by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The NASA A-Train satellite constellation symposium I attended last week in New Orleans was in some sense a celebration of the wide variety of global satellite observations we are now collecting from Earth orbit.
This really is the Golden Age in satellite data collection of the global climate system. While a few A-Train satellites are still to be launched, other older satellite assets in the A-Train are now operating well past their planned lifetimes.
There are no plans to replace many of these one-of-a-kind instruments, so much of what we will learn in the coming years will have to come from the analysis of previously collected data.
Unfortunately — at least in my opinion — the existence of this superb national resource depended upon convincing congress almost 2 decades ago that manmade global warming was a clear and present danger to the world.
Manmade Global Warming as the Justification
Since I believe the majority of what we now view as “climate change” is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system, I argued from the outset that NASA should be also selling “Mission to Planet Earth” as a way to better prepare ourselves for natural climate change — something that history tells us has indeed occurred, and we can be assured will occur again.
But behind the scenes there was a strong push for policy changes that even most of the scientists involved supported — ultimately culminating in the governmental control over how much and the kinds of energy sources humanity would be allowed to use in the future.
Cap and Trade, as well as potential regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the EPA, are the fruits of the labor of politicians, governmental representatives, bureaucrats, the United Nations, and activist scientists who have used global warming as an excuse to accomplish policy goals that would have never been accomplished on their own merits.
Of course, most who speak out on this issue continue to point to the supposed “scientific consensus” on global warming as the justification, but those of us who knew the players also knew of these other motives.
I am often asked, “So, are you saying there is a conspiracy here?”
No, because the ultimate goals were not a secret. Just a bunch of elitists carrying out plans that the politicians supported — with continuing promises of congressional funding for research that those politicians knew would support Job #1 of government — to stay needed by the people. Many of the scientists involved are just along for a ride on the gravy train. Even I ride that train.
The elitism clearly shows through in the behavior of those who speak out publicly on the need for humanity to change its Earth-destroying ways: Al Gore, James Cameron, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, RFK, Jr.
These people apparently believe they are God’s gift to humanity. How else can we explain that they do not see the hypocrisy the rest of the nation sees in their behavior?
Unfortunately, I saw this attitude on a smaller scale at the New Orleans meeting. There are many new, young scientists now joining the ranks. They are being mentored by the older scientists who helped spread the alarm concerning manmade global warming. And they will be rewarded for playing the game.
Or will they?
The Times They Are A-Changin’
How is it that government agencies long ago decided to put all their eggs in the man-made global warming basket? Why have the movers and shakers around the world ignored natural climate change — even going so far as to claim it does not exist?
The only reason I can think of again goes back to their elitist beliefs and desired policy outcomes. The belief that a better-educated few should be allowed power over the less educated masses. That government knows better than the people do.
Tomorrow’s election is widely viewed as a referendum on the proper role of government in people’s lives. There is no question that the founders of our country intended there to be maximum of freedom on the part of individuals and the states, while placing strong limits on the role of the federal government.
Just read the Declaration of Independence if you want to see how pi$!ed off the settlers of the original colonies became at the King of England over his intrusion into their personal affairs.
And global warming legislation is now quite possibly the best opportunity the governments of the world have to increase the role of government in people’s lives.
The Basic Economics of Individual Freedom
Yet, many Americans believe that government can more equitably distribute the wealth generated by a country. This is a laudable goal on the face of it.
Unfortunately, history has taught us that trying to impose equality of outcomes only serves to make people equally miserable.
I like to think that I know something about basic economics. It was the subject of the 6th chapter in my first book –Climate Confusion — which received a nice blurb on the jacket from noted economist Walter Williams.
One of the reasons I am willing to stick my neck out and inform people of the uncertain nature of government-approved global warming science is because the basic economics behind any governmental (or environmental extremist) attempts to restrict personal choice in energy use will end up killing people.
In fact, it already has.
The biggest threat to humanity is poverty. Wealthier is healthier. When governments make energy more expensive, or environmental organizations pressure foreign countries to not build hydroelectric dams, poor people die.
