will “fight” global warming and “save the planet”—would have been consigned to the dust bin of history because it doesn’t work. We know it doesn’t work because Europe’s five-year-old cap-and-trade market—the Emissions Trading Scheme—has done nothing to make the world cooler.The evidence is coming in and the scandal is being demonstrated for what Global Warming represents.
Remember, this same person that basically calls me a wacko also wrote in one comment that the there is no Mainstream Media bias (even though there have been Liberal media people who have admitted as much, but I digress). The silence of the Media is deafening. When the story first broke on the NYTimes, you had to read the bottom of the article to find that anyone actually found anything worthwhile. The article states,
No bias though. Nahhh, none whatsoever.At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.”
But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review.
8 comments:
Your position on global warming is offensive and very simple, if it is indeed based on what appears to be an editorial article. Do you believe we are in a natural cycle of weather pattern changes and temperature fluctuations?
It may be offensive, but it true. Of course I believe natural cycles occur. The problem in my communicating this thought, is that one has to be clear. Global Warming could happen now and has happened in the past. However, to say it is 1) bad and 2) man-made, is simply arrogant.
Any one can easily see if they want to, that the so-called peer review system was a joke. Anyone who tried to do peer reviews that actually critiqued the theory was likened to a holocaust denier. How could there be this man-made problem when men were lying and big corporations were making money.
Anyone who believed this nonsense was a sucker. How many of these hoaxes described in end-of-the-world language does the Left have to perpetrate upon the naive before we get over our self-loathing and realize we are being saps? Politicians love this stuff.
Anonymous,
I guess now that more info has come out, I could ask you if you are still going to force on people like me through the power of government and taxation, the idea that I have to believe man made Global Warming or even global warming itself based on evidence that now has been lost and or manipulated?
Again, this is the "fodder" politicians love.
Wow. You have two Anonymous' now. You're becoming popular.
I'm your regular. The one you believe wants to "throw you in jail" (false).
I actually saw all those fine leaked e-mails the other day and went, "point to Howard".
So. You have two readers! Congrats!
Two anonymous readers? Amazing!
What is really amazing is that the Press seems to be missing the story of the century. I would think even for them, the money that could be made over this huge scandal might just save some of them from having to do more layoffs. I mean really, money usually talks.
Anonymous Original (TM) agrees that this is a big story that ought to be seeing more press. But it can't / won't.
Some guys did some very, very bad things. They should lose their jobs and there should be some shift in public opinion. The problem is that it's a blanket issue. I'll try not to put words in your mouth, but I believe you're one of those jerk-a-holes who is against "saving" the planet. The ends do not justify the means, but the fact is that humans do damage the planet. We make it less and less hospitable for ourselves and the other creatures with whom we cohabitate. Most of the major media outlets have invested in at least TALKING a "green" game. Which means none of them have the nuance to differentiate between a large research group removing control data (and generally being conspiring jerks) and all green efforts being evil.
I suppose what I'm saying is that this getting little coverage isn't to be chalked up to a leftist world. It's more that we're a world of BIG BOLD LETTERS that no longer allows for subtlety. So nobody can say, "hey, you're kinda right about this" because no one is willing to discuss things on a more specialized basis. But I'm willing to say that you're "on the money", and the networks have too much money tied up in claiming to be green to say, "oh, yeah... about global warming..."
"Anonymous Original (TM)"
LOL! Thanks for the comment. We probably agree on more than we know.
"I'll try not to put words in your mouth, but I believe you're one of those jerk-a-holes who is against "saving" the planet."
Perhaps I need to clarify then. First, I do not believe the world needs saving. So from your perspective, I am a jerk-a-hole (I just have to laugh at that one). Politicians love this kind of thing. Bureaucracies love this stuff even more. So anything that says we mus give up our liberty to save something that the government thinks they own makes me pause.
On the other hand, I think I am pretty normal in that I like clean water. I live in western KS. We do have water pollution issues due to farming.
So basically, I have a different view of how to define pollution as most people would. I have never read of an author that I would be able to say, "I subscribe to so and so's position." So no one has articulate my position that I am aware of.
While sitting here I thought of a specific that you might have a cow over. Since I was a little kid, I have been told that O2 is what we breath in and CO2 is what we exhale. Plants breath in CO2 and exhale so to speak O2. True enough.
Then I have also been told that we are destroying all of our rain forests and if we cut down all of these plants, then the source for our O2 will disappear. Sounds reasonable right?
Yet the level of O2 has remained stable at 20.9% for the longest time. You would think there should be some major fluctuation from time to time. Yet it basically stays the same. Why? Because there is more going on than meets the eye.
I have my theories that float around in my head, none probably worth sharing, but suffice it to say, this big blue ball is not going to fall apart because man did something. God is just a little wiser than we are. I think the earth's systems are much more stable and more complex than we know.
God Bless
Post a Comment