Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
More Inconvenient Truth
Posted by: Jon Henke on Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Sebastian Mallaby writes an incisive rebuke to those who seem to have resurrected an environmental Know-Nothing Party...
Republican dishonesty reaches its extreme on the issue of global warming. Yes, climate science is complex, and nobody can forecast the earth's temperature with complete confidence. But the fact that scientists don't know everything isn't a license to ignore what they do know: that the earth is warming, glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising at an accelerating pace — and that these changes are driven at least partly by fossil-fuel consumption. The U.S. National Academies have confirmed this; their foreign counterparts have confirmed this; and so has the world's top authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . None of this is controversial.
The patient has a fever; it's time to discuss the prescription.

Now, there is plenty of room for legitimate debate on the global warming issue, but the remaining areas of debate are not on whether it is occurring, or whether mankind contributes to it. The debate now rests on the degree to which mankind contributes to global warming, the degree to which we can do anything about it, and the way in which it should be done. But the debate about the existence of warming is over.

The patient has a fever; it's time to discuss the prescription.

For my part, I'm generally of the opinion that science and progress can solve the problem more effectively and more efficiently than government regulations. However, I also believe that government can contribute to the solution in a libertarian-friendly way by seeking to reduce the externalities imposed by pollutants — or at least to use taxation to help internalize those external costs.

Along those lines, John Tierney writes a more nuanced piece (free text here) on the inconvenient truths that both sides — environmentalists included — tend to ignore. Acknowledging that Al Gore is "right about something important: global warming is a problem worth worrying about", Tierney then points out that Gore's Inconvenient Truth is "is hardly 'an inconvenient truth.' It’s not really true, and it’s certainly not inconvenient for him or his audience."
In his morality tale, global warming has been an obvious crisis-in-the-making for decades, and there are obvious solutions that could have been adopted without damaging consequences. ...

As therapeutic as this history may be for Gore, it has certain problems. Scientists recognized the greenhouse effect long ago, but the question was how much difference it would make. And until fairly recently, when evidence of global warming accumulated, many non-evil economists doubted that the risks justified the costs of the proposed remedies.
Gore, writes Tierney, calls the "cost-benefit analysis a 'false choice'," and he "castigates the U.S. for refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol", though it's widely regarded as ineffective and poorly designed.

On this environmentalist issue, the tables have been turned on the Republican foreign policy hawks who have argued that "something must be done" in response to threats or the appearance of a threat with little regard for cost/benefit analyses and alternatives. Similarly, the global warming movement has identified the threat and they are determined to Do Something. Those who urge caution and skepticism of government intervention are dismissed, much like the hawks dismissed so many critics of the Iraq war — or those skeptical of a strike on Iran. There are, writes Tierney, alternatives...
There is room for compromise ...if only both sides would marginalize their Know-Nothing movements.
He doesn’t propose the quickest and most efficient way to reduce greenhouse emissions: a carbon tax on gasoline and other fossil fuels. ... Gore shows the obligatory pictures of windmills and other alternative sources of energy. But he ignores nuclear power plants, which don’t spew carbon dioxide and currently produce far more electricity than all ecologically fashionable sources combined.
Republicans ought to realize that the debate has moved on; global warming is happening and human activity contributes to it. Democrats ought to realize that the market can be the most effective tool to deal with the problem, if only they would tell some inconvenient truths to their own socialists and Chicken Little's.

There is room for compromise — for economically efficient, market-based progress — if only both sides would marginalize their Know-Nothing movements.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
global warming is happening and human activity contributes to it.
And I contribute to the economy, too. If I were to disappear tomorrow, the economy wouldn’t react at all. While humans are adding to the Earth’s heat content, we don’t know how much of an impact there is. There’s space probe measurements from Mars that indicates global warming on that planet; I don’t think the rovers are adding that much heat.

There is also the point that a warmer earth wouldn’t be a disaster, especially since it was warmer in the not so distant past. Greenland got its name because it was green when the Vikings discovered and colonized it.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
People who believe in Global Warming are the equvilent of the "Intelligent Design" crowd. And both are trying to push their pseudo-science on the rest of us.
 
Written By: whatever
URL: http://
... or whether mankind contributes to it ...
I think this is a bit of stretch. There seems to be plenty of legitimate science, from actual climate and geological scientists, that cast serious doubts upon that theory (i.e. human-caused global temperature changes).
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
sea levels are rising at an accelerating pace
This is not an accurate statement according to the IPCC:
No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.
Furthermore:
If greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilised, sea level would nonetheless continue to rise for hundreds of years.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I’m always amused by the ’argument’ that "the debate is over." Who gets to make those decisions? I’ll readily concede that I think there’s some good evidence that man-made global warming is an issue, but I want to know how I get the authority to declare the debate over, because I can think of several other areas where I’d like to use that kind of power.
 