Those already living on the edge are pushed over the edge. Energy is required for everything we do, and artificially raising the price of energy cannot help but destroy wealth generation.
If these elitists really were interested in the poor, they would be doing everything they could to help individuals take control of their own economic destinies. One billion people in the world still do not have electricity.
Worried about population growth? Then encourage the generation of wealth. It is the poor of the world that cause global population growth. The wealthy countries of the world have close to zero population growth.
Of course the main argument against this view is “sustainability”. Can the Earth sustain even more people consuming natural resources?
Interesting how those who ask the question have already gotten theirs, and now want to prevent others from doing the same.
But I would ask, can the world sustain the poverty-stricken? Poor countries have had most of their trees cut down. Imagine if global society collapsed and billions of people had to make do on their own with what they could scavenge from nature.
Now THAT would lead to a pollution problem.
What ensures sustainability is free markets. As natural resources of one type become more scarce, their price goes up, which makes alternatives more attractive. People are incentivized to develop new answers to old technological problems. This is why fossil fuels will never be used up. At some point, they simply will become too expensive to extract.
Mass production by factories and corporations should be embraced, rather than derided. It represents the most efficient way of providing goods and services. Waste is minimized because it hurts competitiveness.
But What About Equality?
Equality of outcomes is an illusion. It can never be achieved…unless we totally destroy the people’s motivation to make a better life for themselves.
A vibrant economy is what maximizes the tax revenue collected by the government. The two largest periods of growth in tax revenue collected by the government occurred after two major tax-CUTTING initiatives: JFK’s in the early 1960’s, and Reagan’s in the early 1980’s.
If you really want to help the poor, then help the country grow economically. Want to make sure the poor are taken care of? Then encourage businesses to grow, which will lead to more jobs. Economic activity is what is needed, and since the tax revenue the government receives is a “piece of the action”, more action means more money for government programs.
And whether we like it or not, the only way to ensure this growth happens is to give business owners and entrepreneurs some hope that their risk-taking and creativity will pay off for them personally in the future.
Yes, in the process, some people will get rich. A few will get obscenely rich. But this only occurs because so many consumers want the goods and services those rich few can offer them.
Call it a necessary evil, if you must. But it is, indeed, necessary. The end result will be more money for the poor, not less.
A New Fight Begins Tomorrow
The basic economics and desire to help the poor that have motivated me to speak out in the last 20 years on global warming policy will, starting tomorrow, be the subject of a national debate regarding the proper role of government in helping its people.
Tomorrow’s election is only the start. From then on, education about the practical importance of economic freedom will be central to that debate.
There is no question that our country has an unsustainable growth in our yearly budget deficits, and our total national debt is staggering. Everyone agrees this must change.
And reducing government expenditures must, of course, be part of the debate.
But increasing tax revenue to help support those programs is ALSO part of the solution. And since the only demonstrated (and sustainable)way to accomplish this is to grow the economy, it requires personal economic freedom.
So, what is the primary role of government in all this? In my opinion, it is two-fold: (1) make sure people play fair, and (2) get out of the way.
To remind everyone just who is “forcing” the carbon trade schemes – It “ain’t” the mainstreet republicans: It’s the Wall Street and socialist democrats who are appoiting and assigning their brethern into the seats of power who force the policies:
This from IceCAP today:
“Oct 31, 2010
A Nest of Carbon Vipers
By Dennis Ambler, SPPI
Vast sums of money, influence and power are involved in carbon mitigation schemes, and yet there is never any mention in the media of these massive and lucrative conflicts of interest. They appear quite content swallowing the diversionary tactics pushed by the likes of DeSmog Blog and Greenpeace ExxonSecrets with their claims of “oil- company funded deniers”. It is doubtful that mainstream journalists ever bother to look behind the scenes at these people, yet it is all available on official websites.
It is no wonder that Christiana Figueres wanted the Kyoto Mechanism to continue, when she addressed the UNFCCC TianjinChicago Climate Exchange. Conference on the 4th of October, because without it her friends in the carbon business would find their virtual world starting to disappear, as evidenced by the recent problems at the Chicago Climate Exchange.
