Global Warming Debunked – Yet Again…
By omb on Mar 1, 2009 in Congress, Global Warming
Once again, the so called ‘science’ behind the man made global warming threat has been thoroughly debunked, this time before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works, by William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University… please read
I need to print this off and give it to my bio prof before my final… she dedicated two lectures to global warming/climate change.
the new dill | Mar 2, 2009 | Reply
New Dill,
If you do that, then my blog is serving it’s purpose!
-OMB
omb | Mar 2, 2009 | Reply
Happer is Chairman of the Board of Directors of the George C Marshall Institute, funded by Exxon-Mobil.
It is always easy to find someone to back your position, whichever side you are on.
Fluffy | Mar 2, 2009 | Reply
Fluffy,
And? Did you even read the article? In your mind, that funding by Exxon of the non-profit organization he chairs in addition to being a leading Professor of Physics at Princeton University, constitutes guilt by association I suppose, so no need to deal with the content of his arguments, right?
Every so called fact that I’ve seen presented by the proponents of this so called climate change agenda, the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the populace in general, has been ripped to shreds by any objective view of the true, unaltered data – including Happer’s. As a Professor of Physics, I’d take his word over Gore’s or James Hanson (Nasa director) who have been caught in more misstatements of the facts than I can count.
As to the funding of the non-profit group, George C. Marshall Institute, Exxon Mobile’s funding levels are pretty low. At first glance, I only see one year where they contributed more than 10% of the overall funding. The most contributed in any given year by Exxon Mobil was $150k. All other years it was more like $60-70k As near as I can tell, their charter is factual discovery. They are working to reveal the actual data, not the tripe submitted by Mann to the IPCC, or to the public by Gore, and Hansen.
Did you know that Exxon Mobil gave Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project $100M in 2002? I really have to laugh because Greenpeace actually had the gall to say that this was Exxon Mobiles’ effort to ‘greenwash’ their record on Climate Change issues.
What a joke! They give a grand total of less than $1M over 10 years to George Marshall Institute and its branded as some kind of ‘super secret’ funding conspiracy, and they give $100M in one year to the Stanford U. Climate and Energy project and the lunatics on the left think its some kind of cover up/smoke screen for past eco-wrongs. They really can’t win can they?
There is no data to support the hypothesis that any global warming, if it is actually occurring, is man made. None. It’s not true. Those are the facts. It may be getting warmer, it may not be, but there’s no evidence to suggest that human activity is driving it.
This is nothing more than Fascism in a green jacket.
omb | Mar 2, 2009 | Reply
I don’t really understand the repeated use of the word fascism. Please explain how global warming, man-made or not or the global concern with it constitutes an aspect of fascism.
I think the label has been misunderstood and overused to the point that it is nothing more than a negative epithet used to make the labeler appear to grasp Political Science 101.
I have read the articles, and probably the same ones you are citing. Science is one thing, but lobbying to hide facts and influence public policy as the GMI did for the tobacco industry is another.
Fluffy | Mar 2, 2009 | Reply
Fluffy,
So, you want to get into semantics, that way you don’t have deal with the facts? What the eco freaks want is government control over industry, production, and all aspects of our daily lives. That’s fascism- screw the semantics(by the way, I got an A in my Political Science class at Chapman, what did you get?), I don’t care how you label it, they want to tell me what I can drive, how much I can drive it, and how warm my house can be all in the name of somehow saving the planet – it’s all very authoritarian.
There is no scientific, not to mention constitutional, basis for me to be paying a dollar a gallon carbon tax on gasoline -especially it is going to be turned over to the 3rd world thugs in the U.N.. Want to talk about hiding facts? What about Mann and the hockey stick graph? They hid the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming period to generate that POS. Hanson/Nasa’s data has been loaded with major inaccuracies as well, including the data that said that 1998 was the hottest year on record. And exactly where is this scientific consensus that Al Gore is always preaching about? Why did they change the language from Global Warming to Climate Change? Could it be because non of their computer models(non of which account for water vapor, the most abundant green house gas) predicted the cooling trend that we are seeing over the last 8 years?
With billions upon billions coming out of Washington D.C. into every form of green energy project and climate study imaginable. Does it not stand to reason that someone like Happer, if he were driven by financial interests alone, would be far better off in terms of grants and other government research dollars by being on the enviro-freaks side of this issue, than by receiving $60-70k of ‘dirty big oil money’ per year in funding to a non-profit organization?
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather that we took the top 250 people at both Halibuton and Exxon and have them govern us than the creeps that are in threre now.
Tobacco? Here’s my favorite Al Gore quote on tobacco. “Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve dug in it. I’ve sprayed it, I’ve chopped it, I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.”
(Source: [New York] Newsday, 2/26/88
omb | Mar 2, 2009 | Reply
Whether you got an “A” or not, it is more than semantics to cast your version of ideologies onto peoples you don’t know. The tenets of fascism more fit the policies of the last eight years.
If there were no regulations food wouldn’t be safe, prescription drugs might kill or maim you, the gas in your fancy car might be half water and who-knows-what, water wouldn’t be safe to drink, and the air would be as it is in China where they had to take cars off the roads for three days just so athletes could breathe during the Olympics!
How about dead babies from lead paint in toys or tainted milk?
You seem to want an unfettered corporatocracy. How is that mortgage bank thing working out? The stock market? Ask Madoff or Stanford or any of the other good unregulated Patriots who followed their own rules and willingly re-invested in America.
I don’t want my bed pillows stuffed with dead frogs, or salmonella in my dinner. It is good to have someone besides the fox watching the henhouse.
Fluffy | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Fluffy,
It is not through regulation that we have safe food, drugs, gas, water, air, milk, banking, etc.
What consumer would buy from a company that produced rotten food, untested drugs, or tainted milk?
Where we have gone wrong, is adding unneeded regulation from Washington. Everyone who has ever been in a business that has to deal with regulations will know that they don’t accomplish much of what they aim for and add cost/complexity to your operations..
I’d also like to know how you call a person like Madoff unregulated? All of his actions were done fraudulently.
And your example of the stock market, the current free-fall is attributed to our president’s lack of a clear and concise plan out of these uncertain times. This recession started from regulation, not deregulation. It was not the greed of banking institutions, but the governing class that brought this on us.
Longshanks | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Well, on the one hand, the left is screaming about Bush deregulating everything, and on the other you’re saying his policies are fascist? I don’t see the two as being consistsent. Ever heard the comment ‘At least Hitler and Mussolini made the trains run on time”? This was a testament as to the centrally controlled, highly regulated environments that go hand in hand with a Fascist regime as evidenced with both Germany and Italy. There is not doubt in my mind that the eco-fascists, as I brand them, want to control every aspect of my life. The nationalistic element aside, that is why I call them fascist. If you would prefer eco-Marxist, that works fine by me, they end up in the same totalitarian, tyrannical place on the circle of political philosophies.
We were intended to be a nation of laws, not federal regulations, however, I agree with you that there is a role for some regulation at the Federal level, but I believe most should be handled at the State and local level. I don’t believe that some Ivy League bureaucrat D.C. should be telling some farmer in Indiana what crops he can grow and how much water he can use in the process. Conversely, I don’t believe that that same farmer should be getting one dime of federal ag subsidies. Left unfettered, there is no more perfect market than food. A subject for another post.
In addition, I don’t think that the Feds do a very good job of regulating free market systems. I’ll use your example of the mortgage crisis. This started with Carter’s Community Reeinvestment Act, strong-arming banks to make loans to unqualified borrowers, and was made many times worse by Clinton directing Fannie and Freddie to ease their requirements as well (read here from NYT). As much as you may not want to hear it, the Bush administration approached oversight committee about the dangers and risks with Fannie and Freddie in 2003. The mortgage crisis is indicative of too much government & social engineering, not too little! Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick(of the 9/11 intelligence wall fame), both of Fannie Mae, and both of whom are Democrats. Did you see the bonuses they were both paid by Fannie Mae?
Remember, Fluffy, corporations are people, as is the government – both have flaws. However, I’d rather deal with a corporation who’s products I can decide to buy or not buy, based on my interpretation of their values. With government, I don’t have any choice, I have to pay my taxes under threat of imprisonment. Walmart isn’t going to put me in jail if I decide to not shop there.
Madoff and the other guy? Yeah, I agree, they are scoundrels-buyer beware, but I don’t see a big difference between what they did and the Social Security ponzi scheme that has been forced on the American people by the Democratic party. There’s a lot more money involved in the SS scam. Again, no one held a gun to the folks head that invested with Madoff and Stanford, but the government forces me to contribute to its own ponzi scheme.
And by the way, the stock market is a FORWARD LOOKING INDICATOR. It values and discounts that which is to occur, and right now, it doesn’t like the Obama administrations economic policies.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot! China? China’s environmental problems are a product of too little regulation? I’m just going to give you an opportunity to retract that- maybe you were just caught up in the moment, because that is just silly.
-OMB
omb | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Businesses “too big to fail”? If they go down they will take the whole economy with them. What happened to enforceing the Sherman Anti-trust Act to prevent such things? Overseeing people like Madoff and their affiliated banks/investment firms?
Corporations are people by an accident. A misread document. If they are people, why can’t they be taxed the same, or disallowed to have their assets offshore? I could go on about China and the fuel sources and coal plants and dung-burning by the millions of Chinese, but I don’t have enough time in the day.
Social security? I’m glad as Hell my Grandmother had it. …Medicare, too.
Fluffy | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Your glad as hell that your Grandmother had it …Medicare too, really? Is that because it enabled her live by herself? Social Security was the wedge that drove grandparents out of the nuclear family. That aside, however, most people would have been far better off had they been allowed to keep their own wages and invest them – hopefully not with Madoff, but you get my point.
-OMB
omb | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
Fluffy,
I dont understand how the Sherman Anti-Trust Act would have any effect on any of the companies we have bailed out, none of them have been anywhere close to being considered monopolistic.
They were NOT too big to fail, we could have made it through this without a single bailout.
In the case of our banking system, if government was going to step in, I’m sure we could do it in a much better way then we currently are.
Longshanks | Mar 6, 2009 | Reply
OMB,
Many older people have worked all their lives at minimum wage or under-the-table jobs to create and maintain simple homes, in which they are proud to live out their lives. What is there left to invest?
Many people have no relatives or children to support them, nor do they want to live that way. They don’t want to be relocated and made dependent. I know my own mother doesn’t want to live in someone’s spare room.
Many people don’t want to support, or are not able to support their sick or aging relatives. Your vision of the nuclear family is an Opie Taylor fantasy.
Fluffy | Mar 7, 2009 | Reply