Jul 18 2010

Climate Change Skeptics STILL Make Me Want To Puke

Published by at 1:20 pm under environment,sustainability

As a bit of a follow-up to the article about climate change skeptics I published a few days ago on this blog. As far as I’m concerned, the weird vitriol that resulted in the comments section pretty much proves the point that climate change skeptics are thick-headed reactionaries.

One of the most far-out conspiracy theories mentioned by my critics was that the green revolution was somehow the result of a Soviet plot to undermine the West through carbon taxes or cap and trade programs.

The funny thing is that the very evening I posted that article, I attended a business networking event in downtown Vancouver with representatives from clean tech companies.

The people I met there were the very definition of entrepreneurial — not one Russian accented apparatchik in sight. Though the green technology that they offered was cutting edge, many of them were already profitable or in the process of winning contracts worth millions of dollars (and if some of these technologies start getting exported, as is the plan, we’ll be looking at billions). These firms employ skilled professionals and executives who are earning big bucks and doing award-winning work.

This business reality is diametrically at odds with the view of climate change skeptics.

They still look at the green movement as something that is going to be a net drain on our economy. It’s weird, because most of them are rational enough to recognize the value of what these companies are offering.

Some would certainly see the theoretical appeal of an electric vehicle with excellent range that you never have to fill up. They would see that a company with technology that can lower energy use and utility costs by 15 to 20 per cent is good, too. Hell, they can see the value of a longer-lasting lightbulb.

The skeptics see these, but they cannot see the big picture. Our country has hemorrhaged good-paying manufacturing jobs. China, India and other rapid-growth countries are increasingly eating our lunch. Now, here we are at the start of a technological revolution that can help us start actually building industries again and selling stuff besides oil, lumber and copper.

And what do the skeptics say? “Thanks, but no thanks. We’ll stick to the way we’re already doing things. Things are going just swimmingly.”

Some theorize that climate change skeptics could be persuaded about the need to make significant changes to the way we work and live, if only they would listen to the vast preponderance of scientific studies on the issue. I don’t think so.

I think the main problem is that the skeptics are not, by and large, entrepreneurial. They know little to nothing of running a business. And they wouldn’t see an opportunity if it was delivered to them on the back of a polar bear.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

39 responses so far

39 Responses to “Climate Change Skeptics STILL Make Me Want To Puke”

  1. Canadiansenseon 18 Jul 2010 at 2:06 pm

    Interesting strategy of demonizing your critic. Why do you require massive subsidies for Green Energy?

    Where are these examples of Green Energy and jobs with massive subsidies?

    Spain, Norway, California? Has the use of fossil fuels been reduced with the billions for Giant Fans?

    How many in the Green Lobby are ex political party hacks from all parties?

    Did Germany give their auto manufacturers an exemption regarding Co2?

    Where are the studies and Business models from the successful Green Energy businesses? Must be hundreds you can link without call your critics stupid.

    Just put up the links and name of public companies with audited statements.

  2. kevanywhereon 18 Jul 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Why didn’t you answer my question from you last post? I will ask again. Take two dates, say Jan 15 and July 15, pick several spots around the world, go back as far as records allow and show me the high and low temp for that day. The catch, the temp has to be the raw measurement, not the averaged or adjusted temp, taken from the same place and measured the same way. If global warming is real than it should be easy to show several places that have an increase in temp year over year. If you can show me that I will believe in global warming. If you can’t, can you still believe in it? How can you call us deniers when there is no proof to deny.

  3. berton 18 Jul 2010 at 2:57 pm

    And what F is carbon, get rid of my footprints,send money to Maurice strong and plant a tree in Africa got to do with helping the world.You Global Warmists are the real new danger in this world and the more blogs like yours that back this evil fad,the more we will OUT you as the problem..STOP YOUR GD electric car BS to.The waste of energy to produce these monster cars that will leave us stranded and freezing to death is mind boggling and disposing of these batteries will be a nightmare for us.GET a brain for gods sake and think about who really is sucking our wealth out of our pockets for useless projects(McGuinty sound familiar) An eco tax to pay for things that my garbage collection already does.Who is daffy here,the deniers or the GD followers..The followers are the ones who should be jailed.

  4. WTFon 18 Jul 2010 at 3:06 pm

    Now you are just trying to get your hit count up!

