"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:05:11 -0500, hk wrote:
Almost everyone who denies science is on the right.


Let me see - real scientists who are in serious doubt aren't really
scientists? Put another way - your assertion is that all those real
scientists who are advising caution and presenting evidence that
directly refutes the current global warming hysteria are right wing
extremists? You know - those guys who invented the science?

Come on Harry - get informed, just don't follow along with the
rhetoric and disinformation campaign led by the Goracle.

Remember - the first and most important propaganda principle is for a
problem to be perceived - as in propaganda evoking audience interest
transmitted through attention-getting communications.

I would suggest that instead of immediately demonizing the "right",
you might actually want to figure out why it is that some of these
very real and very important scientists are saying what they are
saying.


Almost everyone who denies science is on the right. Check it out. Count
'em up. It's not just this issue.


Tom's representative list of scientists are "denying" science?

It will be interesting so see what happens over the next 5-10 years. From
what I've read on the subject even the most ardent advocates of mankind
being responsible for a global warming trend agree that it can't be reversed
in that short of a time frame.

My hunch is that in about 5 years new data will cause the whole debate to go
away, only to be replaced by a growing concern of a coming mini Ice Age
cycle.

Remember all the dire predictions of Y2K?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

Remember all the dire predictions of Y2K?

An astute observation. The dire Y2K predictions were being made by those
who then profited from it.

Same with Al Gore, etc. Follow the money.

-- Charlie

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:58:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


The disturbing thing about this whole thing is some people have
invented a tax, brokered by venture capital firms to trade "carbon
credits". That instantly takes a non existant commidity and makes it
money. Some people are going to get very rich on a scheme that may be
totally meaningless and the cult religion of environmentalism is
driving that market.

I think you're on to something there.

Indeed, there is data that supports global warming. The cause and ultimate
ramifications are in dispute.

Meanwhile, there's money to be made. Some make money by looking
optimistically at the future and endeavor to find ways to fix the problems,
improve lifestyles and provide a benefit to society while promoting the
brighter side of the effort.

Others make money by employing scare techniques, generate a pessimistic
outlook and apply guilt and blame on everyone for an impeding gloom and doom
future unless you accept and diligently apply their directives.

The problems are the common denominator. The difference is in how to
address them.

I think this is the big mistake many concerned environmentalists are making.
Few people want to be scolded into following their viewpoints, nor live in a
forecast of increasing gloom and doom. I think people are motivated to
change much more rapidly and willingly when the benefits of change are
advertised optimistically. For some reason some people simply delight in
being constantly negative. Personally, I try to avoid them.

Eisboch

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:06:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Meanwhile, there's money to be made. Some make money by looking
optimistically at the future and endeavor to find ways to fix the problems,
improve lifestyles and provide a benefit to society while promoting the
brighter side of the effort.

Long.

Others make money by employing scare techniques, generate a pessimistic
outlook and apply guilt and blame on everyone for an impeding gloom and doom
future unless you accept and diligently apply their directives.

Short.

The problems are the common denominator. The difference is in how to
address them.

Create a market to level the forces.

I think this is the big mistake many concerned environmentalists are making.
Few people want to be scolded into following their viewpoints, nor live in a
forecast of increasing gloom and doom. I think people are motivated to
change much more rapidly and willingly when the benefits of change are
advertised optimistically. For some reason some people simply delight in
being constantly negative. Personally, I try to avoid them

Bingo. :)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:22:58 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:58:41 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:




Almost everyone who denies science is on the right. Check it out. Count
'em up. It's not just this issue.


Tom's representative list of scientists are "denying" science?

It will be interesting so see what happens over the next 5-10 years. From
what I've read on the subject even the most ardent advocates of mankind
being responsible for a global warming trend agree that it can't be reversed
in that short of a time frame.

My hunch is that in about 5 years new data will cause the whole debate to go
away, only to be replaced by a growing concern of a coming mini Ice Age
cycle.

Remember all the dire predictions of Y2K?

Eisboch


I do not doubt that the climate is changing. I would even believe man
is responsible for some of the changes. The real question is if
changing the trend is as simple as cutting our discretionary CO2
emissions. If you look at the Scientiofic American article from last
year about the effect of agriculture on climate they peg the
beginnings of the warming trend 8,000 years ago when man first started
clearing land and planting crops.

