Global Warming

[tommyboy444]

Just read this article about the propeganda machine designed to deny global warming.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

Not trying to start a flame war. Would like reasonable discussion about your views.

[TheNiche]

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries.

Depending upon what span of time you're looking at, this is true, but it can also be made untrue depending on how the data is interpreted. We've had warmer average global temperatures, and we've had cooler temperatures. The statement is unclear, and is essentially meaningless.

Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies.

Whose studies are they citing? When were they conducted? What was the methodology? Has the methodology changed, and how? Were they peer reviewed? Were they published?

Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that.

In the 70's, skeptics were questioning global cooling. Given the direction that we've gone since then, were they wrong to question it?

A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

Would opposing views have surfaced if there weren't money in it? Frankly, would views supportive of global warming have surfaced if there weren't money in it? Funding doesn't only come from private sources, and even within the private sector, it doesn't all go to Exxon. How much would Green Mountain stand to lose if the public stopped fearing GW? Never mind the circumstantial nature of such an argument, but the funding mechanisms make both camps suspect. Neither has the advantage on these grounds.

"They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

The science is uncertain. Any grade school science teacher worth their salt will tell you that all scientific knowledge is inherently uncertain. And science without a healthy dose of skepticism is no science at all.

In the NEWSWEEK Poll, 38 percent of those surveyed identified climate change as the nation's gravest environmental threat, three times the number in 2000.

That doesn't say a lot. It may just mean that other environmental problems have been adequately mitigated or that they aren't getting as much publicity any more. After all, air and water pollution have been declining pretty dramatically since the 70's, a lot of formerly endangered species have reached very healthy population levels again, and the ozone layer issue has been pretty effectively handled. ...so what's next on the list? And just because its at the top of the list (assuming that people polled are rational and can keep their heads on straight in the face of disproportionate media coverage) does that mean that it is all that bad or worthy of investment? Valid questions.

This summer, Texas was hit by exactly the kind of downpours and flooding expected in a greenhouse world, and Las Vegas and other cities broiled in record triple-digit temperatures. Just last week the most accurate study to date concluded that the length of heat waves in Europe has doubled, and their frequency nearly tripled, in the past century. The frequency of Atlantic hurricanes has already doubled in the last century. Snowpack whose water is crucial to both cities and farms is diminishing.

Don't buy in the flood plain, get rid of the NFIP, and use better building materials [Texas & Gulf/Atlantic states], go inside and turn on the A/C [Vegas & Europe], and hire some Aggies to farm Siberia and the Yukon. ...sounds flippant, but I'm serious. Problems solved.

[tommyboy444]

Would opposing views have surfaced if there weren't money in it? Frankly, would views supportive of global warming have surfaced if there weren't money in it? Funding doesn't only come from private sources, and even within the private sector, it doesn't all go to Exxon. How much would Green Mountain stand to lose if the public stopped fearing GW? Never mind the circumstantial nature of such an argument, but the funding mechanisms make both camps suspect. Neither has the advantage on these grounds.

LOL yeah Green Mountain Energy is behind this whole global warming conspiracy. Sorry there is only one side buying scientist off. Please be honest on this point.

The science is uncertain. Any grade school science teacher worth their salt will tell you that all scientific knowledge is inherently uncertain. And science without a healthy dose of skepticism is no science at all.

Agreed, but when does skepticism become just contrarian. After awhile, after hundereds of studies that tell you one thing and only a dozen that tell you otherwise. There is NO reasonable uncertainty about the science. That is just propaganda.

That doesn't say a lot. It may just mean that other environmental problems have been adequately mitigated or that they aren't getting as much publicity any more. After all, air and water pollution have been declining pretty dramatically since the 70's, a lot of formerly endangered species have reached very healthy population levels again, and the ozone layer issue has been pretty effectively handled. ...so what's next on the list? And just because its at the top of the list (assuming that people polled are rational and can keep their heads on straight in the face of disproportionate media coverage) does that mean that it is all that bad or worthy of investment? Valid questions.

