Owens Tackles Global Warming
Gene Owens (isn't he the guy from the John Birch Society?) takes a shot at global warming alarmists in today's Eureka Reporter. I guess he's writing in response to some things David Cobb wrote in a commentary earlier on. Seems to me I remember Cobb writing something about global warming but I forget the specifics.
It's always good to see someone not afraid to go against the grain of current politically correct thought. Still, he tends to digress to other issues as he goes on about global warming. He probably should have left some of the last paragraphs out if only to stay on topic.
Just my opinion.
******************
The Orange County Register also ran an editorial this morning denouncing global warming and its alarmists. Hard to beat the O.C. Register for a hard- hitting libertarian oriented commentary now and again.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:49 AM
31 comments
31 Comments:
Let's see, he quotes a noted wingnut from NASA, and from a 1990 Readers Digest. Hardley a scathing rebuttle to the FACT that CO2 is a
REAL problem.
Let's not give credit to the thousands of peices of evidence that CO2 is changing the environment. We should also discount the rest of the world that signed the Kyoto Accords. We in the US know better! Crank up the SUV's baby!
No shit.Let's just pretend there's no such thing as science, and cause and effect relationships; it gets in the way of business.
It's must be true now that the Hollywood elite have blessed it.
Dercoadus wrote, "Hardley a scathing rebuttle to the FACT that CO2 is a
REAL problem.".
A problem? Some are claiming so.
CO2 also helps plants grow, which why any decent greenhouse catalgue (no pun intended) will have a selection of CO2 generators available.
We're not plants. Neither is the Ice at the poles. But hey, at least we have the prospect of good bud down the line! Of course, the Polar Bear won't be around to enjoy it.
"We're not plants.".
Nope, we're not. But we have a critical dependence on them. If it weren't for plants we wouldn't have enough oxygen to breath and, of course, plants create oxygen using carbon dioxide.
derchoadus says: "...the Polar Bear won't be around to enjoy it."
I would be interested as to the specific bear referred to. ""Since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically, from roughly 5,000 to the present 25,000 bears, a higher polar bear population than has existed at any time in the twentieth century." http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20631
I dig all that science that's used to contol,I mean teach, the pee-ons. I especially dig all the alternet energy effecient car pooling that went into the eco-love -fest at the grammy's. Its so nice to see Al Gore,Melissa Ethridge,John Revolting and the gang car pooling all together like sardines in their grovey Prius. Not one limo,not one private jet,not one glutenous gala party. It was altruism at its finest. All the would be profits and extravagant meals donated to homeless cats and dogs. What a glourious sight to see,the rich and powerful humbly acting as they preach. God love them one and all.
Gimme a break ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ,
heartland.org? You got to be kidding right? Quite the scientific organization. Next thing you'll tell me is that the National Center for Policy Analysis is an Institution of Higher Learning. No matter how loud conservative think tanks get, they can't change the facts. Even with all the money oil companies have, the truth is still there.
It is sad to see. People like the ones in the institutions listed above are doing a disservice to all of the the people in our country to make a buck. The answer to everything isn't always the 'Let Market Forces Dictate'. Sure market forces are fine for a lot of things, but when unbridled capitalism runs amok, sometime you have to rein it in. Not just for the good of the environment but also for the good of the country.
Oops, a little off topic, but pointing me to a biased think tank, left or right, doesn't support any argument. I prefer to do my own research, not have it 'conveniently' spoon fed.
We could argue about Global Warming all day here. I won't change your mind about it, just as you won't change my mind that it is happening. The only people making out are the people like heartland.org. At least they're gettin' some of that oil company lucre.
It's not Global Warming anymore. It is Climate Change. Didn't you get the memo?
D'oH!
3:38 writes like Dennis.
Fred, you seen An Inconvenient Truth yet? I know I have asked you this already, so don't scoff at the idea. The HCDCC will probably show it this spring on a Movie Night. For free, too!
Yep derchoadus your guys are believable and the opposing ones must be silenced.
There are 83 foundations funding climate panic research.
"In accusing ExxonMobil of giving "more than $19 million since the late 1990s" to public policy institutes that promote climate holocaust "denial," Senate Inquisitors Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller slandered both the donor and recipients. Moreover, this is less than half of what Pew Charitable Trusts and allied foundations contributed to the Pew Center on Climate Change alone over the same period.
It's a pittance compared to what U.S. environmental groups spent propagating climate chaos scares. It amounts to 30 cents for every $1,000 the United States, European Union and United Nations spent since 1993 (some $80 billion in all) on global warming catastrophe research. And it ignores the fact Exxon's grants also supported malaria control, Third World economic development and other efforts.
A deeper look into the murky waters of climate politics is clearly warranted:
* Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes improve their chances of getting research grants from foundations, corporations -- and U.S. government programs that budget a whopping $6.5 billion for global warming in 2007. They also increase the likelihood of getting headlines and quotes in news stories:"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070219-102043-5765r.htm
Of course, Paul Driesen has NO credibility. Yeah Right.
To the deniers out there I ask this: What effect have humans had on the climate?
5:03 your comments show your lack of brainwashing. Get ye back to a government retraining center,I mean school at once.
For a video brief rebuttal of Al Gore's "scareumentary" go to:http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response.cfm
5:09PM: "What effect have humans had on the climate?"
Quite a lot of hot air in view of the Sunday evening Gore fest. Gore's average monthly electric bill is $1,359 and his 2006 monthly average of power usage for his home was 18,400 kilowatt hours. We should probably ignore this though as the University of Tennessee is a "right wing" think tank.
Where's derchoadus, out doing a polar bear recount? Don't overlook those "hanging chads".