That is only some of the evidence. There is strong evidence that this
cycle has happened in concert with solar cycles. Some science is
being done on the issue of cosmic rays - namely that during certain
periods of sun cycle activity (not the 11 year cycle, but the longer
term 50/100,000 year cycles) there isn't enough photon activity (solar
wind) effectively reducing the magnetic shield which keeps them out or
slows them down.

I suppose if we make the penalties against the western economies
strong enough (and crash them) the resulting nuclear war will reverse
the warming trend and cut way back on that pesky population growth.

That is really the issue - it's another attempt to redistribute income
only on an internationlist scale.

The disturbing thing about this whole thing is some people have
invented a tax, brokered by venture capital firms to trade "carbon
credits". That instantly takes a non existant commidity and makes it
money. Some people are going to get very rich on a scheme that may be
totally meaningless and the cult religion of environmentalism is
driving that market.

Who is leading the charge? Gore.

I said it a long time ago - carbon credits were going to be
commodities and traded as such.

Create a market - that's how you do it. It's classic.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:49:27 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


I suppose if we make the penalties against the western economies strong
enough (and crash them) the resulting nuclear war will reverse the
warming trend and cut way back on that pesky population growth.

That is really the issue - it's another attempt to redistribute income
only on an internationlist scale.

If that really is the issue, you are looking to blame the wrong people.
It isn't the environmentalists, it's the capitalists. If we are buying
all the out-sourced, pollution intensive products of the eastern
economies, who's pollution is it really? The Chinese, or ours? Part of
the "attractiveness" of out-sourcing is, in addition to the dollar a day
wages, companies don't have to put up with our pesky pollution laws.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:49:27 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:



That is really the issue - it's another attempt to redistribute income
only on an internationlist scale.

If that really is the issue, you are looking to blame the wrong people.
It isn't the environmentalists, it's the capitalists. If we are buying
all the out-sourced, pollution intensive products of the eastern
economies, who's pollution is it really? The Chinese, or ours? Part of
the "attractiveness" of out-sourcing is, in addition to the dollar a day
wages, companies don't have to put up with our pesky pollution laws.


If you really get down to it, it's not the environmentalists nor the
capitalists. It's the consumer ... looking for the lowest prices for
products and the highest return on their stock market investments.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:49:27 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


That is really the issue - it's another attempt to redistribute income
only on an internationlist scale.
If that really is the issue, you are looking to blame the wrong people.
It isn't the environmentalists, it's the capitalists. If we are buying
all the out-sourced, pollution intensive products of the eastern
economies, who's pollution is it really? The Chinese, or ours? Part of
the "attractiveness" of out-sourcing is, in addition to the dollar a day
wages, companies don't have to put up with our pesky pollution laws.


If you really get down to it, it's not the environmentalists nor the
capitalists. It's the consumer ... looking for the lowest prices for
products and the highest return on their stock market investments.

Eisboch



\

Biting their noses to spite their faces.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:49:27 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


That is really the issue - it's another attempt to redistribute income
only on an internationlist scale.
If that really is the issue, you are looking to blame the wrong people.
It isn't the environmentalists, it's the capitalists. If we are buying
all the out-sourced, pollution intensive products of the eastern
economies, who's pollution is it really? The Chinese, or ours? Part of
the "attractiveness" of out-sourcing is, in addition to the dollar a day
wages, companies don't have to put up with our pesky pollution laws.


If you really get down to it, it's not the environmentalists nor the
capitalists. It's the consumer ... looking for the lowest prices for
products and the highest return on their stock market investments.

Eisboch



\

Biting their noses to spite their faces.


Yup. It's a catch 22. I suppose you could impose high tariffs on imported
products but that opens up another can of worms. Meanwhile, the Chinese
factory worker is delighting in his and his country's newfound economic
success, very happy to be working for compensation and in conditions that we
consider slavery.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Biting their noses to spite their faces.


Yup. It's a catch 22. I suppose you could impose high tariffs on
imported products but that opens up another can of worms. Meanwhile, the
Chinese factory worker is delighting in his and his country's newfound
economic success, very happy to be working for compensation and in
conditions that we consider slavery.

Eisboch


Harry .... just thought of something that would keep you busy for a couple
of decades.

Go unionize China.

Eisboch