It would help to know what the top concern was back in 2000, but the point it was trying to make remains.

Don't buy in the flood plain, get rid of the NFIP, and use better building materials [Texas & Gulf/Atlantic states], go inside and turn on the A/C [Vegas & Europe], and hire some Aggies to farm Siberia and the Yukon. ...sounds flippant, but I'm serious. Problems solved.

Ha I am not even going to touch that one.

[TJones]

LOL yeah Green Mountain Energy is behind this whole global warming conspiracy. Sorry there is only one side buying scientist off. Please be honest on this point.

Hmmm......you say no flaming, yet, you would just rather laugh off others answers to your B.S. "study" ? Nobody said that GW was in any way a "conspiracy", in the back of your mind are you afraid that it might be ? All these "studies" are summed up with explanations that they are merely hypotheses, that have YET to be proven.

Agreed, but when does skepticism become just contrarian. After awhile, after hundereds of studies that tell you one thing and only a dozen that tell you otherwise. There is NO reasonable uncertainty about the science. That is just propaganda.

When the same dozen people are the ones that keep giving the hundreds of studies that tell the one thing, one tends to believe that there may be an agenda in there somewhere.

It would help to know what the top concern was back in 2000, but the point it was trying to make remains.

Here is a little insight for you. Well, at least as far as the concerns about Global Warming is concerned.

http://www.junkscience.com/jan00/robinso.html

Ha I am not even going to touch that one.

Here we are back at square one again with you laughing. Look, as soon as the GW proponents can explain the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930's to me, when there was absolutely NO industrialization. I will be prepared to listen further to their cackling, "The sky is falling......the sky is falling!" Until then, let them go eat their algae paste covered strawberries and kiwi, while they hug trees and drink their herbal teas.

I am now going to go jump into my gas guzzling American made Ford, and drive home to watch my 42" DLP boob tube that sucks up about 100kilowatts and hour, and turn on all the lights in my house, and drain half the water in my pool, then fill it up again, just because I CAN !

[TheNiche]

LOL yeah Green Mountain Energy is behind this whole global warming conspiracy. Sorry there is only one side buying scientist off. Please be honest on this point.

I suppose you think Exxon is the one behind the whole bout of global warming skepticism? Surely, you'd think that there would be others. But nine times out of ten, when someone is being bought off in this debate, it's Exxon's doing. I just don't buy that. I think that there are others that are twisting science for the sake of money and politics, but that Exxon is a very convenient boogeyman in the political arena. So if I am correct and natural resource production firms (including oil, gas, coal, and other various mining firms) along with utilities--which btw are far greater emittors of CO2 and have much more to lose than big oil--are in it together, with profit being the ultimate motivator...why is it do you think that firms that stand to gain from CO2 emissions caps would not buy off scientists of their own or contribute to PR campaigns? Because they're just nice?

...sorry. I'm not buying that, either. Companies are neither good or evil. They just care about bottom dollar. You may find a few that stick to their ethics (or at least have a good PR firm handling their image), but in the end, they'll do what they can to turn a buck. I'm not saying that Green Mountain is behind it all. But I would dare to say that they promote GW-related policy such as it furthers their financial interests and that there are plenty of other firms out there with similar incentives. And they aren't the only ones with an incentive to do so. Also bear in mind that so-called scientific studies paid for from public dollars have a tendency to recommend further study, and that inducing fear among politicians' constituents is a good way to bring it about. Scientists, like you or I, like to be employed.

Now, am I saying that the only thing behind GW is greedy scientists, corporations, and various politicians that stand to gain from it? No. Am I saying that the only thing supporting the skepitcs' positions are greedy scientists, corporations, and various politicians? No. My point is that the issue is confused and that the line of argument that someone or another is getting paid off isn't very effective, no matter whose side you're on. It is a non-issue one way or another, not only as the practical matter that I've discussed, but because it is a logical fallacy (see below). However, that the fallacy is often at the top of the list of arguments presented rather than the actual scientific data is indeed a concern. It speaks to the need in this country for more resources to be spent on public education, particularly in logic and economics.

