Democrats Fear Global Warming Skeptic

[seaninomaha]

Cold periods help with population control and places human civilization in extremes

So, you admit a cooler, browner, yellower earth is preferred? Sort of belies the "green" nametag and marketing, doesn't it.

To start I am not a global warming nut. My view is fully an anthropological view and the conditions a cold or warm earth would bring. Climate change will not kill humans. It will be one of the secondary conditions that make us miserable. I am a great fan of population control as it will also slow the impact we humans have on the environment and the damage we continue to do to ourselves. -sean

 

[Sinatra]

Cold periods help with population control and places human civilization in extremes

So, you admit a cooler, browner, yellower earth is preferred? Sort of belies the "green" nametag and marketing, doesn't it.

To start I am not a global warming nut. My view is fully an anthropological view and the conditions a cold or warm earth would bring. Climate change will not kill humans. It will be one of the secondary conditions that make us miserable. I am a great fan of population control as it will also slow the impact we humans have on the environment and the damage we continue to do to ourselves. -sean

Why do environmentalists insist humans are not part of the environment?

You do realize the Western Europe's population is actually in decline, and the United States rate of growth is slower as well? And what growth there is is directly attributable to increased life span?

The greatest growth rates in the world are among the emerging nations - India, China, Indonesia, etc.

I would assume that your line of logic indicates the hope for further natural disasters such as flood, famine, disease, earthquakes, etc., to help reduce the populations of these areas?

But let's take it a step further...the fact is, in our own country, there are millions who are supported by the tax contributions of the contributors. We have the ages, the feeble minded, to say nothing of the large numbers who simply choose to stay on the dole and not fully utilize the opportunities offered them. Perhaps we should eliminate these non-contributors as well. Forced sterilization perhaps?

Of course, this would eliminate a large portion of the Democrat voting base...perhaps you would consider that an added bonus though?

Your contributions have given us much to ponder...

 

[Chris]

Good Job Care. If you had bothered to look at the article you were provided access to you would have discovered that it isn't Monckton with whom Gore disagrees but damn near every climate scientist on earth, and the IPCC report. A 20 ft wall of water inundating land if the glaciers melt which a good many of them aren't? Sorry IPCC stataes not more than 2 feet and that is an absolute worst case scenario that no one believes likely to happen. 600PPM CO2 by 2050. No one things that will happen either. The Sahara has been shrinking not expanding for the last 25 years. Antartic ice melting? On one peninsula. The peninsula in question is roughly 1/55th the size of Texas and represents well less than 10% of the entire ice mass where in fact the ice is at its largest size since we began measuring in 2007.

By the way warm periods usually cause far fewer problems for human beings in general than cold ones.

I have long argued with the global warmers about this.

If the earth actually warms a degree or two in the 21st century, that would overall be of benefit to humanity, not harmful to it. Unfortunately, a growing number are saying we could be in for a 10-30 year cooling trend.

Link?

 

[Chris]

Al Gore isn't the issue.

The issue is that pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere caused the earth to warm.

CO2 is not political. It's effects are well known and cannot be denied.

"Denied" like holocaust deniers? Or just flat proven WRONG because it's a lie. There's a difference. Holocaust deniers are liars, scientists like Monckton and thousands of others are not. You say it's not political, but clearly it has been made so.

What say you about what happens if the environazis reach their stated goal, and greenhouse gases especially the very minor one, CO2, are greatly reduced and the earth turns brown not green? Scientists know the greenhouse effect is essential for life on the planet. CO2 is life-giving gas for plant life. Why do environazis such as yourself hate plants?

You're pushing this science fiction, trolling these threads and posting without reading, mindlessly repeating the same mantra over and over, and it's dishonest because you actually do know better. Probably. It's possible you're simply really really stupid however.

Insults and BS are all you have. Stupid? Environazis?

CO2 causes the earth to warm, and we are pumping billions of tons of it into the air every year.

What part of that statement do you disagree with?

 

[seaninomaha]

So, you admit a cooler, browner, yellower earth is preferred? Sort of belies the "green" nametag and marketing, doesn't it.

To start I am not a global warming nut. My view is fully an anthropological view and the conditions a cold or warm earth would bring. Climate change will not kill humans. It will be one of the secondary conditions that make us miserable. I am a great fan of population control as it will also slow the impact we humans have on the environment and the damage we continue to do to ourselves. -sean

Why do environmentalists insist humans are not part of the environment?

You do realize the Western Europe's population is actually in decline, and the United States rate of growth is slower as well? And what growth there is is directly attributable to increased life span?

The greatest growth rates in the world are among the emerging nations - India, China, Indonesia, etc.

I would assume that your line of logic indicates the hope for further natural disasters such as flood, famine, disease, earthquakes, etc., to help reduce the populations of these areas?

But let's take it a step further...the fact is, in our own country, there are millions who are supported by the tax contributions of the contributors. We have the ages, the feeble minded, to say nothing of the large numbers who simply choose to stay on the dole and not fully utilize the opportunities offered them. Perhaps we should eliminate these non-contributors as well. Forced sterilization perhaps?

Of course, this would eliminate a large portion of the Democrat voting base...perhaps you would consider that an added bonus though?

Your contributions have given us much to ponder...

Envrionmentalism is not a bad thing. But I am not an environmentalist. Nor am I a Democrat. My views on most things lie in the realm of more Republican belief. I am however an Independant but not affiliated with any Independant Party. I voted Republican in the last 5 Presidential elections. My views though on Humanity differ from any political point of view. I am a student of Human history and how the climate has affected us in the past and brought us to where we are today. I am not a person who believes man is directly causing climate change, but because we have a symbiotic relationship with the planet, we do add some to the overall equation. I believe the politics used on both sides of the environmental argument are wrong and will in the future cause humans to suffer needlessly. I am not a political expert but I realize that both sides are really only interested in the bottom line but both just use different methods to get to that point. There must be a middle ground reached sooner than later. -Sean

 

[Sinatra]

To start I am not a global warming nut. My view is fully an anthropological view and the conditions a cold or warm earth would bring. Climate change will not kill humans. It will be one of the secondary conditions that make us miserable. I am a great fan of population control as it will also slow the impact we humans have on the environment and the damage we continue to do to ourselves. -sean

Why do environmentalists insist humans are not part of the environment?

You do realize the Western Europe's population is actually in decline, and the United States rate of growth is slower as well? And what growth there is is directly attributable to increased life span?

The greatest growth rates in the world are among the emerging nations - India, China, Indonesia, etc.

I would assume that your line of logic indicates the hope for further natural disasters such as flood, famine, disease, earthquakes, etc., to help reduce the populations of these areas?

But let's take it a step further...the fact is, in our own country, there are millions who are supported by the tax contributions of the contributors. We have the ages, the feeble minded, to say nothing of the large numbers who simply choose to stay on the dole and not fully utilize the opportunities offered them. Perhaps we should eliminate these non-contributors as well. Forced sterilization perhaps?

Of course, this would eliminate a large portion of the Democrat voting base...perhaps you would consider that an added bonus though?

Your contributions have given us much to ponder...

Envrionmentalism is not a bad thing. But I am not an environmentalist. Nor am I a Democrat. My views on most things lie in the realm of more Republican belief. I am however an Independant but not affiliated with any Independant Party. I voted Republican in the last 5 Presidential elections. My views though on Humanity differ from any political point of view. I am a student of Human history and how the climate has affected us in the past and brought us to where we are today. I am not a person who believes man is directly causing climate change, but because we have a symbiotic relationship with the planet, we do add some to the overall equation. I believe the politics used on both sides of the environmental argument are wrong and will in the future cause humans to suffer needlessly. I am not a political expert but I realize that both sides are really only interested in the bottom line but both just use different methods to get to that point. There must be a middle ground reached sooner than later. -Sean

Hmmmm.

So you do want a smaller population, or not?

 

[seaninomaha]

Why do environmentalists insist humans are not part of the environment?

You do realize the Western Europe's population is actually in decline, and the United States rate of growth is slower as well? And what growth there is is directly attributable to increased life span?

The greatest growth rates in the world are among the emerging nations - India, China, Indonesia, etc.

I would assume that your line of logic indicates the hope for further natural disasters such as flood, famine, disease, earthquakes, etc., to help reduce the populations of these areas?

But let's take it a step further...the fact is, in our own country, there are millions who are supported by the tax contributions of the contributors. We have the ages, the feeble minded, to say nothing of the large numbers who simply choose to stay on the dole and not fully utilize the opportunities offered them. Perhaps we should eliminate these non-contributors as well. Forced sterilization perhaps?

Of course, this would eliminate a large portion of the Democrat voting base...perhaps you would consider that an added bonus though?

Your contributions have given us much to ponder...

Envrionmentalism is not a bad thing. But I am not an environmentalist. Nor am I a Democrat. My views on most things lie in the realm of more Republican belief. I am however an Independant but not affiliated with any Independant Party. I voted Republican in the last 5 Presidential elections. My views though on Humanity differ from any political point of view. I am a student of Human history and how the climate has affected us in the past and brought us to where we are today. I am not a person who believes man is directly causing climate change, but because we have a symbiotic relationship with the planet, we do add some to the overall equation. I believe the politics used on both sides of the environmental argument are wrong and will in the future cause humans to suffer needlessly. I am not a political expert but I realize that both sides are really only interested in the bottom line but both just use different methods to get to that point. There must be a middle ground reached sooner than later. -Sean

Hmmmm.

So you do want a smaller population, or not?

Yes.

I believe that will work itself out. The reason for this is human sustainability and the increase in disease transfer. The more humans we have the more arable land needed to sustain a population. In the USA when we build new housing we build mostly on cheaper already cleared land which is usually farmland. Once you remove the farmland out of production it reduces the amount we can produce to feed for the increased mouths to feed.

Even if population growth is slowing, it is still increasing each year. As humans live longer it increases the stresses on humanity because we increase the amount of food and water needed for the population. If you look at the 6 billion plus on the planet now we do not have enough food reaching everyone. The amount of clean water is inadequate for the population now. Even with slowing growth, the population increases are putting a stress on our planet that we may not realize until it is too late. I am not looking at today either but for the future of the planet long after I am gone. -Sean

 

[Sinatra]

Envrionmentalism is not a bad thing. But I am not an environmentalist. Nor am I a Democrat. My views on most things lie in the realm of more Republican belief. I am however an Independant but not affiliated with any Independant Party. I voted Republican in the last 5 Presidential elections. My views though on Humanity differ from any political point of view. I am a student of Human history and how the climate has affected us in the past and brought us to where we are today. I am not a person who believes man is directly causing climate change, but because we have a symbiotic relationship with the planet, we do add some to the overall equation. I believe the politics used on both sides of the environmental argument are wrong and will in the future cause humans to suffer needlessly. I am not a political expert but I realize that both sides are really only interested in the bottom line but both just use different methods to get to that point. There must be a middle ground reached sooner than later. -Sean

Hmmmm.

So you do want a smaller population, or not?

Yes.

I believe that will work itself out. The reason for this is human sustainability and the increase in disease transfer. The more humans we have the more arable land needed to sustain a population. In the USA when we build new housing we build mostly on cheaper already cleared land which is usually farmland. Once you remove the farmland out of production it reduces the amount we can produce to feed for the increased mouths to feed.

Even if population growth is slowing, it is still increasing each year. As humans live longer it increases the stresses on humanity because we increase the amount of food and water needed for the population. If you look at the 6 billion plus on the planet now we do not have enough food reaching everyone. The amount of clean water is inadequate for the population now. Even with slowing growth, the population increases are putting a stress on our planet that we may not realize until it is too late. I am not looking at today either but for the future of the planet long after I am gone. -Sean

We actually have more than enough food production to feed everyone - but so much is wasted.

I see where you're coming from though...

 

[Bfgrn]

Good Job Care. If you had bothered to look at the article you were provided access to you would have discovered that it isn't Monckton with whom Gore disagrees but damn near every climate scientist on earth, and the IPCC report. A 20 ft wall of water inundating land if the glaciers melt which a good many of them aren't? Sorry IPCC stataes not more than 2 feet and that is an absolute worst case scenario that no one believes likely to happen. 600PPM CO2 by 2050. No one things that will happen either. The Sahara has been shrinking not expanding for the last 25 years. Antartic ice melting? On one peninsula. The peninsula in question is roughly 1/55th the size of Texas and represents well less than 10% of the entire ice mass where in fact the ice is at its largest size since we began measuring in 2007.

By the way warm periods usually cause far fewer problems for human beings in general than cold ones.

I have long argued with the global warmers about this.

If the earth actually warms a degree or two in the 21st century, that would overall be of benefit to humanity, not harmful to it. Unfortunately, a growing number are saying we could be in for a 10-30 year cooling trend.

Link?

Here's where the pea brains get their information...


Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP s stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.

Spin: Moreover, climate change won t be bad for us anyway. Action on climate change is not warranted because of shaky science and flawed policy approaches.

Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church, including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine.

Affiliated Individuals:S. Fred Singer,Frederick Seitz


Greening Earth Society

The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.


Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have.

Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick, Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso

Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility company members.


Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

The Center claims to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's good.

Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association).

Affiliated Individuals: Craig Idso, Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer

UPDATE:

The Union of Concerned Scientists report, Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change, details how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science. See the report for a list of these organizations.

Global Warming Skeptic Organizations | Union of Concerned Scientists


The PEA brain climate change deniers mantra...

THIS is WHO funds the experts we should trust ...

And...THESE are the experts we should listen to ...

 

[seaninomaha]

Hmmmm.

So you do want a smaller population, or not?

Yes.

I believe that will work itself out. The reason for this is human sustainability and the increase in disease transfer. The more humans we have the more arable land needed to sustain a population. In the USA when we build new housing we build mostly on cheaper already cleared land which is usually farmland. Once you remove the farmland out of production it reduces the amount we can produce to feed for the increased mouths to feed.

Even if population growth is slowing, it is still increasing each year. As humans live longer it increases the stresses on humanity because we increase the amount of food and water needed for the population. If you look at the 6 billion plus on the planet now we do not have enough food reaching everyone. The amount of clean water is inadequate for the population now. Even with slowing growth, the population increases are putting a stress on our planet that we may not realize until it is too late. I am not looking at today either but for the future of the planet long after I am gone. -Sean

We actually have more than enough food production to feed everyone - but so much is wasted.

I see where you're coming from though...

In the US we have an abundance of food. When you look at countries like India, China, and many African Nations, they are the ones who either produce just enough or nowhere near enough to feed their people. These are also the countries who have the most people and the least amount of true arable land. If an extreme drought ever hits these countries it will put a major stress on the world food production along with regional instability. These also are countries who have the least amount of quality fresh water which also will add to stresses in the world. -sean

 

[Sinatra]

Yes.

I believe that will work itself out. The reason for this is human sustainability and the increase in disease transfer. The more humans we have the more arable land needed to sustain a population. In the USA when we build new housing we build mostly on cheaper already cleared land which is usually farmland. Once you remove the farmland out of production it reduces the amount we can produce to feed for the increased mouths to feed.

Even if population growth is slowing, it is still increasing each year. As humans live longer it increases the stresses on humanity because we increase the amount of food and water needed for the population. If you look at the 6 billion plus on the planet now we do not have enough food reaching everyone. The amount of clean water is inadequate for the population now. Even with slowing growth, the population increases are putting a stress on our planet that we may not realize until it is too late. I am not looking at today either but for the future of the planet long after I am gone. -Sean

We actually have more than enough food production to feed everyone - but so much is wasted.

I see where you're coming from though...

In the US we have an abundance of food. When you look at countries like India, China, and many African Nations, they are the ones who either produce just enough or nowhere near enough to feed their people. These are also the countries who have the most people and the least amount of true arable land. If an extreme drought ever hits these countries it will put a major stress on the world food production along with regional instability. These also are countries who have the least amount of quality fresh water which also will add to stresses in the world. -sean

Correct - net world production of food is more than enough to feed all human beings - it is more a matter of getting the food to certain parts of the world - often governments dominated by corrupt thugs prevents this from happening.

Food production is not the issue - government is.

 

[JohnStOnge]

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."

From Argumentum Ad Hominem

Here is a classic example:

Here's where the pea brains get their information...


Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP s stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.

Spin: Moreover, climate change won t be bad for us anyway. Action on climate change is not warranted because of shaky science and flawed policy approaches.

Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church, including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine.

Affiliated Individuals:S. Fred Singer,Frederick Seitz


Greening Earth Society

The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.


Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have.

Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick, Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso

Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility company members.


Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

The Center claims to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's good.

Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association).

Affiliated Individuals: Craig Idso, Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer

UPDATE:

The Union of Concerned Scientists report, Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change, details how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science. See the report for a list of these organizations.

Global Warming Skeptic Organizations | Union of Concerned Scientists


The PEA brain climate change deniers mantra...

THIS is WHO funds the experts we should trust ...

And...THESE are the experts we should listen to ...

 

[Chris]

I have long argued with the global warmers about this.

If the earth actually warms a degree or two in the 21st century, that would overall be of benefit to humanity, not harmful to it. Unfortunately, a growing number are saying we could be in for a 10-30 year cooling trend.

Link?

Here's where the pea brains get their information...


Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP s stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.

Spin: Moreover, climate change won t be bad for us anyway. Action on climate change is not warranted because of shaky science and flawed policy approaches.

Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church, including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine.

Affiliated Individuals:S. Fred Singer,Frederick Seitz


Greening Earth Society

The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.


Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have.

Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick, Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso

Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility company members.


Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

The Center claims to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's good.

Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association).

Affiliated Individuals: Craig Idso, Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer

UPDATE:

The Union of Concerned Scientists report, Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change, details how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science. See the report for a list of these organizations.

Global Warming Skeptic Organizations | Union of Concerned Scientists


The PEA brain climate change deniers mantra...

THIS is WHO funds the experts we should trust ...

And...THESE are the experts we should listen to ...

Great post.

 

[Bfgrn]

Argumentum ad Hominem...

I am impressed...those are big words for a pea brain, John, BUT I did back it up with substance...

 

[Old Rocks]

Argumentum ad Hominem...

I am impressed...those are big words for a pea brain, John, BUT I did back it up with substance...

Well, yes, you did. And are you ever in trouble

 

[KittenKoder]

This is who owns all the companies now funding the scientists that the environuts say are the only "credible" ones.

 

[Zoom-boing]

This is interesting. The Goracle's concern with government mandates (such as cap and trade) are purely for the good of mother earth . . . . or are they?

Al Gore set to profit from sustainable and 'green' technologies

But without government action on climate change, some business analysts say green companies backed by KPCB are either unlikely to be profitable or that their growth will be slow.

To Gore's critics, his financial stake in businesses that could profit from government policies designed to fight global warming demonstrates a motivation other than a selfless desire to protect the planet.

Gore has lobbied Congress and state governments to enact bolder environmental regulations. Gore's defenders counter that he and his partners are simply looking at companies that will have long-term sustainability during the "climate crisis."

"There are a bunch of folks that stand to make real money, who have invested a lot in companies that are not worth real money until the agenda that this ad campaign is advocating is achieved," Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-enterprise think tank, said in an interview.

Companies in the KPCB portfolio, as start-up companies, might be in greater need of a helping hand from government policy changes, but the larger, more established firms in the GIM portfolio also could benefit if the government manipulates the current market by mandating alternative fuels or imposing a cap and trade system.

As a private citizen, Gore is not required to publicly disclose how much of his personal fortune is invested in the venture capital firm. KPCB spokeswoman Brianna Woon declined to say how much Gore had invested in the firms, and she said the firms couldn't comment at this time on whether the greentech companies can succeed without government action.

Lack of government action could delay profits, but the free market is nonetheless moving toward clean energy on its own, said Gary Patterson, an analyst with the Fiscal Doctor Inc., of Wellesley, Mass. He predicts a good return for the venture capital firm's green investments.

"It would be very helpful if you have government initiative. Without it, it will take longer for these to be economically viable," Patterson told Cybercast News Service
However, Bert Ely, a financial analyst with Ely & Associates of Alexandria, Va., is skeptical that the kind of green investment portfolio Gore is advocating can be profitable without government action. History has shown green companies to be risky ventures, he says

"Wind power, solar and bio-fuels all operate on tax subsidies or purchase requirements," Ely told Cybercast News Service. "The government stimulates demand. The most notorious subsidy is the 51 cent gas credit for ethanol."

"To the extent that you got some kind of government mandate here, whether it is cap-and-trade or a purchasing requirement, a taxpayer subsidy, to me that's a dicey way to look for a return on a venture because what the government giveth it can taketh away -- and often does," Ely said. "You're making a political bet, not an economic bet."

(A cap and trade system would set limits on the amount of carbon a company can emit. The limits are called a "cap." If a company has to exceed the limit, it would be allowed to buy credits from companies that pollute less. This transfer would be the "trade.")

In public statements, KPCB has pointed to the likelihood of new government policies as a selling point for investors.

"The growing sense of global urgency over our twin crisis -- climate change and energy security -- is now driving businesses to become green, consumers to demand green and policy makers to drive policies to accelerate the market adoption of green products," KPCB partner John Denniston said in a May 1 statement announcing the new ventures.

LiveLeak.com - Al Gore set to profit from sustainable and 'green' technologies

 

[Chris]

This is who owns all the companies now funding the scientists that the environuts say are the only "credible" ones.

Link?

 

[Chris]

This is interesting. The Goracle's concern with government mandates (such as cap and trade) are purely for the good of mother earth . . . . or are they?

Al Gore set to profit from sustainable and 'green' technologies

But without government action on climate change, some business analysts say green companies backed by KPCB are either unlikely to be profitable or that their growth will be slow.

To Gore's critics, his financial stake in businesses that could profit from government policies designed to fight global warming demonstrates a motivation other than a selfless desire to protect the planet.

Gore has lobbied Congress and state governments to enact bolder environmental regulations. Gore's defenders counter that he and his partners are simply looking at companies that will have long-term sustainability during the "climate crisis."

"There are a bunch of folks that stand to make real money, who have invested a lot in companies that are not worth real money until the agenda that this ad campaign is advocating is achieved," Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-enterprise think tank, said in an interview.

Companies in the KPCB portfolio, as start-up companies, might be in greater need of a helping hand from government policy changes, but the larger, more established firms in the GIM portfolio also could benefit if the government manipulates the current market by mandating alternative fuels or imposing a cap and trade system.

As a private citizen, Gore is not required to publicly disclose how much of his personal fortune is invested in the venture capital firm. KPCB spokeswoman Brianna Woon declined to say how much Gore had invested in the firms, and she said the firms couldn't comment at this time on whether the greentech companies can succeed without government action.

Lack of government action could delay profits, but the free market is nonetheless moving toward clean energy on its own, said Gary Patterson, an analyst with the Fiscal Doctor Inc., of Wellesley, Mass. He predicts a good return for the venture capital firm's green investments.

"It would be very helpful if you have government initiative. Without it, it will take longer for these to be economically viable," Patterson told Cybercast News Service
However, Bert Ely, a financial analyst with Ely & Associates of Alexandria, Va., is skeptical that the kind of green investment portfolio Gore is advocating can be profitable without government action. History has shown green companies to be risky ventures, he says

"Wind power, solar and bio-fuels all operate on tax subsidies or purchase requirements," Ely told Cybercast News Service. "The government stimulates demand. The most notorious subsidy is the 51 cent gas credit for ethanol."

"To the extent that you got some kind of government mandate here, whether it is cap-and-trade or a purchasing requirement, a taxpayer subsidy, to me that's a dicey way to look for a return on a venture because what the government giveth it can taketh away -- and often does," Ely said. "You're making a political bet, not an economic bet."

(A cap and trade system would set limits on the amount of carbon a company can emit. The limits are called a "cap." If a company has to exceed the limit, it would be allowed to buy credits from companies that pollute less. This transfer would be the "trade.")

In public statements, KPCB has pointed to the likelihood of new government policies as a selling point for investors.

"The growing sense of global urgency over our twin crisis -- climate change and energy security -- is now driving businesses to become green, consumers to demand green and policy makers to drive policies to accelerate the market adoption of green products," KPCB partner John Denniston said in a May 1 statement announcing the new ventures.

LiveLeak.com - Al Gore set to profit from sustainable and 'green' technologies

Silly.

Al Gore is not the issue.

We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. CO2 causes the earth to warm. Do you deny this?

 

[jeffrockit]

Good Job Care. If you had bothered to look at the article you were provided access to you would have discovered that it isn't Monckton with whom Gore disagrees but damn near every climate scientist on earth, and the IPCC report. A 20 ft wall of water inundating land if the glaciers melt which a good many of them aren't? Sorry IPCC stataes not more than 2 feet and that is an absolute worst case scenario that no one believes likely to happen. 600PPM CO2 by 2050. No one things that will happen either. The Sahara has been shrinking not expanding for the last 25 years. Antartic ice melting? On one peninsula. The peninsula in question is roughly 1/55th the size of Texas and represents well less than 10% of the entire ice mass where in fact the ice is at its largest size since we began measuring in 2007.

By the way warm periods usually cause far fewer problems for human beings in general than cold ones.

I have long argued with the global warmers about this.

If the earth actually warms a degree or two in the 21st century, that would overall be of benefit to humanity, not harmful to it. Unfortunately, a growing number are saying we could be in for a 10-30 year cooling trend.

I have yet to get one of them to state what the optimum temp of the earth should be. If we don't know that, how do we know that if it is warming (big if), that it is bad?