    And two can play the ‘you are a poopy pants’ game.

  5. jnarveyon 18 Jul 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Canadiansense, I take it you’re against subsidies and tax breaks for all industries, not just green ones (though I suspect the green ones is what gets you stressed out the most).

    The West achieved its technological dominance in part because government created a supportive environment for commercially viable products based on new technology. The government isn’t picking winners, here: they’re helping a marketplace build up quickly enough that the best companies can bulk up and beat our foreign competitors (who have the exact same strategy, and even more enthusiastic support from their own governments).

    Kevanywhere. Watch the video I’ve embedded with this blog post. That’s my answer to your ridiculous and unscientific challenge. Cheers.

  6. WTFon 18 Jul 2010 at 3:18 pm

    And while you are at it you might want to read this just for a start.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/18/sea-ice-news-14/

    If you would bother doing some research yourself you might just have your eyes opened. WUWT, unlike so called consensus blogs, actually links to opposing view points and references every point made from both sides.

    As far as business is conserned. Show me a business case for ANY green initiative where the taxpayer doesn’t have to prop it up for who knows how long.

    As far as wind turbines and solar goes. Until the problem of storage is addressed they can never be cost effective and as an added bonus coal or gas has to be on standby – burning – incase the wind stops blowing or the sun goes behind a cloud. We end up paying two or three times for every KW produced.

  7. jnarveyon 18 Jul 2010 at 3:28 pm

    A comment I left as a response on Facebook today:

    If 98 per cent of laymen with little to no scientific expertise believed that a meteor was going to crash into the Earth within the next six months, I wouldn’t care.

    But if 98 per cent of scientists said the same thing, I’d pay attention to the 98 per cent, not the two per cent.

    Sure, group-think might be an issue. There’s even a chance the data has been corrupted. Or there’s a chance that a Soviet conspiracy hatched in the 1980s is only now unfolding to panic us gullible Westerners.

    There’s a chance. I’d say it’s a small chance. Negligible, even.

    Of course, the whole climate change debate is basically beside the point. I’m not so much a climate change believer as a devil’s advocate for climate change skeptics.

    The main problem is we’ve got too many people causing too much pollution and making too many demands on our resources. That’s the real environmental crisis that the green revolution is addressing.

  8. Taylor Cutforthon 18 Jul 2010 at 3:32 pm

    As far as I’m concerned, the weird vitriol that resulted in the comments section pretty much proves the point that climate change skeptics are thick-headed reactionaries.

    Again, your taking what I said and blowing it up as if we are all saying the same thing as if we’re a “group think” enclave as you claim us to be.

    But I was pretty much the only one bring in the soviet connection.

    And its not so much a “soviet” connection as it is some sort of plot being pushed by various remnants of the old soviet intelligence.

    Is that so implausible? That something like that could be happening along side all this other crap?

    YOU don’t think the soviets wouldn’t of thought it a good way to take down the West from within?

    THEY MADE A FREAKING “DEATH CLAW” for cripes sake!

    http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand

    Who knows what they’re crazy geniuses have been up to all these years.

  9. WTFon 18 Jul 2010 at 3:40 pm

    Wow. That is a bit of a climb down there JN. Repeat after me. CO2 is not pollution.

    Here is where we can agree. Conservation is an issue worth persuing. I keep running into road blocks trying to do exactly that in my position where I work. From a purely economic standpoint it only makes sense to save energy wherever possible but I run into situations where different Government departments tell me I can or can’t do the same things. I could with very little effort reduce the natural gas use where I work by $500,000 a year but, ironicly the MOEE keeps getting in the way.
    Pollution is also a seperate issue. For example Nanticoke could have been fitted with state of the art scrubbers years ago for about one billion dollars. Instead we, the taxpayers of Ontario, are paying South Koreans 7 billion for bird shredders that are not reliable and have to be backed up by natural gas and coal.
    I could go on but I don’t see the point.

  10. kevanywhereon 18 Jul 2010 at 4:04 pm

    So let me get this straight, when I ask for proof of global warming by asking you to show places where it is actually warmer now than it was before, and do it with raw temp on certain days from any place you could pick, you called it “unscientific”. Why can’t you show one place with a measured temp increase over time? Again I ask, how can I be a denier when you showed me no proof? I am done asking you to prove your point because it seems you can’t, all you do is call others names and insult them. By the way, I do believe the climate is changing but need proof that I am the cause of it.

  11. Canadiansenseon 18 Jul 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Interesting rebuttal. You mock your critics, you ignore their questions and suggest they have an agenda without proof.

    Next time try asking first, it would be viewed as being objective.

    I am against corporate and political party welfare. I am against inter provincial trade barriers that restrict trade between provinces. I have been critical of the CPC auto bailout. I am for less government, so your point about my “Green” subsidy is patently false.

    I have asked about equalization payments, regional programs, why we support Quebec Dairy’s farmers? Something wrong with cheaper American cheddar?

    I am aware of the past and lobbies, does this make them acceptable today? Anti-monopoly and for more competition.

    Why do I care about Airlines, auto ownership in Canada?

    Why are we paying fees for CBC, CTV and Global, our country won’t survive American programming?

    Let’s unwind the tax funded pension benefits for all levels of politicians, public unions feeding off the taxpayers until they are aligned with the private sector.

    See I don’t need to demonize your view of the world or science. My objections are geopolitical in nature.

    Did you notice you never provided proof that diverting Billions into the Green Energy myth for Giant Fans or Solar Panels actually worked.

    Why is that?

    Are those public documents NOT available? The studies on Wind Energy or Carbon Use in Europe not available? It took me only a few minutes to find data to refute your post.

    I am for conservation and sustainable development. Can you explain how much money, Co2 is being diverted by organizations and gov’t to host annual Green conferences? (This might be a strawman)

    In your last paragraph you find it useful again to demonize critics without providing any proof of your expertise or the facts.

    Where are the facts, spreadsheets, business case models? Do you require public subsidies for your business model?

    “New Media has a definite perspective: real-politik pragmatism plus a pure Canadian sense of social justice and an ironic sense of humor.”

    My family and friends don’t talk use the term “social justice” in describing our politics or concern for our neighbours.

  12. byngon 18 Jul 2010 at 4:33 pm

    is it really the climate change (some real evidence of same), or the actual cause and how to handle it ? – ravaging Canadian business and taxpayers to achieve a miniscule result as compared to the emerging nations, China, India, – and then not prepare for this change, would seem to be a more productive discussion – seems the “green revolution” is only interested in capping OUR emissions at unmanagable cost, and not addressing the whole world problem

    massive cheap consumer goods from China anyone ?

  13. dance...dance to the radioon 18 Jul 2010 at 4:36 pm

    As long as Jonathan Narvey votes Conservative in the next election I really don’t care what he thinks.
    Or what he writes.
    Regardless of what I may feel.
    Right now I don’t want to engage in this conversation.

  14. Stanon 18 Jul 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Quote “The skeptics see these, but they cannot see the big picture. Our country has hemorrhaged good-paying manufacturing jobs. China, India and other rapid-growth countries are increasingly eating our lunch.’ Unquote

    Your wonderful solutions like Kyoto and Copenhagen would increase the costs to our already cleaner industry through tougher regulations and increased taxes and give a pass, and some of the tax dollars, to China.
    So it would be even more difficult for our clean industry to compete with the dirtier industry in China.
    The result would be more pollution because we would import more from China while our clean industry goes bankrupt and closes.
    Factories here would close and new dirty factories would open in China, powered by coal fired electrical plants, and dumping their pollution straight into the air and water.

    And we would pollute more from shipping our raw materials there and shipping the finished products back here.
    In ships that burn high sulfur bunker fuel.
    Acid rain anyone?

    You mentioned the big picture…..?
    You might want to read the treaties you support next time.
    Try the fine print.

    That way you might not end up supporting treaties that would increase pollution, not reduce it.
    And that would result in India and China eating more of our lunch.

  15. jnarveyon 18 Jul 2010 at 5:04 pm

    I’ll just point out here the straw man arguments and questions that some of these commenters have put forth here:

    1. “Why do you require massive subsidies for Green Energy?”

    2. “CO2 is not pollution.”

    3. “Did you notice you never provided proof that diverting Billions into the Green Energy myth for Giant Fans or Solar Panels actually worked.”

    4. “Your wonderful solutions like Kyoto and Copenhagen would increase the costs to our already cleaner industry through tougher regulations and increased taxes and give a pass, and some of the tax dollars, to China.”

    Learn how to read.

