@RDRDRD1,
I am a little confused about you comments on global warming. You ask why big oil didn't reveal the fraud, and then explain how they paid scientists to deny global warming; the two routes are rather in the same vein aren't they? When I say it's a fraud, I don't mean that there's some evidence of actual fraud, or even fudged numbers, there's nothing to reveal in that sense. It's matter of poor interpetation, flawed causality, biased sample selection and so on. Having scientists propose counter-explanations or theories, as big oil did for a while (now they seem to have gotten wise to the profit potential of the 'green revolution') would be the route one would take in order to reveal the truth. What is it that RJ Reynolds accomplished that the oil companies might have wanted to accomplish? It seems to me that big tobacco is having its **** handed it. In any case, my view is this. Those companies are not in the business of providing the world with a useful commodity, though they happen to be doing that now. They are in the business of making money; i.e. they will gladly go into the fraudulent, propoganda-fed 'green' business and earn rich government subsidies, knowing how rediculous it is. Returning to your point, it seems to me that BP, Exxon and the other big boys have pretty wholeheartedly accepted the new low carbon future that government has decided we need; they certainly spend quite a bit of money telling the public this on television. They know that oil is more or less peaking right now, and that, soon enough, they'll be out of business if they don't adapt; this is the ideal way of doing it, no R & D for an actually viable energy source and all the taxpayer financed perks they want. And moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if the big oil companies were excepted form some of the carbon taxes and regulations. As so often happens, government regulation assumed to be anti-business hurts most companies, but gives a competitive advantage to the select few that more or less own the government, because they alone are excepted via loopholes, which their lobbyists most likely had written in the legislation.
There is though most definitely an unsustainable level of consumption on this planet, completely unrelated to the imaginary global warming threat. Do I reccomend that people conserve? Sure. Will I accept government regulation of very personal behavior (How many razors I use a month? how many children I have?) in order to reduce consumption? Never. On its face that's unacceptable, but there is no doubt in my mind, nor should there be in the mind of anyone who's been paying attention, that the governmenbt would promptly abuse, terribly, those powers of intrusion to carry out all kinds of dystopian programs. I refuse to live in a planned society. I do not want my fellow citizens to be managed like livestock. Yes, that probably sounds radical, but its a slippery slope, and the wonderful government people we're talking about are largely gradualists (i.e. progressives, fabian socialists).
All that said, there are many things the government could do to reduce consumption without violating individuals' liberty; i.e. there are many things they could STOP doing. The most important reform, from which all others would flow, would be to abolish the Federal Reserve and put in place a non-inflationairy, commodity-back monetary system; then reduce government spending by an astonishingly huge proportion; then reduce taxes by the same proportion. To some extent, the resource crisis ('peak everything') we find ourselves in is natural and unavoidable. However, it will be obvious in a few decades that it was made exponentially worse by our monetary system and excessive government, which caused, and are now causing, massive misallocations of resources, which could otherwise have been invested in productive enterprises. We still would have arrived at peak oil, peak copper, etc., but the decline would have been gradual, and there would have been more time and resources to adapt. Now, we are facing a more likely than not hyperinflationairy blow-out as the fictions of the monetary regime become too much for reality to handle; i.e. WAY to much monetary inflation in a world of decreasing complexity, energy and goods. In other words, we could have, as a species, continued to grow (in complexity, not in terms of gross consumption), but now a collapse followed by decline or stagnation is likely. As you can see, I'm not advising that we just sit back, eat a hamburger and buy another Hummer.
If you like, check out this documentary on global warming
googevideo 'CBC-Global Warming Doomsday Called Off'
and/or 'Global Warming or Global Governance'
You'll find that the science is really quiet compellingly against anthropogenic global warming, and that Al Gore and his fellow deceivers have manipulated the evidence in a shockingly significant and obvious way.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace