Slashdot Mirror

Wait a minute... OK, follow the trail.
co2science.org is owned by craig idso, who has in the past been linked to exxon mobile, and exxon has funded co2science.org in the past (Here). Also, co2science was paid $250,000 to make a video about how good global warming would be for society, funded by Western fuels. Do a search on the dude, All you'll find is his links to big business, and little in the way of credentials. For Instance:
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
On his work with the Coal Industry
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129849 &p=irol-newsArticle&ID=577889&highlight=
and for the other side of the aguement, a guy only using 2 sources makes the same case you are, and surprise, one is idso, and the other is a Balling character who is usually listed alongside the Idso's and their funding sources
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA334.html

If they are, then we might possiblly be able to reverse them given reductions in CO2 output and carbon sequestering. If they aren't, then rising CO2 probably isn't helping and should still be reversed, and we might also look into other solutions for it. (bold mine)

And therein lies the problem. Deniers and self-styled fence-sitters like Lindzen are trotted out by pro-business economist institutes who refuse to accept that companies should ever have the need to be responsible. If there is no MMGW, then there is no need to lose profits by changing to less-polluting materials or processes. Lindzen himself has had no problem being trotted out on the bill of free market corporocrats or the energy industry.

Here's an old list of Bush's resume: http://www.laughparty.com/view/id/945/

As for the specific Bush/Nazi connection:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,131254 0,00.html

http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/

Wait, you're talking about the US hedging its bet while the whole WW2 was due to Europe desperatly trying to avoid was by giving into Hitler's every demand? I mean are you complaining about the US or human nature?

Huh? wtf are you smoking, the US gained maybe 2 pieces of land after WW2 that weren't returned or made self-governing within a decade.

Well then please provide the references ( referring to supporting Hitler )

In the real world those who don't compromise, lie and backstab their way are usually found dead in a gutter when someone who does gets annoyed at them. There is no such thing as a "good" nation or, with rare exceptions, a "good person" so in the end it's all about choosing the lesser of many evils.

So why did the US enter WW2 at all

Pearl Harbor could have been easily avoided had the US not embargoed Japan

Likewise the result was millions of dead Americans so your logic appears to be fault.

I was going to mod this insightful, but then I decided to do some research about the facts.

"The climate-aerosol debacle: The U.N. science advisory group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has a big credibility problem. Its 1996 report, the basis for Kyoto, had to admit that the rapid warming predicted by computer models was not occurring. So they hit on an explanation to account for the discrepancy: Sulfate aerosols, particles created from the burning of coal and other sulfur-containing substances, were supposed to reflect incident sunlight and create an offsetting cooling--forcing an agreement with the observations that show no warming trend. Unfortunately for the IPCC, the details don't match. The Southern Hemisphere, containing fewer aerosols, should be warming more rapidly-but it isn't."

by S. Fred Singer
Washington Times, January 10, 1999

http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/partinggreen.html
http://www.sepp.org/bios/singer/biosfs.html

But then again, lets take a look at what a certain third party has to say about his character:

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html

I wish I had time to follow the trail further.. I leave you to your own conclusions. Maybe someone already knows, but with agendas flamebait is inevitable.. I look to someone with a very reliable source to clear this up.

Skeptics view of the Buenos Aires conference

Debate of the IPCC executive summary

"Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider has been a leader of the alarmist camp, which has received most of the publicity" Ronald Hilton (Stanford University - 03/18/99

E-mail correspondence between S. Fred Singer and Ben Santer

Industry contributions to the environmental movement

Environmentalism for the 21st Century

The CO2 & Climate Team

is calling a scientist with a contrary view "Mass Murderer" ok under the "ends justify the means rules

Now as a Parthian shot. Below are the primary movers in the anti "Big warming Industry". I cannot find, please point it out if you can find one, a page devoted to "Smear tactics" against the Big GW scientists, though I will admit that Milloy occasionally uses a bit of sarcasm, and Singer is none to friendly towards Schneider, none devote a page to "smear tactics". Lomborg of course, in Danish Stoicism, wouldn't say anything hurtful about anyone.

Patrick Michaels
Bjorn Lomborg
Steve Milloy

Now we move on to Schneider's site.

Schneider Contrarians

Here Schneider devotes 13,245 words to mud slinging and smear tactics (including the exorbitant amount of API funding to Soon and Baliunas that covered 5% of their budget, no mention to where the remainder of the funding comes from.

> Most people do not participate in government, either.

Incorrect. While the majority of the populace does not vote, the vast majority of the populace recognizes that the winners of the election get to hold the job. By the same token, the majority of society recognizes that vigilantism is not a normal or generally acceptable state of affairs, and therefore vigilantes cannot consider themselves representatives of the public at large.

> Indeed they are. However, government agents garner support from a greater number of people by prosecuting that "crime" than they piss off.

Fitting your particular complaints about government officials into this discussion does nothing to address the original discussion, so please try to stay on topic. The argument you made is that vigilantes represent "the people", and your usage implied that "the people" constituted a majority of the population. I refuted, saying that it's just as inaccurate as implying that child molesters constitute a majority of the population, but your definition allows this.

> That is one of the problems with statute law. By creating "crimes" out of acts that harm no one, such as drug use, speeding and prostitution,

Firstly, your argument requires that you first demonstrate that these crimes harm no one to those who believe they do. For myself, I don't believe that speeding is harmless, because of the externalities involved. I'm more with you on the other two, but that's not relevant to the fact that I disagree with your statement as a whole, and therefore you must justify the statement to proceed.

> If the punishment for speeding were as severe as murder, a larger number of people who didn't like the law would revolt against those who enforce it. Just like the juries who refused to convict rum-runners during alcohol prohibition, or operators of the underground railway prior to the War of Northern Aggression.

You see what I mean by staying on topic? Don't soapbox about some personal point that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (whether vigilantes represent a generally accepted practice or not). You may wish to tie back the concept of disrespect for the law into vigilantism, but that's a stretch considering your examples are of civil disobedience, not vigilantism.

> You might be interested in an interesting little factoid: San Francisco is one of the most famous examples of "vigilante" action in the US. So what happened? In the year after the formation of the Vigilance Committees, there were fewer murders in San Francisco than there was in the month prior, including the actions of the Committees.

Someone disagrees with your analysis about the good that came from this idea. I'm inclined to agree more with his side than yours considering that most of the violations of the committees were not murderous in nature but were just as egregious.

> So please do decry the abuses of justice where ever they occur. Just don't limit yourself to only what the government schools told you was bad.

Thanks for the tip, but it's been more than twenty years since government schools were my source for information about vigilantism, so I'll have to thank you not to pretend I'm a brainwashed fool because I don't agree with you. Go pick your bone with the government elsewhere, and come back when you're ready to present more than a refuted example from a hundred years ago and a lot of offtopic banter.

Virg

Mike-"Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?"

As far a climate science goes Mike has not got a clue, ref: title of post.

Mike-"And make financial investments based on that prediction?"

Investment based on prediction would mean reversing the tried and true US policy of making predictions based on investments. Both sides of the Clinton/Bush thread show that "not one US job" will be sacraficed. (Nothing but a pile of straw there)
The USC are known as a die hard sceptics organisation, here is thier take on climate FUD .

Mike-"Has everybody lost their minds?"

Frederick Seitz certainly has.

You need to read more about the political fud that is driving doubt and just one of the "scientists" paid to spread it.

I live in Melbourne Australia and it is happening to the whole fucking continent not just Sydney. No matter what is "causing" Australia to dry up while the poles are melting, we can not afford to let the climate debate get deliberately derailed by people like Fred and his finacial backers. The best minds on the planet give us a "heads up" and the self styled "leader of the free world" sticks it's head in the sand, it is pathetic.

It did not take long. These people are spending up big on climate FUD. One notable among the names associated with the FUD is Frederick Seitz who was responsible for $45M in tabacoo research. Another A/C...wonders if A/C's are paid to be stupid?