Monday, December 04, 2006
Political environmentalism's casual disregard for the First Amendment
Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe have decided that the green side of the global warming debate is so indisputable and that the arguments in opposition are so worthless, that people shouldn't hear them at all.
Washington has no shortage of bullies, but even we can't quite believe an October 27 letter that Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe sent to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson. Its message: Start toeing the Senators' line on climate change, or else.
We reprint the full text of the letter here, so readers can see for themselves. But its essential point is that the two Senators believe global warming is a fact, and therefore all debate about the issue must stop and ExxonMobil should "end its dangerous support of the [global warming] 'deniers.' " Not only that, the company "should repudiate its climate change denial campaign and make public its funding history." And in extra penance for being "one of the world's largest carbon emitters," Exxon should spend that money on "global remediation efforts."
The Senators aren't dumb enough to risk an ethics inquiry by threatening specific consequences if Mr. Tillerson declines this offer he can't refuse. But in case the CEO doesn't understand his company's jeopardy, they add that "ExxonMobil and its partners in denial have manufactured controversy, sown doubt, and impeded progress with strategies all-too reminiscent of those used by the tobacco industry for so many years." (Our emphasis.) The Senators also graciously copied the Exxon board on their missive.
Corporations, of course, have all the same First Amendment rights that individuals have. Otherwise, The New York Times Company, Disney, News Corp., Time-Warner and every other mainstream media company would have no right of freedom of the press. This point seems to be lost on Senators Rockefeller and Snowe, who obviously think it is just fine to threaten somebody for expressing an opinion. For all the whining about the allegedly intimidating tactics of the Bush administration, at least the White House was objecting to the publication of facts that were held to be secret under law. This is nothing more than a naked attempt to suppress the expression of opinion, which should be of concern to journalists everywhere. The mainstream media's response to this will reflect whether it acts on principle, or only in accordance with its dominant political narrative.
38 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Mon Dec 04, 09:35:00 AM:
It only in bizarro world that anyone would consider himself conservative while still playing cocktail party games over humanity's future on this planet. Is Global Warming real? This level-headed human says yes. But if you're one of the anti-science gang, I can take all the ranting you've got to give. What I can't abide is folks calling themselves conservative while playing fast and loose with the future, while refusing to actively conserve anything.
Anyway, the letter in question is so polite as to be syrupy. It bows down to E/M's global leadership and the part they play in global opinion. It does not threaten at all. It tries to persuade. Persuasion hurts your first amendment rights to deny Global Warming how?
This is a silly post. You have every right to post it, but anyone who reads the letter will know that it was written in the hopes of persuading E/M to stop lying about Global Warming.
If any corporation is engaged in a lying campaign that directly impacts the ability of this nation to address its biggest threat, then our elected leaders ought to do what they can to persuade the corporation to help spread the truth instead.
Tigerhawk's Global Warming Denial Orcs will soon start dropping out-of-context bits in this comment thread that laugh off the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies of Global Warming. They will be shocked, SHOCKED, that the govt. would express an opinion counter to a multinational corporation. More will be amazed that I would put the threat of Global Warming higher on the threatmeter than the Caliphate Gang.
But you, Hawk? Turning a letter that tells the truth into some sort of attack on First Amendment Rights? It's bizarre. This is an attempt on the part of Senators who are keen to address Global Warming to stop E/M's disinformation campaign.
It's as if having anti-racism public service ads were attacking the KKK's right to hate the black folks.
Silly. And you think of yourself as an environmentalist, Hawk? Republican first, environmentalist second, evidently.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Dec 04, 09:47:00 AM:
First, Screwy, I am worried about carbon output, and have said as much repeatedly.
Second, the letter was not syrupy, it was very harsh -- just to the edge of unlawful threatening, I would say.
Third, Exxon is funding the expression of opinions, not facts. If the case for human agency in climate change is so freakin' great, what is there to be afraid of?
Fourth, I'm hardly partisan in this. One of the two authors is a Republican.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Dec 04, 11:17:00 AM:
So...