Written By: Andrew Olmsted
URL: http://andrewolmsted.com
I’m always amused by the ’argument’ that "the debate is over."
Obviously, there will always be people debating virtually anything. (see: Flat Earthers, creationists, fake moon landing, free trade, etc) The debate among people who study this sort of thing — the scientific debate — is over, though.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
The debate among people who study this sort of thing — the scientific debate — is over, though.
Well, that will be a first.

Tunguska was raised as a possibility. There is also a SETI-like project which uses screensaver cycles to test climate models which is further down in the link. Further comments on Tunguska. Additional information.

(OT Note: For the love of GOD will you remove that bleeping http:// prompt from your URL button? I’m primarily a X11 windows user under Linux and I’m used to the "highlight selection over there, move mouse over here, middle-mouse to paste" method. Your popup not only adds http:// but selects the stinking thing too, which cancels the selection that I wanted to paste in the first place.)
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Well, that will be a first. Tunguska was raised as a possibility.
"People speculating on the internet" does not equal scientific, peer-reviewed research.
For the love of GOD will you remove that bleeping http:// prompt from your URL button?
No. If you try to input a URL without that portion, the link will be broken. That may not be a problem for you, but it would result in broken links from other people.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I refuse to concede to "Global Warming". As somebody once said, "words matter", and allowing all the baggage associated with those words to be accepted as true will poison the debate that you wish to have on
the degree to which mankind contributes to global warming, the degree to which we can do anything about it, and the way in which it should be done.
Concede to "Global Warming" and spend the rest of your time being castigated for not climbing on board Kyoto, and fighting off the same stupid proposals again and again.

The earth is probably experiencing an increase in average temperature, but I’m not convinced that the man-caused portion of it is large enough that the usually proposed remedies would make any difference, assuming that they worked as advertised. It’s damned hard to calculate a cost/benefit ratio, when the benefit is so nebulous.

As well, The Law of Unintended Consequences will operate, and I’m not sure that we have enough resources to deal with them on this scale.

Let’s call it Terrestial Increase in Temperature (TIIT) instead. The acronym is just salacious enough to give it a chance against "Global Warming", and have your debate. I’m just not willing to allow the other side the advantage of emotional framing.

 
Written By: bud
URL: http://
global warming has been an obvious crisis-in-the-making for decades,
Was that before or after the warnings that we would be overcome with:

A) Ice Age

B) Global Starvation

C) Nuclear War

Seems I remeber learning about all three of these in the 70’s, and I don’t see those as a problem.

Now, this is not to say that there isn’t some warming, or that man needs to reduce pollution. But I’ll take the considerate, fact based science over the studies of computer simulated (w/ missing or excluded data) catastrophy.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Ad hominem attacks against skeptics. Surely we are above such tactics. eh...

And while there are extremists on both sides of the issue, there is still plenty left to debate.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=042706F
As part of the current media frenzy over the imminent demise of the Earth from global warming, it has become fashionable to demonize global warming skeptics through a variety of tactics. This has recently been accomplished by comparing scientists who don’t believe in a global climate catastrophe to those who deny the Holocaust, to those who denied cigarettes cause cancer, or to ’flat-Earthers’.
...
So, just what part of, "the science is settled on global warming", is really settled? Well, I would say that our current period of globally-averaged warmth is pretty indisputable, though possibly over-estimated. I say "globally-averaged" because some areas have actually cooled in the last 100 years. Furthermore, the majority of climate scientists would probably agree that some part of that warmth is manmade. But in contrast to the warmth itself, which has actually been measured with thermometers, its attribution to mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions is only one possible explanation among many.

A minority of us would suggest that we really don’t know how much of the current warmth is manmade versus natural. I suspect we are the Holocaust-denying, cancer-ignoring, flat-Earthers who still think the Moon landing was staged.
...
Still, I’m left wondering...why does the global warming issue seem so much more important to the media than to the public — to the point where they have do demonize skeptics with ad hominem attacks? Do they know something we don’t know? I suspect it is more the reverse.

And how, exactly, do the media make the jump from "global warming being real", to the warming being entirely manmade, to the warming being catastrophic, to the faulting of the U.S. government for not implementing policy changes (Kyoto, Domenici-Bingaman) that won’t help the problem anyway? That wasn’t a rhetorical question...I really do want to know the answer. Send me an e-mail if you happen to know.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Regarding the debate. Denialists at this point are simply unable or unwilling to research the issue. They are like the flat earthers, not the other way around. This blog is not the place for the debate, try realclimate.org.

Very few denialists would advocate that Los Angelese remove all pollution control requirements in cars. The libertarian argument over pollution control in the LA basin is simple. I own the atmosphere above my home and another can no more use my atmosphere for a dumping ground without compensating me than they can send a bullet through my atmosphere toward my home. Libertarians do not agree that I can pump toxic waste down the well out back of my home. Any toxic emission I cause to your atmopsphere requires compensation.

