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

Now, stop arguing or Krugman will have to write another book detailing why I've got this right.

ARTHUR:
Shut up, will you? Shut up!
DENNIS:
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR:
Shut up!
DENNIS:
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR:
Bloody peasant!
DENNIS:
Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

The fact is that climactic change is as old as the earth.

Blatham: So...what's your plan? What ideas to slow or stop global warming have you in mind? Or is your idea of "helping out" just to shoot holes in anyone's post that happens to differ from your idea of "the general good".

Under the observation that there is not going to be a consensus on the matter, scientific or secular, in the immediate future, actions will have to be taken by individual effort. What's the plan?

Please don't tell me to limit my driving, I do that already, in the effort to save gas money, not necessarily to "stop global warming". Besides, looking for leadership in "the cause", I believe that the erstwhile Presidential Contenders put more crap into the atmosphere, jetting back and forth on campaign, in one month, than I will put into the atmosphere in my entire life driving. (Just out of comparison....)

Halfback

What I can contribute is a fair understanding of some of the most effective and commonly used propaganda methods.

Start with its funding. CCS comes to states promising to bring money with them to pay for their greenhouse-gas reduction development. Who foots the bill? Several foundations on the global warming panic train: the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The (Ted) Turner Foundation, The Heinz Endowments, the Energy Foundation, and many others. For example, the state of Washington is paying only $200,000 for CCS' services -- half of what their cheap process has cost in other states.

Then CCS controls the entire policy development: the agenda, scheduling and oversight of their meetings; the CO2 reduction options that stakeholders consider; analysis (which is not an examination of cost/benefit or climate impact) of those options; the voting process; the changing and/or elimination of options; and the writing of all meeting minutes, presentations and reports.

Continued dependency on foreign oil does seem rather foolish, doesn't it?

blatham wrote:

Continued dependency on foreign oil does seem rather foolish, doesn't it?

As foolish as dependency on French wine, Japanese cars, Korean RAM, Chinese gadgets, Thai harddrive...
Pls Blatham, come back to the future

So you must be highly interested in this kind of institutionalized propaganda:

Quote:

Start with its funding. CCS comes to states promising to bring money with them to pay for their greenhouse-gas reduction development. Who foots the bill?

Apropos "fundings". Quite interesting those of the the John Locke Foundation (the author, Paul Chesser, is an associate editor for the John Locke Foundation):

blatham wrote:

Continued dependency on foreign oil does seem rather foolish, doesn't it?

As foolish as dependency on French wine, Japanese cars, Korean RAM, Chinese gadgets, Thai harddrive...
Pls Blatham, come back to the future

blatham wrote:

What I can contribute is a fair understanding of some of the most effective and commonly used propaganda methods.

Hi Blatham,
So you must be highly interested in this kind of institutionalized propaganda:

Quote:

Start with its funding. CCS comes to states promising to bring money with them to pay for their greenhouse-gas reduction development. Who foots the bill? Several foundations on the global warming panic train: the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The (Ted) Turner Foundation, The Heinz Endowments, the Energy Foundation, and many others. For example, the state of Washington is paying only $200,000 for CCS' services -- half of what their cheap process has cost in other states.

Then CCS controls the entire policy development: the agenda, scheduling and oversight of their meetings; the CO2 reduction options that stakeholders consider; analysis (which is not an examination of cost/benefit or climate impact) of those options; the voting process; the changing and/or elimination of options; and the writing of all meeting minutes, presentations and reports.

... much more here. Hope you enjoy the reading on those "enviros toadies" (copyright Robert Kennedy, sort of).

John Locke Foundation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Learn more about citing Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search
The John Locke Foundation is a free market think tank in North Carolina started in 1990. The organization advocates lowering taxes, decreasing spending on social support programs, and encouraging free markets. John Hood is its current president.

The Foundation is concerned primarily with state and local issues. The greater part of its funding comes from North Carolina conservative grantmaking foundations, some led by Republican party activists.

The History of the John Locke Foundation
Looking back at it now, the creation of the John Locke Foundation was probably inevitable. The value and effectiveness of public policy think tanks had already been demonstrated by such venerable institutions as the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute.