For Once, I Agree With a Faction of This Government
The US Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works. Yup. I'll admit it. I agree with them. Believe it or not, they have been one of the few bastions of common sense in this Global Warming hysteria. And their time is almost up, what with the change in government to Democrat control.
[Thanks to Stephanie Callahan and KNBC Channel 4 for this photo from today in sunny Globally Warm Southern California.]
Just a sample. Skeptics, it is claimed by the GW set, receive funding from corporations. Well, what about this:
"The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget. In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)"
Read more from the EPW Committee report.
Corruption is everywhere; but it is also in economics, politics, and climatology. And believe me, it hurts me to say I agree with any government effort, truly it does. But this time, I must confess I do.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the billions of dollars California's fruit growers have lost due to a "freak" cold spell is proof that global warming is not taking place. That would be as foolhardy as to say that there is sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that any global warming that there might be is man made.
To understand where man is in his understanding of the universe, you should look at a video on Youtube.com. Search for "water bill cat" and watch any one of these that works. Imagine that this cat looked up at you and said, "I now understand Black Holes. I create them. No Black Holes exist that I don't create by pulling this lever. I am the master of the universe."
It doesn't matter whether the subject under study is Black Holes or Global Warming. We as scientists are no more prepared to talk about GW than we are about BH. (Well, maybe a little bit more, but not much.) Our climatology instruments are too new, our computers too primitive, our data collection too scanty, to be able to make any predictions or declarations whatsoever about the cause of any changes we think we see in global temperatures.
Once again, I talk about this subject because there is grave danger that the sciences in general, and climatology in particular, are reverting to a kind of Salem witch-hunting mentality. The effects on both the global economy and scientific progress would be devastating if GW hysteria were to catch onto public sentiment and begin to influence politics.
[Thanks to Stephanie Callahan and KNBC Channel 4 for this photo from today in sunny Globally Warm Southern California.]
Just a sample. Skeptics, it is claimed by the GW set, receive funding from corporations. Well, what about this:
"The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget. In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)"
Read more from the EPW Committee report.
Corruption is everywhere; but it is also in economics, politics, and climatology. And believe me, it hurts me to say I agree with any government effort, truly it does. But this time, I must confess I do.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the billions of dollars California's fruit growers have lost due to a "freak" cold spell is proof that global warming is not taking place. That would be as foolhardy as to say that there is sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that any global warming that there might be is man made.
To understand where man is in his understanding of the universe, you should look at a video on Youtube.com. Search for "water bill cat" and watch any one of these that works. Imagine that this cat looked up at you and said, "I now understand Black Holes. I create them. No Black Holes exist that I don't create by pulling this lever. I am the master of the universe."
It doesn't matter whether the subject under study is Black Holes or Global Warming. We as scientists are no more prepared to talk about GW than we are about BH. (Well, maybe a little bit more, but not much.) Our climatology instruments are too new, our computers too primitive, our data collection too scanty, to be able to make any predictions or declarations whatsoever about the cause of any changes we think we see in global temperatures.
Once again, I talk about this subject because there is grave danger that the sciences in general, and climatology in particular, are reverting to a kind of Salem witch-hunting mentality. The effects on both the global economy and scientific progress would be devastating if GW hysteria were to catch onto public sentiment and begin to influence politics.
posted by Katy Delay at 11:20 AM
1 Comments:
There's also the fact that media is slanted toward bad news that is alarming and gets attention (the better to sell daily newspapers/newscasts that might arguably be weekly rather than daily, but then ad sales would suffer, eh?) and the GW message *IS* more alarming than the other messages. NObody seems to mind that the media themselves are conflicted in this sense. Not many media outlets are willing to eschew adverts and make subscribers foot the whole bill, haha. Note that the neutral "we don't know enough to know" message is not really in opposition to GW, and i am surprised that some are not alarmed by the admission that mankind is fallible, LOL
Post a Comment
<< Home