I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

as i’ve said many times before, this issue to me really has nothing to do with whether gw is man-made or not. i just don’t care about that. i do care about all of the things i’ve mentioned above, however. i think those are more compelling reasons to endorse change than this contentious debate will ever produce (unless we start seeing any of the more alarming evidence firsthand).

i oppose most skeptics merely because the crux of their argument appears to be “everything’s fine, there’s plenty of oil out there, don’t worry about it,” and they disseminate information i know is not true. i firmly believe that our reliance on oil is an enormous problem for our society (and our world). the last 60 years are a testament to that, and our recent history, i think, demands that we face up to it and decide once and for all that we need to completely overhaul our energy policies with an acknowledgement that oil is no longer a viable option.

i understand that the oil industry won’t go away. in fact, as we’ve seen, the oil industry is going to use every resource it has to fight for its survival — and truly, as upton sinclair said, “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

and in accordance with that, i accept your argument, to a certain extent, that there are scientists whose conclusions are influenced or motivated by money. it’s true in government (as we saw when the george hw bush administration compelled scientists to come to predetermined conclusions with respect to illicit drugs) and it’s true in so-called “independent” research, which is often funded by think-tanks or lobbying groups, like cei. but i can’t presuppose that there is no integrity in the scientific community.

and i simply can’t believe, given the current administration’s stance on the subject — and their well-known oil industry connections — that somehow there are government-funded scientists that are being compelled to come to these conclusions that are the opposite of what the administration would obviously favor. when robert hansen, from nasa, is being told by his superiors that he can’t speak publicly about his findings, that’s a pretty clear indication to me that they don’t like what he’s found. his actions would appear to be counterproductive with respect to his job security.

and you can’t ignore that there are scientists that are definitely being paid by oil industry think tanks, and that they, too, would be motivated to maintain their funding by coming to the “right” conclusions.

so i think, at best, the scientists that would be compelled to find in favor of a certain position with respect to gw are essentially nullified by those that would be compelled to find against it. there’s a lot of government money out there, for certain, but there’s also plenty of oil and coal money as well.

methinks the current gw situation has the oil and coal people leaving some fossil fuel deposits in their own underpants!

First I would like to thank you for asking me to respond to your 6 page dissertation on the evils of non-believers.

Secondly, I can’t say that I disagree with any of the “like say” bullet points in the first chapter of your post. Of course most of those points back up the same argument to aggressively pursue drilling off the coast, ANWR and any other place that will increase the production of domestic production of non-renewable energy. The combination of increasing domestic production and maximizing efforts on alternative fuels and conservation is clearly the most obvious solution to gaining energy independence. Again, “the most obvious solution.”

I’m not as concerned that the end is near, though, since market forces will now begin to kick in to remedy the situation. Now that there are profits to be made in more alternative energy solutions it won’t be too long. But alas, after reading your entire manifesto I’m at a loss as to what this has anything to do with the arguments that I have posted here. Is this really in response to my position that man-made global warming has not been proven?

Comment by Bluedog49 — August 1, 2006 @ 5:50 pm

This goes to the comment I made in my prior post. But I’ll elaborate. Going for the money in the scientific world is all about the big research funding. That way they get their big chance to make a real name for themselves in the scientific world. That’s what most scientists have dreamed about since they were little scientists learning to use the potty for the first time. That’s success in the scientific world. Their peers care a little what the other scientists’ take home pay is but ultimately, that is not what gives them a stiff woody when they’re in bed at nights dreaming about their career. I really feel like I’m having to spell out the painfully obvious here.

pointman12, i’d ask you to go back and read my post at 105, and if you can, respond to it. frankly, i don’t care what the scientists say, nor do i care who is paying them. it doesn’t change the fundamental reality that we have to do something.

I enjoy posting here because I find it very entertaining to swap barbs and sarcastic laced banter mixed with my points of discussion. But I have just as much invective towards idiots who come and spam message boards like what recently happened here. It’s like someone who shouts over you in order to win an argument. Even if you are all consistently wrong, that’s just classless message board vomit.