Carbon emission is global and carbon taxes must be accounted for in trade. Carbon sequestering on a medium term basis has proven very effective and should be given the ’equivalent’ of a negative tax. And biofuels are most efficient when produced in the background of the carbon tax, rather than direct government subsidy.

Gore, by the way, was a strong, inside advocate of cabon taxes in the policy debated during the Clinton administration from what I understand.

 
Written By: Matt
URL: http://
The patient has a fever; it’s time to discuss the prescription.

It might be more accurate to say, "The patient is recovering from hypothermia; it’s time to start prescribing treatments."
 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://
." Greenland got its name because it was green when the Vikings discovered and colonized it."

You are assuming that marketing hadn’t been invented yet, and that no real estate agents were involved.

"I’m always amused by the ’argument’ that "the debate is over." Who gets to make those decisions?"

Why, the fat lady, of course, and so far she hasn’t been heard from.


"Ad hominem attacks against skeptics. Surely we are above such tactics. eh..."

Not me! Anyone who disagrees with me is a f** moron, no doubt about it. Res Ipso Loquitor. It’s in the bible. (ad vericundiam).

"The libertarian argument over pollution control in the LA basin is simple. I own the atmosphere above my home and another can no more use my atmosphere for a dumping ground without compensating me than they can send a bullet through my atmosphere toward my home."

The answer is blowing in the wind;
But the polluters do not dump pollution into the air about your home; they dump it in the air about themselves, which they own, and the wind(Deus ex Aeolus?) brings it to you, thus violating your airspace. So sue the wind.

MY THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING;
Simply, air-conditioning & refrigeration. The increasing prevalence of AC&R corresponds to the increase in global temperatures. Think about it, what does AC&R do? It takes the cold stuff from the atmosphere and sequesters it in little boxes, and takes the hot stuff from the little boxes and puts it in the atmosphere. The net effect of this is to raise the temperature of the earth outside the cooled boxes. This means that we are stuck with the global warming, because No-body is going to screw with my AC, or my cold beer.



 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Gee If global warming (I do not dispute it is happening) is caused by humans then why is Mars warming too?

Could it be the empirical data collected that shows that the sun has been burning hotter in the last 30 years?

whatever
 
Written By: McQ2
URL: http://nukethebabywhales.gov
The patient has a fever; it’s time to discuss the prescription.
The prescription... is more COW BELL!!!

Sorry - had to through the gratuitous Will Farrel/SNL banter in ;-)
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
The patient has a fever; it’s time to discuss the prescription.

To carry the analogy further, our limited understanding of climate dynamics maybe be equivalent to medicine in the 18th century. I fear the prescription may be the as effective as letting blood was then - quite possibly doing more harm than good.
 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://
I am so effing tired of hearing that "humans are causing global warming."

If so, then global warming would have been happening for the past 100+ years, since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. But has it? Of course not - in fact, for many years in the 1920s, 1930s, and even the 1940s, scientists believed we had entered an "ice age," because mean temperatures were going down.

Now, they are going up. See the pattern? Because temperature rise and drop is cyclical - one period we have warmth, the next cold. You and I cannot stop it - it is like telling the sun to stop sending us heat.

Al Gore should be strung up for making these "Chicken Little" comments, and his dumb film, based on lies and half-truths, should be burned, not seen. It only serves as more propaganda for the illiterate left to bellyache over.

Here’s the message: there IS global warming, but there soon will be global cooling - and there is NOTHING - repeat N-O-T-H-I-N-G - that we or anyone else can do about it. If you don’t like the heat now, wait 30-40 years and watch as the nuttified environmental whackos tell us all about how humans are causing the world to cool off.

Then maybe those who are not indoctrinated by this s**t can beat the c**p out of the likes of the Al Gores of the world alive then and their minions.
 
Written By: Alexander Alt
URL: http://
I am very dubious as to the whole global warming debate, and no, Jon, I do not trust the scientific community on this. In recent years they have become more close minded and herd-like than a cabal of Bishops.
Nevertheless, I would be very favorable of a fuel tax, and imported oil fee, and/or a surcharge on the weight of vehicles. For the reasons that we need to become energy independent, and even without global climate change, pollution is a problem in our cities.
However, such taxes should go along with reductions in other taxes.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Greenland got its name because it was green when the Vikings discovered and colonized it.
You must be joking, Mark.

"Greenland got its name because it was green when the Vikings discovered and colonized it."

You are assuming that marketing hadn’t been invented yet, and that no real estate agents were involved.
Exactly. (btw, timactual, funny comments all round, cheers.)
The vast majority of historical scholars have concluded that Erik the Red called his newly discovered island “Greenland” to encourage settlers, especially from “Iceland”. Which by the way, if “Greenland” was supposedly Green, then why did they call their homeland “Iceland” which, as you know, is south of “Greenland”. Makes no sense. (all things considered, the debate ... ahem ... is over.)
I have to wonder where you heard that, Mark. Couldn’t have been from any reputable history book. I’m guessing talk radio. No?