1. Me too.
2. Reframe: "it was very harsh, though entirely legal".
Second reframe: "it called a spade a spade and encouraged E/M to stop funding lies."
3. What's to be afraid of is that there is some urgency is solving this problem, and E/M's efforts may slow solutions. The fear is not of the argument, which is baseless and foolish, but of the time wasted in arguing.
4. I officially backpedal. You're right. You have my apologies. I guess it's Corporatist first, Carbon Output Worrier second.
By Final Historian, at
Mon Dec 04, 11:22:00 AM:
"What's to be afraid of is that there is some urgency is solving this problem, and E/M's efforts may slow solutions. The fear is not of the argument, which is baseless and foolish, but of the time wasted in arguing."
You do realize what you are saying here, right?
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Dec 04, 11:38:00 AM:
I guess it's Corporatist first, Carbon Output Worrier second.
Precisely.
By skipsailing, at
Mon Dec 04, 12:04:00 PM:
stuff and nonsense Screwy.
Why is it that the environmentalists can spend money at will to "prove" their points and sue everybody in sight that disagrees with them but Exxon/Mobil can't?
You may not like E/M's POV and that's just too damned bad. I'm tired of listening to chicken little sky is falling bologna from the pseudo scientists in the employ of the "environmentalists".
If you guys had ZERO hired guns I'd understand your point. But given the extensive funding of the watermellons on the left I believe that this is a case of sauce for goose being sauce for the gander.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Mon Dec 04, 12:46:00 PM:
From the letter: "The study will estimate that ExxonMobil has spent more than $19 million since the late 1990s on a strategy of "information laundering," or enabling a small number of professional skeptics working through scientific-sounding organizations to funnel their viewpoints through non-peer-reviewed websites such as Tech Central Station."
If, and I say if, this is true, then I don't see how Exxon is merely funding opinions. It sounds like its funding opinions masked as facts. Another corporation did it's own "scientific research." RJ Reynolds apparently found that smoking wasn't really linked to lung cancer.
Opinions are one thing. Bogus science to protect the bottom line is another. I would like to know how many scientific organizations oil companies are putting money into.
By 
, at
Mon Dec 04, 12:48:00 PM:
Screwy:
First kill all the livestock then cut down all the trees;
Block off all volcanoes;
These have far more influence on global warming than man.
Ridiculous comments. No more ridiculous than Senators writing such a letter or your one sided comments regarding scientific certainty.
The global warming proponenents have shot their wad. They have nothing left with which to scare the populace.
I look forward to the SNL skit having Airport, Titanic, Avalanche, and an Inconvenient Truth together.
The scientific backlash to the main global warming arguments has been building for some time and will continue.
By , at
Mon Dec 04, 12:52:00 PM:
PS:
Maybe the Senators see the writing on the wall. Why else would they so strident.
I would hope some of the real liberals and libertarians would be suitably aghast at this attempt to strike at the heart of free speech.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Dec 04, 01:04:00 PM:
Exxon/Mobil can and does spend money to disseminate disinformation, so it's clear they can do it all they want.
Are we saying that Senators shouldn't disagree with behemoth multinational polluters, or are we saying they shouldn't try to persuade those multinationals to alter behavior?
Debating the existence of Global Warming as a human-influenced phenomenon is so 20th century. I picture those who deny Global Warming as either anti-evolutionist, science haters, or nihilistic corporate whores.
The debate is over. The questions is what we'll do about it now. It seems that asking the E/M's of the world to stop lying doesn't hurt anyone. They can continue lying with no legal repercussions, but it seems sane to ask them to stop and get to work on helping solve the problem.
Government will have to lead. If the private sector were more willing to act responsibly, then government could hang back and hand out Attaboys. Instead, responsible Senators of both major parties are making public their disappointment.
Anyway, Tigerhawk got the Global Warming pseudodebate thread he wanted. Good on ya!
By skipsailing, at
Mon Dec 04, 01:46:00 PM:
My oh my, don't let Lanky Bastard read these words of yours screwy:
I picture those who deny Global Warming as either anti-evolutionist, science haters, or nihilistic corporate whores
As the self appointed comment cop he won't like this at all.