Agreed, but when does skepticism become just contrarian. After awhile, after hundereds of studies that tell you one thing and only a dozen that tell you otherwise. There is NO reasonable uncertainty about the science. That is just propaganda.

I recall from the article that the outcomes of studies has varied over time, and in fact that my criticism of that statement was that the author didn't adequately cite who was doing the studies, what their methodologies were, how they've been changed, etc. Also, I'm sure that there haven't been hundreds of studies launched in an effort to determine the same thing, over and over again. I expect a fair nubmer of attempts to independently confirm results, but I can't myself confirm that because the authors of the article didn't source anything. To what extent are the studies comparable? Do they overlap? Are they even studying related concepts? I would imagine not. The questions remain unanswered...and I refuse to take something at face value just because I read it in the news. After all, I've made the print news myself, in the past, and if I believed what I supposedly said, I'd be doubly a fool.

It would help to know what the top concern was back in 2000, but the point it was trying to make remains.

Yes. ...it remains inescapably in question.

[tommyboy444]

Hmmm......you say no flaming, yet, you would just rather laugh off others answers to your B.S. "study" ? Nobody said that GW was in any way a "conspiracy", in the back of your mind are you afraid that it might be ? All these "studies" are summed up with explanations that they are merely hypotheses, that have YET to be proven.

When the same dozen people are the ones that keep giving the hundreds of studies that tell the one thing, one tends to believe that there may be an agenda in there somewhere.

Here is a little insight for you. Well, at least as far as the concerns about Global Warming is concerned.

http://www.junkscience.com/jan00/robinso.html

Here we are back at square one again with you laughing. Look, as soon as the GW proponents can explain the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930's to me, when there was absolutely NO industrialization. I will be prepared to listen further to their cackling, "The sky is falling......the sky is falling!" Until then, let them go eat their algae paste covered strawberries and kiwi, while they hug trees and drink their herbal teas.

I am now going to go jump into my gas guzzling American made Ford, and drive home to watch my 42" DLP boob tube that sucks up about 100kilowatts and hour, and turn on all the lights in my house, and drain half the water in my pool, then fill it up again, just because I CAN !

Touchy. For the first remark, that was just too funny. seriously, niche offered no proof that enviromental companies pay for science. why? bc its not true. why make obviosuly false claims? as for the second, niche even said others might interpret as flippant, and it really is. I was just trying to lighten the mood and like i said, not start a flame war. guess i should have used a instead?

really i just wanted to hear the opinions from the other side. i am not here to debate or argue, since i doubt i can change anyones mind.

[bachanon]

i remember my geology professor say that the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution. the result was a cooler planet and an intact ozone layer. imho, even if human activity affects the ozone layer, there are natural cycles that correct it. i cannot cite any proof. it's just a hunch.

that being said, i still think we should be responsible consumers.

[TheNiche]

Touchy. For the first remark, that was just too funny. seriously, niche offered no proof that enviromental companies pay for science. why? bc its not true. why make obviosuly false claims?

I offer sound economic theory that seems to apply pretty well in a broad and general way. Rather than simply say that I am without proof, how about criticizing it. Can you? Does it not make sense? Is my theory not valid? If not, explain your position that I might adapt, clarify, or forfeit my own.

Honestly, my incentive to actually perform research so that I might be able to win an argument with you is pretty low. I'd be a fool to go to any legnth proving the matter, but that doesn't mean that I can't think critically for myself. I am no one's pawn.

[Guest Marty]

I think the Sun's solar cycle is whats doing it. The sun is the heart of Earth's body.

[lockmat]

"The questioning of the science made it to the Hill through senators who parroted reports funded by the American Petroleum Institute and other advocacy groups whose entire purpose was to confuse people on the science of global warming," says Sen. John Kerry.

And senators who believe in global warming aren't parroting either? They're just as reliant on scientists and reporters as the next person or senators who don't believe or are unsure about it.

---------

tommyboy444...you should post a poll asking if people belive in it, don't or are unsure. I'm in the unsure boat.

Number one, I haven't investigated it. And scientists are subjective beings as well and can skew their findings. Who's to believe?

I have a question too. Doubters are just that, doubters. Some may be deniers. The beleivers say the doubters/deniers have an agenda. Maybe they do. The doubters/deniers say the same thing back. I may be naive to this, but for what reasons would the believers have to make up such a thing? I could see why the doubters do...at least the petroleum industy types.

[cottonmather0]

i remember my geology professor say that the volcanic eruption of mount pinatubo released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution. the result was a cooler planet and an intact ozone layer. imho, even if human activity affects the ozone layer, there are natural cycles that correct it. i cannot cite any proof. it's just a hunch.

that being said, i still think we should be responsible consumers.

I think the Sun's solar cycle is whats doing it. The sun is the heart of Earth's body.

I think that for the most part global warming hysteria is manufactured and unnecessary and my opinion is based heavily on evidence like that cited in these two posts - it seems to be quite hubristic to say that climate change is due soley to the actions of human beings. The world and the sun are just too big and complex that anything we do could cause what some people seem to think we can. We have geological records that show that the climate of the Earth is very dynamic and in the past has been much cooler AND much warmer in the past. Why do we think that 200 years of industrialization trumps 5 billion years of geology? Don't tell me that the science is settled, either. Nobel prizes are just being awarded today for research done 40 years ago towards conclusions that are much more definitive than the current speculation on the causes of global warming. Just 30 years ago climate scientists were worried about an oncoming ice age.

Furthermore, even if we could definitively prove that humans are the cause and could be the solution, is it really such a bad thing if average global temperatures rise by one whole degree Celsius? And if it is, is the cost of these problems less than the cost of the solution?

What if global climate change actually enhances economic productivity, as it did during the early part of the last millenium (when Greenland was called that for a reason)? Why do we think that today's climate is the most optimal and must never ever change?

And finally, why is it that the people who want to control all aspects of your life to begin with - taxes, cigarettes, healthcare, the UN - are also the ones who want to put artificial contraints on industry and capital utilization? Seems to me that it's just another guise for the same old agenda of centralization and putting government ahead of individual freedoms.

[Jax]

I think the Sun's solar cycle is whats doing it. The sun is the heart of Earth's body.

I don't get why everybody thinks it's black and white. I've heard this solar cycle theory before. "If the sun's activity is decreasing, that must be the cause of global warming". My mom read an article one that said solar cycles must be the only cause of global warming. And it cited some scientist in Europe. I looked him up and it turns out he studies solar activity and he said the solar activity was decreasing, and some journalist interpreted that as the root cause of global warming. The problem with that is when you read the paper this scientist wrote, he was saying that the decrease in solar activity was so slight it would never impact global climate, it was just sort of fun to study from an esoteric astrophysicist's point of view. So I concluded that the journalist must have only read the abstract, saw "solar" and "decreasing" and written up that global warming is completely natural.

Moral of the story. Don't trust a journalist's interpretation of science.

[TheNiche]

I may be naive to this, but for what reasons would the believers have to make up such a thing? I could see why the doubters do...at least the petroleum industy types.

As I recall, Al Gore bought a big share of a firm that produces solar panels or wind turbines. Without committing a logical fallacy, I can accuse him of trying to profiteer on the backs of innocent hard-working Americans that deserve inexpensive electricity rather than this pricey and unreliable alternative that can only possibly work if there is government regulation that forces it to work. But I cannot say that he is doing something that I consider despicable, and that therefore the theory he espouses as a justification for regulation is wrong. I'd be a hypocrite if I did.

[TJones]

I have a question too. Doubters are just that, doubters. Some may be deniers. The beleivers say the doubters/deniers have an agenda. Maybe they do. The doubters/deniers say the same thing back. I may be naive to this, but for what reasons would the believers have to make up such a thing? I could see why the doubters do...at least the petroleum industy types.

Lockmat, for the same reasons a Petrol Co. might have for doubting.... MONEY!

Didn't you know there is a whole lot of money floating around in those Hippies' pockets ? Organic food, organic clothing, organic fuels. We have been all over this before. I really wish tommyboy would have done a search and found the global warming threads.

If Gore wanted to make everyone "aware" of what his views are, then why not just GIVE away the DVD, or give away free tickets to his movie ? For every person using fossil fuels in their car, there is one wanting a way to use some OTHER fuel. If DiCraprio wanted to help save rainforests and timberlines, why not make 5 movies that the studio will pay $20mil a piece for, and go buy it up ? Woody Harrelson, could do the same, but he only gets paid scale now, so he couldn't buy much in California.

I am a doubter, what possible agenda could I have in order for me to "deny" or "doubt" that we are closing in on a cataclysmic armeggedon, and by our own hand at that?

Like I said tommyboy, show me some correlation data, where the planet is worse off now, than it was in the 1930's, where weather is concerned. What you call Global Warming, I call a natural trend in the Earth's atmosphere.

btw, Marty, your avatar, is that Rutger Hauer in Bladerunner ?

[lockmat]

As I recall, Al Gore bought a big share of a firm that produces solar panels or wind turbines.

But globalization came up way before his time in the public spotlight, didn't it? And just for arguments sake, can't one also say that he bought them because he too was reacting to scientific reports and that he was simply investing in his beliefs?

Can you list any other things like this that might show some kind of bias? I just want to gather information.

In my naivety on the subject, I see scientists reacting to an observation. The only agenda believers might have that I can think of is that they're environmentalists - tree huggers.

But which came first, the tree hugger or the scientific evidence that humans do harm to our environment?

[lockmat]

I am a doubter, what possible agenda could I have in order for me to "deny" or "doubt" that we are closing in on a cataclysmic armeggedon, and by our own hand at that?

That's true. But what does tommyboy have to gain? He's just a regular guy as far as we know.

I am unsure but am leaning more towards doubting.

I want to counter your argument about there being money in it for the hippies too. Before globalization was popular and mainstream, what money was there for them? All the things you've listed have only become popular in recent years. Any money supporting globalization wouldn't have made them much money if they were invested in those things.

[TJones]

Lockmat, GW is all in theory. I pray the theory is wrong, but a theory is NOT proof that it is actually happening.

Here Lockmat, you are gathering info. You will enjoy this tidbit.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=221

I don't think tommyboy means any malice as well, but you don't laugh off other's beliefs because they don't allign with your's. Especially when the thread's poster says he doesn't want a flamewar ? That is badform and just plain rude.

If there is money to be made off of people's fears, it will be made. P.T.Barnum said it best, and I quote, "There is a sucker born every minute!"

[tommyboy444]

I offer sound economic theory that seems to apply pretty well in a broad and general way. Rather than simply say that I am without proof, how about criticizing it. Can you? Does it not make sense? Is my theory not valid? If not, explain your position that I might adapt, clarify, or forfeit my own.

because you offer sound economic theory without any proof to back it up. you made a weak argument, i called you on it, and now you are getting defensive.

how about this? exxon pays to discredit global warming because they have a vested interest in denying fossil fuels contribute to it and the resources to do so (it being the 2nd biggest company in the US and the most profitable). green energy has an interest in proving global warming but has far less resources. But Green Energy does not need to pay for research that says global warming is real, because it already exist, produced by governments, universities, etc.

Honestly, my incentive to actually perform research so that I might be able to win an argument with you is pretty low. I'd be a fool to go to any legnth proving the matter, ...

