A Sucker Born Every Minute
I got your fearmongering right here.
I’ve said a fair piece about the global warming issue, and I’m sure that I will say a fair bit more. What strikes me about the entire debate is that folks like Al Gore are so easily fact-checked into irrelevance yet always find gullible marks to give them more money and uncritical, adoring press.
Yes, global warming exists. I had said once in a previous post something to the effect that it didn’t (and forgive me for not finding the full quote) and I owe a friend some thanks for setting my thoughts straight. What doesn’t exist, and what I meant to say at the time, was that what we do not have is any real idea how much we contribute to global warming nor how much effect we can have to slow or stop it. Given that, we still need to be studying how the Earth’s climate actually works – a thing we know far too little about today – and much less time scaring the bejeezus out of people who trust the experts to tell true about the current scientific evidence.
This shouldn’t be coming from a blogger. It should be coming from someone just like Al Gore.
UPDATE: Given that the fine folks at the Daou Report have found me this morning (Hi guys!), I thought I’d give you a couple blasts from my past on the topic.
First, here’s the post where I made the statement I corrected in today’s post. Feel free to give me the business over the first part of this sentence.
There’s absolutely no conclusive proof, nor even scientific consensus, that human beings are either measurably contributing to global warming nor that we are capable of influencing it one way or the other.
I did use a qualifer of “measurably” which, I believe, makes my statement technically correct. But I also realize that it could be misunderstood. So I’ll make myself clear on it. Clearly humans are contributing to global warming. We have no firm idea how much we’re contributing nor which of our particular activities are contributing more than others. We have guesses. We have suggestions. But we don’t have much of any hard data.
Here’s another post I wrote on another Al Gore jeremiad where he says that global warming is more serious a threat to us today than global terrorism.
No related posts.
Category: Cool Columnists and Wicked Writers, Moonbat Nonsense, Oh, THAT liberal media.
I worked for the Global Climate Coalition — the now-defunct industry lobbying group (www.globalclimate.org) that was dedicated to defeating US participation in the UNFCCC Treaty on Climate Change. Honestly, the scientists working for us were a bunch of political hacks who were working for our coal and oil constituents.
What I'm saying is that I worked for the BIG LIE, and I'm telling you we all knew it was a BIG LIE.
Uh huh. I definitely believe that.
What would you like to know about the Coalition? I'm the real deal babe, an insider, and a 8 years later I'm feeling pretty bad about what I helped do (Senate Resolution 98 for one thing). We employed a raft of skeptics who were, well, liars. A couple of the guys from NASA's satellite group were good eggs, but otherwise they were people who put politics in front of science.
I'm honestly trying to think of something that isn't public information (or making my name public on the Internet) to prove it.
Jimmie, feel free to email me if you'd like to move into real journalism and interview an insider. Otherwise keep your snark to yourself.
I don't doubt that you have some inside knowledge about what happened with that group. I don't doubt your sincerity. What I do doubt is that you worked for "the BIG LIE".
"Some inside knowledge?" Try a great deal. I was there, I was at the UN negotiations representing the GCC as an NGO observor. I knew the Climate Council, Saudi Ambassadors, and a host of Texaco & Exxon a little too well.
Perhaps just a Big Lie. But it was still a lie, based in good economics and bad science. The answer is that Global Warming is happening. The manmade signal is difficult to distinguish. And ultimately, whether or not the manmade signal is an influence yet, our use of fossil fuels needs to be tempered with movements towards fuel economy and efficiency and developing a more portfolio of energy options. In the intervening decade what we've done is increase our use of FFs and ignored the chance to invest. That was foolish.
If you want to believe the Greening of Planet Earth folks, or any of the others we employed, go for it. But you're believing scientists who have the same ethical problem that a tabacco industry scientist, and that's not wise.
You're right, btw. A sucker is born every minute. This time you're the sucker.
It's kind of clear that you really don't know what I believe about global warming and what we should do about it. Check out the posts in my update, which give my opinion on what we should be doing pretty well. At no point do I buy the entire argument of either side. In fact, I'm willing to bet that our positions are much closer than you think.
