On 8/11/11 17:20 , bpnjensen wrote:
On Aug 11, 3:05 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/11/11 16:38 , bpnjensen wrote:

Nobody proposes to silence either messenger.

Again, read Barbara Boxer's comment on the subject. Silencing
opposition is precisely what she proposed. And being an active
officer in the US Government, that raises some very serious 1st
Amendment issues. And yet, she has proposed some pretty significant
legislative motion to specifically silence those who don't sign on
to the agenda.

This is contrary to scientific discourse, debate and process.

OK, I give up. All I find are some comments about national security
and how the military needs to be prepared. Please provide a link.
Make sure there are contextual quotes please - not some Fox News
digestion.

Anyway, it is still irrelevant - and by the way, like I said, until
the oil companies got involved, none of those so-called "qualified
experts" came out of the woodwork and said it was a hoax.


Well, that's a bit of a red herring. The oil companies have been
under fire since the days of John D. There's never been a time that
they've not been under fire. Simply gainsaying the oil companies are
to blame is scientifically disingenous.

In fact, the opposition experts came out before the oil companies
got involved in the debate.

I'm no fan of the oil companies. In fact, if you read the story
of the Ethyl Corporation, you'll see how bad a corporate citizen can
be. And Ethyl was co formed by DuPont (interesting irony there)
Standard Oil, and GM, because John D. wasn't willing to surrender
10% of the nations' gas tank to a non-petroleum product like
ethanol. (Ethanol was known as far back as the Model T to be an
effective antiknock additive) It's incomprehensible that such a
company could exist from the 30's to the present. But they do.

But not everyone who speaks out on the issue of climate change is
an oil company shill.

Several have been volcanic geoligists. Some have been
meteorologists. Others have been academics and researchers who've
faced censure, and withdrawal of funding for their positions in an
attempt to intimidate opposition. Those funded by Big Oil would face
no such fears.

And that, though you are correct, there is more at stake than
money, that's what it comes down to.

Underscoring, again, that this issue is more about the politics
than science.



Many
scientists, both ostensibly liberal and conservative, were beginning
to reach consensus. It was the alarms at the oil companies that put
their shills on the payroll to say anything they could...and virtually
everything they have said has now been number crunched to death. We
don't need to hear the same tired crap over and over again endlessly
for a whole new audience of minions to get riled about. Honest
skeptics are still welcome in the scientific debate, and honest
opposing evidence is still taken very seriously.

After all this is done, I refuse to talk about anything else except
the honest science...because none of the rest of this gibberish
matters, and is a waste of time.

Bruce Jensen