D. Peter Maus wrote:
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.



It's been suggested that the fight over man made global climate change
isn't really about whether or not CO2 causes it. The fight, at least by
one side, is actually about continuing the present, increasing pollution
unabated.

Anywhere there is CO2, there are carcinogenic byproducts. The
industrialists seem to be trying to equate a cleaner environment with
raving lunatic communism. Controlling emissions cuts into the bottom
line. Win the CO2 fight and you win the pollution right.

CO2 is a very convenient way to make people forget about the toxic crap
that accompanies it. The toxic stuff kills people a lot faster. It's
best not to mention it.

Me? I believe all environmental degradation and pollution is due to
corrupt politicians.


mike




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJORGLRAAoJECGtZwCbtgwXE9MH/AizqESF/XmqpWR9czmU0ZCB
L0bwBnM9aXUIISnMm2EmwfpOe3/Uws8OcKTm/FZho7eDRusdqSfo36TBjG5kG4y+
vLaqEg1MBAPrEd1pRzj1kVqJHLlcu7iJeXFSFgCuCUWAbPfldF umeCHWCB4JZoo8
SFfELnd7gJjaKp+rvP2lvk7tGRDFpu4gtDVt1GKawbHgC7SrlB 2RGQJPGR9L56aM
T+2Hrn/zXNX3gZ7oElwiVV9pNk+cjOXA4Ov+MnXjk7DtLbphvar+3ZOkV NlXwHtO
ltkNLo7N1afkDJPStNH/+6oSBi26jh8JixyhvQGUVM2A7DE0Dkf2Qxd4gBDir0E=
=RaEo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----