|
Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in History
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in History
[ QUOTE ]
Weather Channel Founder calls Global Warming Biggest Scam in History Discuss.... [/ QUOTE ] He's an oil industry tool obviously. |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
it's a scam because if the purpose wasn't greater taxation and control (which is the real purpose of the scam), then the real logical thing to do would be to pump money into solar power.
the nano solar guys are saying solar will be competitive within 5 years, if they can just be left alone to do their thing. the article below reads like an ad and probably is, but the reality is that the infant nanotech industry is headed there. it's a lot money to retool, and if g.w. were real, the gov could spend a lot of money on nano solar research, and then a lot of money on retooling the economy away from oil and onto solar. the fact that they just want to tax and regulate and control more, and that's it, as a responsse to manmade global warming is the biggest reason it can't be real. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...9/ccview19.xml [ QUOTE ] The "tipping point" will arrive when the capital cost of solar power falls below $1 (51p) per watt, roughly the cost of carbon power. We are not there yet. The best options today vary from $3 to $4 per watt - down from $100 in the late 1970s. Mr Sethi believes his product will cut the cost to 80 cents per watt within five years, and 50 cents in a decade. It is based on a CIGS (CuInGaSe2) semiconductor compound that absorbs light by freeing electrons. This is then embedded on the polymer base. It will be ready commercially in late 2009. "It'll even work on a cold, grey, cloudy day in England, which still produces 25pc to 30pc of the optimal light level. That is enough, if you cover half the roof," he said. "We don't need subsidies, we just need governments to get out of the way and do no harm. They've spent $170bn subsidising nuclear power over the last thirty years," he said. [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
I think the extreme increase in the polar bear population within the last year would corroborate his view.
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
it's a scam because if the purpose wasn't greater taxation and control (which is the real purpose of the scam), then the real logical thing to do would be to pump money into solar power. [/ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] no I mean like a manhattan project for solar energy, and then a lot of programs to get individuals and businesses and industries to switch over. I mean, right now renewable energy is just a waste for 99% because it just isn't cost competitive. |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
pay ur CO2 taxes global citizens!!!!!!!!
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in History
[ QUOTE ]
Weather Channel Founder calls Global Warming Biggest Scam in History Discuss.... [/ QUOTE ] John Coleman is dead wrong; Religion is the "Biggest Scam in History", Mr. Coleman needs to get his facts straight. -Zeno |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] no I mean like a manhattan project for solar energy, and then a lot of programs to get individuals and businesses and industries to switch over. [/ QUOTE ] Government will fight distributed solar tooth and nail because it would largely decentralize electric power generation and threaten the electric power cartel. |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
Some consider that "Global Warming" is a religion and that Al Gore is our savior.
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] no I mean like a manhattan project for solar energy, and then a lot of programs to get individuals and businesses and industries to switch over. [/ QUOTE ] Government will fight distributed solar tooth and nail because it would largely decentralize electric power generation and threaten the electric power cartel. [/ QUOTE ] A good thing the government is there to keep us from ravaging the environment, isn't it? |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in History
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Weather Channel Founder calls Global Warming Biggest Scam in History Discuss.... [/ QUOTE ] John Coleman is dead wrong; Religion is the "Biggest Scam in History", Mr. Coleman needs to get his facts straight. -Zeno [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand the difference. |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] no I mean like a manhattan project for solar energy, and then a lot of programs to get individuals and businesses and industries to switch over. I mean, right now renewable energy is just a waste for 99% because it just isn't cost competitive. [/ QUOTE ] The manhattan project was to spend money to buld a nuclear bomb. Government spending is not going to make a non price comeptitive product price competitive. Did the government subsidize the car industry to replace horses? In fact can you site one example where government made an entire industry price competitive? Sure wasn't the Post Office! |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] no I mean like a manhattan project for solar energy, and then a lot of programs to get individuals and businesses and industries to switch over. I mean, right now renewable energy is just a waste for 99% because it just isn't cost competitive. [/ QUOTE ] The manhattan project was to spend money to buld a nuclear bomb. Government spending is not going to make a non price comeptitive product price competitive. Did the government subsidize the car industry to replace horses? In fact can you site one example where government made an entire industry price competitive? Sure wasn't the Post Office! [/ QUOTE ] Sure, by banning hemp, they made all kings of things price competitive with hemp products. |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
The manhattan project was to spend money to buld a nuclear bomb. Government spending is not going to make a non price comeptitive product price competitive. Did the government subsidize the car industry to replace horses? In fact can you site one example where government made an entire industry price competitive? Sure wasn't the Post Office! [/ QUOTE ] the point is that in 1940, atomic bombs were about a decade or two away given advancing technology. today, given nanotechnoly and it's advancement, solar power that is *cheaper* than fossil fuels is between 10 and 30 years depending on who you ask. I posted a link to one guy in this thread. see the parallel? |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
So are all of the scientist part of a government conspiracy to take over the world?
