I believe corporations are just as bad as government in selling out on green issues. Most companies in the Fortune 500 have jumped on the climate change bandwagon. And there are lots of groups out there that will gain from carbon trading if it becomes a reality, so they have a vested interest in it going ahead. Read more here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
Dr. Jay Lehr [PhD Environmental Science Princeton] is appearing at the Tugun SLSC on Friday night [14th] at 7.00 pm. 29 O’Connor St., Tugun. $10 a head which I believe includes a cuppa.
He is a great speaker on this subject of AGW and loves difficult questions.
I just had a diabolical thought, and do not feel the least bit guilty about it. If and when the national governments of this world come to their senses, and ditch the ETSs, His Goreness and some of other greedy carbon-traders will be left holding bags full of worthless pieces of paper. 🙂
On the other hand, they may have novelty and historic value some day, kinda like Confederate money.
That will certainly happen but somehow I can’t see Big Al getting caught flat footed.
By the time Carbonmania collapses he will have sold out to the world bank who by this stage will have control of the world’s retirement funds, leaving us all destitute, collected his ill-gotten trillions and fired his extensive palace into orbit with a final kiss my carbonaceous arse.
A little confederate money is probably worth having but I’ve already got a drawer full of dud cheques and I’ve yet to find anyone to give me anything for them. I suppose that’s because the pain and historic value is very personal. I live in hope though, I can’t bring myself to throw them out.
“The overwhelming majority of climate computer modellers, who are among the main beneficiaries of the $2 billion-a-year global warming grant industry, certainly believe man affects global warming. This is not necessarily the view of most real climate scientists, who are people qualified in atmospheric physics, geology, climatology and meteorology. Geologists are particularly sceptical as a result of their awareness of the mammoth climate changes that have occurred over the eons when man did not walk the Earth.”
What a **** weak argument. Take away the ad hom and the guesswork, and you are left with nothing.
“What a **** weak argument. Take away the ad hom and the guesswork, and you are left with nothing.”
SJT,
You should be capable of better than that. No one uses that anymore. That’s the dregs of the argument from both sides fired in the first salvo.
That’s not a knife.
This is a Knife!
http://www.heartland.org/full/25835/Everything_You_Ever_Wanted_to_Know_About_Global_Warming.html
“{Climate modelers, whose jobs and funding are directly dependent on the existence of a perceived global warming crisis, invariably determine that each of these poorly understood factors will lead to more rather than less warming in the future, such that climate models are predisposed to predict more warming than is reasonably likely to occur.”
First few paragraphs, ad hom. Their arguments must all be **** weak if they can’t last more than a few papagraphs before sinking the slipper. Obviously, their scientific rebuttal isn’t good enough.
SJT: “What a **** weak argument. Take away the ad hom and the guesswork, and you are left with nothing.”
In otherwords it is totally true – your reaction is the proof. And you are not competent to opine on science by self admission.
Getting a bit ***** strident as your world collapses around you ?
SJT,
What ad homs, and what guess work? You have serious problems in English comprehension. I suppose if it were written in C++ you might experience a slight glimmer in the stygian recesses of that thing you call a brain.
And the foregoing is indeed an ad hominem. 🙂
I quoted it for you Louis. Do I have to read it aloud to you?
SJT
You cannot have – you never address your posts to anyone, so it’s anyone’s guess to whom your posts are directed.
But which part in that quotation is the ad hom? There isn’t one since ad hominems are personal attacks, and no one was personally attacked.
My, my you are becoming a touch sensitive – feeling a bit of locally induced verbal warming are we?
“But which part in that quotation is the ad hom? There isn’t one since ad hominems are personal attacks, and no one was personally attacked.”
An ad hominem is attacking the target of your argument rather than addressing their argument.
SJT
“An ad hominem is attacking the target of your argument rather than addressing their argument.”
“An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man” or “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.”
Try again.
Yes Louis, an excellent description of Steve McIntyres methods. Thank you.