Posted on 02/08/2015 7:23:42 AM PST by 9thLife
The era of fake but accurate, good intentions trump bad results and unintended consequences.
The “centralization” involved is liberalism, not a specific government.
1)alar
2)asbestos
3)acid rain
4)dioxin
5)TCE in drinking water
6)chemicals in Love Canal
7)radiation at Three Mile Island
8)mercury poisoning in Lake Erie
9)chlorofluorocarbons destroying the ozone layer
The story of your number 6, chemicals in Love Canal, is far more upsetting than simply the issue of environmentalist exaggeration.
In fact, love canal was not exaggerated. The environmental problems there were real.
However, the reasons chemicals were disposed of there, and the reasons why a housing subdivision (and elementary school) was built on top of the disposal site, are such that - if one takes time to study them - they will reveal that the management of Hooker Chemical was entirely innocent, that they were doing exactly as they were ordered to do by their customer - the United States Government - as the massive chemical orders of World War II wound down.
Hooker warned the Government that they were producing large amounts of dangerous chemical waste as they filled huge orders for chemicals used in various ways for the war effort. They asked the Government to help them figure out how to dispose of these chemicals, which were stored in 55-gallon drums. They were told to bury them in an abandoned half-finished canal (Love Canal) which they first lined with clay in a vain attempt to create an impermeable seal around the chemical dump.
After the war, they warned anyone who would listen that the area was dangerous, that people should stay away from it, and that nothing should ever be built on it.
The entire episode can be laid to the ignorance, stupidity, corruption and perfidy of irresponsible local elected officials of Niagara Falls. Which irresponsibility and dishonesty lead to the destruction of a great company, founded by a great industrialist, whose name is now unjustly tarnished.
What has kept this global warming BS going is that it supposedly driven by man caused molecular level increases in CO2. Since climate catastrophe is being pinned solely to human activity and fossil fuel energy it is a convenient vehicle for government control of everything, more taxation and regulation.
good list
add fracking
0.00017%
The methane contribution to global warming is largely brought to you by the animal rights part of the leftist nut ball coalition. This effort is actually a direct attack against the beef and agricultural communities. And as usual the energy sector is being targeted again as well, but there is nothing unusual about that.
We are being told that the largest single contributor of the 17 millionths of the atmosphere now made up of methane... are cows. This is of course ridiculous on its face. Methane is produced by virtually all decaying organic mater. Decaying organic materials are found everywhere on the earth's surface, under the seas and even buried miles below the surface. There is simply no way to control natural methane production. Compared to natural sources cows contribute a minuscule amount. Yet this will be a major attack against agriculture. If there are farmers who thought that all Obama wanted to do was bring down coal, guess what buddy... you are in his sites now.
Well, since I am a scientist at heartIOW you aren't a real scientist, you just think you are.
“IOW you aren’t a real scientist, you just think you are.”
What difference does it make? It seems that scientists (99% of them anyway) should not be trusted... so...
Global warming deniers are the new heretics! Burn them!
This is actually worse than what we thought. For a long time some of us at least were stipulating that yes, the world was getting warmer. We knew that there was a “pause” the last 15 years, which blew apart the warmists’ models, but there was little doubt that temperatures had actually been increasing.
The argument was about whether the temperature increase was “anthropogenic”, or man-caused, or whether it was just a natural trend.
With this exposé, I don’t know whether temperatures were actually increasing in the decades before the pause, or whether the entire phenomenon was entirely made up.
Bookmark
Don’t you know?
They are cutting down the equivelant of 100 football fields of Rain Forest per hour!!!!!
There will be no Rainforest left by the year 1995
This statement cannot have been made by a scientist or even a “scientist at heart”.
In Stephen Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time he says,” Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.” The theory that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are having a profound effect on atmospheric temperatures have undeniably been disproved by the data. The Climategate scandal showed us all that the key players from universities around the world all understand this.
Yet this misleading distortion of observational data goes on and on. This is because this controversy is not being perpetuated by science and scientists but by politicians and special interests.
So you believe that 99% of scientists believe in man made global warming? Then you are an easily manipulated fool. The true percentage of scientists that believe that humans are causing catastrophic global warming is just a tiny percentage. Science is about curiosity, theory and observation. It has never had anything to do with consensus... Never.
Mich I do have a reading assignment for you. Every major pollster ever asked about the 97% “consensus” study has concluded that it was not only flawed, but entirely disingenuous. Yet you have inflated the number even further to 99%. Incredible!!! Please take a look at the following link. It starts,
“The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
Also on your reading list should be something about Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”
Yep. Both instances of politics influencing perception. The Salem Witch Trials were brought to an end, in part, by a group of pastors protesting the use of “spectral evidence,” which was usually not allowed, and which they believed should not be allowed, because “Satan is a liar.”
Hopefully the global warming hysteria will be brought to an end by a group of honest scientists protesting to the abuse of accepted scientific “laws” as well.
Criminal
Since I am a redneck at heart, I guess being “scientific”, you must recognize that never has 99% of science gone along with the fake science of faking meteorological data to show a PC outcome. Only those that liked the Grant graveytrain did so.
Being a redneck tells me that its pretty damn egotistical to think that a hundred years data is able to give any viable understanding of the earth’s climatology that has been working for a very long time without man’s assistance.
Well, whatever the outcome, be sure to shut down the transit system in NY because it’s only 200 million a day.
Thanks.
(BTW, NY cannot function with 5 inches of snow. They learned that hat tip from Biloxi, MS.)
bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.