My point with this post, though, was not to buck up the evil conglomerate of oil companies. It was to note that what Al Gore is doing is incredibly disingenuous and debunkable by a 14-year old with a good saerch engine and a free afternoon. Folks who ought to be smarter than they're acting get taken in my his Chicken Little routine every day and that's not a good thing at all.
I'd also note that there are oil companies, notably BP, that are making huge strides without the heavy hand of the government, to reduce greenhouse emissions in a considerably smarter way than Kyoto would have forced upon them.
Reading this post, and your previous ones, I get the sense that you have an irrational animus toward people like Al Gore, and also perhaps enough intellectual honesty to recognize that they might be right – but not enough intellectual honesty to admit that.
Gore is "scaremongering" because he sincerely believes that we are heading for a disaster. Do you accuse Bush of "scaremongering" when he claimed that Saddam had evil intent, or that Iran with a nuke is a problem? Can Bush, or anyone else be 100% certain that Iran is really actually going to build a bomb, or do something evil with it if they do build it? At what point to you accept that someone who is greatly knowledgeable on a subject, and who percieves a trend-line leading to disaster, can legitimatly raise an alarm?
Even the expert climate scientists who consider themselves skeptics seem to accept that the climate is warming, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that we are pumping a hell of a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. Will the results be catastrophic? The number of experts who say no is small – perhaps not an insignificant number, but definitly a small minority. We all have a romantic affection for the starving artist, or the unrecognized genius who bucks the established trends and turns out to be right in the end, but that isnt the way it ususally turns out.
What is the rational course that a society should take? Go with the views of a minority, because they are expressing an opinion that conforms with what we all wish were true? Or accept, as a basis of action, the understandings arrived at by the strong majority of experts in a given field?
Even now, Rush is going around saying that glaciers are actually growing. The truth is an overwhelming percentage of glaciers and the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. This fact is easily researched. Why is it in anyone's best interest to lie about global warming? (answer: $$$$) Years before there was any dramatic evidence of global warming, scientists were modeling scenarios for carbon emissions harming the ozone layer resulting in dramatic climate change at a rate many times faster than has occured in pre-industrial times. It's happening now. Their models weren't perfect. In fact, the change is occurring faster than they had originally postulated. To say there's no scientific consensus on this is poppycock. There will always be a small group of "scientists" willing to say anything for a buck. Just ask the tobacco industry.
When considering the relation between business and the environment it is good to remember the history of Thomas Midgley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley
Tano, what Gore is doing is clearly scaremongering and it honestly baffles me that someone can look calmly at what he's saying and determine that he's doing anything but. I'm not at all concerned that he's right. I'm more concerned that he's not, but is being treated as if he was.
We're not talking small minorities here. We're talking a scientific community that is split nearly down the middle. Very recently, a rather large number of climatologists (40, as I recall?) wrote a lengthy letter counseling against Canada's acting on the Kyoto Protocols (and I'm fairly sure that Goldberg mentioned that in the column I linked).
Gore may indeed be greatly knowledgeable about the subject. I have my doubt as to how well-informed on it he is. He's certainly no better-informed than the dissenting scientists who are doing the actual research. In either case, we know so little about global climate right now that to be incredibly well-informed is also to be largely ignorant of the whole picture. To take drastic action based on a small germ of knowledge is just as foolish as taking no action at all.
Again, what I've said before, and will say again (and this works for your comment, too Randy, though I'm fairly sure you didn't read what I wrote) is that there is no doubt that global warming is happening. What is seriously in doubt is to what extent we are adding to it, whether it is heading to catastrophe (didn't we recently see a little bit of fact that said that global temperatures haven't moved upwards a bit since the late 1990s? I don't have the cite, but I do recall it), and what are the best ways to reduce whatever influence we are having without also wrecking our economies doing it.
I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that we should do nothing. Neither should we be preaching panic, as Gore does. In the end, I suspect, panic will be worse than inaction.
I don't think it's scaremongering. I think it's pointing out the urgency of the problem. For those inclined to stick their heads in the sand when confronted with unpleasant facts (i.e., those who are frightened by the problem and don't wish to confront it) may believe it's "scaremongering." The rest of us see it as a difficult and complex issue that needs to be dealt with immediately.
Fair enough, Buck. Except that absolutely none of the scientific evidence points to anything approaching Gore's level of urgency. If you want to develop urgency, go right ahead. Folks like me will continue to insist that we act in accordance with what science is giving us and not what we'd like science to give us.
