Two things to keep an eye on....
One:
If you're sitting around this weekend in awe of the western Oregon March snowfall, perhaps the issue of global climate change will enter your mind. Or maybe it won't because you'll just be too damn cold to care. Either way, Cascade Policy Institute is schlepping Patrick Michaels (a guy who wants to convince you that global climate change is just a ginned up yarn by a bunch of people who are only interested in making piles of money by getting us all up in arms). Michaels is one of those pristine climate scientists who isn't making a pile of money from warning folks against global climate change. He's too busy making money from those who are contributing to it.
Two:
I want to draw your attention to Oregon House Bill 2470. It's not one of the big, glamorous bills that brings in the media because its due to cause a floor fight. It's simply good legislation that will end large-scale puppy mills in Oregon. These things are a blight. But the committee hearing did draw a big crowd, and there's some active opposition. This would be a good time to contact your legislator. This one deserves to pass.
|
March 7, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (71 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kevin | Mar 7, 2009 11:17:06 AM
LOL - yeah, the coal industry, notoriously the worst polluter of all petro sources, gave Michaels a bunch of money because they couldn't think of anything else to do with it.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 7, 2009 11:45:39 AM
Dog and most other pet lovers oppose puppy mills because of the inhumane practices that occur in these facilities. Other people who might be indifferent to the suffering of the animals abused in these breeding-for-profit enterprises would do well to consider other problems they create.
One malicious consequence is the rip-off of purchasers of puppies from these mills who often wind up with horrendous vet bills. This has much in common with other corporations selling defective products such as salmonella-infected food, cars that are lemons, etc. These businesses are just another form of crooked dealers with emotional pain added to the financial cost.
A few months ago I learned of a family that bought a dog from what appeared to be a small-scale puppy mill. A few days later this pet was found to have the parvo virus. The adopter's house will be unsafe for eight years before another puppy can be brought into it even though the sick puppy no longer lives there. Think of the pain this could cause children who might lose a puppy in such a house and learn they cannot have another puppy for eight years.
Then there are the costs to the communities that rescue dogs and their puppies from mills. They add to already excessive populations of dogs making it more difficult for humane societies (often funded in part by local governments) to have their dogs adopted while they have the cost of maintaining these additional dogs and possibly eventually euthanizing them. There have been recurring incidents throughout Oregon where puppy mills with abused animals have been discovered causing local officials and humane societies to assume the demands and expenses of rescuing these animals. That translates into tax dollars that are needed elsewhere. The only bright side from these events is that it brings out the best in many people who chip in and rise to the occasion of helping humane societies with their increased burdens.
There will no doubt be some opposition to this bill from puppy mill operators and pet stores that make money from this repugnant trade, but responsible dog breeders will have no problems with this proposed legislation if it becomes law, as it should.
If you agree with the above, contact your state senator and representative and let them know how you feel.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 7, 2009 11:47:28 AM
Sure, Richard, and poor John McCain would have won if Tina Fey hadn't been so mean to Sarah Palin. In all debates, we should always ask one side to tell us who won.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 7, 2009 12:02:58 PM
Don't believe Inhofe's (and Richard's) hype and remember those 400 "scientists" against global warming?
Posted by: Richard | Mar 7, 2009 12:11:39 PM
Kari if you bothered to view the debate I mentioned you'd see it was the students who voted on who won the debate.
"Prior to the debate the opponents of the motion had expected to lose the vote because the students have been exposed to a lifetime (i.e. their short lifetime) of pro-AGW propaganda.The motion [supporting AGW] was defeated when put to the vote."
The fact is you progressives have painted yourselves into the mother of all corners with this global warming charade. It has become such a faith based crusade by the left that there's nothing but the stuff proponents displayed in this debate for you to use.
And it get's worse every day.
The stunt of trying to reduce the global skeptisism to coal or oil industry funded misinformation is a shameless avoidance of the truth.
As for coal, the US get's 1/2 of our power from coal. It's abundant and a low cost source of power.
Along with oil and Natural gas we have supplies enough and technology enough for clean use for many decades while other advances transition us to new energy sources.
The premature obstructing of our current energy supplies in order to fight the fatally flawed farce of global warming is insane.
Unfortunatelky too many vocal blues simply do not care if global warmning is real or not.
Which is irrational.
Posted by: Frank | Mar 7, 2009 12:20:27 PM
Just dogs?
Why are they only writing legislation for dogs? Same problems exist for cats, birds, and other pets.
Oh... and while they are at it... how about maybe making that legislation stop irresponsible breeders from breeding traits into animals that are causing serious health problems...
