On Jan 15, 1:42*pm, "James" wrote:
"obzon" wrote in ....

"Fran" wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 11:38 am, "obzon" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

....

Barnaby Joyce, speaking of the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis
on ABC radio yesterday:

"I become sceptical when religious fervour builds up around an issue"

Barnaby describes himself as a "born again" Christian. He's not
sceptical when hew should be and "sceptical" when there's no good
basis for it.

CORRECTION:
He's sceptical when he should be and not sceptical when there's no good
basis for it.

So there's no good basis for being sceptical of christianity? It's all
sound and ratiopnal is it?
********************************************

There is far, far more basis for being skeptical of the rabid socialist
whackos pushing the AGW scam.

**********************************************
There is very good reason to be skeptical of the AGW scam!!
The fact that it's being pushed almost entirely by rabid socialist whackos
should be reason enough.
You need to get in touch with James or the folks at naysayer central
who are claiming that leftists who support AGW have been co-opted by
corporate capitalist interest.
*************************************************

The rabid socialist whackos pushing the AGW scam are doing it to further
their, historically, woeful attempts at enslaving the masses.
The capitalists are hopping onto the bandwagon because they see massive
profits for themselves in this scam.

I see no conflict here!

Both groups are behaving as expected.

*******************************************
As to your own bjte noire, James Hansen, he describes himself as
"moderately conservative, middle-of-the-road," and claims he "would've
voted for John McCain in 2004 if he'd been on the ballot." His first
government post was in 1981 -- he was a Reagan-appointee.
************************************************** *****

Oh really?
Then he's out and out lying about himself as well as the climate scam.
Did someone mention a HIDDEN AGENDA???

Fudgin' Hansen Reveals Hidden Socialist Agenda Behind AGW Scam

January 2 2009

QUOTE: Acting either out of boldness or desperation, Hansen goes on to
reveal the environmentalist left's deeper ambition: a collectivist
redistribution of wealth. He recommends that the carbon tax be returned to
the public in "equal shares on a per capita basis."

The global warming alarmist in chief has unveiled the environmentalists'
real objective.

And no, protecting the planet is not their top concern.

In a letter addressed to President-elect Obama and his wife, Michelle, James
Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, makes an appeal
for a carbon tax, ostensibly as a means for cutting emissions of carbon
dioxide, a gas that's allegedly causing a dangerous greenhouse effect and
warming trend.

Hansen suggests that the tax be levied "at the well-head or port of entry"
from where it "will then appropriately affect all products and activities
that use fossil fuels."

This tax will have "near-term, mid-term, and long-term" effects on
"lifestyle choices," Hansen acknowledges. But he seems unconcerned about how
such coercion will rearrange the lives and manage the behavior of a people
who should be free of state coercion.

Acting either out of boldness or desperation, Hansen goes on to reveal the
environmentalist left's deeper ambition: a collectivist redistribution of
wealth. He recommends that the carbon tax be returned to the public in
"equal shares on a per capita basis."

That means wealthier Americans whose activities emit more CO2 will pay more
in carbon taxes than they get back, while those who earn less will receive
more in refunds than they will lose through taxes.

"A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money,"
explains Hansen, while "a person with large cars and a big house will pay a
tax much higher than the dividend."

Hansen and his ilk never seem to question whether the government should be
involved in behavior modification. They believe so zealously in their
cause - establishing an egalitarian society where conspicuous consumption is
limited to the few who make the rules - that they have no misgivings about
using the police power of the federal and state governments to beat society
into shape.

Nor do they question their hunch - the idea doesn't even rise to the level
of theory - that CO2 emissions are causing climate change even as there are
ample reasons to doubt it.

To his credit, Hansen expresses support in the letter for fourth-generation
"nuclear power and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and
sequestration." But he's done so much yammering about global warming and
encouraging "young people" to do "whatever is necessary to block
construction of dirty coal-fired power plants," that any sensible ideas he
might have are lost.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....15792676809488

Hansen is on a damn crusade and Fran is willing to accept his word on "moderately conservative, middle-of-the-road"?


As a communist, I know a conservative when I see one.

He spends much of his time giving speeches on warnings and how sceptics
should be tried. I would hate to see his liberal side


Naysayer mythology. Here's what Hansen actually said:


|||
Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy
future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel
companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco
companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer. Methods are
sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook
discussions of global warming.

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware
of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my
opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity
and nature.

But the conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no
consolation if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity
would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines
and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless
species would leave a more desolate planet.


From June 23, 2008 testimony before the United States Congress

|||

Hansen speaks not of "sceptics" but of those spreading disinformation
to serve their own business interests. One may make the comparison
with a company like James Hardie, that continued to promote asbestos
use when it knew full well that those using it or working with it were
being harmed and funded studies to undermine these claims. Should they
have been tried? Many would say yes. James Hardie evewntually had to
settle a huge lawsuit in which they contribute to an ongoing fund for
support of victims of asbestos.

Fran