  16. syncrodoxon 18 Jul 2010 at 5:05 pm

    I have to ask. Did you recently find your soulmate? Skinny little hippy chick, free spirit, wild in the sack?

    Syncro

  17. WTFon 18 Jul 2010 at 5:10 pm

    You need to check this out Narvey.
    This is what the green revolution has come to. These guys are soliciting industry in Ontario to have control over large loads in order to “be able to better regulate the distribution system” and pay them up to $50,000 per 1 MW of load availability per year. Read closely. It made me see red! Basically they want to have control over large loads so that they can turn them ON. Yes I said ON so their wind and solar customers can have an immediate market for the subsidized rates instead of waiting for the IESO to bring their production online when they ramp down the gas or coal. We have spent years and $$$$$$ on energy conservation only to have a Government approved company wanting us to use MORE electricity. The mind boggles.

    http://www.sempapower.com/regulation_services_network_faq.html#smartgrid

  18. melwildeon 18 Jul 2010 at 5:21 pm

    I truly don’t think anything will come of framing any discourse in nastiness. At a minimum it detracts from any argument one might have.
    At first I thought this was a juvenile way of getting attention. Now I am not so sure, but I can’t really decide what Mr Narvey’s goal is.
    Could we have a clear presentation of Mr Narvey’s views without
    innuendo, accusation and gross presentation.
    There is very little to date that would be worth discussing after one deletes all the hyperbole. Mr Narvey, please don’t react to quickly, as I am one person who has enjoyed your opinions. Yet, this time you appear to get caught up in vague attacks rather than arguing your points.
    I would urge you to start again with just the basics of your thoughts. I for one would read, respectfully.

  19. jnarveyon 18 Jul 2010 at 5:23 pm

    WTF, all that company is doing is covering off regulatory and technical hurdles to ensure that small alternative energy producers are tied into the power grid and can sell their power.

    What do you expect — all of these people with solar panels on their roof and geothermal systems are going to work off their own grid? The whole point of having all of these small scale producers is to contribute that energy to the grid and take less pressure off of our big electricity plants.

    A good example of a green company that can turn a profit while producing a public good — and it makes you angry.

    Just great.

  20. WTFon 18 Jul 2010 at 5:34 pm

    I think you missed the point. If they are turning on loads when the alternative power becomes available, to maximize revenue, then there is no need to take the coal or gas off line as compensation. The demand is fairly predictable. The renewable supply is not. If all we accomplish with something like this is a higher demand without reduction in ‘dirty production’ then what is the point?
    As far as all the small scale producers are concerned, if we take out of production a given amount of coal or gas and rely on these then what happens when all these private owners don’t maintain their equipment and we lose that production?

  21. WTFon 18 Jul 2010 at 5:36 pm

    Here is the web site for the IESO so you can investigate for yourself how the Ontario grid works.

    http://www.ieso.ca/

  22. Stanon 18 Jul 2010 at 5:41 pm

    Quote “# jnarveyon 18 Jul 2010 at 5:04 pm
    I’ll just point out here the straw man arguments and questions that some of these commenters have put forth here:

    4. “Your wonderful solutions like Kyoto and Copenhagen would increase the costs to our already cleaner industry through tougher regulations and increased taxes and give a pass, and some of the tax dollars, to China.”

    Learn how to read.”
    Unquote

    ===

    You think the wonderful new green gizmos are going to be manufactued in the clean but expensive factories here or in the cheaper and dirtier ones in China, like everything else?

  23. Canadiansenseon 18 Jul 2010 at 5:44 pm

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,667443,00.html

    Since the 1998’s German Renewable went from 2.1 (1998) to 7.0 in 2008.

    You are free to demonize and attack those of us who are asking objective questions.

    The CAGW proponents refuse to share the data, computer models still?

    The pattern is being repeated.

    You accuse me of a Green Bias without proof, I am against subsidies and for free trade. I seek for a level playing field in every category, industry.

    I don’t have a financial vested interest in protecting high paying union jobs with a green energy or fossil fuel subsidy.

    It does not appear you wish to engage your readers with relevants facts to their questions.

  24. Stanon 18 Jul 2010 at 5:46 pm

    If these entrepenuers can make these work without being subisidized then it’s a great idea, but there is a huge difference between being an entrepeneur and a grant farmer.