What he's doing is similar to having someone in your car scream in your ear that there's a red light coming up when it's barely visible on the horizon and you're not sure whether it's a stoplight or the marker beacon for a radio tower.
So, you are saying it is ridiculous to be worried or begin to take significant steps to reduce our impact on the environment because we cannot MEASURE the impact human beings are having on the environment?
Hmmmm…I generally try to avoid CREATING a problem in the first place.
File Under: Oh THAT RW blogger that has absolutely no common sense.
No, workingmom, that's not what I'm saying. In fact, I said exactly the opposite in at least one of my posts I linked *and* in a comment not far above yours.
Hi Jimmie, you are right that climate is a complex topic. But I think there is quite a bit of data showing how human activity affects both regional climate and even weather. This blog post on tropical deforestation provides data and context for such human impact. While the posts on this blog are quite technical they are also accessible. And they provide links to many primary research findings.
I believe we know that humans have contributed, and continue to contribute, to climate change and global warming. And since we contribute, we can, of course, contribute in ways that don't make things worse. And rather than just getting scared and angry, let's figure out what we can do now.
I always love it when the weather guys say, this is the hottest summer in history. Nevermind the fact that "history" in their mind goes back to 1870.
Bill! I was hoping this would lure you in!
Sure, we know a good bit more abour regional climate than we do global climate (heck, we've been looking at the problem of urban areas affecting local temperatures for many years). I've read a lot of the same studies and what it does come down to, at least as far as I can see, is that we don't know enough about the entire planet's climactic cycles and what actually drives a global climate to leap out and take drastic action.
Your second point is the one I keep making. There are reasonable steps we can take; indeed companies and communities are taking many reasonable steps right now. What's not warranted is the sort of panicky, running around with our hands in the air shrieking, that Al Gore has been doing for the past few years. He's not helping. He's hurting.
We have to turn our backs on those folks and get to finding the real and reasonable things that we can do today. That's where you'd find me as an eager participant.
Actually, Al Gore hasn't been raising the alarm about climate change for the past few years, he's been raising the alarm for the past twenty years. For most of that time, people like you were calling him far worse than alarmist. Now you're willing to concede the general principle that climate change exists (and to that let us all say a resounding DUH). But poor Al is still a bad guy because he's not on message. When will someone reach him with the message that no amount of ecological destruction can possibly trump the divine right of the American consumer?
Were people like me really calling him worse than alarmist? Such as what, pray tell? And who, like me, were calling him that. And what people are like me?
Lest you misunderstand, Elvira. I'm not conceding anything. I'm acknowledging what science has demonstrated, and nothing more. When, exactly, did that become a thing of ridicule? Goodness, you sound very nearly like a staunch young-earth Creationist!
BUt as to what I think may be your actual point – the American consumer – it's worth remembering that, much as we're reminded from the left, America isn't the only country in the world. What sort of alternatives to, say, coal power plants, would you suggest to an entire continent full of people who are far more worried about whether their children will starve to death today than they are about what the planet will look like in centuries? What farming techniques? What means of living? And how, exactly, would you dictate such changes to them? And who, exactly would pay for the changes you would make and how would you begin to justify such a massive taking?
It's delightful to hear that you're so concerned about the world's poor and disadvantaged. I'm sure you're aware, because you're so concerned, that the Kyoto Protocol provided for different obligations for industrialized versus developing nations to address precisely this issue. And I'm sure you're also aware that all the developing nations of the world would take years just to match current US emission levels, let alone overtake them, while US emissions go on increasing every year. However, the position taken by the US negotiators was that the US economy couldn't bear the strain of restrictions agreed to voluntarily by other nations. Even fuel economy measures were categorically rejected. If industrialized nations and the US in particular were to check the growth of their emissions, it would open up significant leeway for development of other nations. Our technological advances made in that effort would also help developing nations to leapfrog past dirty technologies and preserve their domestic ecosystems. Since you're so concerned.
Goodness, Elvira. You write like I have no idea what is in the Kyoto Protocols, or the arguments around it. You presume that I am utterly ignorant.
What a silly and rude thing to do.