I wish people could be more rational concerning there Libertarian views. I know its a very romantic and easy position to say that everything the government does it evil; but it gets tiresome. |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
So are all of the scientist part of a government conspiracy to take over the world? I wish people could be more rational concerning there Libertarian views. I know its a very romantic and easy position to say that everything the government does it evil; but it gets tiresome. [/ QUOTE ] Nearly everything the government does is destructive aside from a few collective action problems. Is this nuanced enough? |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
I consider myself a Libertarian but the whole "ZOMG 9/11 WAS A GOVERNmENT CONSPIRACY" and "ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING IS GOVERNMENT PROPOGANDA" etc. is just dumb and boring. As a Libertarian one should look at the world independently and not see everything obscured and irrationally as to support your own prerogative.
|
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a Libertarian but the whole "ZOMG 9/11 WAS A GOVERNmENT CONSPIRACY" and "ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING IS GOVERNMENT PROPOGANDA" etc. is just dumb and boring. As a Libertarian one should look at the world independently and not see everything obscured and irrationally as to support your own prerogative. [/ QUOTE ] joke? |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I consider myself a Libertarian but the whole "ZOMG 9/11 WAS A GOVERNmENT CONSPIRACY" and "ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING IS GOVERNMENT PROPOGANDA" etc. is just dumb and boring. As a Libertarian one should look at the world independently and not see everything obscured and irrationally as to support your own prerogative. [/ QUOTE ] joke? [/ QUOTE ] No , why would this be a joke? I assume it's because you think the right-wing free martket libertarianism unique to the US is the only type of libertarianism there is. Good to see the propoganda system working at its best... |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
Weather Channel Founder calls Global Warming Biggest Scam in History Discuss.... [/ QUOTE ] You guys know "the Weather Channel Founder", John Coleman, is just a TV weatherman and not a climatologist, right?: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ "I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it. I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril." Well, I feel better already! A TV weather guy has "read dozens of papers", "studied", and "talked to numerous scientists" and he's sure there's no problem. I'm not sure why anyone even takes global warming seriously after this. After Al Roker announced his skepticism, I thought we'd be done with this debate, but now that the TV weather guy who dreamed up The Weather Channel has thrown in his two cents, I think we should pretty much forget about this nonsense now. |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
I know I am correct. [/ QUOTE ] Always a bad sign. |
Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] Subsidy = Crap These renewable energy sources require subsidies because they are crappy sources of energy... The energy they produce reletive to their capital cost is pathetically low. Without subsidies, these renewable energy sources would NEVER be used except by a handfull of diehard hippies. And even then, they would be lucky lucky to generate enough energy to light up their bong pipes..... Take ethanol. This crappy cource of energy requires tons of subsidies. And the fools in congress want MORE corporate welfare to expand this crappy spurce of energy. Ethanol can not stand up on its on two legs in the free market. In a free market, comparing ethanol to gas would be like comparing Rosie O'Donnel to Michael Jordan in his prime in a game of basketball. But give Rosie stilts, allow her to goal tend, and attack a 200lb ball and chain of each of Jordan's legs.....and then MAGICLY....Rosie can beat Micahel Jordan in basketball. The democrats in the congress and senate have been doing everything in their power to sabotage the American oil industry. The technology for renewable resources is not ready for prime time. It is time to removes the ball and chains from American oil and let them drill for oil.... The democrats vote EXACTLY like an agent from foreign country whose mission was to pass laws to sabotage the American oil industry.... EXACTLY....so are these Dems traitors? Probably not....just stupid... |