Yes you would be a fool to go to any length, because you would be searching for a long time.

[Subdude]

Not Houston-related so moved to appropriate topic area.

[lockmat]

Yes you would be a fool to go to any length, because you would be searching for a long time.

Flame war material. Cut it out.

[Guest Marty]

btw, Marty, your avatar, is that Rutger Hauer in Bladerunner ?

The Hitcher >

[lockmat]

Lockmat, GW is all in theory. I pray the theory is wrong, but a theory is NOT proof that it is actually happening.

Here Lockmat, you are gathering info. You will enjoy this tidbit.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=221

I don't think tommyboy means any malice as well, but you don't laugh off other's beliefs because they don't allign with your's. Especially when the thread poster's says he doesn;t want a flamewar ? That is badform and just plain rude.

Thanks for the link. But what's globalwarming.org's position? Do they have one or do they try to stay objective?

And I know it's just a theory. But believers never think it's a theory, just like evolutionists. Doubters are always the ones who call it a theory.

I didn't think that you thought he intended any malice. I was just making a point for arguments sake, not "being difficult" sake.

[Jax]

It seems to me that oil companies have a lot more to gain by influencing policy regarding global warming than hippies do (money wise). Somebody compared Green Mountain Energy to Exxon. Exxon has a lot more at stake.

[TJones]

The Hitcher >

Even better Marty. >

My favorite line in the movie. Rutger Hauer has the knife between C.Thomas' legs, and Rutger leans over to tell the cop at the roadblock where they are headed. The cop looks down and sees Rutger's hand and says, "Ok, just move it along sweethearts." in a disgusted tone. That movie is hilarious and thrilling at the same time.

Sorry, back on subject, C.Thomas was driving a big ol' gas guzzlin' Cadillac in that movie.

[TheNiche]

But globalization came up way before his time in the public spotlight, didn't it? And just for arguments sake, can't one also say that he bought them because he too was reacting to scientific reports and that he was simply investing in his beliefs?

Can you list any other things like this that might show some kind of bias? I just want to gather information.

The buy-in he made was only a few months back. It was publicized, at least in the business pages. He may cite your justification (along with gaining publicity for the cause), but based upon my interpretation of the facts, what he's been doing is driven by a drive for fame, fortune, and political power.

In my naivety on the subject, I see scientists reacting to an observation. The only agenda believers might have that I can think of is that they're environmentalists - tree huggers.

But which came first, the tree hugger or the scientific evidence that humans do harm to our environment?

Tough one. The word "harm" as it relates to your question presupposes that change induced by human activity can be good or bad. A pure scientist, attempting to be objective, would refrain from making such unsupportable statements, as good or bad are within the realm of a moralist (i.e. the treehugger). After all, harm to one may be the salvation of another, regardless of a person's or society's intent or the lack thereof. But the two perspectives are not mutually exclusive among individuals and science is to the vast majority of people a perspective adopted temporarily out of necessity, rather than a way of life. Considering our human propensity for religion and moral systems of all sort, and considering the difficulty with which people adopt science in any intentional way, I would venture to say that the tree hugger and moralist probably came first.

But, speaking from a scientific perspective, I am not certain.

[TJones]

Thanks for the link. But what's globalwarming.org's position? Do they have one or do they try to stay objective?

And I know it's just a theory. But believers never think it's a theory, just like evolutionists. Doubters are always the ones who call it a theory.

I didn't think that you thought he intended any malice. I was just making a point for arguments sake, not "being difficult" sake.

Using that logic, GW theorists would be doubters also. They just doubt, that the Earth or the solar system is in ANY kind of natural change. Because that kind of information is not tangible to them. We can't possibly know what kind of cycle the Universe is in. But astonomers can tell that the Earth and other planets might be off course a little because of historians writings, and some of the same scientists who have studied Global Warming have also studied Gallileo and the like. They doubt ANY other theory but their own.

