🚀 go-pugleaf

William James, no offense, but your reasoning
below fails to pass the "laugh test."  

A couple of reasons, at least:  (1) You and other greenhouse denialists
keep insisting that the scientists and/or public policy people who
are pointing to global climate change have some vested financial
interest in doing so -- they're doing it to justify more research
money for themselves, etc.

Well, maybe so; we're all human and we're all self-interested in
the end.  But you fail to mention the "elephant in the room," the
obvious, which is that the global oil industry, the global coal
and natural gas industries, and the global auto industry all have
an enormous self-interest in denying that global climate change
is occurring because they want to sell more fossil fuels.  

Entire governments - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc. - have the same
self-interested reasons for denying the threat of climate change,
and some of the leading greenhouse skeptics - not all, but some --
are funded by these fossil fuel interests.  So if self-interest
is biasing the science in this controversy, why isn't it biasing
it on both sides?  

And why aren't the hundreds of billions of dollars
that governments and corporations have invested in fossil fuels
an even greater incentive for bias than the hundreds of thousands
of dollars that the global warming believers are getting for their
computer models?

(2) You also write that the secret agenda of the Kyoto Treaty backers
is to weaken the West and help Third World dictatorships.  

Why?  What on earth would be the motivation for western
(and especially US) environmental lobbyists and writers to try to 
do this?

"We're pushing this political
issue -- which we know will be unpopular in the US Congress and
among all of the oil states in the South, not to mention unpopular
with the Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, Venezuelans, Nigerians, Indonesians,
Alaskans, and everyone else involved in oil production -- because we 
want to help the Chinese, whom we don't know."  

This is stupid politics, isn't it?  I mean, it's the
politics that the Kyoto treaty believers are in a sense forced to
embrace, because they don't have a lot of alternatives, but it's
a very hard sell in Washington DC, which is where the Kyoto Treaty
backers have to prevail.  And why would sensible lobbyists, scientists
etc. deliberately choose to do something that's as difficult as
possible - unless they feel they have to, for scientific and policy
reasons?

(3) I'm a green extremist, but I've worked somewhat briefly
with moderate environmental lobbyists - people who want to
get environmental bills through Congress with as little trouble as
possible, and who'd like their organizations to be able to claim credit
for victories afterwards, so as to attract dues-paying members.  

The lobbyists I know personally basically hate the global climate
issue, or at least they used to, because they know it's so damned
hard to push in Congress successfully.  

They'd much rather win limited victories to protect
wolves or grizzly bears or other big furry, cuddly animals that
sentimental Americans care about.  They love to save pieces of park land
that both conservatives and liberals cherish: it's good for
the environmental lobbying bizness.  The more "lefty" of them
want to protect workers on the job from toxic chemicals - hey, it
helps win support from what remains of the labor movement.

But do they have any interest in undermining the US economy for
the benefit of the Third World?  No, No, No.  Why should they?
Because ideology aside, this isn't popular with Congress, or with
dues-paying members of the big conservation groups - many of whom are Republicans.

When you write that the secret agenda of the conservation lobby
is to weaken the US for the benefit of the Third World, then,
I have to think that you're deluded, William J.  Or you're deliberately
promoting outrageous falsehoods, because you care about blocking
the Kyoto treaty much more than you care about the truth.  Or maybe
you simply have no idea of how the environmental movement works -
but in any case, you're wrong.

(4) You claim that the global warming believers are focusing almost
exclusively on CO-2 and ignoring the greenhouse warming effects of
water vapor and other greenhouse gases.  This isn't true of any
of the global warming analysts that I've read.  Reports by the
US National Academy of Sciences in the 1980s, reports by the
Worldwatch Institute in its "State of the World" books, and
greenhouse analysts like Dr. Stephen Schneider ("Laboratory 
Earth," etc.) all have mentioned water vapor, methane, CFCs
and other greenhouse gases (including nitrous oxide, if I remember
right) along with CO-2.  

Admittedly the policy focus of the environmental groups tends to
be on controlling CO-2 emissions rather than, say, attempting to
control the evaporation of water around the world - but come to
think of it, how would you control the evaporation of water around
the world, anyway?  

So William, I don't think you have much credibility here.  Clearly,
scientific truth is a matter for experiment and observation to
establish; it can't always be deduced from first principles, and
your side may eventually turn out to be correct.  But your arguments
below don't seem worthy of much notice.

In the meantime, what about the researchers who are now finding
that global warming should produce stronger hurricanes over
the century, if current trends continue?  Do you have any
specific information about why these guys are biased or wrong?

********

Wm James <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.com> wrote in message news:<fd3sl0tkqgg440nbssui802845qias3gr7@4ax.com>...
> On 1 Oct 2004 14:46:15 -0700, AJFeeney48@yahoo.com (2ndSight) wrote:
> 
> >> On 29 Sep 2004 19:38:28 -0700, info@economicdemocracy.org (Economic
> >> Democracy) wrote:
> >> 
> >> >* With almost every combination of greenhouse-warmed oceans and
> >> >atmosphere and formulas for storm dynamics, the results were the same:
> >> >more powerful storms and more rainfall
> >
> >Wm James wrote in reply: 
> >> Neither of which has been found in nature yet, only in the failed and
> >> failing computer models.
> >> 
> >> Learn a little science and stop making a fool of yourself.  
> >> 
> >> William R. James
> >
> >New Message:
> >
> >Economic Democracy, how good are the credentials of the US government
> >scientist who's announcing these results?
> >
> >He's fairly well up there in the profession, isn't he?  
> >
> >William R. James writes that we should "learn a little science," and I
> >agree.  But the little science that I learned in graduate school at
> >the University of Michigan 30 years ago indicated that the "greenhouse
> >effect" was real, and that
> >global climate change should be on the way. At least this was what my
> >professors believed at the time.
> >
> >This also seems to be the view today of the many high-level scientists
> >around the world who have signed on to the IPCC reports.  However, I
> >admit that my "little science" doesn't really enable me to judge the
> >competing claims of the ranking experts in the Global Climate Change
> >camp and the Denialist camp, respectively.
> >
> >For me, that makes the reputations of various experts important.  So
> >how good is this guy's reputation?  Why should we believe this
> >government expert
> >as opposed to, say, William R. James?
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't you believe the tobacco companies "scientists" who
> claimed smoking was safe and not addictive?  Could it be because they
> were paid to ignore the scientific method and find the conclusions
> they came to?   What's the difference with the global warming scam?
> You have a handful of scam peddlers with scienctific credentials
> peddling it in direct opposition to the data. There are no scientists
> peddling it. There are more than a few, thousands in fact, who do not
> buy into it and state quite clearly that there is no evidence to
> support it.  Even the IPCC's report had to admit no evidence, but
> instead of basing their conclusion on science, they concluded that
> global warming was occuring for they needed more sensitive instruments
> (translated: "More tax dollars") to find it.  If you want to easily
> and quickly test a source, simply check for what they claim as the
> major greenhouse gas.  The vast majority of them claim it's CO2, few
> even mention water vapor which makes up nearly all of the greenhouse
> gasses on earth. CO2 is only 3.618%, of which a mere 0.117% is man
> made. And that ignores the CO2 man prevents from being released by
> nature by controlling forrect fires, btw.  Another test is to see if
> they mention the effects of water changing state on the temperature of
> the planet. If they don't, then congradulations. You have found a
> source that's either totally clueless or blatently fraudulent.
> 
> But don't hold your breath waiting for the parrot "Economic Democracy"
> to even attempt to refute anything with facts.  He parrots
> testimonials like a typical scam peddler trying to sell any scam to
> ignorant suckers. Watch faith healers, fat pill peddlers, and spammers
> use the same technique.  That's how Kyoto is peddled, and for the same
> reason.  It's not designed to or intended to reduce CO2 emmmissions
> anyway.  Read it.  It's designed to make western free nations pay
> third world dictators for the "right" to burn fuel.  So it's no wonder
> the UN, and club made up primarily of third world dictators with their
> hands out, support it. And it's no wonder the america hating left wing
> kooks love the scam either, it fits their agenda.  But it's certianly
> not science or anything related to science.
> 
> William R. James