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] Subsidy = Crap These renewable energy sources require subsidies because they are crappy sources of energy... The energy they produce reletive to their capital cost is pathetically low. Without subsidies, these renewable energy sources would NEVER be used except by a handfull of diehard hippies. And even then, they would be lucky lucky to generate enough energy to light up their bong pipes..... Take ethanol. This crappy cource of energy requires tons of subsidies. [/ QUOTE ] Someone please get us a copy of the O Rly owl. By now, those of us who have been around a while know that Felix often posts on topics where he has no [censored] idea what he's talking about. For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated on how unreliable these kinds of posts can be. Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole....EXACTLY....so are these posters traitors? Probably not....just stupid... |
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated [/ QUOTE ] I did and this is what I found in the first linky: Was this: Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is far more efficient than the U.S. maize-based industry. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per litre, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[6] Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual rainfall. Sugarcane is one of the most efficient photosynthesizers in the plant kingdom, able to convert up to 2% of incident solar energy into biomass. Ethanol is produced by yeast fermentation of the sugar extracted from sugar cane. Sugarcane production in the United States occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. In prime growing regions, such as Hawaii, sugarcane can produce 20 kg for each square meter exposed to the sun. U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol. Unfortunately, despite this cost differential in production, in contrast to Japan and Sweden, the U.S. does not import Brazilian ethanol because of strict U.S. trade barriers (tariffs) corresponding to a levy of a 54-cent per gallon. These are promoted by the powerful American sugar lobby, which does not want a competitor to high-fructose corn syrup, and domestic sugar interests. Any chance of a transfer of wealth to U.S. farmers and U.S. sugar growers with a protective tariff that amounts to a subsidy more or less? [ QUOTE ] Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole [/ QUOTE ] Ah the oil robber baron argument. Except that the U.S. public owns oil companys more or less. Edit: For new members of this forum, EliotR likes to parrott the liberal, Democratic party talking points as in his oil company rant. When I say the public owns oil companys I mean that the shares are owned by instutions like mutual funds, pension accounts, etc. Stuff people put there money in for retirement and such. Here's an article that appeared in the NYTimes about who owns oil companies: What Is an Oil Company, Anyway? Are we angry, then, at the owners of the oil companies? Maybe, but then it's self-hatred. Roughly 41 percent of Exxon Mobil stock is owned by retirement funds, private, public (federal, state and local) and individual retirement accounts. In other words, by us. It is demonstrable that many retirement funds hold a great deal of oil stocks, including Exxon Mobil. Of the other owners, the largest holdings by far are at mutual funds and exchange-traded funds — generally vehicles for middle-class investors and retirees. No individuals own more than 1 percent of the stock, and the largest single personal holding, representing far less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the company, is owned by Lee R. Raymond, the retired chief executive, who took the company through some very rough sailing to arrive at its present, fairly secure position. ONE of the largest holders is the College Retirement Equities Fund, for higher-education teachers and others. Are we angry at them? If teachers get a bigger retirement because oil company profits are up, are we sad? |
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] Subsidy = Crap These renewable energy sources require subsidies because they are crappy sources of energy... The energy they produce reletive to their capital cost is pathetically low. Without subsidies, these renewable energy sources would NEVER be used except by a handfull of diehard hippies. And even then, they would be lucky lucky to generate enough energy to light up their bong pipes..... Take ethanol. This crappy cource of energy requires tons of subsidies. [/ QUOTE ] Someone please get us a copy of the O Rly owl. By now, those of us who have been around a while know that Felix often posts on topics where he has no [censored] idea what he's talking about. For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated on how unreliable these kinds of posts can be. Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole....EXACTLY....so are these posters traitors? Probably not....just stupid... [/ QUOTE ] Whoa, easy there. You can review all my posts and find that I almost never agree with Felix, but I think he's right about this. Tell me why, if ethanol or ANY other renewable energy source is ready to take on oil, it has to be massively subsidized WHILE taxing oil? There is huge money to be made for anybody who can come up with a competitive energy source. They don't need our tax money. They just need ideas, innovation, and working capital - which private companies and venture capital groups have in spades. The truth is, there are no alternative sources RIGHT NOW, and subsidizing things will only slow down our efforts to find/produce reliable alternatives. If ethanol can eventually compete with crude oil, then great! But let's not sink BILLIONS into something to make it look like it's our energy savior when really it's not. I don't think anybody here would be adverse to having their own solar units replacing their power meter, but let's not pretend that heavy government subsidies to sub-standard oil alternatives are a great idea. |
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The federal government already has a variety of subsidy programs for renewable energy and more money is a part of most of the presidential candidates platforms. [/ QUOTE ] Subsidy = Crap These renewable energy sources require subsidies because they are crappy sources of energy... The energy they produce reletive to their capital cost is pathetically low. Without subsidies, these renewable energy sources would NEVER be used except by a handfull of diehard hippies. And even then, they would be lucky lucky to generate enough energy to light up their bong pipes..... Take ethanol. This crappy cource of energy requires tons of subsidies. [/ QUOTE ] Someone please get us a copy of the O Rly owl. By now, those of us who have been around a while know that Felix often posts on topics where he has no [censored] idea what he's talking about. For any of you newcomers out here that may be making the mistake of taking this post seriously, please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated on how unreliable these kinds of posts can be. Felix and those of his ilk post EXACTLY like shills for the oil companies whose mission is to engage in a massive wealth transfer from consumers and other industries to big oil, to the ultimate detriment of the country as a whole....EXACTLY....so are these posters traitors? Probably not....just stupid... [/ QUOTE ] Whoa, easy there. You can review all my posts and find that I almost never agree with Felix, but I think he's right about this. Tell me why, if ethanol or ANY other renewable energy source is ready to take on oil, it has to be massively subsidized WHILE taxing oil? There is huge money to be made for anybody who can come up with a competitive energy source. They don't need our tax money. They just need ideas, innovation, and working capital - which private companies and venture capital groups have in spades. The truth is, there are no alternative sources RIGHT NOW, and subsidizing things will only slow down our efforts to find/produce reliable alternatives. If ethanol can eventually compete with crude oil, then great! But let's not sink BILLIONS into something to make it look like it's our energy savior when really it's not. I don't think anybody here would be adverse to having their own solar units replacing their power meter, but let's not pretend that heavy government subsidies to sub-standard oil alternatives are a great idea. [/ QUOTE ] We've been through the arguments before regarding why corn based ethanol is not feasible. The amount of land needed to provide for U.S. energy needs is astounding. All kinds of data on how farm land has risen and the price of corn has I believe more than doubled. If the politicians were sincerely looking for an alternative to gasoline they'd lift the protective tariff from imported ethanol. Study: U.S. near corn-based ethanol tipping point |
Yep...Sugar Cane Ethanol is Superior
I first learned of Brazil's sugar cane based ethanol from my brother-in-law is from Brazil. Brazil had to subsidize their ethanol industry and perhaps/or perhaps not it is able to stand on its own two legs now. Gas is 45%+ more efficient (ethanol is about 2/3 as efficient as gas) than ethanol as a fuel. Therefore it is CHEAPER to power an engine with gas. Corn ethanol is the pond scum of energy. The energy pecking order goes like this:
Gas > SugarCane-Ethanol > Corn-Ethanol If congress really wanted to promote ethanol, they would remove tariffs and allow the cheap Brazillian ethanol in this country. Then corn can be used for food and it will become more affordable to ranchers and households. The whole purpose of free trade is to sell what you are good at making in exchange for a product another country is good at making. The Brazillian ethanol is FAR SUPERIOR (cheaper) than corn based ethanol. US ethanol is just a giant welfare program for rich farmers.... It is that simple.... If the main reason was to decrease our reliance on middle east oil, then we would remove the tariffs and let the Brazillians sell us their ethanol... |
Re: Yep...Sugar Cane Ethanol is Superior
The fact that the Iowa primaries are so relatively important makes ordinary citizens throughout all the states subject to these boondoggles that have global effects. Apparently the wealthy are buying farmland in the West in droves, and the price of highly rated corn farmland has doubled in 12 months.
|
Re: Yep...Sugar Cane Ethanol is Superior
[ QUOTE ]
The energy pecking order goes like this: Gas > Hemp-Ethanol > SugarCane-Ethanol > Corn-Ethanol [/ QUOTE ] FYP |
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
please google "Brazil" and "ethanol" and be educated on how unreliable these kinds of posts can be. [/ QUOTE ] The Brazillian ethanol program required MASSIVE SUBSIDIES to get on their own two feet. I'm not sure if the Brazillian govt still has to subsidize their ethanol industry. The USA can not follow the Brazillian ethanol model because the USA does not have enough land suitable for growing sugar cane. Corn based ethanol is extremely inefficent. Sugar cane based ethanol is much better. Like I said, corn-based ethanol is crap... And realize that I forget more knowledge than you will every learn in a lifetime... |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Weather Channel Founder calls Global Warming Biggest Scam in History Discuss.... [/ QUOTE ] He's an oil industry tool obviously. [/ QUOTE ] No, but since you mention it newsbusters and people that control ICECAP are both on Exxons payroll. I find it curious how this seems to be your defacto sarcastic response to everything on this topic. As far as Coleman well he was a TV weather personality since he was a freshman in college. It's true that he helped start the weather channel but that too is more about TV land than actual science. Coleman was fired from the weather channel after only one year despite it's success. He's known for his crazy antics and using cute little words like "thorms" or "thowers". He's a TV personality and nothing more. Just because he's a meteorologist doesn't mean squat. Many T.V. meteorologists don't even have a bachelors in science. |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Weather Channel Founder calls Global Warming Biggest Scam in History Discuss.... [/ QUOTE ] You guys know "the Weather Channel Founder", John Coleman, is just a TV weatherman and not a climatologist, right?: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/ "I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it. I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril." Well, I feel better already! A TV weather guy has "read dozens of papers", "studied", and "talked to numerous scientists" and he's sure there's no problem. I'm not sure why anyone even takes global warming seriously after this. [/ QUOTE ] "dozens of papers" should be a key indicator that this man is uneducated on the topic. I know at least four people that have read over 300 peer review journals and probably a 1,000 scholarly letters/posts on the topic even though it's not even their own field. I read/skim/review a minimum of a dozen papers a day in my own line of work. [ QUOTE ] After Al Roker announced his skepticism, I thought we'd be done with this debate, but now that the TV weather guy who dreamed up The Weather Channel has thrown in his two cents, I think we should pretty much forget about this nonsense now. [/ QUOTE ] Looking at Rokers bio on his personal website it appears he only has a BA in communications. Under current standards set by the AMS he wouldn't be allowed to earn an AMS seal and be a TV weatherman due to a lack of a B.S. in a related field. Things are changing (very slowly) in the AMS which is long overdue IMO. |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
Looking at Rokers bio on his personal website it appears he only has a BA in communications. Under current standards set by the AMS he wouldn't be allowed to earn an AMS seal and be a TV weatherman due to a lack of a B.S. in a related field. Things are changing (very slowly) in the AMS which is long overdue IMO. [/ QUOTE ] I was completely joking about Roker's position on global warming. I have no idea what it is. I was just mocking the notion that we should care what one of his peers thinks. If Al Roker came out and announced global warming skepticism, people would likely ignore it, if not openly mock him. But when one of his fellow TV weathermen announces his global warming skepticism, the right-wing noise machine like Newsbusters laughably proclaims it meaningful news. Should we ask Ted Turner what he thinks about broadcast journalism news standards and use that as fodder to claim...well, anything? Hey, he dreamed up a network dedicated to 24-hour news! But no, according to NewsBusters, ignoring what some TV weatherguy who's "thought about this" and "read some papers on it" is clear evidence the liberal media is 'silencing' all of the skeptics. Right wing noise machine at it's finest: 1) Spend a long time complaining and crafting a narrative about the "liberal" media ignoring you and your point of view 2) Find someone irrelevant to espouse your point of view using meaningless arguments like "I've read about it" and "Trust me, I know" 3) Wait for the inevitable silence, as even your average hack journalist doesn't much give a crap what some retired TV weather personality has to say about global warming 4) Claim that silence and the lack-of-attention paid to said random irrelevant commentator is prima facie evidence that the narrative about liberal media bias silencing global warming skeptics is true 5) Rinse, repeat |
Re: Subsidy = Crap
[ QUOTE ]
Whoa, easy there. You can review all my posts and find that I almost never agree with Felix, but I think he's right about this. [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
So are all of the scientist part of a government conspiracy to take over the world? I wish people could be more rational concerning there Libertarian views. I know its a very romantic and easy position to say that everything the government does it evil; but it gets tiresome. [/ QUOTE ] ? here's the parallel. in 1960, humans would have spaceships and walk on the moon in about 100 years (ok I'm guessing it's not important) with advancing technology and private enterprise, etc. but for some reason (ok, military) US/USSR decided to devote tremendous resources to do it, *ahead of it's natural time*. and they did it. what I'm saying is that if CO2 is so bad that we can't wait 100 years (or whatever) for the natural scientific progression of solar power, and the gov is saying something must be done, then why don't they speed up solar power research/tech the way they sped up the space program. seems logical to me. |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
what I'm saying is that if CO2 is so bad that we can't wait 100 years (or whatever) for the natural scientific progression of solar power, and the gov is saying something must be done, then why don't they speed up solar power research/tech the way they sped up the space program. [/ QUOTE ] Because it's far from clear that the necessary levels of efficiency are achievable without fundamental advances, and because it's almost always a bad idea to put all of your eggs in one basket. Yes, there should be more investment in solar technology. You are over-simplifying the problem however. |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
Weather Channel Founder calls Global Warming Biggest Scam in History Discuss.... [/ QUOTE ] Explain why I should care about his opinion. Lots of scientists saying man made global warming is a very likely possibilty = irrational cultist conspiracy One guy says it isnt = must be true. Who is it who is being cultist and irrational? |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
Because it's far from clear that the necessary levels of efficiency are achievable without fundamental advances, and because it's almost always a bad idea to put all of your eggs in one basket. [/ QUOTE ] the link I posted said solar will be competitive within 10 years. nanotechnololgy is what, 10-20 years old? even if what you say is true, wouldn't it make sense to use the carbon tax to fund things like solar nano research? |
Re: Weather Channel Founder says\"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in His
[ QUOTE ]
No, but since you mention it newsbusters and people that control ICECAP are both on Exxons payroll. I find it curious how this seems to be your defacto sarcastic response to everything on this topic. [/ QUOTE ] LOL it's not sarcastic, just front running the inevitable slam. You didn't disappoint me. Kind of like predicting that the price of oil would rise substantially on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 and recommending people buy oil company stocks with both fists. [sarcasm]BTW I realize that green movement is pure and that no tools are being paid to promote their agenda. I also realize nobody promoting "green" will make a penny off of getting their agenda implemented.[/sarcasm] But hey I took your advice and purchased carbon offsets from TerraPass for a year so I'm cool, sort of like Al Gore is cool in offsetting his behemouth carbon footprint. Maybe not Nobel Peace Prize winning cool but still pretty good. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.