Like this
http://www.cfainc.org/breeds/profiles/siamese.html
and this...
http://www.81x.com/kelamegkitties/website/
Posted by: Roy McAvoy | Mar 7, 2009 12:43:15 PM
Global warming has become the new battle front, currently separating the two main parties. Like other battles waged in the past the name of the issue will be altered on occasion to give new meaning to the effort, i.e.. pro life or pro choice. I guess we now have to refer to global warming as "climate change". Soon it may become the "Pro Earth" movement, or some other such nonsense.
Like other battles in the past which have included abortion and gay marriage a compromise will not likely be forthcoming anytime soon. That in itself will cost us all more money in the long run, because any effort made toward either direction will be fraught with disagreement and expense.
But puppies? Come on, who would ever argue not to do what's best for puppies?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Mar 7, 2009 12:51:51 PM
It's abundantly obvious by anyone doing a little checking that the critiquing and dismantling of global warming is hardly limited to only some shallow notion that it's a "ginned up yarn by a bunch of people who are only interested in making piles of money by getting us all up in arms".
Naw Richard, it's abundantly obvious to you..cuz that's where you want it to go. You've got a knack for commenting like you know what the hell you're talking about--and then under scrutiny your arguments fall apart over and over again.
But you keep on truckin' brother...maybe one of these days you'll hit gold.
In the meantime, this particular "scientist" gets craploads of cash from industry associations whose interests he clearly represents.
Enjoying that March snowfall, btw?
Posted by: Zarathustra | Mar 7, 2009 12:54:42 PM
I was about to say exactly what Frank did, whether he's serious or not. The logic is valid. Picking out puppy farms seems to be an easy case-in-point as opposed to addressing the elephant in the room, i.e. animal welfare in general.
I hate ad hoc legislation. Have we isolated the cause, and understand the mechanics? Does this really end that way of thinking? While needed, it's just stop-gap leg to avoid the fact that we have no coherent framework for placing humans in the overall environmental scheme of things.
People are using a lot of bandwidth to talk about getting our head straight with regard to man's role in climate change. Meanwhile, we walk around with wildly different ideas about man's role in nature. Do you honestly think you can solve the former without doing the hard work to come to a common vision of the latter? A metaphysics of man's role in nature allows for an ethics. Without that, the debate is pretty much situational morality and fuzzy definitions and fuzzier feelings, versus archaic narratives about man's role in nature. Neither can address the challenges at hand. Am I glad someone cares to address one of the challenges? Sure. Does it help? Not enough.
Posted by: Joanne Rigutto | Mar 7, 2009 12:59:13 PM
The horse industry has it's own bad apples too. Hyperkalemic Periodic Peralysis (HYPP) originating in the great stallion Impressive (American Quarter Horse); HERDA, a collagen problem that causes the skin to seperate from the facia and slough off of the horse's body when ridden courtesy of one or two stallion lines in the Paint Horse breed. And then there's the lethal white gene linked to horses having the frame overo color pattern. A recessive, the lethal white gene, when reinforced and expressed interferes with the gut of a foal forming properly. Foals born with the lethal white gene normally die within 24 hours of birth. Foals with 2 lethal white genes are born all white, and the only way to know if the foal is a dominant white or was born with two copies of the lethal white gene is to wait. If the foal lives for 48 hours it's a white foal, if it dies it was born with two copies of the bad gene. Responsible breeders don't breed frame overos to each other, and they don't breed HYPP positive/positive or HYPP positive/negative to each other. They also don't breed horses that may be carrying the gene for HERDA. But there are always unscrupulous people out there who will make a buck off of any animal they can.
Posted by: Jiang | Mar 7, 2009 1:00:35 PM
Posted by: Richard | Mar 7, 2009 10:37:22 AM
Carla,
Wonderful development! JK's dick has learned to speak...
Who's doing more harm? Puppy farms or climate non-change frauds? Is being publicly hung by the balls and flogged with a radiator belt a constitutional penalty?
Posted by: mp97303 | Mar 7, 2009 1:09:43 PM
In the meantime, this particular "scientist" gets craploads of cash from industry associations whose interests he clearly represents.
Al Gore has made how much from pushing global warming....
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Mar 7, 2009 1:11:35 PM
I don't know...which pro-global climate change businesses are showering money on Al Gore to speak out against climate change?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Mar 7, 2009 1:12:24 PM
That should have said..which businesses that benefit from anti global climate change (alternative energy, for example) are showering Gore with cash?
Posted by: Jiang | Mar 7, 2009 1:23:53 PM
Posted by: Joanne Rigutto | Mar 7, 2009 12:59:13 PM
The horse industry has it's own bad apples too.
Feed 'em to the horses.
And just to show that this never moves forward, I was doing some research on William Sargeant Ladd, of Ladd Circle et al. fame, and, in the 1850s, he was seen as a progressive city father, since, "he was against the breeding of fast horses and did not practice it on his farm". The terms of the debate sound virtually unchanged 154 years later.
This shows how much Z's point is valid. 154 years ago, inheritance worked by magic and the universe consisted of our galaxy, which had never changed. How can you add Darwin, Mendel, contemporary astrophysics and 154 years of thought to the mix, and have a debate that is not one iota different? One can only characterize that as a debate that has never gotten off the ground, even into the first primitive formulations, and I have to conclude it is largely for the reason already articulated.
As I've said on before ad nauseam, the issue of the ethics of domestication is critically important to the future of society because you- most of you- are domesticated humans. All your lifestyle diseases, interpersonal conflicts, land use issues and on and on, are the same issues that come up in industrial farming. Humans want to say, "they're animals; we're not". That's not the major issue, though. The issue is that the people involved in domesticating both use the same methods and those methods are not just, sustainable or well thought out.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 7, 2009 1:30:58 PM
"The extensive scrutiny of the AGW theory has revealed it to be invalid"
by whom? Name me TWO non-fossil-fuel-funded scientists who have disproven the universally recognized anthropogenic role in climate change. Just two. I guarantee you can't give me two names not working for the status quo.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 7, 2009 2:01:55 PM
Why are they only writing legislation for dogs? Same problems exist for cats, birds, and other pets.
Frank: Your point is valid, but as far as legislation and being effective are concerned taking one issue to start with and setting a principle looks like the way to go. And puppy mills appear to be the biggest violators of responsible breeding practices affecting more people and costing taxpayers more money.
Posted by: billy | Mar 7, 2009 2:23:18 PM
Carla Axtman: which businesses that benefit from anti global climate change (alternative energy, for example) are showering Gore with cash?
JK:
1. The companies that Kleiner Perkins, Silicon Valley's preeminent venture firm, invests in. Al Gore is partner. They invest in “green” start up companies.
2. The compaines in Generations Mutual fund. Al Gore is president.
3. CAMCO GLOBAL, a carbon trading company. Al Gore’s mutual fund has a 9% stake in this company.
4. You can see a video of Al himself promoting investments in the companies that he profits from in a video at /newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/11/gore-admits-financial-reasons-advancing-global-warming-hysteria
Overall, Al has made more than $100 million. Is that good enough for you? Maybe it is time for you to look at the reality. Then you might write article about how big business stands to rake in millions by raising your energy bills. That is what it is really about. That is why Enron was a big supporter. That is why Lehman Bros. was a big promoter.
But, lets not stop with Al Gore’s millions:
5. Then there is NASA “scientist” Jim Hansen who got $250,000 from John Kerry’s wife’s foundation.
6. Then there is the author of the Sten report (it won’t cost anything to get rid of carbon) who launched a carbon credit rating agency.
7. Then there is the UN’s father of the so-called Earth Summit, Maurice Strong, who is on the Chicago Climate Exchange board of directors.
8. Of course there is the $9 billion in government research money the proponents hope to between 2010 and 2014. Of course they get nothing if no one cares about climate.
For proof of each of the above statements, see: sustainableoregon.com/bigmoneyscaring.html
Don’t forget Al Gore said it is OK to lie to us. As did Jim Hansen.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: billy | Mar 7, 2009 2:32:44 PM
torridjoe: Name me TWO non-fossil-fuel-funded scientists who have disproven the universally recognized anthropogenic role in climate change. Just two. I guarantee you can't give me two names not working for the status quo.
JK: Al Gore. Jim Hansen, Maurice Strong.
Oh, you wanted the other side:
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
You can find links to over 600 more at sustainableoregon.com/dissenters.html
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 7, 2009 3:45:41 PM
...as far as legislation and being effective are concerned taking one issue to start with and setting a principle looks like the way to go.
If legislators pass this bill for puppy mills and establish a principle there could be a beneficial consequence of discourage people from similar inhumane operations.
Posted by: carla axtman | Mar 7, 2009 3:51:19 PM
Billy:
I clicked through to read the links you cited for sourcing--a couple of things:
Your main source site is "Sustainable Oregon", a site dedicated to working against the global climate change issue. Some of the stuff there is rather specious...but the issue of Gore is where we are, so that's where we'll start.
I don't see a source for the $100 million figure. Your main page says that Gore "appears" to get $100,000 in speaking fees. Could you provide a source for that figure, please?
You're complaining that Gore is "investing" in green start up companies. How is investing in a company the same as having a company write checks to a person to talk "science"? That certainly doesn't meet the 'showering Gore with cash' criteria, IMO.
It's one thing to take your money and invest it in a company or companies that you agree with. It's quite another to have a company or companies pay you to crank out information that's favorable to their bottom line.
On to the other folks you named:
Hansen is receiving the "Heinz Award", a $250k prize for "enriching the lives of others". How is receiving money from a private foundation for his years of service, congruent to Exxon shelling out hundreds of thousands to a guy to pimp the "science" that benefits them? Answer: It isn't. At all.
You seem to have an accusation for Nicholas Stern, but I can't decipher what it is. Please illuminate.
On the Chicago Climate Exchange--I've read a number of things about them, mostly at Grist. The offsets they've been selling appear to be worthless. What Strong's role in that is, I have no idea. I've never seen him associated with that part of the Exchange. So what are you accusing Strong of, exactly?
I hope to get $9 billion in Powerball, btw. No guarantees tho...since I don't generally buy tickets. Which is almost as worthless as your contention that the government might (maybe, perhaps, possibly--someone could ask them to do it) spend $9 billion on research. That certainly isn't what the article says that's linked from "Sustainable Oregon" that you appear to be citing. So maybe you can enlighten.
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Mar 7, 2009 4:36:13 PM
Frank:
Just dogs?
Why are they only writing legislation for dogs? Same problems exist for cats, birds, and other pets.
Bob T:
Just my opinion, but I prefer to see a separate law for each type of pet instead of one trying to cover all.
Bob Tiernan
Mult Co
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 7, 2009 5:46:25 PM
Just my opinion, but I prefer to see a separate law for each type of pet instead of one trying to cover all.
This should also make it easier to write good law; although, in some cases, such as reptiles they could be in groups.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 7, 2009 8:01:36 PM
"Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh"--Heartland Institute, noted climate denier organization, which was busted for publishing its own list of "deniers", a few dozen of which never even gave their permission to be included. Nice try.
Posted by: Richard | Mar 7, 2009 8:34:27 PM
Sorry progressives,
But you're as weak as the debating proponents I liked to above.
The stuff you toss out trying to prop up AGW
is getting more juvenile every day.
Torrid,
You're one of the worst.
Try a little Boston Globe for some more rational perspective you may want to adopt.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/
Where's global warming?
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / March 8, 2009
"Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren't the tools we need."
And to make an effort to escape the dogma and keep up:
www.icecap.us
www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climateaudit.org
Posted by: mp97303 | Mar 7, 2009 9:24:23 PM
Those Heartland Institute dudes must be really wacko if they are, as TJ states, denying climate. Even I acknowledge the existence of climate.
Posted by: mp97303 | Mar 7, 2009 9:40:39 PM
Only to fall on deaf ears:
But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren't the tools we need.
Source
Posted by: Tom Vail | Mar 7, 2009 10:08:46 PM
It has been fun to watch this give and take on global warming/climate change.
It appears that Carla and Torridjoe and Kari like to discuss without having to give cogent arguments. It is more fun for them, IMO, to tell people their arguments are weak or that they fall apart, without bothering to give counter arguments that might back up their claims.
Richard, Billy, JK seem to give arguments with references while you (Carla, TJ and Kari) throw out things like, "poor John McCain would have won if Tina Fey hadn't been so mean to Sarah Palin," or "I guarantee you can't give me two names not working for the status quo," or "In the meantime, this particular "scientist" gets craploads of cash from industry associations whose interests he clearly represents."
Over the past couple of years, I have started to become biased in favor of those with the following philosophy:
Like the the Hippocratic Oath, we should "do no harm" to our planet.
We do many things today that pollute and harm parts of our environment.
We should act in our own long-term self interest and clean up our act.
The current politically motivated "global warming" scare is just that: politically motivated.
I attempt to listen to cogent arguments from all sides.
Scaring the populous and closing minds and discussions (with statements like "you have to be a moron not to believe in Global Warming") serves no positive purpose.
An open debate with both parties willing to consider the arguments of the other side will produce a positive result.
My questions for Carla, TJ, and Kari: Is there anything about Patrick Michael's view of climate change that might be worth considering? Will it contaminate my mind to listen to him?
Posted by: joel dan walls | Mar 7, 2009 10:44:06 PM
It's interesting that some politically active folks (Richard, Kaarlock, mp97303) expect discussions of economics to be informed by people with expertise in economics, but when it comes environmental science, they can't be bothered to look at the technical literature and instead cut and paste from websites that are themselves cut and paste jobs.
But the best thing is having Richard refer us to a posting on Free Republic. Jesus H. Christ. Free Republic: a website for wackos indulging the fantasies about assassinating the president of the United States is now a place to find peer reviewed science, eh?