An ancillary issue ripe for Congressional oversight is how do they get away with these incestuous financial relationships involving carbon trading companies, whilst devising and promoting legislation for a CO2 control agenda that will only benefit themselves and the companies that they advise, but will cause new and additional untold hardship to millions by casting them into political, economic and energy poverty.
For example…
UN Climate Secretary was Trained by Al Gore
In March this year, Christiana Figueres replaced Yvo de Boer as the new Executive Secretary to the UNFCCC, which is responsible for the annual Conferences of the Parties, (COPS) such as COP 15 in Copenhagen and the upcoming COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico. Former Secretary De Boer, has moved to KPMG and “will have an international role working with KPMG member firms in advising business, governments and other organizations on sustainability issues.”
Trained by Al Gore
There are some very interesting details on Figueres’ website, one of which is her proud claim to have been “Trained and authorized by Al Gore to deliver his presentation The Inconvenient Truth.”
She was greatly involved in Carbon Trading until taking up her new position. She has also been a member of the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialised countries with a greenhouse gas reduction commitment (called Annex 1 countries) to invest in ventures that reduce emissions in developing countries as an alternative to more expensive emission reductions in their own countries. It is the mechanism used for transferring wealth from industrialised nations to developing nations such as India and China.
Carbon Pricing
From 2008 to 2010, she was Vice Chair of the Rating Committee, Carbon Rating Agency, described on her web site as the “first entity to apply credit rating expertise to carbon assets”.
The Carbon Rating Agency is a subsidiary of IdeaCarbon who say about themselves, “our unique access to some of the most influential decision-makers in the carbon and environmental community, gives us the possibility to foresee important regulatory and market trends and thus allow clients to have unparalleled views and advice on climate issues and debates.” IdeaCarbon is based in the Isle of Man, a tax haven.
The Carbon Rating Agency openly boasts of its highly influential management team and ratings committee: “which includes ratings experts, financial market professionals, UN climate change negotiators and former senior managers from development agencies such as the World Bank, a combination which ensures that the full range of risks facing carbon projects are taken into account by the ratings process.”
Influential people driving the carbon pricing agenda
Idea Carbon includes amongst its advisers Lord Stern Chairman of the London School of Economics (LSE) Grantham Institute. He joined IdeaGlobal, the parent company, in 2007, as Vice Chairman. The Grantham Institute was set up in 2008 by Jeremy Grantham, chairman and co-founder of GMO, a $140 billion global investment management company based in Boston with offices in London, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney and Zurich.
He funds amongst others, WWF-US and Environmental Defense.WWF President Carter Rober and Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp, are both on the management board of the Grantham Institute along with Grantham himself.
Fellow adviser at IdeaCarbon is Dr Samuel Fankhauser, who is also a colleague of Lord Stern at the LSE Grantham Institute as a Principal Research Fellow. Fankhauser is also on the UK Climate Change Committee and its Mitigation sub-committee. He participated in the 1995, 2001 and 2007 assessments of the IPCC.
IdeaCarbon is involved in carbon trading on the Indian Multi-Commodities Exchange, (MCX), which estimates that by 2020 the market for project based carbon offsets is estimated to grow to at least 200bn.
Another IdeaCarbon colleague of Lord Stern is Mr. Nitin Desai, a Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General on Internet governance and chair of the Advisory Group that organises the annual UN Internet Governance Forum. He is an Honorary Fellow of the LSE and former Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations from 1997 to 2003.
In India, he is a colleague of IPCC chair Dr Pachauri, as a “Distinguished Visiting Fellow” at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and advises the Indian Government on its national climate change action plan.
Christiana Figueres was also a Senior Advisor to C-Quest Capital, “a carbon finance business dedicated to originating and developing high-quality emission reduction projects around the world. We invest in carbon assets that generate not only superior returns but also concrete benefits to the environment. Founded by Ken Newcombe and Matthew Mendis in 2008, CQC is headquartered in Washington, D.C. with offices in Australia and Malaysia and a presence in India.”