    Got any examples of green technology from these entrepeneurs that doesn’t need subsidies to make millions?

  25. WTFon 18 Jul 2010 at 6:01 pm

    Since we are all knukle dragging trogledites this article will explain in simple terms why the limits of renewable energy have nothing to do with politics or research dollars, but rather with simple mathematics.

    http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469

    And I feel I must add that I, as other posters have indicated, am confident that the climate is changing but I am doubtful that the body of evidence to date indicates that it is Anthroprogenic. (New tag line for all posts)

  26. Adrianon 18 Jul 2010 at 6:04 pm

    Damn it, Narvey. You’ve certainly found a way to bring people to your site. Maybe my next article should be entitled:

    “Harper: The greatest evil the world has ever seen?”

  27. CanadianKateon 18 Jul 2010 at 6:06 pm

    I believe in conservation so I have a geothermal heat pump.

    JN you said:

    “What do you expect — all of these people with solar panels on their roof and geothermal systems are going to work off their own grid? ”

    Actually, I do expect that. But it won’t be at an affordable cost so no-one will do it without subsidies and I’m opposed to subsidies. Still, I’m getting close to the point that I could. My generator now can run my heat, water, sump and 1/3 my house including fridge and freezer. The heat pump supplies hot water. So now in a power failure I’m self-sufficient. Of course, I’m still producing green house gasses but I don’t care about those (because I don’t believe in AGW.)

    So the next step is to get solar with battery backup to cut the need for the generator. Except, when I looked into that, the suggestion from the seller was to sell the solar electricity to Hydro Ontario at 80 cent/kwh and use the grid to keep my batteries charged (at 10 cent/kwh.) Thus, I could have my cake (government subsidies to pay for my solar) and eat it too (power in an outage.) And with a switch, I could feed the power from my solar to my batteries when the grid was down (and charge the batteries with the generator if it was dark or cloudy.)

    As tempting as that was, even that had a very long payback period.

    BTW: even with subsidies and the latest increases from Hydro One, I’m still looking at an 18 year payback on my heat pump system. Why so long when the literature says 7 years? Because I wasn’t wasting electricity in the first place so my usage wasn’t as high, therefore the savings aren’t as great.

    JN said, “The whole point of having all of these small scale producers is to contribute that energy to the grid and take less pressure off of our big electricity plants.”

    The point should be to have small scale producers who take themselves off the grid, not feed into it. Then they’ll know when it is important to conserve (when the sun isn’t shining and the batteries are low.)

    Of course, getting people to cut back to that same level, while still connected to the grid, would also work but people won’t do that sort of conservation without major incentives. Meters fed with coins to provide electricity do work as incentive. When you have to load your meter in order to run the dryer, suddenly using a line (either inside or outside of the house) doesn’t seem so bad.

    Conservation is the key but not the CFLs and energy star appliances, we need major cutbacks and the best way to get that is immediate feedback as to how much electricity our lifestyle demands. A bill 30 days after the event isn’t feedback. Feeding a meter is. So is limiting your consumption to what your solar panels produce.

    The problem with solar is, when total energy consumption is considered, solar panels consume so much energy in their production, they’ll never produce enough to offset their production. They aren’t the panacea most people think they are – they just shift the carbon footprint to some offshore country.

    The biggest hurdle we have to overcome is to reconcile that spending on more things will not solve the problem as effectively as cutting consumption will. Except cutting consumption (of as much as possible in all aspects of life, for instance, I don’t buy anything new if I can help it) will hurt economies. Witness the drop in CO2 emissions in Europe during this last recession – it is all the stuff that we are producing that is increasing our energy consumption.

    Am I willing to destroy societies by destroying their economies in order to cut my consumption to possibly reverse a potential situation that isn’t scientifically proven? Nope.

    But that won’t stop me from driving a Prius (bought used) and heating/cooling my house with a geothermal heat pump.

  28. Surecureon 18 Jul 2010 at 6:24 pm

    What makes me want to puke is thick-headed reactionaries who believe that the desire to have a clean environment, lower dependency on oil and more efficient energy sources is synonymous with believing in climate change.

    If these numbskulls had half a brain to think outside of the sound-bytes of the alarmists, they’d realize that one doesn’t have to have blind-faith in global-warming / climate-change / insert-your-own-ever-changing-term hysteria and still be an environmentalist.

  29. Hoarfroston 18 Jul 2010 at 6:49 pm

    Very few of the so-called deniers are actually deniers. I would put them into the context of being skeptics. Next you need to establish the various parts of the discussion they are skeptic about.

    I became a skeptic about the science when the researchers locked everyone (not just skeptics) out of access to the fundamentals of their research that proves their hypotheses.
    Everyone points to the “hockey stick” graph as an example of skulduggery and that is what it was. I have spent my life in Sales and Marketing management which includes statistical analyses. The analyses are only as good as the information used.

    For the record, I believe that most of us skeptics will concede that AGM Global warming may be a valid hypothesis. The problem arises when those promoting the idea appear do it out of faith and not out of reason on the simple grounds that, that is what they ARE TOLD.

    An open discussion revealing all the pertinent facts along with proper discussion permitted on those facts is needed. Skeptical arguments can be put to rest with adequate exposure. Key Opinion Leaders in a scientific pursuit may be wrong.

    Having said all that we must work to reduce pollution. It remains to be seen if CO2 is a pollutant. In the meantime we need to be mindful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Us Conservatives would like to keep the baby and allow him/her to thrive, thank you.

  30. Alexon 18 Jul 2010 at 7:14 pm

    Skeptical of Global Warming does not mean anti anything except the anti global warming religion.

    You say there are capitalists interested in alternative energies. GOOD! They are my friends.

    They happen to use an unfair playing field instigated by -yes green socialists. Taxes for nonsense is socialist. Subsidies to pick winners is socialist. Businesses that thrive due to flawed and unfair legislation become the cronies of socialists. They need not be socialists themselves. Heck I would do that. Don’t you think I’ve got ideas of how to harness this green religion too?

    You watch Narvey. You think we are something you know nothing about. Nothing at all. We are going to give your friends a run for their money. They talk a big game, but we’ll see you on the field. Engineering feats are par for the course for oil companies. There’s stuff in the wings that will make Suzuki pull his beard out. hehe

    I’d keep a bucket handy Narvey. You’re going to be an old man wondering why nothing went as you saw it. We’ll see if you start inventing conspiracies. I killed the electric car! LOL

  31. Hoarfroston 18 Jul 2010 at 7:22 pm

    If you wish to gain support for your position it would be best if you addressed your correspondents with respect. When you open up your argument saying that we make you puke does not endear us to you.

    I responded to your diatribes on this issue several months ago and noticed your supercilious attitude then. I admit that you backed up your arguments well then. You still did not address the skeptics issues though. You have been very very quiet on this matter since East Anglia CRU was exposed. It seems that you are reading stuff from believers that rejuvenated you and steeled your nerves.

    You need a coach on how to make a good presentation. Maybe you are the one who can convince us louts. You are far from being on track now. You being a Conservative is a good start. Debate the mundane, and the big questions, in a respectful and conciliatory manner. Try to see it from their side. Show some empathy. Of course a few of the responders here are dweebs, but you will always get those. Respond to them too in a respectful manner. If you do not agree, say so, but in a discussion manner, not in a confrontational manner.

  32. Lon 18 Jul 2010 at 7:50 pm

    Climate change believers who hate sceptics make ME want to puke. There is nothing at all wrong with entrepreneurs trying to develop new technologies. What is wrong is pretending that the world is at an end, that current measures of world climate are adequate and that tax payers should pay for unproven interventions and be taxed for products that work.

    Science involves scepticism.

  33. syncrodoxon 18 Jul 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Skepticism is the very heart of real science. Not puter models, not selective proxy data, not academic cliques, not activist propaganda, not pop culture mouthpieces and definitely not mass hysteria.

    Wise up.

    Syncro

  34. Brrron 18 Jul 2010 at 9:47 pm

    I’m not concerned about the politics or the business of green tech. I’m not concerned about how those political and ideological mantras can colour ones position on climate.

    I’m far more swayed by facts. The fact is, there is no warming. The real unadjusted temperature of the earth has been cooling for over a decade.

  35. Fred from BCon 19 Jul 2010 at 4:51 am

    # jnarveyon 18 Jul 2010 at 3:28 pm

    If 98 per cent of laymen with little to no scientific expertise believed that a meteor was going to crash into the Earth within the next six months, I wouldn’t care.

    But if 98 per cent of scientists said the same thing, I’d pay attention to the 98 per cent, not the two per cent.

    Me too. Unless I found out that they were all being PAID to say so. Then I’d have to examine their position a little more closely. And if, while doing so, they started screaming at me that, “the debate is over!” and calling me cute little names like “denier”, then I would really start wondering what they were trying so hard to hide.

    How about a direct answer to a direct question, Jonathan? What do you think about the Hockey Stick?

  36. markon 19 Jul 2010 at 5:55 am

    Wow. Science is never “settled”, and certainly not on the basis of predictive models. And any scientist who says it is is no longer a scientist. And the dismissal of “skeptics” is most revealing: a real scientist is always a skeptic. …

  37. Monicaon 19 Jul 2010 at 5:58 am

    A yes the green industry that brought Canada such great works of design like the poisoned enviro friendly light bulbs that are extremely dangerous and toxic to the environment but don’t worry Monica the green freaks assure us they’ll have a safe way of desposing of them when the time comes. We clean our trash so it can be sorted by people via recycled groupings and then it gets trucked to the US, yep that clean recycled trash sure is cleaning up the planet.

    As for your assertion: This business reality is diametrically at odds with the view of climate change skeptics.

    Well I will state that the studies done on the moral character of “Green zealots” is below par with we deniers, they feel quite content to lie and cheat their way through life backed up by an actual study what have you got buttercup? One fact you forgot to mention, as per the norm with you, the Green industry is being funded primarily through our taxdollars via grants and subsidizes to bad you econuts don’t put up your own financial capital whilst constructing your flawed business modules.

    I’m glad we make you want to puke, but take the bucket off your head first son.

  38. Taylor Cutforthon 19 Jul 2010 at 5:08 pm

    Our country has hemorrhaged good-paying manufacturing jobs

    This is a left wing talking about. Most common amonsgt the NDP and unionist. Pretty much the same folk behind the auto-bailouts and putting Rae into power in Ontario and nearly destorying its economy as well as he did his budgets… He helped make the auto-bailout all the more possibile and predictable.

    (which I’ll get over once they pay off the debt owed and any incurred interest that Cananda and the Province had taken a hit on to secure them, etc.)

    If you had any comprehension of economics and free trade you wouldn’t of even typed that statement about us “losing” jobs to “China and India” in the same context as you did.

    I can’t mash up a bunch of quotes to explain my argument further since I’m currently incapable of putting things into a short enough amount of words to clearly keep your attention. Fair enough, I only wish that didn’t apply to video links aswell.

    Had you any interest in that Lee Doran guy (HowTheWorldWorks), he would of been able to point this out to you a lot easier than anything I could attempt at the moment.

    He briefly makes exposes this flawed thinking in one of his video Critiques. I’ll post it for your visitors non the less.

    Crisis of Capitalism, The Critique

    http://www.youtube.com/user/howtheworldworks?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/17/NJGAs2KwoWk

    ^He touches on it around the 3:36-ish mark.

    Also this artcile by Forbes talks about the importants of fre trade and globalization.

    Why Globalization is Good
    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0416/064.html

    Again if reading is an issue, heres a good Doc on why globalization is good, aptly titled:

    Globalization Is Good
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5633239795464137680

    (Only kidding about your attention span, surely I’m only a mere “dwreeb” as another might put it. Clealry I offer no words of value but mundane comentary. No worries. )

    Sorry this comment was weak on substance, been running the necessary parts of my brain into the ground while off little sleep.
    I’ll have to post what I was saying about “offsuring jobs” into another post some other time. Not up for quote hunting that I don’t readliy have.

    Hence the mildly slight cawpout(copout?) with the ones I did use.

  39. Danon 22 Jul 2010 at 1:15 am

    “The main problem is we’ve got too many people causing too much pollution and making too many demands on our resources. That’s the real environmental crisis that the green revolution is addressing.”

    AMEN. Honestly, I’m not even sure what to believe about “global warming.”

    But I DO know that we have to live more sustainably to preserve our unrenewable resources. The vast majority of those who disagree with “global warming theory” are conservatives (not that I need to justify my beliefs, but I’m also a conservative) who can’t possibly deny this reality, as it’s essentially a conservative value.

    Conservatism isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) ONLY a monetary (and/or social) value.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply