Unemployed Comments on the WSJFollow

lol

This is quoted from a paper Dr. Theon presented to the IPCC last year:



I bolded the part with which I absolutely agree. I have said for a long time that I do not understand, or pretend to understand, the science behind global climate change; but those statements are true, in my opinion, whether climate change is man-made or not.

I'll also point out that the drive to develop new forms of energy production which will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels is not something which conservatives oppose. What we oppose is using that to argue that we must "do something", but not being able to yet deliver on true alternatives, the "something" ends out raising taxes on what we're currently using sold to the public on the false belief that this will reduce total usage. It wont. It'll just raise massive amounts of tax revenue.

That's the bait and switch that we're opposed to. If you wanted to fund pure research into viable alternative energies I suspect that most people would be more than willing to pay for it. But that's not remotely close to what the majority of funding does. It goes into boondoggles and subsidies for alternatives which don't yet work. Develop the technology until it's good enough to compete with oil and coal as an energy source and we wont need subsidies. People will fall over themselves to produce and consume it. That should be our goal.

Moe,



He's laughing because anyone who doesn't believe those things are happening is just to moronic to respond to. Just like every other kool-aid drinking liberal who lacks the ability to critically analyze their own beliefs.

I defy you to show me one hardcore liberal who's changed their veiw on abortion, immigration, taxes, or the environment. I was fortunate in that most of my family were far left radical nuts deeply involved in the dnc in nashville and my father, as the black sheep, rebelled against everything they stood for.

Still waiting for someone to show me someone half as qualified at Dr. Theon willing to sign onto the myth of man made global warming.

Well, as a scientist that's not his call. His statement covers what he feels qualified to comment about, presumably. He's not an economist, and refreshingly enough he's not pretending he is.

Jophed,

So I guess you couldn't find anyone with half the qualifications ready to put their reputation on the line by supporting the man made global warming myth.

That's all you had to say.

Couldn't find anything on "Reginal Newell" but Reginald Newell turned up quite a bit. Nothing about him getting fired for speaking up against global warming (still digging around for info on that, it's elusive) but he said this, and it's all over the denialists websites:

"My suspicion is that if you have a crisis like this, it's easier to gain funds for the profession as a whole."

And that's true, of course. If there weren't any climate problems or changes at all, then no one would be funding any climate research studies. Heck, if we didn't have technology that could monitor the weather to the extent that it does, there would be no climatology industry. Everyone from the meteorologists on your local TV station to the ivory tower guys at NOAA rely on the same technology to make their predictions, whether it's for two days or two hundred years.

If no one got sick, we wouldn't have to pay any doctors. If no one had to travel, we wouldn't have to give money to the automobile and oil industry. If the climate wasn't changing, we wouldn't have to fund any climate scientists. Duh.

Based on his obituary, Newell's area of expertise was smog science. He told the MA state legislature that the amount of cars in Boston was going to cause a smog problem to rival that of LA, and suggested a train to NYC to alleviate some of the problem.

Funny analogy. Those who are often the first to accuse the pharmaceutical industry of inventing ailments because they came up with a pill to treat it (irritable bowel syndrome, ADD/ADHD, PADS, etc) and want to make tons of money can't bring themselves to even consider that people in the climatology industry might just invent a crisis to fund what they do. Oh no! Scientists who invent pills are "evil" and can't be trusted, but scientists who do climate research must be trusted with no questions at all!

Lol... Both earn a paycheck doing what they do. And both are subject to manipulation of their results based on the desires of those who pay them those paychecks. How many bogus reports, and false claims, and predictions which don't come even remotely true do you guys need to see before you'll maybe acknowledge that there's a lot of politics involved with those conclusions and not quite so much science?

The whole ACC argument is a strawman, anyways. Regardless of the truth of ACC, it's not the only reason for changing to alternative energy. It's not even the most important, IMO. Gore can go fuck himself for turning it into the endless debate that it's become.

Umm.... what? While I'm sure there's some subset of people who both feel ACC is happening and that pharmaceutical companies are inventing illness, I'm not sure what those people are supposed to prove. Straw man much?

Academic debates have never caused anyone to change their views; they are only a method for those involved to become further entrenched in their own disparate ideas.

That's not really true, though, is it?