The Antiplanner’s favorite computer company has resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because (pick one):
a. The Chamber supports the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that gives many of its members the right to emit huge volumes of greenhouse gases at no cost, which Apple thinks is inappropriate;
b. The Chamber supports legislation that cost-effectively reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but opposes the cap-and-trade bill because it would cost Americans a lot of money without significantly reducing emissions;
c. The Chamber is skeptical of global climate change and opposes all legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Ongoing effects on depression, metabolism disorders, erectile dysfunction, climax disorders, and climax disorders; male fertility and/or bad seminal quality (normalization or amerikabulteni.com cheap tadalafil online enhancement of seminal quality is noted after discontinuation of finasteride )” Propecia sexual dysfunction might be lasting Based on a study done in Germany where a test group was told to simply say, “everyday in every way, I am getting better and better.” After weeks into the study,. With the advancement of modern medicine, ED is viagra on line cheap now a commonly treated condition with many types of medication. They are able to have intercourse for whole day even without having cipla viagra . The physician generally recommends a precise blood examination to settle on the proportions of this hormone. cheapest generic cialis
If you picked c, you’ve been listening to too many talk show monologues and not enough news reports. The correct answer is b.
If the Chamber is right that the Waxman-Markey bill “would not reduce the global level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” then why would Apple support the bill? Could it be because Al Gore is on Apple’s board of directors?
Gore is a well-known believer in the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But he also is not quite so well known as the founder and principle investor in a company that stands to make millions of dollars in profits if a cap-and-trade bill passes, while the company would be nearly worthless if Congress instead passed a carbon tax. Is it possible that any of Gore’s fellow Apple board members have also invested in the company?
Oh, Randal, you left out so much:
1. Al Gore is a partner in Silicon Valley’s preeminent venture capital firm: After “a conversation that’s gone on for a year and a half,” according to Gore, he has decided to join his old pal John Doerr as an active, hands-on partner at Kleiner Perkins, Silicon Valley’s preeminent venture firm. From: money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news/newsmakers/gore_kleiner.fortune/
2. Al Gore appears to get $100,000 for speaking. See this for one example (price is on page 5:
thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717071gore1.html
3. Al Gore’s mutual fund profits from carbon trading as it bought 9.5% stake in CAMCO GLOBAL money.cnn.com/2008/10/31/magazines/fortune/gunter_carboncredits.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008110307
4. Al Gore’s mutual fund , was a prized Lehman client. telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/09/21/do2105.xml
5. A convenient £50m for green Gore He has come a long way since losing the 2000 presidential election to George W Bush when, according to official documents, Gore was worth just £1m. timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3022274.ece
6. Gore Admits Financial ‘Stake’ In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria
newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/11/gore-admits-financial-reasons-advancing-global-warming-hysteria
6. Gore backed company looks to profit from “$2.5 billion market that will grow 10-fold if the proposed energy bill, which will require companies to get permits for emissions, becomes law,â€
reuters.com/article/smallBusinessNews/idUSTRE5500S420090601
8. Gore’s partner in venture capital firm advocates government action to make his company more valuable. washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/02/AR2009080201563.html
Then there is this paper on the billiona the alarmists are making: scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
Then there are the “scientists†that say it is OK to lie to you. sustainableoregon.com/oktolie.html
And the conflicts of interest: sustainableoregon.com/conflictofinterest.html
And lying about data and covering it up for years (be sure to browse more recent entries)
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/02/ross-mckitrick-sums-up-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-in-the-financial-post/
More at SustainableOregon.com
This is indeed shaping up to be the greatest scientific fraud in a hundred years or more. Bigger even than the Piltdown mann!
We hear of “climate criminalsâ€. This appears to be a term coined to describe Al Gore as he jets around the world spreading scare stories to panic people into using the government to force people to make him rich.
Thanks
JK
I am totally convinced that climate is warming. But the scientific method is to posit a hypothesis and then try to disprove the hypothesis. Global warming advocates need to quit trying to knee-cap anyone who disagrees with them.
On the political level, I can’t help but question the leadership of people who scream about a climate problem but then live their lives emitting more green house gasses than 99.9999% of the world. If Al Gore really believed in the cause, he would at least own a reasonably sized house. After all, he can “sacrifice” at home while he spends 80% of his time jetting around the world and living in 5 star hotels.
In other words Mr.O’Toole & Mr.Gore have a lot in common.
Carbon Credit Market Imploding: CCX now 10 cents a tonne.