Elvira, I don't agree with Jimmie (why ie instead of y btw?) on the science, but as someone who was there and studied the issue, I gotta say Jimmie is right. Your interpretation of the committments under Kyoto is dead wrong, as is your interpretation of the US position before and during Kyoto.
Further, you're completely wrong about the projected international emissions numbers, which are publicly available at the Energy Information Agency (www.iea.doe.gov)
I wonder what the give and take is in the deforesting but biofueling Brazil?
Jimmie, you seem to advocate that it is best to do nothing until we are certain about the science. This is a reasonable position, given the estimated (although debatable) costs of of proposals like Kyoto. However, we are not doing nothing. We are, in fact, actively increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Given the scientific uncertainty, why are you so convinced that a higher lever of carbon dioxide is acceptable? Wouldn't it be prudent to keep the carbon dioxide levels the same until science can demonstrate that it is safe to increase them further? Also, I would also point out that there is much debate about the costs of action as well. You assume that Kyoto would destroy the economy. But the same was said about the Clean Air Act and every other environmental regulation ever past. Yet, our ecomomy is doing fine despite these "economy busters." What is your reason for believing that the environmental naysayers are, for the very first time, right on this one? Given their track record, a prudent person would question their economic assumptions.
Just a few questions from the concerned but admittedly ill-informed:
1. If (to use a questionable analogy) I decide to start eating in a more healthy manner, mostly to please my wife and her irrational fear of heart disease, and 5 years later discover that I was under no immediate threat of ANY heart complications, what is the worst that has occurred? I'm more fit, healthy, and I am statistically more likely to be there to see my grandchildren. If you apply this to the environment/climate change arguement, I see no harm whatsoever in so-called "scare-mongering". Who will it hurt? Oil companies? Sorry if I don't cry a river over their profit loss or the fact that a Saudi Arabian prince might not buy that 5 Ferrari. Is this a truly a concern of the Republican party (I know its a concern of Bush's, given the amount of money his family has wrapped up in the oil business) or am I missing something?
2. I don't take issue with the "adoring press" discription (they probably figure they owe Gore one after 2000) as much as I would note that the average number of stories done on this issue are so minute as to be almost non-existent. If it weren't for PBS, NPR, and Bill Maher I wouldn't have heard anything about this issue since 2004! Not exactly earth-shattering (no pun intended) coverage. So why the blog entry? Haven't picked on Gore in awhile?
All questions asked in good faith. Really.
What everyone misses in this argument is that the US is losing its position as a leader in new technology. The Apollo project wasn't really necessary, but it did give us lots of technology to export to the rest of the world for the 30 years or so afterwards. Global warming is a fact, and while fools who never even took calculus blather on and on about whether people are causing it, we are losing an opportunity to become a world leader in clean energy technologies. Pollution and lack of renewable energy sources are worldwide problems; if US companies have solutions then we can export them and make money. The US should begin a new Apollo project for renewable energy. Our cars are already the cleanest in the world because of tough California emissions laws (US automakers now make all domestic cars conform to the California standards). We should become the world leader in solar, wind, and biofuel technology so that we can start exporting something other than mortgages, bad movies, and stupid rap music.
Oh, and all of you posting who don't hold a degree in one of the sciences with studies in physics, chemistry, and mathematics beyond calculus and statistics need to stop talking about global warming, no matter which side of the argument you are on. Like Shakespeare's "tale told by an idiot", you are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
gabacho is right on the technology issue. We are losing our dominance. While the solution (research grants and more regulation) smacks of socialism, there really is no other way. The reason is that whatever regulatory choice we make, whether it's European style regulation or none at all, we create a framework for our businesses. So we are always manipulating private industry, even if we have no regulation at all. The wise course is to keep our regulations consistent with all the other major economies. That way, we level the playing field for our businesses and their foriegn competitors. Capitalism works best this way. Consider what has happened with our auto industry. We failed to raised fuel economy standards over the past 15 years and our auto industry naturally did not improve the fuel efficiency of their cars. But other countries did raise those standards and their automakers did improve fuel efficiency. What happened? More Americans are buying foreign cars because gas prices are rising again. This is not a lack of foresight on the part of US automakers. They knew this was coming, but their shareholders wanted immediate returns, so they didn't invest in fuel efficiency, the only followed the latest trend. The executives knew this would hurt in the long run, but they would be fired in the short term if they didn't listen to the investors. Higher fuel efficiency standards would have provided the executives insulation from their shareholders to make the right long term decisions.
But gabacho is a little hard on the non-scientists. The issue is not purely scientific, so everyone should have a say. That said, we should give more weight to scientists when we discuss the science. And we should give more weight to the economists when we discuss the economics. For the record, my degree is in Applied Physics from Cornell. So feel free to bash me on the economics. But keep in mind, I am an engineer, so I do know a little about how corporations operate. And I know that Boards of Directors can barely think past the next quarter, let alone the next decade. Sometimes they need a little prodding to get them to think straight.
Interesting that Global Warming, which has complete scientific consensus among 99.9 % of all scientists not employed by the oil industry, requires 'further study' before action….but the subject of WMD's in Iraq did *not* require further study, but instead immediate invasion.
Apples and oranges, Jim. But you've simplified my point to the point of mis-stating it, as others have despite my repeating it several times.
It's clear that several of you didn't read what I said before you commented.
Here’s another post I wrote on another Al Gore jeremiad where he says that global warming is more serious a threat to us today than global terrorism.
And if you don't believe that, then you're obviously not worth debating. What type of science education do you have?
-Good day.
Enough to know when someone's grandstanding for an audience and when they're serious and responsible.
Good day to you, Sir.
Good stream here folks…sorry I arrived so late…maybe y'all are streamed out, but…anyone thinking about the bottom line economics that is involved in decision making regarding global warming?
Da boys, like the bush-boy, are so committed to their fnancial bottom line that they are not willing to make that leap into 21st century technology. And all these bastards (along with the rest of us) will be fertilizing the brownfields before the real shit hits the fan.
So they will manpulate the facts (that's easy because even the real facts, I believe, cannot be truly substantiated, they are projections based on a sound scientific understanding of the past and present). And before anyone rips me a new one, understand that I am not a scientist in any way. But I AM a cincerned human being that TRIES to grasp what is happening.
So the bush-boy (having a whole lot of decision making authority) and the fossil fuel power brokers (probably having even more decision making authority), manipulate facts to protect their bottom lin.
Folks like Jimmie, having to protect the conservative way, blindly follow.
Sort of like the way the bush-boy et. al. started a war by manipulating facts.
Venture capital from the billions of profit for alternative energy sources versus searching for more fossil fuel? Maybe, but these old oil mongers can't see the forest through the trees. And I truly believe that the previous point about being a cutting edge world leader in the development of altenative energy sources is not their priority.
Well, I'm doing my part … today I set a barrel of oil on fire. That's right. No Commie Pinko can tell me I can't waste oil for no good reason whatsoever, no matter WHAT it does (or doesn't do, because we just don't know) to the environment. Wasting oil stops terrorism, and we all know it. And even if it didn't … even if wasting oil did nothing good whatsoever, I'm still FOR IT, because it makes us American, damnit!
Mikey, what bottom line, exactly, is Bush following?
The fact is, whether you acknowledge it or not, that the companies on the leading edge of the technology here are oil companies. Look at BP for your best example, though I've heard of such efforts from Exxon/Mobil as also.
You're allowed make up your own opinion but, as the man once said, you're not allowed to make up your own facts.
Jimme.
I have read your comments and you have me confused. You accept that global warming is going on. You add that we don't know if it is man made or a natural event.
Is it your position on the subjest that culprit needs to be identified BEFORE we start to act ?. In my humble opinion we may just have to presume we are the problem and start to really get serious about resolving it regardless. I don't know if that is yours.
Since this is a world wide problem, and you don't like treaties like Kyoto, what would you propose ? . Mind this, It has to have as signatories all the nations of the world. BP, Exxon/Mobile, and the rest of the oil crowd don't have the resources nore the power to change what needs to be changed in a global scale, or do they?
Come on Jimmie, the bottom line is economic power and control. Clarence Darrow said a long time ago (and I couldn't think of any way to say it better):
“First and last, it's a question of money.
Those men who own the earth make the laws to protect what they have.
They fix up a sort of fence or pen around what they have,
and they fix the law so the fellow on the outside cannot get in.
The laws are really organized for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do justice.
We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world.”
I know, the dude was a liberal attorney (from our reddest of red state and unfortunately my home, Ohio), but it was from an era when being liberal probably meant not wearing a suit to a baseball game, and his statement sure appears to ring true at this time.
That is the bottom line Jimmie. The bush-boy cares about you and me only after he takes care of those that have the economic power to "own the earth". Think about it, we start wars to support the oil industry, we skirt making laws to protect the energy industry.
And I recall, when the bush-boy made the decision to opt out of the Kyoto Treaty he claimed that it would not be in the best economic interest for this country (he also has questioned, as you seem to concur, whether
there really is an environmental crisis looming).
And I am pretty certain that he said that his administration would propose an altenative envirionmental "plan" that would be better than Kyoto.
I don't recall any plan yet to be propoosed Jimmie. I do believe that his administration has proposed a law that, in effect, loosens the belt of toxic emissions that even the EPA objects to by allowing ten tons of air toxic emmissions per year as a cap of some sort (heard it can't explain it and wish I had the time to research the facts to provide you).
So that is the bottom line Jimmie. It's unlikely to change in the forseeable future…and I will be pissed and you will agree with the policies. So, my guess, you are either very wealthy and want not to have your wealth be infringed upon, or you've been duped.
Me, hell, I work my ass off to keep a slightly above middle road status (that's why I can't get more detail in blogs like yours). But I WOULD be willing to sacrifice to pay more for alternative fuel and goods produce in a "world" market that levels the playing field (wages) for people now being exploited, etc.
I'm sorry Jimmie, it was ten THOUSAND tons of air toxic emissions that the bush-boy would allow, sorry for the mistake. Ans if I can find the facts about the law, I'll jot them down for you.
Responding to 30, which is responding to my 29:
we do not have is any real idea how much we contribute to global warming nor how much effect we can have to slow or stop it. Given that, we still need to be studying how the Earth’s climate actually works – a thing we know far too little about today – and much less time scaring the bejeezus out of people who trust the experts to tell true about the current scientific evidence.
Emphasis mine. Here the writer appears to basically be saying that the subject of global warming requires further study before action.
Please tell me how this impression is incorrect.
And yes, WMD's and Global Warming are apples and oranges. They're still similar – they're both threats. Apples and oranges are similar, too – they're both fruits.
Invading Iraq to topple Saddam fits in conservative ideology – so it's ok to go ahead and do it without actually taking time to look at the evidence. Whereas even admitting that Global Warming exists is difficult for conservative ideology – so now that the facts can' be ignored any longer, the subject requires careful study rather than action.
Nothing wrong with study. But there's simply no reason not to take action at the same time – because we're dealing with the future of the world here. There aren't any higher stakes.
Jimmie, your words:
"When a scientist says “probably”, he telling you there’s a huge amount of doubt – much data he does not have, and plenty of other possibilities for the phenomenon. He’s telling you that’s his best guess, but that you shouldn’t bet money on it."
And in fairness, your words from the same 14 November 2005 post:
"As far as I, and the science, is concerned, global warming is nothing to panic over. Yes, we need to take reasonable measures not to carelessly foul our atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Yes, we need to develop cleaner energy sources. Yes, we need to help developing countries build safe and relatively clean sources of energy for themselves."
So for all the "yes, we need to…" points, how can conservatives minds like yours accept and support the need to develop action plans that are meaningful and establish an immediate impact on the environment.
By immediate, I mean significantly reduce toxic emissions, establish firm and accountable renewable energy source initiatives with tangible, quantifiable goals. Accept a cut or reduction in the corporate bottom line and increase in the cost of products and goods that are made available (as long as the boys at the top take an equal or greater hit as well).
Quit the maybes, possibly's, no one is sure rhetoric and accept the pay me now or pay me later rhetoric. Because the pay me later proposition is going to be a whole lot worse than pay me now. And that's not scaremongering Jimmie, that's reality.
"[]…scaring the bejeezus out of people who trust the experts to tell true about the current scientific evidence."
If you "trust the experts to tell true", but don't believe they are, you must be trusting something else. What do you trust more than experts?
My own observations and intelligence, Railroad.