Ken Newcombe, CEO was from 2006 to 2007, Vice Chairman of Climate Change Capital in London, which manages the largest private sector carbon fund in the world. (Lord Oxburgh of the UEA enquiry is a director).
“Before joining the private sector, Newcombe led the development of the Prototype Carbon Fund, a public-private partnership of the World Bank which pioneered the global carbon market and managed the growth of World Bank’s carbon finance business to eight carbon funds, with approximately a billion dollars under management for investment in carbon offset projects and laying the foundation for additional funding of the same order.”
@ur momisugly James Sexton
“I find it interesting that you bring up Norway first. Let us compare how each nation was able to react to equivalents. Arnold and Quisling. One nation survived and drew strength from the act, another succumbed. Oh, wait, now I’m talking about more nations than just Norway!”
What an utterly absurd comparison. The people of the original 13 colonies were largely of British origin. Did people like George Washington and Benajmin Franklin think of the British as foreigners when they were growing up? In case you are not aware of it Norwegians and Germans speak two different languages and have never considered themselves to be the same people.
The British did not invade North America during the American Revolution or War of Independence whatever you want to call it. The settlers were very glad to have the British Army there as long as there was any threat from France. After the French were defeated the colonists were not so keen on paying their share of the costs even though, if anything, the standard of living in the colonies was higher than that back in Britain. A lot of colonists did not want a complete rupture of ties with Britain; they called themselves “Loyalists” and regarded the rebels as the traitors.
You wrote “one nation survived and drew strength from the act” but neglected to point out that the reason for that nation’s survival was the intervention of the country that had previously been the greatest threat to the Colonies – France. Spain and Holland also helped by engaging British forces in other parts of the world.
To compare the experience of Norway in the Second World War with that of the original 13 British Colonies in North America in the American Revolution is utterly absurd and is also gratuitously insulting to the heroes of the Norwegian resistance. North America is somewhat further away from Britain than Norway is from Germany and the logistical problems faced by British troops in America from 1775 onwards were just a teeny-weeny bit greater than those faced by the Germans in Norway in 1940.
One of the biggest obstacles to a more reasoned attitude to the subject of climate change is that it is all to easy to paint many American critics of the theory of anthropogenic climate change as arrogant right-wing fanatics with a tenuous grasp of history and a contemptuous attitude to other countries.
By the way, before any angry Americans respond to my points I should point out that I do NOT consider all Americans who love their country to be right-wing fanatics. In fact I would think there was something very seriously wrong with any American who did not love his/her country and was not proud of its history and its achievements, but you do not prove your patriotism by denigrating other countries or refusing to even consider the possibilty that some things might done better in other countries.
brad says:
November 1, 2010 at 4:51 pm
“Add up the things you want to cut, I bet they dont touch the deficit. We should have a higher tax rate over 250K, and another over 1 million.”
You are caught up in the Money Myth, the idea that, if poor people just had more money, they’d be rich. But, the wealth of a nation is not in the number of dollars it can print and allocate. It is in the real assets it holds, and the goods and services it can produce.
If you take all the money and real assets from the top 1% and distribute it among the poor, you will make them marginally better off for a few months at best. But, you will have “eaten the seed corn” which provides next year’s harvest.
Rich people, because of physical limits and because they are such a small portion of society, do not consume significant wealth which otherwise could be consumed by others. That is not what their possession of mere money does for them. What it does do is allow them to allocate resources and organize ventures to address needs and create new wealth to be shared by all. Either they do it, or the government does, but the government doesn’t do it even half as well, and government types have a tendency to gather wealth and perquisites themselves.
You will not raise the poor to a sustainable higher level of prosperity by ever more artful division of a static “pie”, but only by growing that pie so that there is more to go around for everyone. At some point, when one reaches maturity, one learns to accept that there will always be those who have better looks, better lives, more money, and more prestige than oneself. Some undeservedly, in one’s eyes. But, one will never pull oneself up by pulling them down. Quite the opposite, one will only make one’s own life harder, and diminish prospects for prosperity for those one loves and cares for.
Owen says:
November 1, 2010 at 6:13 pm
“My relatives in Norway live under a government that is far closer to socialism than the USA has ever been. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, etc.”
