At this point we have three possible presidential nominees, all of whom embrace the GW/CC premise and cause without question. All want to enact related legislation that would be of considerable harm to American economic stability, to say nothing of growth. No matter who comes out on top here, we're probably going to have to deal with B.S. like this for a presidential term unless we can convince our representatives to try and block such legislation.

The only real reason, beyond common sense, we can give our representatives to go against such "leadership" is a dissenting constituency that would have said representatives head [politically speaking] if they went against our will. The best way I know to light the fuse on such an operation would be to convince the people you know and care about of the truth of the situation, and have them spread the word. Obviously, popular outlets of news and learning are not backing any factual news on the situation, but more spin and couching of fallacy in vague, propagandized arguments. I am convinced it's going to take the combined effort of individuals to expose this hoax for what it is and win people away from it.

I'd like to hear about some of the types of people you know that sway to the cult's mantra of all things green and good, or perhaps those people who you know are sitting on the fence (of the 'moderate' stripe on the CC issue).

I'll go first.

I'm from the generation Rush says that are very apt to believe the message of GW/CC. I say he's right. I grew up with cartoons like Captain Planet and GW being the interesting and valid scientific theory of the day. In fact, it wasn't taught as theory, but something we should concerned about in classes. Even in the Boy Scouts, where conservation becomes an engrained trait, there were a surprising number of people who taught conservation with the backing of Global Warming in mind. In college, the message was even more in-your-face.

I'll admit that up until my senior year, I bought it. Ironically, it wasn't until I took some classes in 'green design' that i began to find stats when looking for paper sources that ended up changing my mind. Anecdotal proof that rational, informed people don't buy the GW/CC message.

It shouldn't have surprised me that my fiancée and her cousin laughed in my face when I made some off-hand grumbling comment about a GW news report one night. However, the vehemence of their reaction was stunning. They couldn't believe I was some "paranoid conspiracy theorist." It was like they discovered a caveman come to life in their apartment. The cousin immediately IM'ed one of her friends who fired back a comparison Rush mentioned just the previous week about a GW denier being like a holocaust denier. Ironically, just before than message was sent to her I had said, "Next you'll be calling me a holocaust denier," an association I either heard from Rush or reading NRO a few days earlier.

I'll make the excuse now: Since I had just been napping on the couch, I wasn't in the sharp frame of mind to be able to spout off all the stats, so much of what I said was generalization and financial/political motives backed. This didn't help negate the conspiracy theorist stereotype, but it at least got them thinking that there is no man-made CC/GW. They even began to consider the recent global cooling as possible true. But they remain unconvinced. One of these days when they're both bored, maybe I can sit them down in front of a copy of The Great Global Warming Swindle. True, the production doesn't have complete details on current findings, but its analysis of the historical development behind the GW/CC crowd is very succinct and the timeline arguments and logical analysis blow just about every point of the GW/CC theory out of the water.

I've got just about every person I work with daily at least leaning toward understanding this swindle. Oddly enough, it's the one guy my age that still wants to calculate carbon footprints, though I think he argues just for the sake of arguing. Most everyone even sees the vested interests behind congressional drilling naysayers and agrees on the idea that we need to get our own oil. Different social groups have differing levels of apathy and viewpoints when it comes to the GW/CC issue. Perhaps the near-universal impact of gas prices is the best starting point...?

So, if you were wondering about where this poster was coming from (I doubt it), these anecdotes should be telling. What is everyone else's stance in the effort?

I watched a movie with my mom last night on the Lifetime network, and the network was shamelessly indoctrinating their audience about the MMGW myth.

I was shocked. There were messages added to the screen every 15 minutes or so; with dire predictions of horrible things to come over the next 30 years.

The movie was entitled 'Storm Cell' with a premise of MMGW causing unprecedented tornado activity. It is easy to see how viewers watching this channel on a regular basis could become full fledged MMGW cultists. As you know, Lifetime's target audience is women.

I majored in Environmental Studies in undergrad. Four years later, in 1998, I finished my Master's in Environmental Policy. By this time the theory of anthropogenic global warming had been around for more than a decade, but was just becoming accepted as the scientific "consensus" and had not yet become the mass hysteria we see today. None of my professors claimed that this was settled science or that only a neanderthal would deny the "fact" of man-made global warming. I had to read the IPCC reports and various scientific papers which suggested that global warming was evident in temperature records and that there was strong evidence that anthropogenic sources were contributing to it.

Basically, I bought into it. I took the IPCC data at face value and, because the theory seemed reasonable, it seemed possible -- if not probable -- that man made emissions were causing global warming or at least contributing to it. After all, there is a greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide and other emissions are greenhouse gases; human industry does emit these gases, and; the concentration of carbon dioxide was increasing (or so I believed at the time).

I ended up getting into an ongoing debate with my father about man-made global warming; with me trying to prove it, and my father trying to debunk it. After months of back & forth on the issue, I remember telling my father that it was "fact" that global temperatures had risen over the last 150 years -- confirmed by temperature records since 1860. Then, with one question, my father asked the one question that debunked the entire thing: "How reliable do you think those temperature records from the 1860's are?"

So, to make a long story short, I investigated how reliable the IPCC temperature data are, and the answer is: not very. In fact, they are so unreliable, and flawed on multiple counts, that it has become astounding to me that any true scientist or statistician would consider the collected data as anything but a bad joke. Then, I began looking at other aspects of the "fact" of global warming and have found that each and every instance of "evidence" for global warming (let alone man-made g.w.) was based on wholly unconvincing, ridiculously unreliable, and intentionally misrepresented data. It is an unmitigated scam. All that is required to see this is to actually read the scientific basis presented by IPCC in their reports (located at the very end of the reports). They're online at the IPCC's website.

Among other things, there is NO credible (statistically reliable) evidence that:
1. Earth's temperature has risen since 1860
2. CO2 concentrations have increased, or
3. Sea levels have risen in the past century

On Mother's Day, I attended a family BBQ at my sister's home. My sister's father-in-law and brother-in-law were talking up global warming and practically drooling over a hydrogen fuel cell car that is coming on the market. They made the mistake of asking me what I think. After I told them that MMGW is a myth and that fuel cell technology is not cost effective, therefore dead on arrival, they melted my face and torso with a death ray stare and resumed their conversation, as if I had not spoken. My brother questioned my sanity, literally, for denying the "fact" of GW. I offered my standard retort, "If GW is really a matter of life and death, why are China and India exempted from Kyoto?" Almost in unison, three voices said, "What does that have to do with anything?" I shook my head and turned toward the TV, giving them a full view of the back of my Club Git'mo t-shirt.

bedbug wrote:On Mother's Day, I attended a family BBQ at my sister's home. My sister's father-in-law and brother-in-law were talking up global warming and practically drooling over a hydrogen fuel cell car that is coming on the market. They made the mistake of asking me what I think. After I told them that MMGW is a myth and that fuel cell technology is not cost effective, therefore dead on arrival, they melted my face and torso with a death ray stare and resumed their conversation, as if I had not spoken. My brother questioned my sanity, literally, for denying the "fact" of GW. I offered my standard retort, "If GW is really a matter of life and death, why are China and India exempted from Kyoto?" Almost in unison, three voices said, "What does that have to do with anything?" I shook my head and turned toward the TV, giving them a full view of the back of my Club Git'mo t-shirt.

Next time you talk about fuel cell cars, ask them where the Hydrogen will come from.

If they say, "water"; ask them how it is possible to take X amount of electricity to separate Hydrogen from water, and then generate X+1 energy by putting it back together again.  Wouldn't this be INFINITE energy?

If they say that this is actually what happens; just tell them that it's physically impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics and walk away.

Eyas wrote:Next time you talk about fuel cell cars, ask them where the Hydrogen will come from.

If they say, "water"; ask them how it is possible to take X amount of electricity to separate Hydrogen from water, and then generate X+1 energy by putting it back together again.  Wouldn't this be INFINITE energy?

If they say that this is actually what happens; just tell them that it's physically impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics and walk away.

Obviously, the nation needs to be able to generate a lot more electricity.  And we need the infrastructure to distribute that new energy.  But, environmentalist whackos are fighting building new power lines!  Maryland is facing brownouts and blackouts by 2011 if they can't build power lines through Virginia but they are getting sued every step of the way.  Just to build power lines.  Imagine what will happen when someone actually tries to build a new electrical power plant!  

The vast majority of Americans are woefully ignorant of the science behind "alternative sources of energy."  I believe most Americans simply don't realize any of the basic science behind windmills and solar power.  If they did, they would realize we'd have to cover practically the whole of Africa with BOTH to get the energy we need.  But, environmental whackos attack windmills because they kill birds or bats or both.  I forget why they oppose solar cells at the moment but I am sure they have their talking points all lined up.  

Thanks to our public schools the vast majority of Americans have no clue about these empty promises and assume we can power the whole nation with a dozen windmills somewhere in the Rocky Maintains.