I'm smart enough to know when what one expert says is contradicted by science. I'm not one of those folks who implicitly trust experts. I've seen experts lie far too many times. I prefer to "trust, but verify".
Here's an article worth reading from Bloomberg. I know, Bloomberg sometimes disagrees with FOX news and is, therefore, a radical left wing propaganda source. But give it a chance.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washington…
What is interesting is General Electric's support of carbon dioxide restrictions. Now, some on the left might say that this is just some ploy to increase their profits. And they would be right. GE is the world's largest manufacturer of power plant equipment, with a very large portion of their business in countries that have signed the Kyoto treaty. Because of this, they already must commit themselves to a large R&D program to comply with the treaty. The reason they support carbon regulations in the US is because it will expand the market for Kyoto-compliant equipment. This means that they can spread their R&D costs over a larger market, thereby reducing the per unit amoritization of the their research. This gives them a leg up on companies that only sell in the US, because they will be years ahead on the research. It also makes them more competitve in the foreign markets, because of the advantages of scale. So they really haven't turned green, they are just reacting properly to the marketplace. Good for them. But this brings up an interesting point. There will be no additional R&D costs for the US to comply with Kyoto, because they are already spending the money on compliance research, regarless of US policy. So, to be honest, the global warming naysayers must now remove R&D costs from their estimates of the cost of the US signing the Kyoto treaty. Otherwise, they would be artificially inflating those costs. Will they? I won't hold my breath.
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING' JESUS WILL FIX EVERYTHING COME RAPTURE' GO BACK TO RUSSIA YOU GODDLESS DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111
Tom, that theory only works if the nations who are in Kyoto right now remain there – something that's far from a certainty. Also, many of the countries that would be prime consumers for GE's equipment: China, Japan, about half the developing nations, aren't Kyoto signatories or aren't bound by the restrictions. Other nations, like Canada and England, are looking to bail out of Kyoto. The only nations I can see that actually are going to stick with it, at least for the forseeable future, are counries in Western Europe and they (notably France, Germany, and Italy) are nowhere near reducing their emissions. IN fact, all three of them have higher levels since they signed onto Kyoto than the US does now.
GE's decision is a good one, as things stand right now, but things are as likely to change – or are more likely – as they are to stay the same.
"What doesn't exist, and what I meant to say at the time, was that what we do not have is any real idea how much we contribute to global warming nor how much effect we can have to slow or stop it."
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
That's OK … when the hammer comes down hard on America, you'll be one of the "why us? What did we ever do?" chorus.
Alan, I appreciate your reasoned debating technique and your ability to predict the future.
Jimmie, you are right that there are risks that countries may pull out of Kyoto. But if they stay in few more years, GE will have already spent a lot of money on research and we will all have a chance to benefit from the resulting technology. As for China and the other signatories, it really doesn't matter. If GE has to develop new technology for Germany and France, they will because Germany and France represent a market large enough to justify the investment. Everyone else gets a free ride on that technology. A good example of this effect can be seen in the US auto market. Few states have California's strict emissions standards, yet all new cars sold in the US meet those standards. Why? The auto industry finds it easier to make just one car, rather than trying to determine which cars will end up in which states. So, for all intents and purposes, the California standards have become national standards. Despite this, many states refuse to up their standards, claiming that it would somehow hurt their economy, when, in fact, they are already complying with the standards. For the record I do not favor signing the Kyoto treaty. But I do favor keeping our regulations in line with other industrialized countries. I will admit that we won't see major environmental gains from this because we are already complying with many would-be regulations by default. But we will nudge some of our non-compliant companies into better global competitiveness.
Tom, I can understand your position. You haven't really addressed how, if countries like France and Germany are supposedly complying with the more rigorous restrictions of Kyoto, their emissions have increased more than ours in the time they've been under those restrictions.
I, personally, would rather not bring the regulations of my nation in line wiht those of nations which pollution levels have been steadily rising, wich unemplyment rates are double or triple ours, and which economies are in a visible freefall. We seem to be doing quite well without Kyoto and without adopting regulations that seem to be doing nothing beneficial in those countries that have adopted them.
"What doesn't exist, and what I meant to say at the time, was that we do not have is any real idea how much we contribute to global warming nor how much effect we can have to slow or stop it."
???
Who edits this thing?