Everything outside is white - at least an inch of hail coated everything overnight, looks like snow, in McKinleyville, neighborhood kids are making snowmen.
Derchoadus wrote, "heartland.org? You got to be kidding right? Quite the scientific organization.".
Rather than just bash the organization, Derch, it might be more effective to counter with facts. But don't worry, I did some quick checking:
Here's an apparently government sponsored site http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html that seems to focus on what a tough time polar bears have reproducing. Sorry, I didn't read the whole thing I just browsed through it. Funny how I didn't see any mention of polar bear population numbers. Maybe I missed it?
Rather odd omission, though, since the title is "What Has Been Happening To Polar Bears In Recent Years."
Here's a site from the Great Bear Foundation http://www.greatbear.org/PolarBear.htm that says there are approximately 35 to 40,000 polar bears in the world today. They estimate even larger numbers than the Heritage Foundation.
Oh, I know. The Great Bear Foundation is probably some right wing think tank?
Sorry for no embedded links. Was doing something wrong and they weren't working. Didn't have time to figure out what I was doing wrong.
Check out ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ's post on thepolar bears
Fred, I was using the Polar Bear as a metaphor that the Arctic is indeed in the midst of dramatic climate change. I usually like my bear slow roasted onna spit (kinda greasy), but that's beside the point. If the US Gov. is spending Billions on climate research, there must be something to it.
Pogo, what next? You going to quote Fox News? As you yourself said "Paul Driesen has NO credibility." Professional 'Greenwasher'. He's a lobbyist/lawyer. A spin master. See my earlier post. I'm a scientist, I like facts. One is, DDT is a very nasty chemical, there is a scientific reason why it has been banned across the globe.
The only hope for stopping the CO2 being pumped into the atmo is Nuclear Power. With nuke energy, we can produce enough hydrogen to power automobiles. If we had a President that made this a priority, we could do it in a decade. 10 years, and be off foreign oil, and not spewing CO2. But that's a completely different subject...
Just my $0.02
derchoadus: "...I'm a scientist, I like facts. One is, DDT is a very nasty chemical, there is a scientific reason why it has been banned across the globe."
1. What are your scientific credentials? For that matter, what are Al Gore's?
2. Where are your "facts" on the polar bear population?
3.Where are your data on the "fact" that DDT is "a very nasty chemical" other than the mid 60's panic caused by the eminent "scientist" Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (or from the standpoint of a mosquito) in view of many recent studies delinking its impact on bird populations?
4. If CO2 is so influential in raising global temperatures, how do you account for the Ordovician ice age when CO2 levels were 20X that of the present and NO humans were present?
5. What is the position of the enviro/warmistas re: nuclear power plant construction?
Sorry, with inflation $0.02 doesn't buy much :o)
1) My credentials would out me, as they are quite rare for this area. Gore didn't do any science. I didn't bring him up, you did.
2) I didn't bring up any facts, I used the polar bear as an allegory (hehe).
3) DDT is a persistent organic pollutant, DDT concentrates in biological systems and it bio magnifies up the food chain, to us. Especially the way agriculture over used it. I do give you that it is an effective mosquito killer, used in small quantities.
4) See This
5) I try to educate people all the time about the benefits of nuclear power.
I'll up it to $0.25.
1. derchoadus: I am well aware that revealing your credentials would "out" you. Sorry that you feel the need to retain anonymity but under the circumstances I understand. I would however, go so far as to guess that you are an employee of a local school district. My reason for bringing up Mr Gore is that you appear to accept his position uncritically while dismissing those of a contrary opinion with similar or superior credentials.
2. Allegories are a useful teaching tool when supported by facts.
3. "[DDT] is an effective mosquito killer, used in small quantities". Since its ban in the mid 1960's it has been unavailable for use in ANY quantity resulting in the deaths worldwide of several millions of malaria victims. "Environmental activists planned to defame scientists who defended DDT. In an uncontradicted deposition in a federal lawsuit, Victor Yannacone, a founder of the Environmental Defense Fund, testified that he attended a meeting in which Roland Clement of the Audubon Society and officials of the Environmental Defense Fund decided that University of California-Berkeley professor and DDT-supporter Thomas H. Jukes was to be muzzled by attacking his credibility. #16 Jukes was in fact "derchoadusized"
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm"
4. I am aware of the Saltzman position and am also aware of its failure to account for the time duration of the CO2 levels which would have resulted in RAPID ending to the ice age if scenarios of the current warmista cult are to be taken seriously.
5. I hope your "education" efforts on nuclear power bear fruit. In view of your "environment" I would assess it to be an uphill battle.
Everything Bush has done has been wrong, so Gore must be right.
A simple high school biology class would do well to enlighten some of the dinosaurs on this thread.
I wish education was all it takes. It is true that it is not 100% certain that climate change is being mostly driven by global warming and than in turn by human activity, but the odds are much in favor and the impact possibly huge. So to it would seem prudent to error on the side of caution. If human activity is in fact having that much effect then it would be prudent to start working on the problem now, because the economic, population, political, and technological and yes even religious barriers that need to be overcome are going to take a lot of time and energy to accomplish.
It always makes sense to leave the place better than you found it. It never hurts to do what you can to reduce pollution, protect clean air and clean water, reduce consumption and waste. We were making such strides, not only in accomplishing these things, but in people adopting those morals and practices, across all the idealogical spectrum.
Why do we need manipulative scare tactics, threats and denigration? All the "global warming" movement has done is create division and resentment.
Stinky.
Which strides were we making Rose? And who is threatening , denigrating, and scaring you?
Post a Comment
<< Home