=====
The libertarian argument over pollution control in the LA basin is simple. I own the atmosphere above my home and another can no more use my atmosphere for a dumping ground without compensating me than they can send a bullet through my atmosphere toward my home.
Now that’s a complicated issue. (thanks for asking)
There seems to be little demand for environmental causes so as the market would cure.
In other words, there is no money in saving the planet.

It makes me sick to my stomach to suggest that, “maybe it’s something the government should oversee.”

I’m just brainstorming, so save the inevitable condemnations.
Perhaps there could be some sort of “Environment Czar” (ouch, that hurts my fingers), other than the EPA, which is under the Executive branch. You know, an independent entity to make policy suggestions to both Congress and the President. Just an idea, mind you.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
. "(btw, timactual, funny comments all round, cheers.)"

Hey! My theory of AC&R causing global warming is serious s**!! I plan on writing a book, then hitting the talk show circuit. Don’t tell me you haven’t heard sillier stuff making people rich. I want my shot at the marching morons’ pocketbooks, too. And don’t forget, you heard it here first.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Don’t tell me you haven’t heard sillier stuff making people rich.
Two words,
Michael Crichton…
Fred Barnes, in Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush, states that George W. Bush "avidly read Michael Crichton’s 2004 novel State of Fear, whose villain falsifies scientific studies to justify draconian steps to curb global warming....Early in 2005, political adviser Karl Rove arranged for Crichton to meet with Bush at the White House. They talked for an hour and were in near-total agreement. The visit was not made public for fear of outraging environmentalists all the more."
Fair warning timactual,

Res Ipso Loquitor.

ad vericundiam
You’re going to upset the “National Language” proponents. It could get ugly.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I refuse to concede to "Global Warming". As somebody once said, "words matter", and allowing all the baggage associated with those words to be accepted as true will poison the debate that you wish to have on
Ah, I see. The "true, but inconvenient" standard.
Was that before or after the warnings that we would be overcome with: A) Ice Age B) Global Starvation C) Nuclear War Seems I remeber learning about all three of these in the 70’s, and I don’t see those as a problem.
A nuclear war was a distinct possibility. Perhaps you don’t buy into that whole "theory" about "atoms", but it’s pretty well accepted among most people. "Global starvation" was certainly talked about, but there’s been no peer-reviewed scientific theory about it. Same with the "global cooling". There was some talk about it many years back; it was mostly a media phenomenon and it was based on fairly limited data.

The fact that some hypotheses turn out to be incorrect does not mean all science is crap.
Gee If global warming (I do not dispute it is happening) is caused by humans then why is Mars warming too? Could it be the empirical data collected that shows that the sun has been burning hotter in the last 30 years?
Arguments from ignorance are not compelling. Or flattering. This is something like the "if humans evolved from apes, how come there are still apes, huh?" rejoinder. Misbegotten and evidence of one’s own lack of familiarity with the evidence and what it means.

If you’re actually interested in learning about that sort of thing, you’re welcome to read up on it. It is, as Real Climate points out, "incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data." Essentially, Mars is different from the Earth in just about every possible way, Mars has comparatively enormous natural temperature swings, and a three year trend is not much of a data set.
To carry the analogy further, our limited understanding of climate dynamics maybe be equivalent to medicine in the 18th century. I fear the prescription may be the as effective as letting blood was then - quite possibly doing more harm than good.
Yes, as I noted in the piece, the debate ought to be on "the degree to which we can do anything about it, and the way in which it should be done." Measures like Kyoto are poorly conceived.
I am very dubious as to the whole global warming debate, and no, Jon, I do not trust the scientific community on this. In recent years they have become more close minded and herd-like than a cabal of Bishops.
Yeah, they’re pretty "close minded" about evolution, too. Scientific consensus is not a conspiracy. They may be wrong, but they’re not a herd of evil, stubborn nitwits uninterested in the evidence.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
If you’re actually interested in learning about that sort of thing, you’re welcome to read up on it.
Well it’s only fair then that you read this.

Then tell us all again how "scientific debate" is all over.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I cetainly doubt the scientific issue will be decided on this blog.

Let us at least try the "what if" arguement:

"There is also the point that a warmer earth wouldn’t be a disaster,"

OK, just accept a warmer climate. Funny thing, a much warmer climate would make the biofuels industry boom. It would also make a tropics of the midwestern US.

"I would be very favorable of a fuel tax, and imported oil fee, [for energy independence]"

OK, while we are at it, can we add an import tax on traded goods which use oil, for indirectly that would make us just as dependent.

“maybe it’s something the government should oversee.”

The government overseas much, excessive speeding on the highway, gun violence, the collection of taxes, and many others, some of them useless. What is there in libertarian philosophy that would say the collective decision to limit pollutants is not something we would use government to solve?

I am at a loss in explaining how libertarian denialists would handle the pollution problems, even those well known like the open air burning of coal. At least give me a "what if" that I can take back to the liberals to represent our position on this.