Posted by: joel dan walls | Mar 7, 2009 10:49:42 PM
BTW, I am still waiting for someone like Richard or Kaarlock to explain how so many climatologists, glaciologists, oceanographers, etc. have been suborned by the evil represented by Al Gore, especially in light of the fact that the central hypothesis--anthropogenic CO2 production driving global warming--was proposed at least 50 years ago, when Al Gore was probably in high school.
Posted by: billy | Mar 8, 2009 12:25:10 AM
joel dan walls:
BTW, I am still waiting for someone like Richard or Kaarlock to explain how so many climatologists, glaciologists, oceanographers, etc. have been suborned
JK
They are deniers. This is religion. Genuflect. By definition, if we have progressed to this point we have made the correct assumptions. The burden is on you to show why we should change them.
Posted by: billy | Mar 8, 2009 1:04:48 AM
carla axtman:...I don't see a source for the $100 million figure. Your main page says that Gore "appears" to get $100,000 in speaking fees. Could you provide a source for that figure, please?
JK: Follow the link to the Big Money In Scaring People page:
sustainableoregon.com/bigmoneyscaring.html
There you will find a link to the source which is tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
You will find a copy of one Al Gore speaking contract linked from that same page: thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717071gore1.html (See page 5 for the price)
carla axtman: You're complaining that Gore is "investing" in green start up companies. How is investing in a company the same as having a company write checks to a person to talk "science"? That certainly doesn't meet the 'showering Gore with cash' criteria, IMO.
JK: You are right. The Gore case is much more serious as he is practically guaranteed to make money if he persuades congress to force people to do business with his companies. Conversely, a scientist still has his reputation to keep him in line when he accepts research money.
carla axtman: It's quite another to have a company or companies pay you to crank out information that's favorable to their bottom line.
JK: That is not the way it works. No reputable scientist would take money up front to “crank out information favorable to” a predetermined cause. Why do you think Phd scientists are a slimey as politicians?
carla axtman: Hansen is receiving the "Heinz Award", a $250k prize for "enriching the lives of others". How is receiving money from a private foundation for his years of service, congruent to Exxon shelling out hundreds of thousands to a guy to pimp the "science" that benefits them? Answer: It isn't. At all.
JK: Because he would not have received that money for saying the truth that we do not yet have enough information to recommend drastic action. (Instead his boss at NASA had to say that.) Of course the Heinz foundation is run by Kerry’s wife. Hansen was science advisor to Kerry. That is the kind of close relationship that will raise red flags to most impartial people.
carla axtman: You seem to have an accusation for Nicholas Stern, but I can't decipher what it is. Please illuminate.
JK: The Stern report said, by gosh, it will be really easy and cheap to eliminate CO2, so lets get with it. Then he is positioning himself to make money from that recommendation.
Two problems:
1. The Recommendation is pure shit. It will not be easy or cheap to reduce CO2.
2. If a scientist was positioned to make money related to his work, you would be all over his with a accusation of “pay you to crank out information that's favorable to their bottom line.”
carla axtman: On the Chicago Climate Exchange--I've read a number of things about them, mostly at Grist.
JK: You really need to broaden your reading range.
carla axtman: The offsets they've been selling appear to be worthless. What Strong's role in that is, I have no idea. I've never seen him associated with that part of the Exchange. So what are you accusing Strong of, exactly?
JK: The same thing as your side accuses realistic scientists of: making money off of their work. No CO2 scare, no Climate exchange, no board position for Strong. Strong, of course was the UN guy behind the Rio Conference that got the GW scare started.
carla axtman: I hope to get $9 billion in Powerball, btw. No guarantees tho...since I don't generally buy tickets. Which is almost as worthless as your contention that the government might (maybe, perhaps, possibly--someone could ask them to do it) spend $9 billion on research.
JK: But there is a guarantee in the research money: no scare, no money (or very little).
carla axtman: That certainly isn't what the article says that's linked from "Sustainable Oregon" that you appear to be citing. So maybe you can enlighten.
JK: My statement was: Of course they get nothing if no one cares about climate. That the logical conclusion from the facts presented in the article.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: billy | Mar 8, 2009 1:09:34 AM
torridjoe "Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh"--Heartland Institute, noted climate denier organization, which was busted for publishing its own list of "deniers", a few dozen of which never even gave their permission to be included. Nice try.
B: It looks like you have no response to the list I posted as all you did is bring up a straw man.
I accept your concession that your are proven wrong.
B
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Mar 8, 2009 9:35:47 AM
before anyone slags Al Gore on his crusade to make people aware of the problem of global climate change, this isn't something he made up after 2001. he's been pushing climate change for decades. now that the predictions of doom are starting to be verified before us at an alarming rate, one outcome is that people are buying books, movies and products of all kinds to learn and change how they live. corporations, as they are wont to do, are spending money to greenwash themselves, to get rich off a new product line and, in more than a few cases, try and help save the planet they live on.
and thru it all, Gore keeps doing what he spent years doing in the wilderness: warning us that time is growing short.
and thru it all, Richard and others are reacting with the same fear & denial humans have demonstrated forever. there's no point arguing with them; any energy one has should go into education and personal change. the flat-earth nay-sayers will continue to whine & bellow, and we have no choice but to save their sorry asses along with our own. do not expect them to be grateful to be proven wrong.
Posted by: Richard | Mar 8, 2009 9:49:45 AM
joel,
said, "when it comes environmental science, they can't be bothered to look at the technical literature"
Is that a comedy act joel?
I mean how ridiculous and competely wrong.
If you had been following the enfolding of the IPCC/AGW case you would know there is much more to it than what you reduce to the irrelevent "cut and pasting" label.
This is the kind of response the debaters who lost come up with.
The debate that can be googled to any number of links besides the freerepublic site.
Yet in typical shallow form you criticize where the story is parked instead of the story itself.
That's why you remain dedicated to the fraud of global warming. You're too naive and disingenous to explore the topic honestly.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Mar 8, 2009 10:04:34 AM
There you will find a link to the source which is tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
This is an global climate change denying website that claims Gore makes $100 million in speaking fees and investments. But they offer no sourcing for that information. I can write that the moon is made of green cheese, but it would be just as worthless without the evidence to back it up.
The "Smoking Gun" contract that you linked isn't the $100k speaking fee contract. It's a reimbursement contract for airfare, meals, etc. The site claims that the fee is $100k, but provides no evidence. Not that Gore shouldn't get the fee--he should. Still not the same as businesses who benefit paying a guy who claims to be a scientist to shove "data" that helps their bottom line.
The Gore case is much more serious as he is practically guaranteed to make money if he persuades congress to force people to do business with his companies. Conversely, a scientist still has his reputation to keep him in line when he accepts research money.
Is Gore being paid to lobby Congress to sign contracts with researchers? Cuz that's what you're alleging here--and that's an entirely new accusation. Please provide evidence. Nothing you've shown so far on Gore comes close to paying a guy who claims to be a scientist to push stuff that helps their bottom line.
That is not the way it works. No reputable scientist would take money up front to “crank out information favorable to” a predetermined cause. Why do you think Phd scientists are a slimey as politicians?
No reputable scientist would take money to crank out information favorable to a predetermined cause. So you agree with me that Patrick Michaels is, at the very least, suspect in his conclusions.
Because he would not have received that money for saying the truth that we do not yet have enough information to recommend drastic action. (Instead his boss at NASA had to say that.) Of course the Heinz foundation is run by Kerry’s wife. Hansen was science advisor to Kerry. That is the kind of close relationship that will raise red flags to most impartial people.
Please provide evidence that this money was handed out only because of the recommendation of "drastic action". Further, your characterization that "impartial people" would find this relationship suspect smacks of paranoia, not reason.
The Stern report said, by gosh, it will be really easy and cheap to eliminate CO2, so lets get with it. Then he is positioning himself to make money from that recommendation.
That doesn't appear at all to be what the Stern Report says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
"Its main conclusions are that one percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) per annum is required to be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than it otherwise might be."
You might disagree with this report or it's conclusions--but your characterization of the report is completely false.
The same thing as your side accuses realistic scientists of: making money off of their work. No CO2 scare, no Climate exchange, no board position for Strong. Strong, of course was the UN guy behind the Rio Conference that got the GW scare started.
Ummm....okay. So what paranoid fantasy evidence do you have to back this one up?
As far as the $9 billion in alleged research funds from the government, you're not addressing that. Some group somewhere might ask for that money..maybe. Perhaps. It could happen. So what?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Mar 8, 2009 10:08:13 AM
My questions for Carla, TJ, and Kari: Is there anything about Patrick Michael's view of climate change that might be worth considering? Will it contaminate my mind to listen to him?
TJ and Kari can speak for themselves--but for me, I listen to views that are outside of my own all the time. As far as I can tell, nobody here as said don't "listen" to Michaels. What I've read is that there's good reason to take what he says with a grain of salt, given who funds him.
Or is learning about possible motives for Michael's "science" being outside other peer reviewed, rigorously tested science on the matter just too much?
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Mar 8, 2009 10:32:17 AM
Carla, I respect your investigative skills and enjoy your writing style. However, you would be a little more convincing if you would at least agree to the obvious.
It is obvious to the most neutral of observers that Al Gore makes major bank off of Global Warming. Please just admit that Gore has positioned himself to do very well financially due to economic/geopolitical changes due to concerns about global climate.
