Louise Gray of the Telegraph reports:
Speaking in Copenhagen on Sunday Tony Blair, the former prime minister, said the world must take action on climate change even if the science is not correct.
What the deuce?
2
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#26, #27: Well said, but probably a bit too complex for our wingnuts to understand. Even “follow the money” won’t work because it leads to a conclusion they’ve already decided is false.
hmm, it’s about time for little pedro to come in and blast out his incoherent tweets… 🙂
#31, keep flinging it until some of it starts to stick
Speaking of flinging:
The typical procedure of the denier / right wing nut /tea bagger / birther / goat fornication crowd
Which reminds me, you keep running away when confronted with someone who calls you on things like this.
Why would you sacrifice others to save your wife? Did you lie to her on your wedding day?
#34 Yes, you libertarians tend to run out of things to say early on, and veer off on tangents. We’ve heard your tired libertarian schtick countless times before. All you’re good for is entertainment now. 🙂
#35, Not tangents. Back on track.
#36 Great, glad to hear you’re back on your libertarian track, heading off to god knows where. Meanwhile, us reality-based people will have a discussion on the issues of the day.
“We must invade Iraq, even if he DOESN’T have WMD…”
#37, The issues of today are just as relevant as they were 200 years ago. Big government, mob rule, etc. What’s happening is people are forgetting the smallest minority is the individual. And yes, that includes you.
Postman:
Not that I’m arguing about climate controls, but global warming had nothing to do with skyrocketing rise in gasoline prices last year. That was due to a collaboration – I don’t have cites at my fingertips but you can go read up on it, as it was a genuine news report and not a “conspiracy theory” – between oil companies, brokerage firms like Goldman-Sachs, and banks to drive up the price of oil futures (hence oil prices) by swapping false buys back and forth. (Firm A buys, say, $25 mil of oil futures from Firm B, and Firm B buys $25 mil worth from Firm A. Net money transfer: $0. But in futures markets it reads $50 mil of trading went on, putting pressure on prices.) They formed an offshore brokerage for the purpose to evade US laws. It was evident to anyone watching that prices were being manipulated, since supplies were rising and usage was dropping, but the price was moving independently of those factors, but it only came out this year how the manipulation was going on, and it wasn’t widely reported.
Prices peaked shortly after $4 per gallon at the pumps mainly because it was discovered $4 was the point at which Americans would stop buying gasoline, would stop making single trips to the store instead of coalescing stops into one trip, etc. Prices have been hovering between $2/$3 most places in America this year because they calculated from last year that’s the sweet spot for profit and usage. The futures trading manipulation is still going on, by the way…
#39 It’s good that you understand the issues. It’s sad that you cling to a simplistic solution that is so obviously wrong for our problems. Maybe libertarianism was a solution for Ayn Rand’s Soviet Union. But the U.S. has never been and never will be the Soviet Union, and your solution never has and never will be the one for the U.S. We see every day that the vast majority of things that the government does to harm the people is at the behest of the big corporations that have corrupted it. Libertarianism has nothing useful to say about that. You are irrelevant.
Re: LibertyLover “You think oil is only used for gas? How about that fancy plastic chair you are sitting on while you type on that plastic keyboard viewing your nonsense on a plastic-encased video screen?
LOL, so true. How about your shoes, paint, clothing, cosmetics, cleaning products… all will be taxed…
But just western countries of course, because someone has to kick the feet out from the bad people who managed to eek out a better quality of life for themselves by working hard and being industrious.
Conservation of oil will happen regardless…. because we are using it all up.
The price of gas and all other oil based products will go up … because we are using it all up.
New sources of energy will happen regardless…. because we are using it all up.
What happens when natural market conditions gradually force product prices higher? Anyone? Alternate cheaper sources of that product are developed gradually and in step…. like exactly what’s been happening.
We can easily survive a few more degrees in temperature increase. It will be a nice change for half the world.
Sooo lemme get this straight… Blair said ‘We the blind lead by the unknowning…’ ???
Jeez, four of the last six posts by Cherman about “Global Warming”. Time to kill the RSS feed. Bye, bye, DU.
Add one more comment supporting the belief that the Climate Warm/Change crowd is pushing a scam on everybody. No need to elaborate. This has become a simple Hot Button Issue, and nobody’s minds are changing. But everybody will soon feel the financial hit. Everybody except that blowhard asshole Gore.