 
Written By: Matt
URL: http://
And yet...
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
The solution to Global Warming will be a little Nuclear Winter.

Iran is working on the details of this planet-saving plan as we speak.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Food for thought:

A scientist says; "I believe human activity is contributing to global warming." He gets a big fat grant from Al Gore or the like to pursue his research.

Another scientist says; "I don’t believe human activity is contributing to global warming." He gets a big fat grant from George W. (does the pro-global warming movement have an advocate? - we need one I think) to pursue his research.

I guess it’s my cynisism. Or it could be that these egghead scientist are really and truely out of their depth and are just too prideful to say "I don’t know and I won’t even guess" but give them some money and they’ll certainly try. Hell, the weatherman can’t even predict the weather 12 hours from now...

 
Written By: Church
URL: http://
Well it’s only fair then that you read this. Then tell us all again how "scientific debate" is all over.
There again, it would help if you did some minimal research to find out whether this objection had already been answered. It has. The link you cite contains criticism of the Mann "hockey stick" for omitting data. However...
the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.
What’s more, the "corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998). Claims that the corrigendum reflects any errors at all in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely false."

The criticism is a bit like saying "the theory of evolution isn’t true, because some fossils turned out not to be what we thought they were." Again, criticism — which has been repeatedly debunked — is not the same as peer-reviewed, published research.
I cetainly doubt the scientific issue will be decided on this blog.
No, and I don’t intend to argue the science any further, either. If somebody is actually interested in learning the answer to questions, there are plenty of sources to answer them. Generally, however, it seems that people are more interested in passing along the most simplistic, naive criticisms, rather than learning the answers.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Another scientist says; "I don’t believe human activity is contributing to global warming." He gets a big fat grant from George W. (does the pro-global warming movement have an advocate? - we need one I think) to pursue his research.
There are plenty to choose from, church. Let us take a look at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a so-called non-partisan think tank,
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization founded in 1984, funded by donations from corporations, foundations and individuals. It argues that consumers are best helped not by government regulation of commercial interests, but are better served by being allowed to make their own choices in a free marketplace.
Sounds good and all but,
In March 1992, CEI’s founder, Fred Smith, said, of global warming: "Most of the indications right now are it looks pretty good. Warmer winters, warmer nights, no effects during the day because of clouding, sounds to me like we’re moving to a more benign planet, more rain, richer, easier productivity to agriculture".
Yeah, that’s not at all kooky. (yeah, right)
And regarding fat grants. Well they don’t get much fatter than from ExxonMobile,
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1998
$85,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list

2000
$230,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001
$280,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002
$205,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
50K congressional briefing program, 140K general operating support, 60K legal activities
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2002
$200,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
140K general operating support, 60K for legal activities.
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003
$25,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Annual Dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2003
$440,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2004
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Global Climate Change
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004
$90000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Global Climate Change Outreach
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2005
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2005
$180,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)
And the rest of their donor list looks like a who’s who in the chemical and petroleum industry. So yeah, I’d say that the pro-global warming cabal have their well funded advocacy groups.
I know that there are many of you who take the Michael Crichton/John Stossel/Bruce McQain approach to those sinister scientists fixing the data so as to receive grant money. Now you can, with confidence, believe that there are other advocacy groups that fix the data for fat, corporate donations.

CEI staff:
# Fred L. Smith, president, $175,000
# Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow, $100,000
# Sam Kazman, general counsel, $98,000
# Jody M. Clarke, Vice President, $85,000
# Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming, $82,000
# Martha Hutto, Vice President, $80,000
# Angela Logomasini, Director of Risk & Environment, $67,000
# Emily C. Duke, Vice President, $65,000
# Iain Murray, Global Warming Policy, $65,000
# Clyde Wayne Crews, director, competition & regulatory policy, $54,500.
Wow, who knew that a “Director of Global Warming” commands a prosperous $82,000 a year? I wonder how one gets that gig.
Huh. I wonder what a climatologist pulls down.

Some people call it pollution,
We call it life.


Heh. Yeah, keep up the good work.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
There again, it would help if you did some minimal research to find out whether this objection had already been answered. It has. The link you cite contains criticism of the Mann "hockey stick" for omitting data. However...
I figured that would be your answer, however the point is the debate is far from settled scientifically.

You do understand that, don’t you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I figured that would be your answer...
Thank you. I’m glad you assume I would point out the evidence.
..however the point is the debate is far from settled scientifically.
Criticism is not equivalent to science. Misguided, factually incorrect criticism, less so.

