catastrophist or concorpiaist?

[Said1]

Prophets, False Prophets and Profiteers

Paul Driessen,

December 15, 2004

Some 10,000 delegates, scientists, activists, politicians and journalists have convened in Argentina for the COP-10 confab on “solutions” to the theoretical problem of “dangerous” and “catastrophic” global climate change. Months of hype and consternation preceded the event, to pressure the United States and Australia into ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

“The Day After Tomorrow” and interminable activist group press releases provided appropriate horror movie scenarios. A hearing chaired by Senator John McCain promoted his prophecy that a climate Armageddon is near--and his legislative palliative.

A new report warned that North Pole temperatures are rising. Science magazine asserted that not one of 928 studies supported the position that climate change is naturally occurring.

UK science advisor Sir David King said global warming is a greater threat than terrorism, and greenhouse emissions will have to be cut by 80 percent by 2050 to avoid massive coastal flooding due to melting Greenland ice sheets. European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy hinted that the EU would give preferential access to its markets for poor countries that accept Kyoto.

The hysteria and caterwauling swamped essential facts.

Actual satellite and weather balloon data--as well as historic and geologic records of numerous warming and cooling cycles – contradict computer models, theories and assertions that humans are causing disastrous weather events and climate shifts. Arctic temperatures were even higher in the 1930s, before cooling again for several decades. Science’s editors didn’t mention countless studies that analyze natural warming and cooling cycles – or the fact that 18,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they see “no convincing scientific evidence” that humans are disrupting the earth’s climate.

All the countries in the world together are responsible for less than 3 percent of the Earth’s total greenhouse gas emissions (the rest are natural), and the U.S. emits only 1/5 of this. The Kyoto treaty would force the U.S. to slash emissions and fossil fuel use by some 25 percent over the next decade – an impossible task that would cost millions of jobs and over $300 billion annually, according to government and other studies.

Even perfect compliance with Kyoto would keep average global temperatures from rising only 0.3 degrees less than they would by 2050 in the absence of a climate treaty. Actually stabilizing greenhouse gases and temperatures would require 19 to 40 “successful climate treaties” – causing ruinous social and economic impacts, and diverting resources from solvable problems like AIDS, malaria, poverty and poor sanitation.

What then energizes all these false prophets of doom and their demands for immediate drastic action? Simply put, profits and power.

Just the 12 largest environmental lobby groups in the U.S. had a combined budget of $2 billion in 2003. Collectively, the global environmental movement has a war chest of up to $8-billion a year. That buys a lot of influence, but apparently it’s never enough. As National Audubon Society chief operating officer Dan Beard has admitted, “What you get in your mailbox is a never-ending stream of crisis-related shrill material designed to evoke emotions, so that you will sit down and write a check.”

Link

 

[rtwngAvngr]

http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf

Check out this pdf I found in an environmentalist friend of mine's blog.
Here is the comment I put in his blog regarding the pdf:

This pdf suggests that the environmental cause be conflated with other social issues, in a deceptive manner. And when the New Appollonian convert is cornered on what he/she actually wants, the new charge of "policy literalism" is to be invoked against the neocon aggressor. (What a red state "policy literalist" you are. sneer.)
Environmentalists should not be shocked when called socialists, especially when their new cry to arms is a call to align with labor movement above all others, even when short term environmental improvement is not apparent. The author never did explain how anti growth policy creates millions of jobs. He sort of touched on it when discussing japan and cars, seemed to suggest tax cuts for r&d, then went right to aligning with labor. I got lost.
All in all, a call to do more of what people already hate about environmentalists: getting on a moral high horse and acting like little commies.

 

[Said1]

http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf

Check out this pdf I found in an environmentalist friend of mine's blog.
Here is the comment I put in his blog regarding the pdf:

He made some so, so points, but his emphasis on environmental groups taking a large part of their focus away from technology is not practical. If the technology isn't there, the reductions won't happen, regardless of where they like to place the blame for global warming.

I didn't really get the labor connection either, I stopped reading after it became apparent he wasn't going anywhere with it. WTF does Japan having socialized healthcare, have to do with anything?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

He made some so, so points, but his emphasis on environmental groups taking a large part of their focus away from technology is not practical. If the technology isn't there, the reductions won't happen, regardless of where they like to place the blame for global warming.

I didn't really get the labor connection either, I stopped reading after it became apparent he wasn't going anywhere with it. WTF does Japan having socialized healthcare, have to do with anything?

Oh this.

He doesn't go anywhere. And if you go to the new apollo project and look at principle 4 you will see that their "jobs" plan is to use the powere of government to stop outsourcing. Quite a dishonest and moronic lot.

 

[Said1]

And if you go to the new apollo project and look at principle 4 you will see that their "jobs" plan is to use the powere of government to stop outsourcing. Quite a dishonest and moronic lot.

I think they should target North American ESL teachers overseas if they really want to get to the "root" of the problem.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think they should target North American ESL teachers overseas if they really want to get to the "root" of the problem.

I'm stupid, what are ESL teachers?

 

[freeandfun1]

I'm stupid, what are ESL teachers?

English as a Second Language