Global Warming to Impact A's New Stadium?

[Parlay2k]

"Chris Horner is a lawyer and a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an organization that receives most of its annual funding from ExxonMobile.(sic)"

First, their funding level amounts to "some", not "most".

Does "Big Oil" have an agenda? Of course! We all do in support of our own causes. And, more importantly, so what?

PETA backs agendas that are pro-animal rights. Planned Parenthood backs agendas that are pro-abortion. And the Teamsters back agendas that are pro Union. So what?

"Name them"

(scientists with an opposing view) -

Here's a list of ~15,000 for starters:

PushBack.com: Pushing Back the Bureaucracy

15,000 scientists dispute theory of global warming.

In addition to the Heidelburg Appeal described below, there is another group of scientists that has formed the Petition Project, headed by Frederick Seitz (Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., and currently President Emeritus, Rockefeller University) The petition (read the entire Report, Letter, and Signatories) states:
Global Warming Petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.


There is no smoking gun on either side of this issue.

[ToddyBaseball]

Those who wait for smoking guns to take action often die waiting. In this case, we're going die in a catastrophic climate event. Clinging to the "why" is essentially avoiding the argument. Avoiding the argument is typically tied to an agenda. Self-serving agendas are cowardly if they blind us.

Whether climate changes are due all or in part to human behavior, the fact is that the planet is quickly moving toward a state in which it will no longer sustain human life. The trend data is there (watch the Gore doc... until you do you haven't done your due diligence in this debate), as is the evidence that human action can, at the very least, help to reverse it by making policy changes. These changes can even be phased in and still have a significant impact. There exists a tipping point in any major system. If policy changes can reverse climate change to that tipping point we could stabilize the entire system.

Yes, supporting these changes will have a short term impact on human welfare. The cool thing is that human beings are the most adaptable creatures this planet has ever seen. Isn't it interesting that big business is at the podium everytime this is mentioned? It's the self-serving twisting of impact. To take action now is to be visionary. It's FDR and Eisenhower -- the overall good of everyone, not the overall good of "me and mine." Besides, there are public policies in place that damage human welfare already. Everywhere.

[Parlay2k]

Those who wait for smoking guns to take action often die waiting.

Just because there are those who say the sky is falling, doesn't mean it's falling.

All 15,000 scientists referenced earlier have NO basis for standing behind their signature? None? That's narrow-mindedness at its height.

No one is saying "prove it" before believing. The position is there's valid scientific positions on both sides. Inconvenient, no?

[ToddyBaseball]

Originally Posted by Parlay2k

Just because there are those who say the sky is falling, doesn't mean it's falling.

All 15,000 scientists referenced earlier have NO basis for standing behind their signature? None? That's narrow-mindedness at its height.

No one is saying "prove it" before believing. The position is there's valid scientific positions on both sides. Inconvenient, no?

Yeah, narrow-minded or well-informed. One of the two:

"In a related matter, 60 supposedly-independent and objective scientists wrote a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking him to bring the terms of the Kyoto Protocol out into open debate. The so-called experts also informed the Prime Minister that calls for drastic actions on climate are sensationalistic. "Climate changes all the time," they wrote, and insisted that it is currently impossible to distinguish potential human-caused atmospheric changes from natural ones.

Such a letter might otherwise be compelling. But guess what? Many of those lending their signature to this letter also signed their names to an earlier document that is part of the "Anti-Global Warming Petition Project" based out of LaJolla, Calif.

Viewed as a front for the oil, gas, and coal industries, "The Anti-Global Warming Petition Project" has made some eye-opening pronouncements that while they may be trumpeted as fact by U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, they have met with widespread incredulity from hundreds of leading scientists in every nation on Earth. As chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr. Inhofe has refused to consider any action on legislation that would address U.S. contribution to greenhouse gases being poured into the atmosphere. Moreover, he is part of a particular line of thinking that portrays concern over climate change as a plot by the rest of the world to hamper the U.S. economy."

[ToddyBaseball]

Originally Posted by Parlay2k

Just because there are those who say the sky is falling, doesn't mean it's falling.

All 15,000 scientists referenced earlier have NO basis for standing behind their signature? None? That's narrow-mindedness at its height.

No one is saying "prove it" before believing. The position is there's valid scientific positions on both sides. Inconvenient, no?

And this too.

A secret memo by the coal industry details a coordinated campaign to spread misinformation about global warming. The memo expresses fear that if the government addresses climate change — through a carbon tax or regulating greenhouse gasses — it will cut into their profits.

Their solution: “support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against the alarmists.” (The memo also refers to people who believe in global warming science as those “whose true motivation is to stop growth, develop renewable resources [and] discontinue the use of fossil fuels, especially coal.”)

But the coal-based utility leading the campaign ran up against a problem: there is no scientific community who agrees with them. The memo acknowledges almost everyone who disputes global warming science have no “involvement in climatology.” So they’ve decided to lavish funding on one climatologist who will do their bidding: Pat Michaels.

The memo describes how the coal-based utility contributed “$100,000 to Dr. Michaels this year.” It also “contacted all the [utilities] in the United States” asking for contributions to Michaels’ research and “obtained additional contributions.”

[Parlay2k]

Their solution: “support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against the alarmists.”

That's the point. In a politically-correct environment when it is increasingly unpopular to stand up to the Chicken Little crowd (alarmists) - it's important to point out that there are two sides.

It's interesting that that notion alone can be so troubling.

[ToddyBaseball]

Originally Posted by Parlay2k

That's the point. In a politically-correct environment when it is increasingly unpopular to stand up to the Chicken Little crowd (alarmists) - it's important to point out that there are two sides.

It's interesting that that notion alone can be so troubling.

P2K, this is really no different from the "scientific studies" conducted to support Eugenics in the early part of the 20th century. It's propaganda, my friend. While real scientists conduct impartial studies and wind up with evidence supporting dangerous climate changes, those with wealth, power and influence use their resources to cook up studies supporting their agendas, then call it science and pay handsomely for others to do so as well. You've uncovered several already, yet you (seemingly) refuse to look at the other side with an open mind of your own. Why is that?

The offer of a copy of Gore's DVD delivered directly to your mailbox is still open. Just say the word.

[Parlay2k]

Toddy, I think we've advanced this discussion as far as we're going to. Your offer is appreciated, though graciously declined. Again, I'm sure you're sincere. You're welcome to have the last word.

[blini]

Al Gore already refuted that number. The number drops to zero if you ask the right question apparently. Not one polled relevant scientist refutes global warming.See the movie! It's pretty well done

[RobDogBucky]

Okay, anyone here see yesterday's article on Yahoo about the Colorado fishing guides expressing concern about the early runoff that normally occurs in May-June? Or that hunters in Colorado are also concerned that last year's droughty conditions over in the Rockies did not allow enough cover crop to grow to provide adequate feed for the upland bird population? Or that both of these groups attribute these conditions to global warming? Both groups described as decidedly conservative on the political scale.

How about Sports Illustrated's cover of the latest issue?

Flat Earth Society members, are you getting a clue?

Later,
RDB