Frankly, I'm looking forward to global warming. I think it will be a good thing.
the question is this: what portion of this climate change is the result of human activity? Next are you willing to stall economies all over the world because YOU think that prosperity is the problem?
Again, its a sauce for the goose issue. There is no reason to believe scientists funded by the watermellons. they are every bit the "whores" as those who work elsewhere.
further, academe has demonstrated that they are not immune to group-think. Just look at the political make up of the tenured dipshits that infest most colleges these days.
I remain unconvinced that what EM is accused of is either illegal or immoral.
Perhaps the real fear among the watermellons is that EM will use their own tactics against them.
By , at
Mon Dec 04, 01:51:00 PM:
Screwy:
There you go again. Using those one dollar words when a dimes worth would do just as well.
"Making public their dissapointment." The simple fact is these two Senatorial ratbags are trying to steamroll free speech.
Screwy, save yourself. Stop eating meat (even though we have to kill off all the animals) and drinking coffee (Even though we have to kill off the plants). They do not agree with you.
Back to the non farm eggs (while we still have chickens) and native gathered, hand threshed, cereals for you (While there any cereals left.)
Better still, rip into the tree bark. We have to get rid of it anyway.
By , at
Mon Dec 04, 01:59:00 PM:
Skipsailing:
The $19 million said to have been spent by EM since the 90s sounds like a lot.
Unfortunately, there is probably no way to estblish how many millions have been granted to global warming proponents in the same timeframe.
By , at
Mon Dec 04, 02:04:00 PM:
"The debate is over."
In science, the debate is NEVER over. New information and new analysis always contributes to the debate. The purpose of science is to continue to study and learn, and be honestly skeptical of results until they are proved by repeated testing.
General Relativity works pretty well in explaining certain aspects of the physical universe, but reading the ideas of physicists in this area indicates that there are still serious problems with it. The process goes on.
I have been following the global warming debate since the mid-70's, and I am still skeptical of just how much is anthropogenic in nature. 5%, 20%, 50%? How much? What is the cost-benefit analysis for changing the world economy to effect a minimal climate change?
We have been in a phase of 'global warming' since the end of the last Ice Age. What causes climate change; Ice ages or global warming? We honestly don't understand all the mechanisms involved, as well as how constant is the solar output.
We can be inundated with such things as "ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere", but there is still no exact correlation of temperature change to this observed phenonemon.
Yes, rising CO2 can cause climate warming, but the atmosphere is dynamic and may compensate to maintain the current climate/temperature equilibrium. There is no lack of government funded "studies" that indicate that "global warming" is taking place, but there is still a lack of rigor in defining exactly what is happening and what will happen, because, quite frankly, the many very intelligent people involved in this work frankly don't know, and should admit as much, if they are honest scientists.
-David
By Enlighten-NewJersey, at
Mon Dec 04, 03:51:00 PM:
Two researchers from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles conclude that “the theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is a myth,” and that it has “proved to be an enduring one."
The scientists "identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere."
The take-home message of Khilyuk and Chilingar’s analysis, as they describe it, is that “any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4-5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls."
What is more, they indicate that “application of these controls will lead to catastrophic economic consequences,” noting that “since its inception in February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost about $50 billion supposedly averting about 0.0005°C of warming by the year 2050,” and that “the Kyoto Protocol is a good example of how to achieve the minimum results with the maximum efforts (and sacrifices)."
This being the case, they conclude that “attempts to alter the occurring global climatic changes have to be abandoned as meaningless and harmful,” and that in their place the “moral and professional obligation of all responsible scientists and politicians is to minimize potential human misery resulting from oncoming global climatic change,” hopefully by more immediate, rational and cost-effective means.
The scientists’ research papers on global warming have been peer-reviewed and published as follows:
Khilyuk, L.F., and G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50, 899–910.
Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2004. Global warming and long-term changes: a progress report. Environmental Geology 46: 970-979
Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2003. Global warming: are we confusing cause and effect? Energy Sources 25: 357-370.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Mon Dec 04, 07:20:00 PM:
If corporations have a right to free speech, then so do Senators.
