Thursday, August 31, 2006

Yet Another Reason NOT to Live in California

Yet another political figure falls for the sham, this time with consequences:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California catapulted to the forefront of U.S. efforts to fight global warming on Wednesday with an accord that will give the state the toughest laws in the nation on cutting greenhouse gas emissions and possibly spur a reluctant Washington to take similar action.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has accused fellow Republican President George W. Bush of failing to demonstrate leadership on climate change,(Dems: "Glee!" - ed) said he reached a "historic agreement" with Democrats to make California a world leader in reducing carbon emissions.

"The success of our system will be an example for other states and nations to follow as the fight against climate change continues," Schwarzenegger said in a statement after weeks of tense negotiations.

Nevermind that new cars nowadays are literally 98% cleaner than old cars. Nevermind that new methods of firing coal have reduced the amount of carbon put in the atmosphere. Nevermind that this is quite literally going to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, if not more.

The United States is the world's largest producer of the heat-trapping gases that many scientists link to extreme weather like violent hurricanes and rising sea levels.
Niether of which we've seen evidence for. But, you sounds good, right?

"It is unfortunate such important legislation is being put together at the last minute without proper review and scrutiny, especially because of its potential to harm the economy," said Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association.
Indeed. However, I'm forced to throw out Tuppers opinion on the ground that he's clearly a shill for Big Oil.


tbonekel said...

Also I think the mainstream media will sink into a deep depression if the current hurricane season does not turn out to be a "killer" this year. It's probably due to the fact that we had to shut down so many refineries for some time after last years storms.

Anonymous said...

Didn't you read the article? The United States is the world's largest producer of the heat-trapping gases that many scientists link to extreme weather like violent hurricanes and rising sea levels.

Its right there in plain print! It MUST be true! The hurricanes are wrong.


Matt said...

Global Warming is a SHAM! It's right there in plain print! It MUST be true! 99% of the climate scientists in the world are wrong because Matt from texas says so.

k2aggie07 said...

Every article that cites that 99% figure is leading back to the same flawed study. We've gone over this before. Either find a new source or quit citing it.

Matt said...

Which flawed study would that be... refresh my memory. Because as far as I remember, you didn't prove any of my claims wrong or flawed. All you do is put doubt into the findings. Once again, do I need to remind you that over the last 15 years, there have been over 900 peer reviewed climate studies done and NOT ONE disputed the fact that human activities are having a negative impact on the environment. You can put all the doubt you want into it. Use Richard Lindzens words again... I'll blow them out of the water. Just because something isn't 100% proven doesn't mean that it's not happening. Remember when our administration had all that evidence that Iraq had WMD's despite all the evidence to the contrary? It sure was enough to convince them and YOU that invading Iraq was a great idea. It's called the 1% Doctrine.

k2aggie07 said...

The Oreskes study:

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Naomi Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it. - The Wall Street Journal

The Oreskes study was wrong. She even cited THREE of Lindzen's papers in her total of 928! She spoofed it. Quit citing it.

As far as the peer-review process goes:
Peer review is supposed to weed out poor science. However, it is not foolproof -- a deeply flawed paper can end up being published under a number of different potential circumstances: (i) the work is submitted to a journal outside the relevant field (e.g. a paper on paleoclimate submitted to a social science journal) where the reviewers are likely to be chosen from a pool of individuals lacking the expertise to properly review the paper, (ii) too few or too unqualified a set of reviewers are chosen by the editor, (iii) the reviewers or editor (or both) have agendas, and overlook flaws that invalidate the paper's conclusions, and (iv) the journal may process and publish so many papers that individual manuscripts occasionally do not get the editorial attention they deserve.

Go read this. Its a good example of how this stuff is perpetuated.

3a said...

I'm sure God gets such a laugh at the gall of us humans thinking our puny little actions can alter His plan. More climate change is effected by volcanic eruptions (an act of nature)than any greenhouse gasses we could possibly produce.