Global warming ethics, pork and profits

This caught my eye…
data.JPG

Global warming ethics, pork and profits

Global warming alarmism generates political and financial incentives

The ink has barely dried on its new code of conduct, and already Congress is redefining ethics and pork to fit a global warming agenda. As Will Rogers observed, “with Congress, every time they make a joke, it’s a law. And every time they make a law, it’s a joke.”

However, life-altering, economy-wrecking climate bills are no laughing matter. That’s why we need to recognize that the Kyoto Protocol and proposed “climate protection” laws will not stabilize the climate, even if CO2 is to blame. It’s why we must acknowledge that money to be made, and power to be gained, from climate alarmism and symbolism is a major reason so many are getting on the climate “consensus” bandwagon.

read it all, its good.

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. Is the other side of the isle not as guilty as the liberal side. Please look at it from the perspective of a geography person. This world is essentially a finite space with a degree of regenerative response to any variable set onto it. There are so many vehicles and so much growth in new areas of the globe, we cannot ignore that what we do has an effect.
    I worked with environmental geologists for several years, and have some first hand knowledge of the state of the planet. it is not in everyone’s domain to have a detailed picture of these things. So, it is very important to develop one’s own view, based on empirical evidence. Political agendas are a circumstantial symbol that something is happening. They are not evidence! Do you not sometimes feel like a suspect in between the “good guy-bad guy” routine. Trillions of tons of hydrocarbons do something! Can we agree on that at least? 🙂

    Like

  2. Philbutler,
    Yes both sides of the isle are just as guilty of being anti science in their own fashion. for every Intelligent Design crackpot on the right, you will find a quasi religious environmentalist nutter on the left.

    For every anti bio-technology scare monger trying to convince everyone that bio-medical research is the work of the devil on the right (by fudging or outright lying about research data), you find a anti technology greenie on the left that would rather see 40 million children die of typhus rather than allow the third world to protect themselves and their children with the most effective insecticide available, (by fudging or outright lying about research data).

    For every fundie bible thumper who would see the speech rights of a science teacher shackled there is a glassy eyed environmentalist who wants to muzzle any scientist who doesn’t buy into the idea of consensus thinking.

    Insane drug laws are matched by ridiculous food scares that are pushed into law.

    For every eminent domain land grab based on faux economic data, where the government authorizes tearing down someone’s house to build a strip mall, there is a matching EPA land-grab prohibiting a land owner from using the land or building the house to begin with.

    Both sides always seem to agree on one thing though. That the “State” should somehow be everyone’s nanny.

    As you say “it is very important to develop one’s own view, based on empirical evidence.” which is the point exactly! Consensus is not science. Fudged data as a tool to convince one side or the other of a political agenda is “regressive” (not progressive or conservative).

    As for Hydrocarbons, I would agree that it behooves us as a species to keep the planet habitable for the future of mankind. However technological progress is our best hope of resolving that issue. Every time the research is muzzled or the data fudged to fit into a political agenda, we all lose.

    Let me give you an example, imagine that you have a carbon dioxide detector in your house, if the detector goes up over a predefined threshold, will you stop breathing until the level comes back down? Or will you try to find a different solution?

    Oil is the “magical potion” that is the oxygen of our civilization. To expect civilization to just stop using oil with no viable alternative is not only unrealistic, it’s borders on being anti-human.

    For those of us who are committed to factual science, reproducible experiment, and fully vetted study data, the current scientific climate seems almost medieval.

    Like

  3. Sorry Politech, I have been absorbed! It is good to see intelligent discourse on subjects. I think we agree in most respects. I tend to be rather “authoritarian” in my approach to topics sometimes. Being an intuitive and abstract person, I do not cling to data as most do.

    A simplification of my positing might be to consider a soldier approaching Omaha Beach in a landing craft. The fellow does not need to forensically examine the first corpse he steps over on landing to know he is in it deep.

    Following this same non-mathematical model, we can assume that most of what we have done in the last 3,000 years has been Fubar. LOL If we can accept this as a percentage of the truth, I think we might begin to understand just how dire our situation is becoming. For a simpleton “exiled rocket scientist” like me, it is enough to rely one people like Jacques Cousteau, who when asked before his death, his prediction for mankind’s future responded: “Extinction. ”

    Oil is a commodity much like K-mart T shirts. The store sells them at a break in price until the point of diminishing return is reached, at which time the store lowers the price until the break even prince is exhausted, and then they sell them for what they can get. Essentially, the goal is to get rid of the most T shirts at the best price. Oil is a finite resource, so the people who own it need to get every last drop sold before then reveal that they already have the solution.

    I researched formulas for enhanced ethanol chains and the enhancement or ethanols fuels with oxidizers until I found the answer at Mobil Oil and about 4 other major players, including costs of distribution and etc. You can check me on this, but I think if you look deep enough into companies like Peabody Energy Group, you will find alarming interconnections to what I call “The man. ” Of course, not many of us are millionaires who can spend 40 weeks following major corporation heads around the globe, so we have to resort to the “Omaha Beach” syndrome or believe media tainted with the blood of victims of “The man.”

    I hope I made you smile at least! Always, Phil

    Like

Comments are closed.