Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Foxfyre wrote:

If in fact all those "thousands of scientists" who concur that global warming is human caused are truly convinced of that fact; and, if those lauding Al Gore et al agree that the time is short to reverse that process and save the planet as we know it, why aren't they clamoring for the truly draconian measures necessary to stop it?

I suppose, you are not referring to what they actually postulate as measurements but what politicans (like from the EU and national European countries) think, they can achieve acceptance in the population of.

Because, those scientists really speak about draconic measures - knowng themselves that they can't change old habits ... and the world.

The Green parties are the only political force, slightly following that line.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

If in fact all those "thousands of scientists" who concur that global warming is human caused are truly convinced of that fact; and, if those lauding Al Gore et al agree that the time is short to reverse that process and save the planet as we know it, why aren't they clamoring for the truly draconian measures necessary to stop it?

I suppose, you are not referring to what they actually postulate as measurements but what politicans (like from the EU and national European countries) think, they can achieve acceptance in the population of.

Because, those scientists really speak about draconic measures - knowng themselves that they can't change old habits ... and the world.

The Green parties are the only political force, slightly following that line.

No doubt. But if they are unwilling to put their political viability on the line versus the 'end of the world as we know it' scenarios they are painting, isn't it possible they aren't really buying it at all? And isn't there at least the possibility that they are perpetuating it anyway for personal motives such as financial gain?

What influence do scientists have?

I mean, certainly they have some - but if they try to use (see in the UK), you ("you" personally as well) jump on them and speak of junkscience, remind that we Europeans haven't even reached Kyoto etc

And of course Europeans haven't reached Kyoto yet and probably won't.

Foxfyre wrote:

And of course Europeans haven't reached Kyoto yet and probably won't.

Your "of course" here relates to what and/or compared to which other countries?

By 'Europe' you mean the continent or the EU or some European countries especially?

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world's biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been "widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is."

I was referring to the same Europeans you referred to in the post I was responding to.

The 'of course' reflects my opinion that you haven't met the Kyoto standards because you haven't chosen to meet them. And you haven't chosen to meet them because apparently there is no sense of urgency in doing so.

And that reinforces my opinion that few, if any, are taking seriously the idea that AGW is a serious threat to humankind or much of anything else.

Foxfyre wrote:

The 'of course' reflects my opinion that you haven't met the Kyoto standards because you haven't chosen to meet them. And you haven't chosen to meet them because apparently there is no sense of urgency in doing so.

And that reinforces my opinion that few, if any, are taking seriously the idea that AGW is a serious threat to humankind or much of anything else.

No doubt: some European nations struggle to meet their Kyoto commitments.

But all try. Some, figures give at least the idea, very well.

Which seems to be better for me than your philosophy of "hear no evil, see no evil".

Expect a major change in the "debate" about global climate change. Exxon Mobil has funded the alleged "think tanks" who've produced most of the anti-climate-change dreck from the few scientists who disagree with the consensus, and now Exxon Mobil is withdrawing its funding of those groups, notably the Competitive Enterprise Institute and "five or six other" groups.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

Exxon was recently taken to task by, I believe, the Union of Concerned Scientists for their funding of the Junk Scientist himself, Stephen Milloy, the public relations hack who got his start paid by the tobacco companies to run front groups claiming to be citizens' public interest groups who maintained that there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. Exxon money has flowed to his JunkScience internet site. He's aslo, if I remember correctly, a Fox commentator. Figures. So his money's probably going away too, as one of those five or six others. And Exxon also funds the George Marshall Institute, the hangout of Bernard R's favorites, Sallie Baliunas and Richard Lindzen. Away goes the money, away goes the "debate", since it was a public relations gimmick by the oil giant for the most part anyway.

The article is also interesting because apparently the oil companies are feeling the heat (in several senses), in Europe and the States, with the changed Congress, and Exxon seems to have realized that the science is firm and governments are in fact serious about what the companies are going to have to do.

Being as wrong as you are in what Stephen Milloy said about smoking and lung cancer, I wonder how wrong you are re your other opinions that trash scientists and/or members who still have open minds re the issue global warming and/or the causes for it?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109244,00.html

Milloy also keeps an open mind and refuses to accept the exaggerations and extremes passed off as 'scientific opinion' by those with agendas that are usually separate from and take precedence over interest in knowing and finding the truth.

I suggest you do a little research on Milloy, Foxfyre. He's not a scientist. His career has been in public relations, and his relationship to the tobacco companies who funded him goes back at least a decade before the Fox "News" thing you cite. He's a prime example of P.R. spin masquerading as fact.

Steven J. Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and a columnist for FoxNews.com and the New York Sun. Milloy was also a member of the judging panel for the 2004 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Journalism Awards: Online Category.

Mr. Milloy has appeared on local, national and international television and radio including: ABC's World News Tonight and Good Morning America; CNN's Crossfire and Talk Back Live; CNNfn; CNN International's Insight; MSNBC's News with Brian Williams; Fox News Channel's Fox Report, Fox and Friends, The O'Reilly Factor, and Special Report with Brit Hume; National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation and the G. Gordon Liddy Show.

Mr. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center. He has testified on risk assessment and Superfund before the U.S. Congress; and has lectured before numerous organizations.
http://www.cei.org/dyn/view_Expert.cfm?Expert=71

Being as wrong as you are in what Stephen Milloy said about smoking and lung cancer,...