Their concern is the future of our nation. What's Exxon's concern?
By William, at
Mon Dec 04, 08:33:00 PM:
The trial lawyer conspiracy is more loony than most of the ultra-green theories circulating around. Good job. It's hard to do that. Try concentrating instead on oil corporation BP:
"The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven … but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part.
We in BP have reached that point. "
http://dieoff.org/page106.htm
There are huge vested interests in disproving global warming. Massive corporations whose day to day operations involve spewing enormous quantities of emissions. These corporations not only have huge resources at their disposal, but a bottom line that many have shown themselves willing to keep by any means possible.
Who, misanthropes aside, stands to gain from proving global warming if its not true?
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Dec 04, 08:44:00 PM:
"If corporations have a right to free speech, then so do Senators.
Their concern is the future of our nation. What's Exxon's concern?"
Motivations don't concern me. Threatening someone else because you don't agree with what they say concerns me. And it should concern you, too. All have the right to propogate their opinions. (with certain well known exceptions; like Sedition)
Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Let's pretend that a couple of Senators decided to 'speak out against' global warming/green activists for preaching lies and pseudo-science and threatened them over it. What would your reactions be? Probably decrying fascism and the reactionary and certainly evil policies of scientifically ignorant theocrats in general.
Do you get it yet, Screwie?
By GreenmanTim, at
Mon Dec 04, 09:04:00 PM:
What Screwy, or Davod, or any of the rest of us gets regarding climate change is not likely to change from anything said in this comment thread. So I am not going to make that attempt to sort that out.
Setting aside the arguments for or against addressing global climate change, it should surprise no one that this letter was a calculated political act prompting in turn a chain of equally calculating responses. Someone on the receiving end sent the letter to the (friendly) Wall Street Journal which obligingly printed an editorial as well and caught TH's attention.
We are really reading political tea leaves, here, so consider for a moment why two Senators, one from each party and with environmental credentials, would address a lengthy, public letter of this type to a large energy corporation hostile to the idea that climate change is caused, in part, by the use of its products.
As a political statement, and not just for E/M's eyes, it seems logical that this was meant as a warning shot across the bow not only of one corporation's oil tankers but of other fossil fuel producers that the next session of Congress is fully prepared to issue subpoenas and hold hearings on a different set of issues than those that were the focus of the preceding. Look for a deeper examination of our energy policy and uncomfortable questions about who had access and influence.
Consider also that the Supreme Court is currently considering in Massachusetts vs. EPA whether that federal agency can regulate CO2 emissions or not, and that the timing of this letter is far from coincidental. Should the Court rule in favor of EPA which does not wish to regulate CO2, look for new enabling legislation.
Senators clearly have the same right to correspond with anyone they wish; the implications are obviously different because of the big stick of full subpoena power. It is not the 1st amendment rights of corporations that is at stake but the likelihood that they may be called to account in policy changes and the full glare of the hearing room that has upped the ante here. Mind you, there were similar tactics employed in previous sessions of congress with other groups and on different issues. There is nothing new on that score, just a new set of priorities.
By William, at
Mon Dec 04, 10:06:00 PM:
Dawn, if someone is motivated by greed then they are more likely to spew pseudo science, and anyone who echoes their cries is either corrupt or just stupid. Not evil, fascist, or reactionary; just stupid or greedy.
The senators are saying that not only is E/M wrong, but it is refusing to throw in the towel on a lost position because they stand to gain personally from its continued propagation.
Which means the debate is not about the right to speak, but merely about who is seeking the truth and who is out for personal benefit. And that question, in turn, rests on motivation.
Thus, so far as this issue goes, motivation is all that concerns us.
By , at
Mon Dec 04, 10:22:00 PM:
Greenman and William:
The issue remains the Senators using their positions to stifle speech. They do not want free discussion. It is they who have closed minds.
The Senators have taken the mantle of the scientific community, which, for some time, has villified and ostriced any of its own who dared to put forth a contrary opinion.
It is only in the last few months that scientists of all stripes have started to fight back, not with fists but, facts.
You see. The plain facts are that proponents of the "man is to blame for global warming" meme abused statistics and misread history to reach
their conclusions.
The fightback will continue. I only hope it is not too late.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Tue Dec 05, 02:52:00 AM:
"The fightback will continue. I only hope it is not too late."
That's the beautiful thing about science. Its ultimate truth is independent of popular opinion. From Galileo to Boltzmann, the truth emerges eventually and vindicates the intelligent.
I wouldn't put any bets on refuting global warming, though. Galileo and Boltzmann had data.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Dec 05, 06:57:00 AM:
I wouldn't put any bets on refuting global warming, though. Galileo and Boltzmann had data.
I'd feel better about that if I had not spent my college years in the '70s hearing about the risks of global cooling. It was easy to believe, because there were heaps of snow outside during April (I have pictures!). All those people had Galileo's data too.
I think there are three or four reasons why the American public has not gotten into a twist about climate change, and Exxon has very little to do with it. First, educated Americans spent the seventies eating up "sky is falling" environmental literature, and virtually all of it proved to be wrong. We were much earlier to the party than the Europeans, in fact, who are now holier than thou. We are also more jaded. Second, such warming as there has been has been great for the American northeast, where a huge number of our potential greens live. Winters have been warm, summers have not been particularly hot, and we've had surplus rainfall (I believe) every year since 2001, so it doesn't look like we're going to dry up. Hard to oppose that. Third, the same people who argue about climate change argue against nuclear power -- I know, they come to my door every couple of months with digitally-altered pictures of the ocean up to the rooftops in Asbury Park -- and when you ask them what is supposed to replace all the oil, gas and coal and they say "conservation, wind and solar." Nobody with two brain cells to rub together believes that, so why should we believe them on the ocean lapping the rooftops of Asbury Park, either?
I'm not saying climate change science is wrong -- it could be that finally a prediction of global catastrophe will come true. I think the problem is that many of the people who argue for solutions give off the vibe that they also don't like high energy, mass production, consumer-driven, automobile-driving post-industrial society. And I, like many Americans, would very much like to retain that. So I'm all for replacing every coal-fired plant in the country with a nuke over the next thirty years and imposing a carbon tax (as I have encouraged for previously here), but I'm not sold on going back to 1930s living standards. Which is where the activists quite obviously want to send us.
The first thing the serious climate change scientists need to do is separate the description from the lefty prescription. The problem is, the left won't let them do that, so they lose badly at the ballot box. Even in Europe.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Tue Dec 05, 09:23:00 AM:
..."so why should we believe them on the ocean lapping the rooftops of Asbury Park, either?"
You shouldn't. But don't paint the majority of the global warming believers in a tree-hugging naive stereotype. That's wrong. Many are regular people who read studies, stories and see the changes in our local climate and it worries us. I personally don't like "staying the course" and waiting to see what happens. If humans are even remotely responsible, wouldn't it be in our interest to do what we can to at least minimize our influence? I'm not thinking massive lifestyle change. I'm thinking sticking actual money in altrnative feuls. Rewarding conservation. Promoting green buldings (which have been proven to save money). I think turning techonology toward conservation would create an enormous industry. You use less resources. You save money.
What worries me is the outright denial that humans could have anything to do with global warming. The belief that our present course is perfectly fine, and that massive consumption without renewal or conservation has no consequences.
Regardless of global warming, I believe starting immediately to create new technologies that will help maintain our lifestyles without stripping the world or polluting it is key to our survival. If we wait, our lifestyle or our lives is going to have to give.
By skipsailing, at
Tue Dec 05, 09:57:00 AM:
so catchy, why don't you just go and build this new technology yourself?
What's holding ya back?
By , at
Tue Dec 05, 10:13:00 AM:
ASHRAE is working on codes and guidelines for 'green buildings'. I have not problem with that, it's a good idea.
Every day or so I get e-mails describing benchscale methods of making usable fuels from biomass. That's a great idea.
But, the point of TH's post was about free speech, for thee and me and frankly, E/M. You may not like Exxon-Mobil, but they supply a goodly percentage of refined petroleum (gasoline) to the US, and so try to conduct your life when there is a shortage of gas or it is +$5. Are they the culprits, or is it us, the average American, who pursues the 'high hydrocarbon' economy. I see the end game as just another means of finding a corporation with deep pockets to be looted by the government without a vote.
I interact with people from a very large tobacco company, with which all would recognize it's name. I have been told that their business is "just fine", as they pass through all the tobacco settelment awards to their product. This is frankly a regressive tax, that has been levied by...trial lawyers, not a legislature or any other people's representative. Regardless of how you might personally feel about cigarette smoking (my father died of lung cancer), is this right? Is this a pattern to be repeated?
We can either proceed as rational human beings and truly analyze the nature, risks and solutions to global warming, or we can allow the worst aspects of our litigious society to manhandle the public forum and create a truly twisted solution.
-David
By , at
Tue Dec 05, 10:43:00 AM:
So, many posters here, like the msm desires, espouse the global-think consensus which is the anarchy of lies.
I believe Islam will solve all our global weather concerns in one afternoon of nuclear jihad. Then who will the tree huggers attack? btw, I love trees........
By GreenmanTim, at
Tue Dec 05, 10:43:00 AM:
"The first thing the serious climate change scientists need to do is separate the description from the lefty prescription. The problem is, the left won't let them do that, so they lose badly at the ballot box."
TH, I wonder if this is an accurate statement as far as last month's congressional elections are concerned. To give just two examples:
A recent Zogby poll indicates that a majority of hunters and fishermen believe that global warming is negatively impacting the environment. This group favored by about 2/3 "a presidential candidate who supports strong laws and immediate action to address global warming. 75% agreed that "Congress should pass legislation that sets a clear national goal for reducing global warming pollution with mandatory timelines because industry has already had enough time to clean up voluntarily."
Respondents were overwhelmingly male, voted for president Bush by 2-1 margin in 2004, and 1/2 identified themselves as evangelical Christians. Hooks and Bullets are not your average bleeding heart lefty conservationist constituency. How do you explain it?
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060607_hunter_poll.html
Another Zogby poll of registered voters found an overwhelming majority of Democrats (87%)and Independents (82%)and 56% of Republicans are more convinced today that global climate change is happening than they were two years ago.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060823_poll_katrina.html
Which still leaves open the question of what to do about it, and as you rightly point out, there are serious disagreements among reasonable people as to the right approach. But from where I am sitting, the lefty solutions - even if misplaced - do not appear to have hurt public perception of the need for a meaningful response - as measured by polls and at the ballot box - to the degree you suggest.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Dec 05, 11:39:00 AM:
"I'm not sold on going back to 1930s living standards. Which is where the activists quite obviously want to send us."
Huh? I've never met one of these Woody Guthrie Environmentalists, Hawk.
Solar, wind, biofuels... wise use of these and other sustainable options could keep you in your Hummer, overeating and overconsuming, until Dawnfire's jihadists come nuke your baby.
My friend and I came up with a new slogan for the environmental movement:
Live Simply, So the Simple Can Live It Up.
By , at
Tue Dec 05, 05:30:00 PM:
By Fabio, at
Tue Dec 05, 05:52:00 PM:
Screwy,
Renewable energy sources still have to overcome serious technological challenges and huge scale problem before they can substitute any tangible amount of fossil fuels. I don't necessarily like this situation, but it's the reality.
In my opinion, nuclear energy is the only viable solution to produce the bulk of electricity. Locally, production can and should be integrated by renewable sources - solar in the SW USA; biomass where local conditions are suitable, for example. Large scale production of fuels from renewables is problematic without some real breaktrough in water electrolysis or photocracking. I think that a better use for plastic and rubber waste would be gasification and use as chemical feedstock.
But for everyone, I suggest the installation of solar panels for water heating. They will work at least 6 months a year even in the coldest regions, and quickly produce tangible savings.
By William, at
Tue Dec 05, 09:19:00 PM:
I'd like to reiterate an addition to Greenman's list of Global Warming 'believers': British Petroleum.
They believe that it's happening, and they've come to the conclusion that it makes economic sense to heed to reality. Not only do environmental measures usually make business more efficient and sustainable, they also have great pr effects, all of which BP is taking into account.
That is the kind of environmentalism I, and I believe most other GW believers here, are promoting. Not 'back to the stone age' thinking but rather the type that makes not only environmental but economic and strategic sense: economic because its more efficient and sustainable over the long term, and strategic because it lessens our dependency on foreign resources such as oil.
So build nuclear plants, implement a carbon tax, subsidize alternatives: all great solutions. Yet all fundamentally hindered if many continue to deny that there even is a problem to begin with.
So if some senators ask E/M, which is obviously propagating its views for personal benefit, to shut up, I'm fine with that. E/M is allowed their opinions, and the senators theirs.
There is a greater good here, and smearing that greater good with extrapolations of suspended first amendment rights is allowing a possibility to trump a reality.
By Admin, at
Tue Dec 05, 10:21:00 PM:
By , at
Tue Dec 05, 11:35:00 PM:
Leave it to the eco-nazis under the green swastika and the cheif eco-storm troopers under that UN and JAY ROCKIFELLER and his cohorts
By GreenmanTim, at
Wed Dec 06, 07:42:00 AM:
Bird Man! I wondered how long it would take you to hop on board this thread with your own special brand of commentary. I had no idea the goose-stepping thugs of the dread New World Order were lead by conservationists. It kind of erodes your over the top Nazi analogy, though, that the hoards of eco-fascist jack boots stomping all over your American dream would probably be birkenstocks.
Thanks for commenting, though. Always makes me smile.
By cuznate, at
Wed Dec 06, 11:46:00 AM:
speaking as a environmentalist, global warming believer, and as someone with some level scientific background in the environmental sciences field...there is a problem with interest group funding of scientific research, because it corrupts the goal of a scientific study in that people try to get to a certain outcome. but as many people have said, that's not exclusive to the anti-warming theory people, that's pretty much across all of science at this point (or at least, in those areas where there is significant public or business interest). there should always be scientific debate, if there's not, then there's something wrong. scientific debate doesn't mean there isn't some level of general consensus about an issue, but that's not for scientists to work out, that's for the public and policy makers. so if e/m wants to fund anti-warming science as a part of a pr effort they feel is in their business interests, so be it. i don't like it, but it's certainly their right. it's up to folks like me who believe in global warming and want to see change to fight for those changes and to try and be more convincing that my opponents, not whine about the fact that i have opponents. the second we start trying to censor science, even if some of it seems wildly biased to us, we destroy the overall validity of scientific debate.
secondly, as a constituent of ms. snowe, it galls me that she spends the time writing a letter to e/m instead of working to further legislation that would actually help (again, that would help in my mind, as one of her constituents). as usual, she's doing things that let her pretend to be responsive to the large portion of maine voters who are environmentally oriented instead of actually doing anything productive. i mean, really, her best move is to write to a company and try and get them to help bolster u.s. eco-policy? did i miss the part where the senate no longer has leverage to determine environmental policy? writing a letter is a pr boon though - 'look at me, i'm tough on corporate polluters, i wrote a letter' - and pushing actual policy changes requires actual work.
By William, at
Wed Dec 06, 04:44:00 PM:
Cuznate, as you said, interest group scientific research is biased, and you do not like people such as E/M who continue to propagate such biased studies as fact. So what's wrong with the senators telling them as much?
Its not like a senator has to choose between writing letters and legislation, so thats an unfair comparison, and let not the perfect kill the good: yes, legislation is preferable, but saying the right thing is a good place to start.
By , at
Fri Dec 08, 10:39:00 AM:
Wealthy socialists like JAY ROCKIFELLER and AL GORE can do this from their own airconditioned offices when GLOBAL WARMING has yet been proven and the U.S. SENATE did,nt ratifi the KYOTO TREATY and therefore we should just dump it into the paper shredder
