"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:
"Sean Corbett" wrote in message
...
You wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2006 23:14:01 GMT, Sean Corbett penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
OK, which of these statements is false:
1. Mars' primary source of heat is the Sun.
2. Earth's primary source of heat is the Sun.
Ok, which of these statements is false:
Your dodge of the question and snippage of parts of my post are
accepted as
your offer of surrender.
You seem to be missing quite a bit in this discussion
Did I miss Gene's answer to whether or not Mars' primary source of heat is
the Sun? Please provide me a link to Gene's answer. Unless of course
you'd like to take the occasion to answer the question yourself.
http://www.aetherometry.com/global_w.../gw_index.html
"But how did the official line of Royal Science and mass-media coverage
manage to flip flop from the hysteria of anticipated 'global cooling' to the
hysteria of 'global warming'?
By 1989, mass-media mouthpieces were promoting the notion, now dominant,
that 'all' scientists in the U.S. and Europe were agreed on the reality of
'global warming'. The magazine Science, of course, was at the forefront of
the new fashion. When Lindzen submitted, in the spring of 1989, a critique
of the myth to Science, the paper was rejected without even being
peer-reviewed. Eventually, it was accepted by the Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, but Science took it upon itself to criticize the
blackballed article before it was even published - one in a long line of
clear-cut instances of Science's unethical behavior, and proof positive of
the existence of an unspoken policy of general circulation of leaked
submissions.
The direct political reasons for the promotion of the 'global warming' fad
are to be found in the convergence of diverse social forces:
.. the evolution of left (social-democratic) political forces towards a new
electoral marketing - militant form of environmentalism, and technocratic
managerialism;
.. the transformation of 'ecological' organizations into profitable
non-profit, macro-capitalist funds;
.. the design of national State bureaucracies to control the entirety of
social life with new regulatory mechanisms;
.. the emergence of a new International State technobureaucracy in search of
supranational powers and jurisdictions.
To these social forces one must add the worldwide unregulated growth of
cadres and the transformation of forces of antiproduction and destruction
into profitable ventures. Thus -
.. an excess of PhD's in physics and mathematics with little left to aim for
other than the pursuit of a career within the official institutions of
organized dissent, where they endlessly generate models and fads pliable to
political interests, in particular those fads that are dear to the global
techno-socialist management of capitalism; and
.. the subsidies, grants and investment provided to 'green' groups by some of
the worst polluter industries (eg oil, nuclear companies, utilities, etc) as
a way to redeem their status or blanch their image, and as a sort of
'protection fee'.
Finally, there is, as we said, a softness that, so far, is intrinsic to
environmental sciences, and which makes them particularly vulnerable to
mystification and political manipulation.
Of all these social forces and trends, it is apparent that the main role is
played by the emerging global technobureaucracy. Taken separately, the
other forces were unlikely to amass sufficient momentum for a deep social
penetration. They needed a substantial partner in power, and a
pseudo-scientific doctrine that could be shoved down everyone's throat.
That's what they found in the UN, in its latest role as a 'regulator' of
'sustainable development and global growth', and in its highly corrupt NGO
structure. From the sham Rio de Janeiro Conference, in 1992, to Kyoto, these
neo-left-wing militants - their ranks swollen with crypto-anarchist
volunteer slave-labor - formed the frontlines of the New Global Order, the
millenial paradigm, even as they claimed to be denouncing 'globalism'.
Pliable to the new international capitalism of global looting, the 'global
warming' movement disguised its objectives as scientific, and 'dictated'
them as being in the objective interest of mankind. The myth of 'global
warming' was their precious tool:
"Global warming advocacy is big business, hundreds of millions in research
and other funds are available annually for those scientists and
organizations who spout the party line (just check the Pew Foundation gravy
trains), don't fool yourself, scientists and professors need money and
research funds, and some are willing to violate the scientific method to
obtain them. (...) Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, WWF, etc, who make
these claims, (...) who present themselves as non-profit/non-partisan, are
neither. They are just as biased and unscientific in their approach as the
big oil, car and chemical companies are. They make money from fear
mongering to collect funds from well meaning, concerned, but scientifically
naive people." [4]
'Global warming' is likely to be the most expensive pseudo-scientific hoax
ever implemented. As of August 22, 2005 - and since the Kyoto protocol came
into effect on February 16, 2005 - the Kyoto Agreement has cost 80 billion
dollars for, supposedly, a prevention of warming by 0.0008 deg C... To
prevent a 1 deg C increase it will cost some 100 trillion dollars [5]. One
can measure this wasteful capital expenditure by the 16 billion that was
needed to shore up New Orleans and the Mississippi delta from a stage 5
hurricane like Katrina, or by the paltry 3 billion that the US spends
annually in orthodox research on alternative energy (reduced, in essence, to
solar cells and wind turbines) . 'Global warming' is a clearcut example of
the central role acquired by antiproduction in global capitalism. Its
promoters, with peer-reviewed mainstream publications at the forefront, have
struck gold - a very lucrative business, where nothing needs to be actually
produced, not even real science, in order for a 'healthy' profit to be made
under the cover of an altruistic advocacy voicing demands in the name of
mankind...
Nothing could outdo the power of this hoax in fuelling anti-Americanism
worldwide, nor become as engrossing a plot for the 'prime time' show:
"The global warming circus was in full swing. Meetings were going on
nonstop. One of the more striking of those meetings was hosted in the summer
of 1989 by Robert Redford at his ranch in Sundance, Utah. Redford
proclaimed that it was time to stop the research and begin acting. I
suppose that that was a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make, but it
was also indicative of the overall attitude towards science. Barbara
Streisand personally undertook to support the research of Michael
Oppenheimer at the Environmental Defense Fund, although he is primarily an
advocate and not a climatologist. Meryl Streep made an appeal on public
television to stop warming. A bill was even prepared to guarantee Americans
a stable climate." [1]
From Jeremy Legget of Greenpeace, to George Mitchell and Albert Gore (who
compared the 'true believers' in 'global warming' to Galileo! Caramba!),
'global warming' had become the latest soap, an international brand to sell
books and plead for donations. Lindzen appropriately concludes:
"Rarely has such meager science provoked such an outpouring of
popularization by individuals who do not understand the subject in the first
place."
To the long list of circus performers, one must add that other latecomer
among the plethora of modern trashcans, the populist purveyor of gross
ineptitude - Wikipedia, ruled by a neo-maoist cabal of 'global warming'
zealots."