|
Mercnbeth -> RE: Climategate (12/4/2009 1:52:49 PM)
|
quote:
Yeah, climategate is wrong when it is overstated.
Ron,
Wouldn't agree - the data is wrong. The 'good intent' still 'good'.
Setting policy and regulations resulting in closing businesses and forcing some industries to go off-shore in lieu of following dictatorial polices based upon bad, and fraudulent compiled results and calling in "scientific" - that's what is BAD.
Let's remember that until this disclosure of covering up any contradictory data collected the attitude regarding those challenging the theory was put on these terms; from 2007 Boston Globe: Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
As insulting as that was to those affected by the Holocaust - it's a perfect representation of how many policies and regulations got passed when the 'deniers' were, at best, considered oil company lackeys.
I saw the effort to turn it into a religion, deliberate, and unashamedly documented, by American University's Matthew Nisbet is among those who see the importance of expanding the story beyond scientists. He is charting the reframing of climate change into a moral and religious issue -Mr. Nisbet succeeded and there are many followers still sure this new batch of information is coming from heretics.
Now - you want to start from scratch, since that's the only way to go since the raw data used for the religion's dogma has been "lost"; go ahead.
Is the climate changing - Yes; historically it always has. Many ice ages, many warming periods, long before and since humans have walked the planet. Is humanity influencing it - Yes. Humanity by definition from the first human has affected it. Your breathing is affecting it - although I wouldn't be advocating you to stop immediately as do the proponents of global warming are saying to many common industry practices. Then again, birds, fish, cows, termites, and everything living on the planet affect the planet. Which ones should we get rid of first? Then there is that big, hot, glowing thing in the sky I get to see every day in CA that goes through its own fluctuations of intensity which affect 'climate'.
Were it all equal and ALL of the affecting humanity followed the same rules, I'd subscribe to following them too. However, when the messiah himself ignores them, and it turns out he rationalizes his position by 'buying' carbon offsets; it proves his commitment is focused on the economics, in particular his personal economics, of the religion and not its dogma. Were he not - he'd buy the 'offsets' AND also not live as part of the privileged upper class producing more carbon than anyone else.
Although the effort portrayed is hopeless, this news story illustrates the real agenda behind global warming in general and Al Gore in particular - $100,000 more per appearance. That buys a LOT of carbon offset!
In 2007, Hollywood's Academy sanctified Gore's cinematic message of global warming with its famous statue, enriched his earnings by $100,000 per 85-minute appearance and helped elevate the Tennesseean's profile to win the Nobel Peace Prize despite losing the election battle of 2000 to a Texan and living in a large house with lots of energy-driven appliances.
Hey - I have 'green' lighbulbs in my house. Now all I need is a way to get my kids to turn them off. I don't want a policeman stopping by every night making sure I do.
|
|
|
|
