The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Miscellaneous / Climate Change


Subject:  Re: Sad, really... Date:  2/13/2013  5:46 AM
Author:  Stonewashed Number:  40841 of 66059

The really sad thing is that Larry Bell , despite his credentials, is clearly not following the science but the denialist blogosphere.

He is very very quick to connect some unrelated non-scientific events to find a conspiracy of third world nations at the UN but cannot do the same with the Koch Brothers, Exxon and CEI.

The clue to his ideological blindness is clear from the title.

Then he somehow imagines that those same 3rd world nations actually can induce scientists to falsify results on a global basis.

Why don't you ask yourself the same question as to how many of the countries who signed on to this facade such as Russia, China, and Brazil are belching out fossil fuel emissions where the "pollutants" are not just CO2 but solid particulate that make a permanent brown cloud over the China (not to mention buying up all the interests they can, not only in this country, but places like Africa, Iraq, and Iran).

Then ask yourself why it seems to escape the headlines that these same pundits are involved in convoluted ways with their own oil interests.
(a little dated, but historically correct, leaves out a lot of what has gone on since then such as a Soros/Strong partnership in making fossil fuel powered cars in Korea, in hopes of putting American car companies out of business)

One thing the article left out was intitally it was Margaret Thatcher that got the ball rolling on this, not because she bought into global warming, but she wanted to give nuclear energy an edge.

(In fact, the Union of Concerned Scientists, at MIT, who aren't scientists at all but social scientists, had made a push for nuclear back in the sixties, thinking it would bring world peace. MIT has been rewarded handsomely in all this "data collection".

Then as it became clearer the data didn't really back up what she was selling, changed her mind.)

The IPCC decides which data can and cannot be submitted into the models.

Now, you are perfectly free to agree or disagree with their real agenda, but it has nothing at all to do with the consensus of science. And btw, the Koch Brothers, Exxon, and CEI aren't brought up, because all of them including the Kochs are more profitable when everyone and their dog isn't allowed to punch holes, but also don't want to be put out of business by whackos who think this can be done with just windmills.

Furthermore, this isn't the first time science and politicians have made an unholy alliance in world history.

One has to look at this who