Some other interesting stories related to AGW:
United Nations Pulls Hockey Stick from Climate Report
More goofery: UN Climate Report Confuses Arctic and Antarctic
and
And there’s the deepest solar minimum in a century that even has NASA wondering:
Are Sunspots Disappearing?
Not related, but more of a housekeeping issue.
The logout link on this blog has not been working properly for the last week or so. Has anyone else encountered this problem?
I’ll wait for Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney upcoming movie to come out before pontificating on global warming, er, “climate change.”
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124001085271530767.html
Hey, you finally figured out what if feels like when you feel public policy is being directed by special interest groups — in this case Al Gore gettin’ money off of US laws. No, I agree, I don’t want cap-and-trade either, but I do find this kind of funny considering the source of funds that pays ROT. This is too good.
It’s pretty clear that the data show that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is happening. However, this does not mean that governments should extend ever-growing and ever-more-intrusive controls into the lives of individuals, violating individual rights wholesale, using AGW as the excuse du jour. It is precisely that power grab that is occurring now, and the reason why the key argument against governmental climate-change legislation is a principled one.
No pragmatic argument will do, because action in the face of a credible scientific hypothesis is a political trump card over inaction on the same basis. It only matters that the action is wrong if the argument is principled. Only a principled argument is concerned with right or wrong. A pragmatist knows only that the means should accomplish the desired end, and the pragmatist will claim that end at any cost. That such a philosophy raises the spectre of history’s greatest monsters is of no consequence to the pragmatist.
The private sector, from scientists to individual citizens, will adapt and solve AGW, though concededly they won’t do much until the eleventh hour. That’s how it always is. Just ask the buggy whip industry. Or, to use a more recent example, just ask television manufacturers and owners whose pre-2006 products all became obsolete in one fell swoop back in June. The inability to watch tee-vee isn’t quite the emergency that rising oceans are, though I suppose that depends on whom you ask, but the underlying principle is the same.
On a funny note, the TV show “Defying Gravity” tried to put a “culturally conscious” bit in about AGW in a recent episode. One of the characters referred to the Great Barrier Reef, wistfully regretting that it was no longer underwater, and wishing we had “done something” about global warming before it was too late. Do you see the problem? Yeah: if there is global warming, ocean levels RISE. For the Reef to be above water, the ocean levels would have to fall, meaning we’d have to be in an ice age with considerable glaciation. Unfortunately, that kind of “infotainment” pseudoscience is driving the public’s perception of the AGW issue right now, so it’s no wonder that rational heads are so far suppressed, and hotheaded power-grabbing politicians are accomplishing their aims.
MJ,
The logout button on the sidebar seems to work. Only the one at the end of the comments section seems to have a problem. I’ll try to fix it, but in the meantime, just use the sidebar.
I would just like to read an intelligent discussion about global warming where scientists honestly discuss how much of global warming is anthropogenic and how much is from natural forces. I am convinced both forces are acting on climate, but in every discussion I have seen both sides hide the differences. Isn’t that an important issue for public policy discussions?
I hadn’t noticed the button on the sidebar before. It works. Thanks!
I would just like to read an intelligent discussion about global warming where scientists honestly discuss how much of global warming is anthropogenic and how much is from natural forces.
Read any scientific journal or magazine.
IOW: done long ago.
HTH.
DS
Thank you, Dan. You made my point. Al Gore gets a Nobel Prize (back when people thought they were for accomplisments) for talking about GW, but with a lot of flaws. Perhaps he skimped on the accuracy to popularize it. But where is someone today to talk about it outside of the scientific without demonizing the skeptical? Don’t we want people to question authority? Why doesn’t someone answer the reasonable questions, rather than seek to cut off any funding of the skeptical?
The reason why GW legislation has failed, and will continue to fail for a while, is the maxim: If you can’t explain it to regular people, don’t expect regular people to fund it.
And to forestall personal attacks, I think GW is real and that we should take serious steps to address it. But I am very disappointed in the environmental movement, which preaches trust in science, up until enviros has the political upper hand (GW embraced by TV and Schools, etc.). Then suddenly enviros want to shut off all debate by political means.
If enviros believed half of their rhetoric, they would see that GW is a political debate spanning multiple decades — i.e. it will far outlive Limbaugh, Beck and Olberman. The enviros are far better off admitting and educating about the limits of computer models, risk, and data.
Why do enviros suddenly embrace all the bad tactics of their opponents as soon as they have a political advantage?
Thank you, Dan. You made my point.
Excellent. Now your point is that there have been discussions. I’m glad you understand the issue now that you have some knowledge and have changed your tune. You are welcome.
DS