#41, We see every day that the vast majority of things that the government does to harm the people is at the behest of the big corporations that have corrupted it.
Agreed. And you think more of the same is the answer.
Tell me, how in the world is $10T more cash on the streets going to help people pay their bills?
Libertarianism has nothing useful to say about that.
And that is where you are wrong. You are sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALALALALA whenever someone other than a democrat speaks.
You’ll never understand the solution to these problems until you do a little work yourself and find out instead of blinding following the crowd. Until then, you are sheep chanting, “Four legs good, two legs bad.”
#36–Loser is back in his rut?????
Fire up the Bat Light: OK Loser==how many innocent people would you kill in order to save the life of your innocent wife??? Last I saw, you were up to 10. How self centered are you???? Give us your maximum number. Care to expound your advanced philosophical thinking that makes you crow proudly about killing many to save a few?
Have you installed that window in your belly button yet? How much will it hurt to back out and will your buck teeth catch on your anus???
BTW–Wretched==good job. Scientific consensus is ALWAYS WRONG (with 99.9 percent confirmation). It is that consensus being shown to be wrong that defines progress. Newtonian physics rules for 200 years until Einstein and so forth. Who knows when quantum theory will show the earth is not really a glob but actually a snag of probability in space time? Going to the “motivation” of “science” is a misnomer. Of course, many/some of the individuals involved are motivated by evils of various sorts. How does one sum that up???
#9–and Benji–hah, hah, Even if your example were “correct,” don’t you see you would be proving the opposite point? 800 years ago??? Hah, hah.
#46–Hey LOSER==you ask as if you understand anything about the question: “Tell me, how in the world is $10T more cash on the streets going to help people pay their bills?” /// At face value, those having bills would only have to go out into the street and pick up the money and hand it over to their creditors. Stupid answer to a stupid question. Sastisfied?
If you re-worked your question to anything intelligent, you would then not ask it. The answer to your best question then is: Proper stimulus programs would generate so called “cash in the street” and becomes stimulating when said cash gets recycled thru the society by creating and satisfying several transactions before again becoming sequestered by non-productive revenue sinks–eg the government through taxation or the rapacious rich in their trust funds.
Wow. Bobbo must be on one of his binges again. Two blocked posts in such rapid succession.
#49–Loser==blocked??? I don’t even know how to do that. Now why would a LIEBERTARIAN block a direct challenge to the drivel they foist onto the world? Being self actualized men of action and all?
Maybe only good for blowing up private property in fits of self centeredness.
How many innocents must be sacrificed on the alter of delusion to rid the market place of idea’s of these fetid fruits?
I feel so warm and fuzzy. The circus must be back in town.
#50, Quit changing the subject. Liberals are good at that with their, “Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad,” chant.
So, as a good Libertarian, you won’t mind me bringing you “back on track.”
How is another $10T on the street going to help people pay their bills?
#52–Ahhhh Loser==so pathetic. Like the ostrich with its head in the sand, do you think because you have blocked me ((Is that even possible or does Loser survive by lying to others as well as himself???)) that other Liberty Losers reading this blog don’t feel the shame of your failure to comprehend and take on all criticism?
No? Lets see: Loser, how many people would you ignore in able for you to imagine you have the respect of your wife? Give us a number. Last I heard it was 10. I hope that wasn’t just me 10 times over.
Hee, hee. What a loser.
There’s lots of talk about climate.
“Today the many thousands of separate data systems in constant use usually don’t work together.” http://www.noaa.gov/eos.html
That is why the science is often wrong or not useful. It chaotic so that leads to chaotic protests. They used 1,400 jets and limos to go to a meeting to complain about pollution. Doing nothing if the science is right would of done more to cut pollution.
#13, Wretched…” As you yourself suggest, the denier argument requires us to believe that scientists are now, for the first time in human history, subject to the emotions of greed and political investment “
From what I read in the pilfered emails, most of the scientists are young and desperate to land a gig at the climate change party. They are scrambling over one another to get at grant money because there’s a lot of competition. It sure didn’t seem like many of them were well off. I don’t even recall anyone actually voicing that opinion, although there’s a conspiracy monger in every crowd.
There’s more than on type of skeptic of this mess… many reasons for not swallowing the bait.
What exactly is the counter to a call to action?
It’s good to pollute?
#4
Alchemy
Widely believed to be totally real and viable. Many of these alchemist made quite a bit of loot claiming the lie was true. Most figured it out after just a few experiments but still held onto it up until the time of Newton himself.
Bleeding
Again widely believed in medical communities until as late as the 19th century for curing all sorts of ailments. Cheap and easy way to get money from patients and they knew it had little correlation to healing.
Midwifery
Denied by medical “professionals” in the 18th century as too risky. Procedure only for “trained” men. Despite the knowledge of its history since the beginning of civilisation. Done specifically by surgeons to enhance their purses.
Scientific Racism & Craniofacial Anthropometry
Regarded by scientists as fact from 19th Century and even still its repercussions affect us today. Created by these “professionals” to create a psuedo-hierarchy in which white skinned people should be at the top and all others should be kept low. Great for business when you can pay people less that you feel are “inferior”.
Electroconvulsive Therapy
Widely used in psychiatric treatment for depression, mania, schizophrenia and a myriad of other disorders. After the third treatment it was clear they had no affect on the patient other than to damage them further or lead to death. Yet still embraced to this day by many it is widely regarded as bunk science.
That’s more than one where science has widely accepted ideas that are not sound but they can make a fat ton of cash for.
I can’t blame science. Just as a I can’t blame religion, ideology or other “concepts” for man being a bastard.
I only blame humanity. For when allowed and not held to an ethical code, will most certainly take advantage of an easy deal. That’s what humans are wired to do.
Cursor_
Where is the list that the IPCC made that shows the pros and cons of global warming through anthropogenic climate change (let’s just call it ACC from now on) ? They had to have made comparative lists in order to decide that the warming trend is so much worse than if it didn’t happen.
I’ve searched the IPCC site. Since many of you have sided with the IPCC you must have read that basic, easy to decipher pro-con analysis. Can anyone direct me to the IPCC publication that contains it? THX.
Re: #56, Cursor_…. Nicely done. Now we wait for all the excuses why they don’t count.
Wouldn’t it be nice if somebody just sat down and laid out a contingency plan. Planning isn’t very expensive. What if mass population evacuation were necessary, how would we go about it? What if we had a year with near null agricultural productivity, do we have sufficient reserves? How’s the civil defense network, has it fallen to pieces yet? Can we get civic minded persons to participate?
Planning for a worse case scenario is always prudent, and talking about it costs less to nothing. Instead our idiot leaders will argue over whose fault it is and who’s gonna pay for it probably till it’s too late to do anything.
I urge you people to take your own measures, or at least start thinking about it. If things get that ugly you really don’t want to depend on the government to help you – remember Katrina?
I haven’t heard any of the skeptics refute what #26 and #27 said: follow the money.
There is big money to be made in denying human effect on climate change.
Who is to gain if no action on global warming is taken? Car manufacturers. Oil conglomerates. Large corporations whose polluting factories can’t stand to a more stringent pollution standard than today’s. The airline industry. Developing nations. China. And they all would just LOVE for somebody to step up and prove global warming is not man made as they stand to lose a whole lot of money if it is.
You claim that people who think human-caused global warming is real are just doing it for the money. But all the money is on the side of the deniers. So your claim is implausible.
Wait, I forgot… all those hundreds and thousands of scientists around the world are engaged in a massive global conspiracy to steal the rights of freedom-loving Americans! Yeah, that’s the ticket.
#56–Cursor==excellent start. All meet that “motivational” element which is where the controversy is. All a bit dated though. We should task ourselves for something more current. seems some kind of similar issue surrounds “all funding issues?” And I wonder how large the quackery community of fraudsters has to be before the “real science” community is totally tarred by those activities to constitute an example of the type?
How about secondary smoke? Big Tobacco is still claiming and running out old guys in white coats or young babes with boobs to say that “it has not been proven.” Is that an example or does it fail because we all know it is false?
Should be alot of that in cancer funding, etc.
Yes, how to separate the fraud that exists in all cases from the actual “science.” Seems to me the blogs exist more because of the fraud elements than as a result of the science elements. How many links have their been to actual peer reviewed studies/critiques as opposed to misquotes of Tony Blair?
Its the nature of the Con. The mark is not that stupid, just naive enough to think no one is so stupid to try and pull such a trick. But people are just that stupid. Look at Loser for example.