Wednesday, May 06, 2009

A "staunch Independent" on those silly people who don't buy into the greatest scientific fraud in history
We prefer not to have our opinions fed to us by a talking head on any network but, rather, by our own research, analysis, and both internal and external debate. We do not take what we are told as the final word. Instead, we fold all that we uncover into a dough of knowledge from which we taste and sample. This informs our opinions.

Being an Independent is an incredible amount of work. You cannot just turn on the Glen Beck show or read the Huffington Post to get your daily opinion download. You have to read a lot of source material including newspapers from all over the world. You have to listen to and read information for all sides. You have to put yourself in the shoes of other people and walk around for a day. You have to be open-minded and be able to change your mind with new information.
...
We operate on the principles of democracy and debate. Because we are not pre-programmed robots, you can actually change our opinions. Yeah, imagine that. Try to change the opinion these days of a staunch conservative as to the reality of global warming – it's tough if not impossible. They honestly need to be on the plane to Disney World and have the Captain come on and say, "I'm sorry Ladies and Gentlemen, but this plane is not equipped for a water landing and Disney World is under water," before they will believe it.
Green vs. Green - Greg Pollowitz - Planet Gore on National Review Online
For decades, environmental groups have talked about "big oil," painting the petroleum industry as greedy and destructive. Now similar language is being applied to renewables. Instead of eco-friendly green power, increasingly it's "big wind" and "big solar."
Getcha popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show.
Skeptic's Corner: Skeptics From Around the Globe
Tad Murty-Adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa-former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide;
This is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole,”
So, Mr. Waxman, how much global warming will your bill avert? | GlobalWarming.org
The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade (energy tax) bill aims to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% below by 2030, and 83% below by 2050. The cumulative cost in reduced GDP would likely total trillions of dollars. How much bang would we get for the buck?
U.S. House farm chief opposes climate-change bill | Markets | Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration is unfair to the ethanol industry with its proposals on greenhouse gas reduction, the House Agriculture Committee chairman said on Wednesday, and he will not support any climate-change bills.

"You're going to kill off the biofuels industry before it even gets started. You are in bed with the oil industry," Colin Peterson told officials from the Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency at a hearing on ethanol's impact on land use and greenhouse gases.
We're saved!: NY State Offices to Eliminate Bottled Water - World - Javno
New York state government offices will stop buying bottled water in a move to cut costs and fight global warming, Governor David Paterson said on Tuesday.

Paterson signed an executive order that phases out the spending of state dollars on single-serve bottles and cooler-sized water bottles for employees at state agencies.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

In my mind there's nothing wrong with ethanol fuel as long as it's not heavily subsidized by tax money. Remember there was lots of over-production of corn and other potential fuel-crops in the past, with farmers complaining about poor market prices. And anyways, even in times when food prices are high, and even in times of starvation, in a supposed free country and free economy, a farmer should be free to use his crops in whichever way he wants, sell them for whichever purpose he wants, destroy them if he wants, and not have government tell him what's good for him or for the 'community' and force him into anything.