As others have noted, it is hardly fair to compare the US with Norway, the Saudi Arabia of the North Sea. As for the others, they are currently retreating from the Socialist model, and we outrank them in any case.
davidmhoffer says:
November 2, 2010 at 12:26 pm
“Still makes me chuckle when the topic comes up, but the fact that Obama couldn’t say even a single word of support for Britain on the more recent issue is troubling.”
========================================================
I’m not sure the rest of the world understands his loathe for all things western and in particular, Britain. While I don’t necessarily endorse the content of this article, this may help explain his feelings towards the Western world.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5276010.ece
Fortunately, today, Obama is forced to hear a message of disapproval. Hopefully, he will receive the message and correct his path and policies. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think he has the ability to do so. He’s much too committed to the leftist agenda.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer
“Tell me, how many Norwegian troops are there in South Korea helping out? Swedish? Danish? German? Well, you probably help out in other trouble spots in the world instead like Afghanistan. Oh wait, that’s almost all Americans plus some Canadians.”
Perhaps you should have taken the trouble to find out what European countries are or have contributed to the campaign in Afghanistan. There is a list of the numbers of fatal casualties from each of the Coalition countries at the Operation Enduring Freedom website.
http://icasualties.org/oef/
Denmark has lost 38 soldiers so far. That does not sound a lot, but since the population of the country is less than 5,500,000 Denmark’s losses are more proportionately than those of Canada or the United Kingdom or the United States.
A little appreciation would not go amiss.
Roy says:
November 2, 2010 at 1:28 pm
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer
http://icasualties.org/oef/
Denmark has lost 38 soldiers so far. That does not sound a lot, but since the population of the country is less than 5,500,000 Denmark’s losses are more proportionately than those of Canada or the United Kingdom or the United States.
A little appreciation would not go amiss.
=======================================================
Roy, I think you missed the point of David’s post, but let me assure you, the people of the U.S. know and remember all that have stood by and fought aside the U.S. When even one gives the ultimate sacrifice, we are all diminished. Their sacrifice and their memory should be with us always. Please bare with us as we tell our helmsman that he’s veered badly toward the port side.
Roy;
Perhaps you should have taken the trouble to find out what European countries are or have contributed to the campaign in Afghanistan. Denmark has lost 38 soldiers so far. That does not sound a lot, but since the population of the country is less than 5,500,000 Denmark’s losses are more proportionately than those of Canada or the United Kingdom or the United States. >>
Again, I was making a general point, and the error of omission is mine. I’m glad to learn that Denmark is doing its part in Afghanistan, and my condolences to those families who have lost loved ones in the service of their country and humanity.
But my point, errors of omission noted, stands. Over half the casualties in Afghanistan are American. If that were the only war to talk about, your “by proportion” point would carry weight. But the Americans suffered the bulk of the casualties in Kuwait, and Bosnia and others. The bulk of the troops standing gaurd over south Korea are American. It is American air craft carriers off the coast of Taiwan that makes China think carefully about the consequences of invasion, it was the American nuclear umbrella that halted further expansion of the USSR… Glad to know Denmark is doing their part in Afghanistan. But the Americans are doing their part ALMOST EVERYWHERE and no other country can say that.
haven’t read all the posts – so apologis if this is repetitious.
Seen on : – http://www.bestfilthyjokes.co.uk/politics_2.htm
[not my website]
“# 563-
This teacher is truly a genius! As the late Adrian Rogers said, “you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that. ”
I think that supports Dr. Spencer.
@ur momisugly James Sexton
Thanks James for your considerate response to my reply to David’s message. I hope you weren’t offended by my somewhat intemperate reply to your earlier message regarding Norway. It is often tempting to assume that you need to be pretty blunt to get a point across to other people but your reply to my message, and your replies to messages from some of the other people, show that I misjudged you.
Please accept my apologies.
@James Baldwin Sexton, November 1, 2010 at 7:54 pm
James: Is calling someone a “girl” really the best you can do? Please be so kind as to drop your voter ID card in the shredder.
Thank you for your well-reasoned article!
Many responses are pure political dribble … that is to be expected since you address an intersection of science and politics.
In his farewell speech President Eisenhower cited two major threats to the US. One was the scientific-technological elite partnering with the Federal Government to invent problems requiring the expansion of government in return for funding to research these problems. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm Climate Science has become the perfect example of Eisenhower’s concern.
According to Dr. William Happle the relationship between funding and providing the results the Federal Government wanted had become rather transparent. “This guy” (Climate Research Scientist seeking Federal Funds controlled by Happel) “looked at me and said”, ‘What answer would you like?’ This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ” http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
I agree 100% with your conclusion as to the role of government: (1) make sure people play fair, and (2) get out of the way. To use the terms of the day I suggest: Require and rigorously enforce transparency. Then there will be very little need for complex government regulation.
@ur momisugly Michelle(Mike?) says:
November 2, 2010 at 3:31 pm
lol, I wrote three paragraphs, and that’s all you had to retort? You’re offended by gender mis-assignment? And you’re asking me to shred my voter registration? You know, if someone mistakes me for Lynn Jenkins or Kay Baily-Hutchinson, I’d ask them to get their eyes examined, but ok. OTOH, if they attached other arguments to the gender mis-assignment, I would address the arguments. Maybe you take a different approach. Weird how you couldn’t respond to anything I really said.
Agree with what you say, Jim, but I would add that it is compounded by a healthy dose of crony capitalism. The US political system appears particularly vulnerable to the latter, probably because of the large amounts of money politicians need for campaign funding. What some have called “political entrepreneurs”* are all too willing to step in, in return for favors (either direct “pork” or legislation favoring their companies). The resultant market distortions have large adverse long term effects.
*”Political entrepreneurs” are those who use the political system to enhance their profitability, rather than providing the market with a better or cheaper product.
Mods: if you could delete previous post of mine – HTML tags error
Roy says:
November 2, 2010 at 12:41 pm
@ur momisugly James Sexton
Roy, sorry, it seems I struck a chord with you. Your apologies are accepted and I hope mine are towards you. I agree, the comparison I drew was not a very good analogy. My post was a knee jerk reaction to another post. I do try to be fair and level headed, but there are times. In the particular post you took exception towards, I may have took the person I responded to as an American. So, I thought the imagery of Arnold and Quisling to be apropos. There are times I wish the internet would be more private. If I’ve offended any, I offer my sincere apologies. With the exception of the idiot that posted….aww, with the exception of Owen.
and Michelle!
@James Baldwin Sexton:
You did not saying anything substantive and still haven’t.
Mike says:
November 2, 2010 at 8:00 pm
@James Baldwin Sexton:
You did not saying anything substantive and still haven’t.
———————————————————————————————-
First, let me say, I was trying to be nice. Truly, I was baiting you, but I thought that apparent. I re-posted your post so you could see the lunacy of your arguments. Sorry, I guess I was expecting too much.
George Bush never engaged in the science of climate change other than a few comments that have turned out to be true. Dr. Hansen’s rants prove that to be true. While Hansen raved on about being silenced, he was talking to the world. If you can’t see the contradiction, that’s your problem, not any sane person’s problem.
While you correctly point out the differences of elitists, you are egregiously wrong in attaching power to the various parties specifically pertinent to the climate change discussion. When was the last time you saw a quote from an “Oil company” head in regards to climate change? Do you know Dutch Shell’s stance on carbon exchange? I do. Did you know, until recently BP and Exxon funded PR in favor of carbon exchange? As did Caterpillar? I did.
More about “power”. It is the people that have “power”. That’s why we see an endless drone of moronic actors and actresses in commercials preaching to us “powerless” about climate change. It is the people who are the ultimate judges, else there would be no need for the endless drone. In the same vain, the people gave “scientists” power, for a time. They’ve abused the power with falsehoods, exaggerations and other more contemptible actions. The discerning ability of the people have turned their ears to more trustworthy scientists.
You spoke of “needs” of society as if it was requisite that someone provide said needs. No, society has all the needs necessary and no one provided the needs other than Nature and society itself. Unlike societies of yesteryear, we don’t need priests sacrificing tangibles or people at the alter of political correctness.
