Global Warming: Swift Boating
By OregonGuy Posted in Archived — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
James Hansen says that government should point the
country in an economically sensible way toward the
inevitable future "beyond fossil fuels", so that the global
warming problem could be solved readily.
In my post, "Follow the Money" I point out that the campaign for Global Warming was paid for in large measure by George Soros' money groups. For Global Warming activist James Hansen, that figure is about $720-thousand.
In "Oregon's Energy Policy: It's About Shoes & Stuff" I point out that our state governor's approach to Global Warming as evidenced by his Climate Change Group was flawed.
But the criticism remains. The Global Warming hoax has an agenda. And while complaining about reports on his funding sources--he refers to those who criticize him as "swift-boaters and contrarians"--he actually lets you take a peek at the economic agenda driving the Global Warming Hoax.
In "Shoes & Stuff" I point out the fatal dagger in the governor's climate group strategy. Imagine a climate group without a single representative from energy and transportation companies. It could be that worrying about the economic impact of findings from such a group are secondary. Again, what is the agenda?
Here's James Hansen (pdf):
"The bottom line of talks that I have been giving recently on global warming concerns the generational inequity. Those making the mess are not the ones who will pay--it is their children and grandchildren. I note that the people best able to solve the problem are the "captains of industry".
...
"For whatever reasons, our captains have chosen to emphasize short-term profits. The captains are not stupid, though. They did not get to be the CEOs without being pretty smart. Thus is born a strategy to appeal to them through their grandchildren."
Can't make an argument to an adult? Target the children. Capitalism bad. Lefty is good.
What prattle. And this form the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Let's assume that he too is "not stupid". You know he's taken Lefty money. You see that when his financing has become public that those who point this out are swift-boaters and contrarians. And now you see that the role of the market--providing the goods and services demanded by consumers--is nothing more than a trick to achieve short-term profits. Those bastards!
And finally, what does Mr. Hansen call for?
"So the task is back to you, young people. Let your parents and grandparents know that you understand posturing. Appealing on a personal level and expecting accountability can still be effective. Don't let them off the hook.
"'Hey, Grandfather, it's my planet too!'"
Or course, actions at MIT would lead one to ask why we should follow the lead of these youngsters. They're not doing such at hot job of instilling confidence in their choices. But the left has never relied upon critical thinking to advance their cause. As Mr. Hansen points out, this is not a campaign that can be won on its merits. It's one that must be advanced throught the appeal to emotions.
Will the Left be able to supplant the market to substitute its own economic agenda? I truly hope not.
Author's note: I was very pleased to find out that I was now a Swift-boater. I missed that whole John Kerry thing since I'd never served in the Navy. I'm pleased to find out that military service is no longer a requisite to be considered among those amazing gentlemen. I've just e-mailed my mom.
In debate/apologetics, it is an acceptable defense to an unestablished assertion to say 'prove it', or 'show me some evidence'.
I can say that I am HIGHLY skeptical of this AGW crap. I have no ties whatsoever to any energy concerns.I have a degree in Zoology, that included 16 hours in Geology, and 18 hours in Chemistry. I know a little bit about the global ecosystem.
In a debate about AGW, the default position is that 'there is no AGW'. According to the 'scientific method', a scientist first observes whatever he observes. He formulates a hypothesis to explain what he observes. He then sets out to devise tests that will establish whether the hypothesis is true or false. The DEFAULT position is that the hypothesis is false, until established to be true.
The same is true with AGW. And the same is ALSO true about his limp assertion that ONLY people with ties to energy companies would deny AGW.
Mike, don't know how much this helps. In a debate I don't always like to retreat to saying 'hey, prove it' as a debating tool. But that guy made an assertion. He's not entitled to say 'hey, prove my assertion is not true'.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
And in a much less articulate way I said something similar. I have found that on this issue among many issues their is a Standard liberal mantra and thus he will be referenced a lot because his assertions are ones all conservatives need to know and be prepared to challenge for we will all run into our own variation of my friend.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Is this the same guy we discussed before?
I have worked for energy companies for thirty years. I own a small energy company. My parents both worked for energy companies. Many of my friends work for energy companies. Are we all whores?
Let's set aside AGW for just a moment, and take up an issue that is a little more direct and tangible: ANWR.
There is no way in hell that drilling in ANWR will help me personally, except in the exact same way it would benefit you & your buddy, at the gasoline pump. ANWR, when and if ever drilled, will be good for 1) the company(ies) that drill it; 2) the companies that sell them goods & services; 3) the companies that own the pipeline that will transport the oil; 4) Alaska; 5) the Feds; and, last but not least 6) the caribou.
Note that Vladimir appears nowhere on that list. ANWR is arguably bad for me because an extra 500 thousand to 1 million barrels a day of domestic oil would depress the crude oil price for the lower 48, including any and all producers (Vladimir Inc., my employer, and all others I know similarly situated).
I am pro-ANWR development because of what I know about the capabilities of this fine industry, and because it would be good for the country. Even know-nothing dipsticks like your buddy, it would be good for them, too, they're just too dumb & reflexively liberal to know it.
So, similarly, I am highly skeptical of the nimrods who are pushing AGW: not the science so much, the politics. "Solving" global warming may be good for my business for all I know, but I suspect it will be bad for the country.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
No dipstick. He studies the HIV virus and will be part of a revolution that will save many lives. I may disagree with his politics however I will not stand by while he is insulted.
Like I said, he holds a firm liberal line that will be repeated by other liberals but there is no reason to insult him.
I agree that dismissing all opinions as being too close to big oil especially when you do not question the motives of anyone on the other side is not very fair.
I have said for a while that I believe that calling it a settled matter is an excuse for sanctions and mandates and I also have no doubt that I will not be the only one that will be confronted with the assertion that all GW skeptics are merely stooges for big oil.
Still no need to insult my friend.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Swift boating is the act of pointing out true background information that is politically inconvenient to lefties.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I received this comment: "I have been debating my buddy about this through email. He says that the only people that are currently skeptical of global warming have ties to energy companies. Does anyone have a counter to his assertion?"
It's an important question...because I hope that we never replicate the kind of political behaviour that drove us to gas shortages--pictured above--during the '70's. Once Big Government tries to apply solutions to market problems, all kinds of evil can pop up.
Here's a couple of links that you could share with your True Believer buddy.
My favorite is "Paunder the Maunder", by high school student Kristen Byrnes. Of course it is possible that Kristen's dad--or someone in her family--works for Big Oil. Maybe even a gas station. Oil is oil, bad is bad...etc.
Phil Stott is an Emeritus Professor from the University of London. In an article posted at ABC News, he complains about the costs of hoaxing up Global Warming in the face of real threats to real people right now. It's possible he, or someone he knows, owns oil company stocks. The jury is still out.
If your GWBuddy is science minded there are some rather more difficult sites that one could appeal to. My favorite is Climate Audit. In this article, Steve McIntyre show us the latest in his attempt to duplicate James Hansens panurgy.
If you'd like a critique of the IPCC report, I suggest Climate Science. While Mr. Pielke has no known connection with Big Oil, he does have some experience with climate, having received his Ph.D. from Penn State, and having worked for NOAA, UVirginia, CSU, Duke, UAz, as well as other job titles. The site hasn't been updated since September 3rd...but that might hopefully change.
There are more sources out there. One of my favs is the Competitive Enterprise Institute. But you can clearly see on the Home Page an ad for Ethanol. So...somewhere there's a dog in the hunt. But with a little math, and a little common sense, you can sort out the BS.
Unless you're a Lefty. Then you Live for the Narrative Thread!
each of the links to him. We will see. Science was always my worst subject so a lot of this terminology is over my head. Politics, on the other hand, is something I understand. When I hear someone mention Global Warming is a settled matter, as the CEO of Exelon did in a speech I witnessed, and immediately follow that assertion up with a litany of government mandates and regulations that he himself admitted would increase energy costs exponentially, then I start to wonder about the motives of the assertion. It appears to me that each side has a plethora of well researched guns on their side to argue their case, and I don't believe they all have an agenda, and thus, to me this is anything but a settled matter.
For that reason, I am with Newt. If we are going to resolve this let's do it the Ronald Reagan way, by cutting taxes to spawn innovation, not by mandates and regulation.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
wouldn't bother me if they had a more than occasional shreds of scientific evidence that humans are unequivocally behind the GW phenomenon, which is measurable.
It appears unequivocal that melting icecaps on Mars and on icy moons further out mean that the sun is the culprit, and solar variations are well-known variables.
It's when the IRCC erases a 400-year phenomenon like the Middle Age Warming Period well-documented and attested worldwide that the Richard Feynman "Cargo Cult Science" essay must be re-read.
Especially when a serial huckster like Al Gore gets involved.
What about the Kennedy's owning an energy company?
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
if AGW is a settled matter, then we need, not we should, impose all sorts of restrictive sanctions that force people to be eco friendly. Thus, all those things that people would rise up against, including mandates that would double and triple energy costs, would sound reasonable since AGW is a settled matter, and thus, must be fixed or we will all die.
I have been debating my buddy about this through email. He says that the only people that are currently skeptical of global warming have ties to energy companies. Does anyone have a counter to his assertion?
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
www.proprietornation.blogspot.com