I have no problems with Al Gore the business person making sound investment decisions and preparing to make money off of climate change. I do have problems with those who fail to admit that Al has an obvious business perspective to go with his desire to save the planet.
Also, lets not forget that the bulk of the Gore fortune was passed from daddy Gore to Al via WR Grace and Occidental Petroleum.
Posted by: The Astronomer Royal, Max | Mar 8, 2009 10:32:28 AM
"A fool can question more than a wise person can answer".
Thanks for trying Carla! I think the wisdom of your considered response will clarify for those that have become confused by the enviroganda.
I would add one thought. Peer reviewed literature, being the mode of publishing, is a minimum qualification. It isn't good science if it isn't peer reviewed, in a reputable journal, but if it is, that doesn't mean it's any good. As noted, we have regressed to the point that those that can't cut the standards are forming alternative "scientific" societies, and have their own peer reviewed organs. Now you know how astronomers have felt relative to astrologers our whole lives! Ditto theologians and the faithful.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Mar 8, 2009 10:38:51 AM
It is obvious to the most neutral of observers that Al Gore makes major bank off of Global Warming. Please just admit that Gore has positioned himself to do very well financially due to economic/geopolitical changes due to concerns about global climate.
Kurt: He may very well do that. Gore invests in alternative energy with his money. Again, that's vastly different than being paid by an organization to pimp science that buffets their bottom line.
Posted by: Jiang | Mar 8, 2009 10:57:11 AM
Is there anything about Patrick Michael's view of climate change that might be worth considering?
Not as science. I've said it a million times, I'll say it again. Science is science because theories come with a falsifiability criterion. You state that data that would cause you to accept the null hypothesis. You have a null hypothesis.
Writings about science, with hypotheses that are not falsifiable, are called science fiction. It's entertaining, but it's not science, no matter how good. Arthur C. Clarke, Star Trek, string theory and Patrick Michaels are all science fiction writers. Their ideas are not presented in a falsifiable, testable way, and no null hypothesis is stated.
Like I say, those writings can be entertaining to read. If you choose to believe them, without a null hypothesis, you are engaging in faith and we call that religion. If you want to read science fiction, how about the volumes and volumes that posit a view that humans never change their energy usage patterns without being forced to on pain of death? No, it doesn't pollute your brain to read science fiction. It's like historical fiction. It's fine as long as you know what you're reading. When you believe that Hollywood or James Michener's historical fiction is real, you again have a problem.
That said, asking "what is wrong with listening to Patrick Michael's views" is akin to asking what is wrong with reading historical fiction which postulates that the holocaust never happened, or that the US would be a great, democratic world power, if only we hadn't abolished slavery. Yes, it's historical fiction. Why would you want to spend your time imagining that? Same deal with Michaels.
99% of all economic activity in the US is based on fraud, and 99% of the fraud happens because stupid people want to believe the con is possible, that they can get something for nothing. Instead they get nothing for something. That is the reason that JK, billy, Dickhead and Terry Parker are so grating. They desperately want the situation they describe. Their arguments are always contrived to reach a starting point that supports their a priori conclusion. This has become a staple of American "debate". People that have absolutely no ability to even consider the alternative point of view, presenting their narrow little POV as something they came up with spontaneously. They're no different than those talk radio trolls that have to come on and post the latest word Lars used, regardless of the topic. The sad bit is that they really believe that those are their thoughts. They visit Lincoln Park to enjoy the ocean views. The are the little old Chinese lady feeding the pigeons in the park to get close to nature.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 8, 2009 11:00:09 AM
billy, I responded to you directly. I gave you an example pointing out how you failed to meet my challenge--you supplied fossil fuel funded scientists. And you've provided not a single example
Of a climatologist who denies climate change via human behavior.
Richard, we don't have to supply anything--it's already been done. The consensus of world climatologists is freely available in their published report. It is you who've provided nothing from that world to contradict it. Climate change has been proven; the burden is not on us but on the deniers. And your deniers are non-climatologists funded by fossil interests.
Posted by: Beyond the Palin | Mar 8, 2009 11:09:24 AM
Here's something I don't get about climate change, or whatever I'm supposed to call it today. If an asteroid were confirmed to be on an impact path with the earth, in 2050, do you really think this debate would be any different? Would we have people saying take no action? Bad science? Outright fraud? People continuing to shuck and jive each other instead of pulling together? A call for prayer and trust in God, over the science? A commercial fetish of the phenomenon itself? Some that look forward to the event, and try to cause it? Inaction from progressives, as they try to convince obviously entrenched interests? Labeling "asteroid deniers" a point of view, rather than recognizing it as the end of the species? Unrealistic expectations? Incompetence in the science and more in the govs use of it?
You betcha!
Posted by: Douglas K | Mar 8, 2009 12:16:11 PM
If an asteroid were confirmed to be on an impact path with the earth, in 2050, do you really think this debate would be any different?
Bad example. An asteroid collision would be relatively easy to avoid (shift its orbit the tiniest fraction of a degree while it's still twenty years away), some aerospace companies will make billions doing it, and nobody would need to alter their current behavior or investment patterns in the slightest.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Mar 8, 2009 12:22:16 PM
You deniers just crack me up. You just continue on with your daily postings of Exxon-sponsored websites and pseudo science "data" to bolster your street cred. At least your posts are carbon-neutral.
But in the real world, here is my 5-year plan:
1. traded in the 1995 Ford Explorer two years ago for a BMW 5 Series. Net effect - doubled my gas mileage while unloading bad ride at the auction block (seems I wasn't the only one - the auto auction yard at Janzten Beach was filled with 90% SUV's, Hummers, and mini vans).
2. this year I'm getting a solar water heating system. Net effect - a Portland business gets my money and PGE loses about $50 a month for a solid decade or so.
3. next year I'm trading in the Volvo for an all electric. Net effect - never having to purchase Exxon gas.
4. within 3 years - all solar with the new roof. Again, more Oregon businesses getting my dollars.
And why am I doing this? First, as a general trend, clean-energy costs are falling as the costs of fossil fuel energy are going up. Second, the market is answering the demand for cleaner products and services that use resources efficiently and embrace quality over quantity. And finally, I really don't want to get my "clean" water from a petro-chemical container anymore than I need my car to run on a century old combustion engine technology. Oh, and a clean environment and a few less wars over natural resources doesn't hurt either.
But hey Jimbo, Richard, and the rest of the denier cabal - you just keep doing what you do best - posting links that nobody reads. Because in the end, consumers - both residential and commercial - don't really give a flying monkeys butt.
Posted by: mp97303 | Mar 8, 2009 2:01:05 PM
Carla, Carla, Carla: did you bother to read the last page of the Smoking Gun page? I am guessing not based on this statement "The "Smoking Gun" contract that you linked isn't the $100k speaking fee contract. It's a reimbursement contract for airfare, meals, etc. The site claims that the fee is $100k, but provides no evidence.
I will make it real easy for you here
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Mar 8, 2009 2:12:40 PM
Thanks mp, I'm glad you found that. I didn't notice multiple pages, so I appreciate the catch.
Posted by: mp97303 | Mar 8, 2009 2:20:12 PM
A CHALLENGE TO THE SUPPORTERS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE THEORY
I don't need to list your names, you know who you are. I challenge you to provide a list of names of scientists who have taken the opposite side of this issue (you know, the deniers as you call them) that you find as acceptable sources for debate here on this topic.
The reason for this challenge is simple; we can never move forward with any intelligent discussion if every quoted scientist that disagrees with you is dismissed out-of-hand as a "denier." Here is YOUR opportunity to set the table of this discussion.
Posted by: mp97303 | Mar 8, 2009 2:24:34 PM
Joel Dan Walls
You must have me confused with someone else as I have NEVER stated, on this site or any other, what my view on global warming(climate change) is. My comments are directed ONLY at the nature of the debate and how the "true believers" are trying to end the debate regardless of what new research or evidence may prove.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Richard | Mar 7, 2009 10:37:22 AM
Carla,
It's abundantly obvious by anyone doing a little checking that the critiquing and dismantling of global warming is hardly limited to only some shallow notion that it's a "ginned up yarn by a bunch of people who are only interested in making piles of money by getting us all up in arms".
The extensive scrutiny of the AGW theory has revealed it to be invalid and is indeed now being "ginned up" for a variety or motivations. Massive funding is but one.
The AGW campaign has become indefensible as demonstrated by this recent rare debate where proponents actually showed up and tried to pretend to have a case to make.
.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2200792/posts
St Andrews University: Global Warming Loses Formal Debate (AGW Can't Argue Facts, Must Insult)
"the proponents of the motion had not made a case and they had not addressed any of our arguments. Instead, they had made personal attacks on the opposition speakers, and they had asserted - with no evidence or argument - that the IPCC is right"
As is the case here at BO, AGW proponents are entirely limited to the convenient presumption that global warming is real while pretending to have comprehended the many fatal flaws that invalidate it.
There is no persuading those taking this approach.
Better to highlight the near universal progressive Democrat owning of the global warming crusade.
It's an amazing phenomenon to watch as an entire political class embraces a massive farce and sham.
You're about to embark on crippling our energy system and citizenry's livelihood based upon a need that is completely without merit.
And without a shred of worry.