BTW, sis. I’ll get your gender correct as soon as you get Dr. Spenser[sic]’s name correct. I wouldn’t think it would be that difficult for someone that wishes to enter an intellectual conversation.
Much more to say about your little comment, but in the interest of brevity, I’ll await your retort and bring up more later.
All politics is “local” and very, very personal. Oh yes, and to get a well oiled political machine at the local, state, and national levels, change the oil often.
****
Alex Heyworth says:
November 2, 2010 at 7:42 pm
*****
Alex,
Just so you know, if I were king (and I don’t believe in kings 🙂 ), I would make the corporate/business tax zero and prohibit businesses from lobbying. If a business needed to communicate with Congress, they do it through public hearings. We need business out of politics, that’s for sure. And we need government out of business, with some exceptions. Most things aren’t good when carried to extremes.
Rather amazing that a political thread, which would break down into chaos in most other websites, maintains relative civility here, and w/a number of well-written & informative posts (and a couple of reasonably civil but properly-executed smackdowns).
James: You just aren’t saying much that is relevant. If there was an effort by the NSF to press scientists into supporting AGW the Bush Admin. would have exposed this and put a stop to it. Nothing like that happened. This undermines Spencer’s claim that science has been distorted because scientists were getting “continuing promises of congressional funding for research that those politicians knew would support Job #1” (that AGW is real and serious, requiring government action). So, Bush and the Republicans are all in on it? It’s just nutty.
Some oil companies have played both sides, making public statements that AGW is real but funding groups that say it is not. Some, like the Koch brothers are more open. If you think scientists or actors have more political clout than oil companies you are too far gone to talk to.
Powerful elites have often used anti-elitism as a cover for anti-intellectualism. That’s what is happening now.
“”””” davidmhoffer says:
November 2, 2010 at 12:26 pm
George E. Smith;
Well David not exactly; but I do get your point. The USA did have obligations under the OAS treaty that it couldn’t simply ignore, and had to tread lightly around. I can’t speak of the current administration whose anti-British rudeness is a total embarrassment to Americans.>>
I’m speaking of the rhetoric from Argentina of just a few months ago re-asserting their claim on the Falklands. “””””
Well David, I guess I missed that event; but would agree with you on your “miffedness”.
And as I earlier alluded to; I’m under the impression that during the Colonial Era of the Americas; Britain and Spain (or wazzat England and Spain) did swap back and forth de facto possession of the Falkland Islands; depending on exactly whose pirates were currently in the area; so arguably there was a time when Spain by reason of occupation had “possession” of those islands , until England/Britain eventually reclaimed them and “colonised” them.
So they were in British hands (I believe) at whatever time it was that Argentinians obtained their independence from Spanish rule. So they never have been a possession of Argentina.
And since in 1948 all the civilized countries of the world signed the UN Charter; and basically agreed to not go round grabbing other people’s territory; then the issue would seem to be moot. And as I recall, PM Thatcher’s ambassador to the UN obtained a UN resolution that effectively authorized the UK to defend and reclaim their territory; if the Argentinian invaders didn’t move out of their own accord. There’s a slight matter of the US Navy not being in love with the idea of having, the Falklands, South Georgia, and The South Sandwich, and South Orkneys; being in unstable and potentially unfriendly hands.
In other words; She did everything by the book.
And as I recall, the residents of those islands mostly speak English; and have no historic ties with Latin America at all.
The US would naturally come down on the side of self determination.
Most of Latin America’s problems can be traced to the fact that they are the remnants of Spanish Colonial History; and not British Colonial History. Thank Goodness, the Spaniards never settled New Zealand; we’d all have had to move to Australia; and then there wouldn’t be any All Blacks !
Ed Murphy says:
November 2, 2010 at 12:28 am
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong.
That’s John Kerry not John McCain.
@Smokey:
Today is election day in the U.S.
Say what you want, vote how you like. It’s your right. That fact doesn’t elevate your comments above the level of sloganeering of the AGW or Skeptic groups.