[tommyboy444]

To Niche: Yes, it is amazing to think that Exxon is behind all of this doubt. Amazing that one comapny, along with the API and a dozen scientist hired by them, can manage to create an image of great controversy in the scientific field. How the truth can be so easily distorted in this day and time scares me.

To all: I am no tree hugger. I have worked for 2 of the biggest oil companies in this town. But when i find out that I have been the target of a mass propaganda machine i get angry, and I would hope it would do the same to some of you.

[TheNiche]

because you offer sound economic theory without any proof to back it up. you made a weak argument, i called you on it, and now you are getting defensive.

Your criticism was, "seriously, niche offered no proof that enviromental companies pay for science. why? bc its not true." Argumentum ad ignorantium. I strongly suggest that you look it up, lest you be ignorant of a pretty fundamental concept underlying the philosophy of science.

how about this? exxon pays to discredit global warming because they have a vested interest in denying fossil fuels contribute to it and the resources to do so (it being the 2nd biggest company in the US and the most profitable). green energy has an interest in proving global warming but has far less resources.

Are you familiar with how our financial systems work? You do realize that venture capital will be forthcoming to any business idea that can hold water. It really doesn't matter who you are or even whether you're profitable today. If there is even the slightest chance that an investor could get in on the ground floor of an industry that would be responsible by act of congress for replacing the capital stock of electricity generation plants, or even a fraction of it, then not only will they buy into it, but they'll infuse it with capital and do everything within reason to see that such a fate is brought about.

...besides, it is ridiculously easy to try to scare people. The news media are in the entertainment business, and there's apparently nothing more entertaining than apocalyptic scenes. They eat this stuff up.

But Green Energy does not need to pay for research that says global warming is real, because it already exist, produced by governments, universities, etc.

Ah, but I've already addressed this. See post #5, paragraph #2. Also, there's more to a PR campaign than studies. How many people do you know that read studies? Do you think journalists working for the big media outlets read studies? Even if they do and they write a very precise column, do you think that it'll remain intact by the time that their editors get through with it. There is far more to the political side of GW than reports on shelves.

[TheNiche]

It seems to me that oil companies have a lot more to gain by influencing policy regarding global warming than hippies do (money wise). Somebody compared Green Mountain Energy to Exxon. Exxon has a lot more at stake.

I merely meant to provide a comparison to illustrate that there is an incentive in each case so as to further my counterpoint to the authors of the article, who were perpetrating a circumstantial ad hominem that could be turned right back around on them. My intent was to neutralize the whole line of thought on account of that no amount of money contributed to political causes from either side of the debate or from any source has bearing on either the truth or the optimal policy position.

Can we please move on to something that matters...like debate over the science of GW and its economic impacts?

[TheNiche]

To Niche: Yes, it is amazing to think that Exxon is behind all of this doubt. Amazing that one comapny, along with the API and a dozen scientist hired by them, can manage to create an image of great controversy in the scientific field. How the truth can be so easily distorted in this day and time scares me.

How do you know that it was only Exxon? That they were singled out by the authors of the article does not preclude the possibility...or IMO the very high likelihood...that more firms than just Exxon and the API were involved. Maybe Exxon just did the worst job of covering its tracks. Maybe the writers only singled out Exxon because they were an easy target for political jabs, on account of how large they are.

That the truth is so easily distorted scares me too. This is why even though I'm in other ways very hands-off politically, and would prefer drastic decreases in government spending and taxation, that I'm so readily willing to spend on education. There's nothing more dangerous than a voting public that can't think for itself.

To all: I am no tree hugger. I have worked for 2 of the biggest oil companies in this town. But when i find out that I have been the target of a mass propaganda machine i get angry, and I would hope it would do the same to some of you.

Btw, has it occured to you that you may have been caught in the crossfire of multiple propaganda machines?

It doesn't make me angry for being targeted, though. Countervailing propaganda is a predictable side effect of democracy and free press. The alternative, one-sided propaganda, would be far more dreadful.