watch the video, but the Al of the Gore bit is at 1.40 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Paul Schmehl <[email protected]>wrote: > --On Monday, November 30, 2009 6:13 PM -0600 Rohit Patnaik > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Right, but you said that the global warming folks are asking for > > unnecessary spending of *trillions*. Where would those trillions go? > > Apparently you haven't read the proposals to deal with global warming. An > MIT study found the cost of complying with one proposed energy sector bill > designed to deal with global warming would be $4500 annually per family of > four. The EPA analyzed the bill and estimated its cost at 500 billion > dollars by the year 2030. And that's just for the US. And just one > suggested "solution" to the so-called problem. > > > I don't see Al Gore becoming richer than Bill Gates off carbon credits. > > So unless Al Gore makes more than Bill Gates he's not motivated to > proselytize for global warming? He's already made millions of dollars off > the scam, but I suppose his motivations were of the purest form. > > > Neither do I see the UN gaining any more power via the IPCC. If > > anything, the existing climate treaty (i.e. the Kyoto protocol) has > > completely sidestepped the UN. > > > > Anything that takes power away from local communities concentrates power in > larger governmental entities. By the same token, anything that takes power > away from nations, concentrates power in a larger entity - in this case, > the UN, which would supposedly administer fines for non-compliance, etc., > etc. > > > I guess what I'm troubled by is the fact that you seem to be stating that > > there's some kind of deliberate malice on the part of those stating that > > anthropogenic climate change is real. I don't see malice. I see a > > fair amount of incompetence, but incompetence exists in every discipline. > > > > Have you read the emails that were exposed by the hackers? The > "scientists" have deliberately misled the public regarding the data, > conspired to deny FOI requests (which may be a criminal offense), attempted > to get the media to both ignore and denigrate the opposition and written > programs designed to deliberately skew the data in their favor and hide > unfavorable data. > > <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece> > <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece> > > If that isn't malice, what is? > > Paul Schmehl > As if it wasn't already obvious, > my opinions are my own and not > those of my employer. > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
