"Last week the German newspaper NZZ Online quoted German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, who is co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeâ??s (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, as saying, â??The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.â??
Edenhofer also said â??climate policy is redistributing the worldâ??s wealthâ?? and that â??itâ??s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.â??
Investorâ??s Business Daily commented, â??U.N. warm-mongers are seeking to impose a global climate reparations tax on everything from airline flights and international shipping to fuel and financial transactions. At first, this punitive tax on progress is expected to net $100 billion annually, though that amount, like our energy costs, is expected to necessarily skyrocket.â??
I see BP and Exxon commercials all the time that talk about carbon sequestration and all that other nonsense. Big Business is past the denial phase. They know they get their carbon credits for free and us peons will have to pay for ours.
You greatly misunderstand the issue if your referencing Obama in any way as a big player in this...
And for what the fuck its worth I have been throwing around these same theories for around 5 years getting mocked and laughed at. I'm to the point now where I do not give a flying fuck. Fuck trying to help the world. You are all too fucking stupid to help.
And whether or not I had the proof at whatever time I asserted these theories is irrelevant. Do NOT pat your fucking self on the back for FINALLY grasping these issues. It was just as fucking easy to see 5-10 years ago. The problem is 99.9% of you need somebody to hold their goddamn fucking dicks.
Do not bother responding to me as I did not even read the fucking article. It's the same goddamn shit people with some sort of human reasoning knew long ago.
Anyone contradicting that information is likely not from a reputable source. Who are you going to beleive? Non-profit research and education institutions or business interests trying to protect their bottom line.
I also beleive there is another group of denyers who hold their position because they are not mentally ready to face the changes necessary. In other words they don't wan't to beleive because its bad news.
So far, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers hasn't lost his job over the other big email story of the weekâ??the one not involving WikiLeaks. And perhaps he doesn't deserve to. Perhaps neither did the lesser executives who have gone down in the scandal. But Mr. Rogers may want to reflect on the role his clean-coal enthusiasms have played in the imbroglio.
On Sept. 24, Scott Storms, a lawyer for the Indiana utility commission, quit and went to work for Duke after receiving an ethics waiver. That decision outraged consumer advocates. On Oct. 5, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels fired the commission's head and ordered a reopening of Mr. Storm's recent decisions involving Duke. Duke later fired Mr. Storms and also its top local executive who had hired him.
End of story? Not by a long shot. Then came a release of emails pried loose by the Indianapolis Star, which led to the resignation last week of James Turner, Duke's executive in charge of its regulated utility businesses. The emails exposed an allegedly excessive coziness between Indiana regulators and Duke executives, who joked about cars, wine and wives. In one email, Duke's Mr. Turner wondered if the state's "ethics police would have a cow" if a top regulator visited him at his weekend home.
Then again, you might wonder how the people involved could have helped being buddy-buddy with each other. Virtually all the players working for Duke had once worked for the Indiana government, while the main player on Indiana's side, the head of its utility commission, had once been a lawyer for a local utility now owned by Duke.
The company in the future might be smart to hire out-of-staters to run its Indiana business. The state might be smart to subject its utility regulators to legislative confirmation or direct election by voters, as other states do to ward off cronyism. Hovering over all is Duke's Edwardsport coal-gasification plant, whose high-tech white elephanthood is a direct product of Mr. Rogers's attempt to position his company to prosper in the age of climate politics.
The plant, which is nearly $1 billion over budget, was always destined to mean higher prices for consumers compared to the low-tech coal plants it would replace. But it was sold to the locals as supplying not just electricity but a "clean coal" future for Indiana's "dirty" coal-mining industry. More to the point, the plant's economics were supposed to be rescued when Congress passed cap and trade, dramatically hiking costs for traditional coal power plants.
Mr. Rogers here was betting on Mr. Rogers, the closest thing to a celebrity CEO in the utility business, profiled in the New York Times magazine two years ago as a "green coal baron." No executive has lobbied as noisily or consistently for a national price on carbon output. His wish seemed certain to come true after both major parties nominated climate worrywarts in the 2008 presidential contest.
But something about a 9.8% national unemployment rate has now made politicians less keen on imposing higher utility bills. Nor did Mr. Rogers count on what we'll boldly call the public's growing sophistication about climate science. Where the public was once prepared to believe in a pending climate meltdown because "scientists" said so, now it entertains the possibility that "scientists" are human, capable of mistaking theory for fact, of confusing belief with knowledge.
From the start, the Edwardsport plant was unpopular with certain consumer and green groups for whom clean coal is an oxymoron, but they were outvoiced by other groups that take a more realistic view of America's dependence on coal. Now the opponents are limbering up again, joined by industrial customers such as Nucor Steel, who fret about getting socked with high-priced electricity.
Though it isn't reflected in the emails, let's just assume then a certain neuralgia on Duke's part about whether Indiana regulators will continue to let the plant's costs be passed along to consumers. Until the scandal, the state had been reasonably obliging. But 'tis the season to be charitable. The critics should also acknowledge that Duke and the rest of the industry have been in a tough position, trying to invest billions to meet future demand despite nagging uncertainty about the future of climate policy. The Edwardsport plant may be proving a wrong bet in this regard, but that does not mean that Indiana's regulatory process has been corrupted.
Just the opposite: The plant was hugely popular with the political firmament, and continues to benefit from a gusher of federal, state and local tax subsidies worth $460 million. One could even say the regulatory process made the Edwardsport blunder possible. Without regulators around to guarantee a return on such a risky and pioneering investment, Duke likely would have sat on it hands and let rising electricity prices take care of any gap between demand and supply while waiting for the country to make up its mind about global warming.
Public universities make money talking about global warming? Perhaps they make wages and fund research through grants?
I just dont think you can fake the science on the scale of: Harvard MIT Yale Duke Washington University in Saint Louis UC Berekley
Its EVERY top research institution and the scientific process is adversarial. Great fame and fortune awaits the scientist who can credibly disprove any of this climate change stuff.
Are you in the camp that beleives that climate change is exaggerated?
As to funding for denial: I can't find the new yorker article in which I recently read about the CEO (he and his brothers inherited the company) of the maybe third largest company (based in Kansas?) in the US. He spends a lot of money on conservative political campaigns and counter-climate-change messages
^Maybe you can make some sense of that. There's money being spent on both sides. The smart companies should be out in front of the issue ready to transition
Regulation should be smart and honest. Will it be? Likely not in all or even most cases. To conclude: I think we are fucked. I just want it to be clear whose fucking us the worst.
Your use of "reputable" just shows that the scientific community is a group of ppl that like to pat each other on the back as long as they agree. Like scientists have no interest in furthering their careers and improving their bottome line. You get grants by agreeing with whatever happens to be what gets you grants. I am a scientist and work in research and development in human biomechanics, I know first hand. Anyone with an idea that goes against a certain group of ppl who are considered the end all of experts is laughed at. Mounds of evidence be damned, this guy over here says it cant possibly be true based on his conjecture. It is a logical fallacy of the worst kind, appealing to an authority figure. Just cuz someone important says it does NOT mean it is true. And the scientific community should test that, yet they dont, they just agree with those they think are important.
It is even better when they ignore people because they dont like them personally. Scientists are far from benevolent white coat wearing geniuses just trying to figure out how things work.
It seriously ticks me off when people pull this crap.
It gets me too that ppl on this site accept "common knowledge" or whatever you want to call it about so many things, except for nutrition and health. They know that the FDA is useless at best and the food pyramid is useless and 99% of all "common knowledge" about nutrition and exercise is wrong. They dont accept "common knowledge" for these things, but will defend "common knowledge" for something else.
No they are just ordinary (educated) human beings. Aside from the controversy over climate modeling with simulations I don't think any scientist is arguing against the greenhouse effect or that we release massive amounts of these gases as a world population.
By reputable I mean publishing in scientific journals with data with the express purpose of getting other scientists to either confirm or critique through replicating the experiment. What I'm definitely not talking about are articles published on conspiracy theory sites with absolutely no citations which is the only climate change denial literature I have ever seen on this site.