Of the Theory of the Club of Rome...

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. "

The more I research into this, the more I am convinced it's [AGW] nothing more than a tool that has been devised to redistribute wealth both among nations and within nations. In fact, I believe I have enough information from various credible sources to cause serious harm to the DNC if I could publish what I've read in a major media outlet.

Kramer

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007

no Kramer. What i am asking for is some sort of evidence that thousands of scientists have been engaged in some sort of fraud concerning our understanding of the earths systems for the last century. That is one huge conspiracy, surely there is some evidence of it....

Your quote above only suggests political opportunism, it does not call into question the science.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

HA! Too funny.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

Go on then; wheres this evidence. That report is just accusation. Lets see the evidence. So far, the one person who showed his AGW evidence has provded GW...

__________________

well one man was supposeldy shut donw when he wanted to speak out regads his views, now it appears we have another.


The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign.

Wherever Jim Hansen is right now -- whatever speech the "censored" NASA scientist is giving -- perhaps he'll find time to mention the plight of Alan Carlin. Though don't count on it.

Mr. Hansen, as everyone in this solar system knows, is the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting in 2004, he launched a campaign against the Bush administration, claiming it was censoring his global-warming thoughts and fiddling with the science. It was all a bit of a hoot, given Mr. Hansen was already a world-famous devotee of the theory of man-made global warming, a reputation earned with some 1,400 speeches he'd given, many while working for Mr. Bush. But it gave Democrats a fun talking point, one the Obama team later picked up.


So much so that one of President Barack Obama's first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, "As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."

Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an "endangerment" finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it -- even if Congress doesn't act.

Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate." Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.

The emails were unearthed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Republican officials are calling for an investigation; House Energy Committee ranking member Joe Barton sent a letter with pointed questions to Mrs. Jackson, which she's yet to answer. The EPA has issued defensive statements, claiming Mr. Carlin wasn't ignored. But there is no getting around that the Obama administration has flouted its own promises of transparency.

The Bush administration's great sin, for the record, was daring to issue reports that laid out the administration's official position on global warming. That the reports did not contain the most doomsday predictions led to howls that the Bush politicals were suppressing and ignoring career scientists.

The Carlin dustup falls into a murkier category. Unlike annual reports, the Obama EPA's endangerment finding is a policy act. As such, EPA is required to make public those agency documents that pertain to the decision, to allow for public comment. Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both "the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded." In refusing to allow Mr. Carlin's study to be circulated, the agency essentially hid it from the docket.

Unable to defend the EPA's actions, the climate-change crew -- , led by anonymous EPA officials -- is doing what it does best: trashing Mr. Carlin as a "denier." He is, we are told, "only" an economist (he in fact holds a degree in physics from CalTech). It wasn't his "job" to look at this issue (he in fact works in an office tasked with "informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences.") His study was full of sham science. (The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.) Where's Mr. Hansen and his defense of scientific freedom when you really need him?

Mr. Carlin is instead an explanation for why the science debate is little reported in this country. The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign. The global-warming crowd likes to deride skeptics as the equivalent of the Catholic Church refusing to accept the Copernican theory. The irony is that, today, it is those who dare critique the new religion of human-induced climate change who face the Inquisition.

Strassel: The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

The June 29 New Yorker has an article on James Hansen. Hansen earned his Ph.D. in Physics, worked as a climatologist, and is currently the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In 1981 he design the first "computer model" for predicting climatic change, which has been remarkably accurate for nearly three decades. Dr. Hansen believes that we have already passed the critical level for CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere. He insists that we must stop burning coal now, because otherwise its emissions will soon kill us. Not next month. Not next week. Not tomorrow. NOW.

Without even considering the issue of "Global warming--True or False?" it is nearly impossible to argue with Dr. Hansen's conclusions. Human lungs can handle only a limited amount of pollutants.

Very well then, his hypothesis should be easily proven. China is presently adding a coal fired plant to their inventory every month. India is no slacker either, the cap and trade we just passed won't do squat on a global basis.

So. I'll be gracious; lets give it 3 more years. If we are still here posting , well there ya go.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

In three years we may be living and posting On the Beach.

Shute envision a planet doomed by radioactive pollutants. But pollutants don't have to be radioactive to be fatal to everyone. I'm not ready to pull the plug on my life, but neither do I think that it is smart to ignore warnings such as Hansen's.

You are, of course, free to disagree. But you are foolish to be so dismissive.

Dismissive? No not really, cynical and critical? Yes. We have had other dire predictions over the last 40 years. Global Starvation, A coming Ice Age, the Population Bomb, Acid Rain, all sppted by folks with similar expertise in their field(s).

It appears to me that the computer modeling used to make this case is not perfected. We have now been told by experts that we will be in a cooling period for the next couple of decades…I mean, what the hell? Which one is it? There are plenty of similarly dedicated and expert fellows whom don’t believe that we are in a crisis phase and in fact that man is not the major protagonist.

And finally; anytime a scientific issue takes on the trappings of religious fervor, making its case via emotional appeal as to clear empirical evidence, I get skittish.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

“When the observations show that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years, which contradicts the models, who are you going to believe? The models or the observations. Obviously, we believe in the observations.

From - Newsmax.com - Scientist: Global Warming Claims a Lot of Hype

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

I think we might be able to agree on one thing. Newsmax isn't empirical data, even if it may be your brand of choice on reality.

__________________
He who learns but does not think is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger. --Confucius

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.
--African proverb

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.
--Albert Einstein

Yes, dismiss the content because you don't like the source. It's not like anyone on their staff has bowed to the President. It's not like the President jokes about waking up beside them in bed...

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

Newsmax were liars in the bush years, why should they be believed now?

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

Correcting Ocean Cooling : Feature Articles
Correcting Ocean Cooling : Feature Articles

The recent global cooling trend so hyped by global warming deniers was actually a combination of systematic errors with 2 different types of measurement probes. In other words it WAS WRONG. Once the data was corrected, it correctly shows we are in an era of global warming in agreement with most other experimental data. Systematic errors are often the most difficult to find and correct for, and yet can be among the most important errors to watch for as most scientists know.

Millikan won the nobel prize for determining the charge on a single electron and yet had a systematic error with his experiment which wasn't discovered for many years. Does this mean he didn't know what he was doing? Hardly. It just means that science is hard and thats why typically very smart, thorough, diligent, and honest people make the best scientists.

I honestly don't see what republicans think they will gain if the world ecology is disastrously ruined. Do they think that will protect their way of life? Do they really think that the push to green technologies will reduce the number of jobs? Do they really not see a problem if the polar icecaps completely melt?

Lets be honest, its not exactly a reputable source. Its not new scientist.

__________________