There’s still disagreement about evolution, but calling that "far from settled scientifically" is a gross misrepresentation.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Thank you. I’m glad you assume I would point out the evidence.
Actually I figured you try to defend your claim "scientific debate is over" and you did.
Criticism is not equivalent to science. Misguided, factually incorrect criticism, less so.
Well there’s more than criticism there if you read the whole thing. More importantly, I’m interested to know on what scientific basis you are able to summarily declare the scientific debate closed?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
A nuclear war was a distinct possibility. Perhaps you don’t buy into that whole "theory" about "atoms", but it’s pretty well accepted among most people. "Global starvation" was certainly talked about, but there’s been no peer-reviewed scientific theory about it. Same with the "global cooling". There was some talk about it many years back; it was mostly a media phenomenon and it was based on fairly limited data.

The fact that some hypotheses turn out to be incorrect does not mean all science is crap.
I would suggest that all three of those situations were mostly "media phenomenon." And as an impressionable teenager, they left their mark. And now, that mark tells me to distrust hyperbole in the media.

So, when someone in the media is saying the sky is falling, or the world is headed for disaster, excuse my skepticism.

There’s plenty of scientific debate left on the issue.

What is clear though is we should be doing more to pollute less. That’s just good stewardship and conservation of our resources.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Actually I figured you try to defend your claim "scientific debate is over" and you did.
By, you know, showing the evidence. Criticism—and that’s what the story did and linked—is not "scientific debate".
More importantly, I’m interested to know on what scientific basis you are able to summarily declare the scientific debate closed?
Please specify which areas in which you contend there is still "scientific debate": (1) that it is occurring, or (2) that mankind contributes to it.

After which, please show your evidence by pointing to relatively recent peer-reviewed research that concludes one of those two points are not happening.

If you cannot, then that is de facto evidence that the scientific debate is closed. If there were still debate on those points, there would be significant amounts of research to substantiate the disagreement. If all you have is "people writing articles", that’s not scientific debate any more than the existence of the Discovery Institute constitutes evidence of remaining scientific debate about Intelligent Design.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Please specify which areas in which you contend there is still "scientific debate": (1) that it is occurring, or (2) that mankind contributes to it.
(3) The level to which mankind contributes to it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Oh, good. So why are you arguing with me? I specifically wrote that "The debate now rests on the degree to which mankind contributes to global warming..."

Again, the research has been fairly consistent that the human contribution is significant, but the specific degree of contribution is still debated.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Oh, good. So why are you arguing with me? I specifically wrote that "The debate now rests on the degree to which mankind contributes to global warming..."
Then again, how has the scientific debate on the issue ended?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
When did I say that the scientific debate on that point was over? Please cite either one example of me saying that the scientific debate over the degree of human contribution was over, or one example of recent scientific (i.e., peer-reviewed research) debate on the existence of warming or the question of whether human activity contributes to it.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
When did I say that the scientific debate on that point was over?
Please specify which areas in which you contend there is still "scientific debate": (1) that it is occurring, or (2) that mankind contributes to it.

After which, please show your evidence by pointing to relatively recent peer-reviewed research that concludes one of those two points are not happening.

If you cannot, then that is de facto evidence that the scientific debate is closed.


Note, you don’t even include degree into the equation you put forward where you declare that if I can’t do what you ask, "scientific debate is closed".

Degree isn’t a "point" it is THE issue.

If global warming is a natural phenomenon, then we can do nothing.

If global warming is a combination of a natural phenomenon and man made polutants, then we can do something.

If we agree it is the latter, what to do is the issue.

If we don’t know the degree, and we don’t, then planning is rather fruitless. Man’s contribution could obviously range from little effect to great effect. And science does not agree nor is the debate settled on that issue, this, the key issue, of the whole debate.

And waving it off with a "well I mentioned the only debate remaining was the degree" doesn’t answer the mail. Degree is the issue and it isn’t scientifically settled.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Note, you don’t even include degree into the equation you put forward where you declare that if I can’t do what you ask, "scientific debate is closed".
Of course I didn’t! Did you even read the post?!?!?! I specifically outlined the areas in which there WAS debate and in which there was NOT debate. Now you’re criticizing me for not taking a completely different position?!?!?
If global warming is a natural phenomenon, then we can do nothing. If global warming is a combination of a natural phenomenon and man made polutants, then we can do something. If we agree it is the latter, what to do is the issue.
That was the whole point of the post I wrote. You appear to be objecting to the fact that I wrote a post with which you agree.

Are you criticizing something I actually wrote, or are you just complaining that you agree with me. Because if you don’t disagree with what I wrote, then what exactly is your point?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Are you criticizing something I actually wrote, or are you just complaining that you agree with me. Because if you don’t disagree with what I wrote, then what exactly is your point?
Miss Bithead yet?
"scientific debate is closed".
But it’s not ... not until the issue of degree is settled. That’s my point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Miss Bithead yet?
No, not in the least.
But it’s not ... not until the issue of degree is settled. That’s my point.
If that was your point, then you completely misunderstood what I wrote. Scientific debate is over on certain questions; on others — as I explicitly noted — it is still open.

Though, I would argue, that it’s probably less open than some would like to believe. The evidence is that we definitely make non-trivial contributions and have the ability to change that.

Meanwhile, people like Limbaugh pretend it doesn’t happen at all. The other day, he argued that humans can’t affect the climate. (drop a few hundred nuclear bombs and see how much effect we can have on the climate) He also said that:
This hysteric global warming is unsupportable by facts. It’s not even supported by these wacko computer models anymore.
...which is patently untrue. And...
If global warming is that big a threat then why did you punt Kyoto? If global warming is such a big deal, how come you did not sign the Kyoto protocol?
...is also untrue. Clinton did sign the Kyoto Protocol. It would not have passed Congress, so he didn’t take it further, but he most certainly did sign it.

I digress. There’s a broad perception among the know-nothing right that global warming is one big hoax. That’s a dangerous ignorance.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Jon Henke wrote:
"There’s a broad perception among the know-nothing right that global warming is one big hoax."
"Global Warming (TM)" as a political football is a hoax. There is no credible data to determine if wamring is occurring at the rate of 1 degree per century or 1 degree per decade. There is no credible data to "prove" if it will continue at that rate indefinitely, whatever that rate is, and there is no credible way to say that human activites are responsible for 1% of that rate or 50%.

In short, as a political matter, it is a hoax.

Now is still the time to stand there instead of just doing something.

In the case of Kyoto, what the left wanted us to do is slit our own throats. Gore still wants us to do that.

Jon, please tattoo this on the inside of your eyelids—

Just because a whole lot of people (about half in fact) vote with the left doesn’t make them correct. In fact, it is reasonable to have the support of the left for a concept prejudice your judgement against it, because they have a flawed perception of human reality which colors all their thinking.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Feel free to find the peer-reviewed research backing up your position. Failing that, your opinion does not constitute "scientific debate".
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Jon, you’ve been dismissing all evidence that exists to the contrary of your opinion. Why would would I bother to debate those deranged?

BTW, reasoned criticism IS scientific debate, especially when it impeaches "data".

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Peer-reviewed research, please. If the criticism is legitimate, surely it’s shown up in peer-reviewed research.

You’ll note that I specified "scientific debate". "Debate about science" is not the same as "scientific debate". That creation scientists disagree with the theory of evolution does not mean there is "scientific debate" about creationism VS evolution. Scientific debate occurs amongst scientists, in peer-reviewed, structured ways.

So, show me that and we’ll talk.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Al Gore and the Great Glass in the Sky

This very important message was written with the intent that it would be passed around, forwarded to other recipients, generating a worldwide revolution into believing in the reality that there is:

1) Glass in the sky,

2) The fact that the whole universe is inverted and fits within the walls of a hollow, inverted earth, where earth is just a shell in which we live on the inside surface, and

3) God and heaven are physically situated up in the middle of this inverted world, and once this reality becomes prevalent, the whole world will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as prophesied by Habakkuk.

Steven Joseph Christopher
http://www.geocities.com/stevec15317/_heaven_centered_earth.html

Most Christian Fundamentals don’t believe in global warming, but even liberals fail to understand why it’s happening.

With the debut of Al Gore’s film, "An Inconvenient Truth", I bring you an even more inconvenient truth to swallow....

How silly of Mr. Gore...

To actually propose such an idea, that the earth is warming.and to use the old greenhouse analogy, as if there were a gigantic bubble of glass covering the entire globe.

No sir, the only way I would ever believe him (that there is global warming) is if, and only if he could actually PROVE beyond any shadow of any doubt, that there is actually real glass up in the sky.

Ha-ha, but he’d have an uphill battle. Let me tell you.

I mean first off, he’d have to prove that rainbows were a result of the white light from the sun, filtering through a glass plane and projecting onto cloud vapors in the air.

He’d have to debunk the accepted explanation that there are billions and billions of tiny raindrops in the air, which individually produce the complete spectrum of colors. And the notion that these raindrops are not SMART raindrops, which cannot synchronously align themselves together to form a perfectly arced bow. - How absurd. We all know that these drops are smart.

I mean these intelligent raindrops are everywhere, even in garden hose spray and water bottle mist.

He’d have to deduct that these raindrops did not have choreographic intellect and that the real reason the rainbows formed on these surfaces were because the sunlight was already filtered by the glass way up high at the top of the sky.

He’d have to compare these surface or vapors, as merely reflective projection screens.

Well, come to think of it, it DOES makes sense. hmm.

He’d also have to attribute all the aurora phenomena to glass in the sky. You know, the beautiful imagery in the northern and southern polar regions. He’d have to say that the electrons from the sun were hitting the glass and causing it to glow, just like a TV screen glows when electrons hit the phosphorus coated glass. He’d also have to prove that there was phosphorus in the atmosphere. Oh, wait a minute, there is, and that’s how scientists explain why auroras happen, they even use the glass TV screen as an analogy.

Ok, but he’d have a hard time explaining ham radio waves if there were glass in the sky. I mean how are the short waves going to bounce off the ionosphere if there was a layer of glass in the sky?

Err, wait a minute. Actually ham radio waves reaching the other side of earth ARE compared to waves bouncing off the ionosphere as if it were a sheet of glass. Glass deflects radio waves.

Ok, ok, now if there was really glass up in the sky then how could he explain where tektites came from. If you all don’t know what tektites are, they are little globules of almost pure silica (glass). They are found in strewn fields in Australia, Georgia and a few other isolated regions of the world. To this day no scientist has conclusively, without any shadow of any doubt, proven their true origin.some say terrestrial, a result of a meteorite slamming into the ground and penetrating deep into the sedimentary layers of the earth with high velocity and extremely high temperature, and causing "instant" liquefying of sedimentary glass (obsidian) and squirting this glass out from beneath the ground and propelling it WAY high up into the air.miles high. All the while cooling off as it makes it decent to the ground. Yeah right.(physics deem this stunt truly impossible)...some say extra-terrestrial.. maybe from the moon or a planet far, far away. But the chances of the moon propelling a few tektites earth’s way are very slim, as well as having ZERO similarities to moon rock, as well as the tektite having NO cosmic rays exposure. (This would mean that it is not from space)

No, Al Gore would have to say something like a meteor skidded across the glass up in the sky and caused it to get really hot and melt and drop down globules.well I guess this wouldn’t be as hard an explanation as I originally thought.

Okay, but big Al would have to explain why fusion crust (the glass coating on meteorites) was not possible to create on terrestrial rock by heating it to the same temperature as the meteor entering the atmosphere..

uh.wait a minute, I guess WE’D have to explain this, not Al. Why would glass form on the meterorite ONLY if it came through the atmosphere and not by just heating one up on the ground?

All right, what about a comet’s tail. He’d have to trash the solar wind explanation in lieu of his glass idea. He’d have to say that the tail of the comet was curved and always facing the opposite of the sun because of the optical distortion effect called "coma aberration", caused only by light filtering through a bowed glass lens, actually NAMED for the similarity of the comet’s tail.

Ugh... I guess WE’RE in the hot seat on this one too.

All right, all right, I’m not down for the count yet.

Ozone

Let the OZONE man himself; prove that there is glass up in the sky by explaining how ozone is present in the atmosphere, if there is glass up in the sky.

HEE - HEE I can SMELL my victory now!

Oh - no, wait a minute. Ozone generators and air ionizers (only the ones with glass plates) produce ozone and cause it to smell like the fresh scent after a thunderstorm. So the glass screening the ultraviolet light causes ozone. So we can actually SMELL the glass in the sky.

RATZ!

Ok, but Al, come on really, how would the Space Shuttle and all those satellites have penetrated this fictitious glass barrier?

I mean you’d have to penetrate this glass by easing into it, you know at a really acute angle and you’d have to go really, really fast to get enough temperature to melt the glass. Also, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to coat all the tiles with a special dichroic glass that would have very little thermal conductivity and have it powdery, like sand paper, creating more friction..

DARN! He got me again, that’s EXACTLY what is on the shuttle’s tiles, they call it FRIT.

All right, if there really WAS glass in the sky, why don’t we see a reflection of the earth up in the sky? I mean you’d have to say that there was some kind of non-reflective material coating the glass - like a non-transparent sheet of ice, one that is translucent, blocking a good potion of the sunlight from entering.

But, come to think of it that would explain all the mysterious huge chunks of ice that have fallen to the ground. Most recently in Oakland, CA this April.
Ok, what about stellar spectroscopy? RATZ, glass would explain it better.

What about red shift only visible from beneath earth’s atmosphere -

DARN, glass explains it better.

What about halos, circumzenith arcs, glories, superior mirages, fata morganas????

SHOOT! Glass in the sky explains ALL these things perfectly.

Uh moderators!

Never mind, can I erase my posting here? I’m new here and don’t want to be ridiculed by the fact that AL Gore beat me in proving that there is glass up in the sky. And also proving that there is global warming.

I mean we all know why he can’t be president..

...because of the glass ceiling.

(EVEN CHILDREN KNOW THIS IS WHY THERE ARE RAINBOWS IN THE SKY)

 
Written By: Steven Joseph Christopher
URL: http://www.geocities.com/stevec15317/_heaven_centered_earth.html
SHOOT! Glass in the sky explains ALL these things perfectly.
Uh, Joe?

Izzat you?

Whatchya been drinking?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’m not that old and I have been through the liberals sky is falling over exaggeration for as long as I can remember. Gasoline shortage, waste management (ie recycling), deforestation, speciation, the ozone layer, expanded 3-4 decades of political hype and all proven to be severely over hyped. Learn from the past people.

Scientists have concluded that the earth has suffered at least 2 and perhaps 3 ice ages and it is known that at some time that the earth mainly was a very tropical environment. As many scientists have concluded about “Global Warming” it is simply the natural state of the homogenous process of the earth and would be warming if not a single person was ever born.
 
Written By: BG
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider