Intelligent Design

Is it just evolutionary biology that is corrupt or science more generally?

Spread the love

This movie review may seem off topic, but it raises important questions about the abuse of science in our culture.



AL GORE’S global-warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is sure to get an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary, but Gore should campaign for Best Actor, too.

Avoiding the usual vein-popping diatribes, he comes across as learned, calm and folksy. But much of what Gore says in this slide show he gives to people whose minds are not yet fully formed (undergraduates, actors) is absurd, and his assertions often contradict each other.

He implies that no reputable scientists dispute anything he says – basically, that the ice caps are melting and people on the 50th floor of the Empire State Building had better learn to swim. But there is wide disagreement about whether humans are causing global warming (climate change preceded the invention of the Escalade) and about whether we should be worried about the trends. Look carefully at Gore’s charts and you’ll see that the worst horrors take place in the future of his imagination.

His implication that he is our only hope – every ticket bought for this movie amounts to a soft-money contribution to his 2008 campaign – is ridiculous. He and his friends were in charge for eight years. His charts say global warming got worse in that time. The environment doesn’t seem to care whether the president is a Texas oilman or the Man from Hope.

Global warming hasn’t noticed that we got the lead out of our gasoline or that Stage One smog days in Los Angeles fell from 121 in 1977 to zero in 2004. All regulations and taxes to date have done nothing. Does this hint that pollution isn’t the cause?

Gore claims, with pie-chart-in-the-sky dreaminess, that unspecified measures can reduce emissions to 1970 levels. He assesses the tradeoff between the economy and the environment with the kind of buffoonery you’d expect in a Marxist comic book, displaying a cartoon of a scale with Earth on one side and bars of gold on the other. “OK, on one side we have gold bars,” he says. “Mmm, mmm, don’t they look good!”

Why doesn’t he get specific and replace the “gold bar” side of the scale with, say, a $50,000 tax on SUVs? The ensuing destruction of the car business would hurt blue-collar workers, not the rich. What if global warming continued unabated? Gore’s faith-based pessimism would lead him to call for even more taxes.

People are skeptical about global warming because it builds up to the same chorus as every other lefty hymn: more taxes, more hypocritical scolding (the film is the brainchild of Larry David’s wife, Laurie, part of the community of people who drive a Prius to the private plane) and especially more America-bashing.

Gore says that America, alone, is the problem. Taking us to China, he ignores the filth spewed into the air by its coal-fired cities. He does not meet with bronchitic citizens who wear surgical masks outdoors and pause to hawk up brown gunk every few minutes. Instead, he tells us America is lagging behind. “China,” he says, “is on the cutting edge” of environmentalism. Nonsense.

Gore is a dangerous evangelist for whom all roads lead to his sole, holy revelation. Remember how his son was injured in a car accident, the story he told at the 1992 convention? He’s still telling it, and what was once touching has become exploitative. This time, the accident’s meaning is that he wondered whether the Earth would still be there for his son. (Never mind that earlier in the film, he dates his eco-awakening to his Harvard years).

A sister who smoked and died of lung cancer? The lesson is that those who used to deny that smoking caused disease were wrong, so anyone who doubts catastrophic global warming must also be wrong.

Still not convinced that Gore’s mind has only one emission? “We have to think differently about war,” he says, referring to environmental effects of weapons. “We can’t just mindlessly continue the patterns of the past.” It’s a chilling statement: Even when bombs are flying, Gore promises to measure CO2 first.

The man’s shamelessness is astounding when he compares himself to Churchill, but that’s not the worst of it. The final shot of Gore shows him bravely silhouetted against the cosmos, a lone figure tenderly surveying the firmament. The job he really wants, no recount can give him.

33 Replies to “Is it just evolutionary biology that is corrupt or science more generally?

  1. 1
    benkeshet says:

    I think you want to say, “OR science more generally” right?


    Of course. Thanks. –WmAD

  2. 2
    BarryA says:

    China on the cutting edge of environmental responsibility????? Absurd. This is one I happen to know about personally. I was in Beijing last September and the September before that. We stayed in a hotel beside a small park. The smog was so thick one could barely see the buildings on the other side of the park, perhaps 1/3 of a mile away. Some advice for anyone contemplating a trip to that fair city. If you blow your nose, don’t even think about looking at the tissue afterwards. Some horrors are best left unseen.

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    If you want to see the absurdity of “a just so made up story” go to the following link and listen to the NPR story on the origin of AIDS in Africa;f=1004

    The scientist makes up a story of how it probably got started. He says it may have happened when some native was evading the Colonials and came across some chimps which he cut up and then got their blood mixed with his. Absolutely no evidence except the scientist’s imagination and most likely his politics.

    Remind you of anything. Science gets corrupt when it gets political. We can all guess what science areas are political in this world. Any bets on how the folks at Panda’s Thumb vote?

  4. 4
    bFast says:

    “Is it just biology that is corrupt or science more generally?”

    I wholeheartedly agree that biology is corrupt. I have been very impressed with the science of astrophysics & cosmology. In that world, we hear a lot of “we don’t know”. We have also seen a number of major changes of mind there, from abandoning the steady state theory to abandoning the big crunch hypothesis. Therefore it seems to me that not all science is corrupt.

    Are there sciences other than biology that are corrupt? I don’t know. When it comes, however, to the question of global warming, let me caution that the burden of proof must lie squarely with those who question the role that mankind plays in global warming.

    My understanding, based upon discussions with a senior weatherman with Environment Canada, there is a strong consensus that global warming is happening, but a less clear concensus that humans are causing it.

    However, gentlemen, one must ask the question, “what if I am wrong”. If global warming is not caused by human activity, but we tighten our belts anyway and make the atmosphere cleaner, well, we’ll probably run out of oil a little more slowly, we’ll likely have less resparatory disease, and with cleaner air in our cities, life will be somewhat more pleasant. We may even reduce traffic problems.

    However, if global wraming is caused by human activity, but convince the scientific and political world that human activity is not to blame, well, we might just run our little planet into the ground so so to speak.

    It is because of the cost of error that I reiterate my position, the burden of proof must be with those suggesting that global warming is not caused by human activity! I will believe and act as if global warming is caused by human activity until there is hard science proving otherwise.

  5. 5
    russ says:

    BarryA, here’s some interesting stuff about China and air polllution from the U.S. Department of Energy:

  6. 6
    antg says:

    bFast on the burden of proof – well put. In the UK this is generally known as the ‘precautionary principle’. The consequences of being wrong outweigh the nuances of the dispute in question.

  7. 7
    tinabrewer says:

    Jerry: “Science gets corrupt when it gets political.” This is only the latest phase of why science is corrupt. Its root corruption is much deeper; science is the work of the intellect. It seeks to categorize and explain material reality. The real “leader” in human life should always be the spirit, which seeks communion with the Creative Will of God. Science as it is currently practiced desires the overthrow of this natural hierarchy, replacing wisdom and truth with data and facts. This unnatural relationship, the servant ruling the master, is why it is possible for people to misuse facts for whatever political purpose they are inclined towards: unhinged from a real understanding which goes deeper than facts, these facts float around and are claimed by the most clever or manipulative faction in any disagreement.

    In issues like global warming, it is interesting to peel away the politics and ask “what are the values of the spirit which are motivating the different sides?” I think that the environmental groups have a correct basic inner urge to protect the purity of the air we breathe and the ecologies which sustain complex life. They are also filled with hangers-on, who merely use their association with the “correct” opinions to elevate their own egos. this is true of any cause on any segment of the political spectrum. You have the kernel of truth, and the dross which clings to it. We live in a maze of our self-created errors.

  8. 8
    Rude says:

    One must agree with bFast except for this: The environment is protected only when freedom reigns and the economy is good. When environmentalism is used as a weapon to destroy both then what have we gained?

    The Left wraps its ideology in “Science” because science has clout in public consciousness and in government largess. That’s not new, of course. But think of this: Until recently the vast majority of our educated elite assumed that the Darwinists knew what they were talking about, and in that sense the intelligentsia of the West typically acted in good faith (unthinkingly from the moral capital of America’s past). But should our movers and shakers reject ID when they know better—me thinks they could become even more corrupt. What a wonderful thing science is and can be—the unfettered acquisition of knowledge that unites honest people—but what if those in charge are no longer honest?

  9. 9
    Charlie says:

    I agree with you bFast:

    I will believe and act as if global warming is caused by human activity until there is hard science proving otherwise.

    But then would also ask, at what cost?
    Don’t we mean that we will act within our comfort level?
    I will drive a car that uses less gas, but I’m not giving up my job, which requires that I do drive.
    I will recycle as possible, but I am not about to give up my consumption of commercial goods.

    There ought also to be a burden of proof on those who presume to determine the actions of others at a cost perhaps only they are comfortable with.

  10. 10
    mmadigan says:

    BigScience,established in taxpayer subsidies, needs to sink with the Darwinite battleship and start over.

  11. 11

    I don’t know if ‘corrupt’ is right word – maybe ‘sly’ or ‘crafty’ or ‘wiley’ or ‘cunning’ might be more apt.

    Neo-darwinism is a very well thought out bit of legal positioning. It is politics in its truest form – whatever wins in a court of law rules the day.

    The Bismark didn’t sink itself. Public opinion does not win battles. The Darwin has those great huge RM+MS cannons, and slips along silently on its gradualism drives.

    We need either a bigger Darwin (fie, fie), or a way to disable her gradualism propellors or (best of all) a way of turning her RM+NS cannons on herself.

    I am still humming at the thought of RM+NS turning out to be reasonable proof of ID.

    Those cannons didn’t design themsleves.

  12. 12
    StuartHarris says:

    Global mean temperature varies over time. It is therefore trivially true that at most any given time the globe is warming or cooling, i.e., the derivative at any point on the graph of historical global temperature shows either a positive or negative slope. It is also obviously a trivial truth that one can pick any two points, or any set of points, on the graph and trend line them to disaster.

    This is one of the most basic abuses of statistics and it’s the “science” that global warming is based on. Gore is power-mad politician and anybody with critical thinking and a formed mind can see that.

    Fortunately, it seems that in the last two years global warming has finally been subject to critical analysis and perhaps this movie is a last gasp for the globaloney religion. But I’m sure though that Gore, TIME and their ilk will grab some other apocalyptic vision to threaten us with.

    Stu Harris

  13. 13
    bFast says:

    Rude, “The environment is protected only when freedom reigns and the economy is good. When environmentalism is used as a weapon to destroy both then what have we gained?”

    Balderdash. If we take the above statement to heart, the environement is doomed. The economy is never good. Freedom is never complete. Can the protecting the environment cost us the economy? Maybe, but not as easily as you might think. If reducing polution becomes a priority, a portion of the economy may be harmed, but a new economy will spring up in response to people’s desire to reduce their output. For example, I was just noticing in a recent flyer from a major retailer that they have delved into home-use windmills. Good on ’em. They, and the people manufacturing, installing and maintaining this abundant source of polution-free energy are a piece of that new economy.

    As to whether we risk our freedom in our pursuit of the environment, well, I have certainly seen people on power trips in the name of the environment. I believe that in this area as in all areas we must remain dilligent to protect our freedoms. Environmentalists are not beyond corruption any more than anyone else is. We must remain dilligent to retain our freedom, but we need not sacrefice the environment to do so.

    If the global warming doom-sayers are correct, and if we do nothing now, at some point it will become painfully obvious that they are correct, and panic will ensue. When panic ensues, that is when our freedom is most at risk.

    tinabrewer, “I think that the environmental groups have a correct basic inner urge to protect the purity of the air we breathe and the ecologies which sustain complex life. They are also filled with hangers-on, who merely use their association with the “correct” opinions to elevate their own egos.”

    I have certainly seen evidence of extreme ego games in the environmental movement. The fact that those games are played, and won, concerns me very much. I fully agree with both parts of your statement.

    Charlie, “But then would also ask, at what cost? Don’t we mean that we will act within our comfort level?”

    This is a very valid statement. I have made progress at reducing my output of greenhouse gases. However, I still output significantly more than the average human on this planet does. I could do more, but at what cost? Obviously I have bumped into the limit of what I am willing to pay at the moment.

  14. 14
    tinabrewer says:

    I read an interesting book by a guy (Paul Hawkins, I believe) called Natural Capitalism. If I am remembering the thesis correctly (please hold ME responsible for any error here) he is basically saying that if we REALLY paid the true cost of everything we used, and this “we” includes businesses, then the environment would automatically be protected. It is just a matter of correctly including costs such as cleanup, resource use, etc. in the price of doing business. According to this way of viewing economy, gas would now cost about six dollars a gallon. Result? The market forces of this crushing price would long since have forced the development of efficient alternative/sustainable technologies. I thought it was a refreshing alternative vision. Did anyone else read this book?

  15. 15
    Michaels7 says:

    Barry, thanks for that vivid imagery of China 😉

  16. 16
    Raevmo says:

    I have a bit of a problem with the notion that biologists are “corrupt” in the sense that they are deliberately trying to prevent the superior theory of ID from replacing Darwinist orthodoxy. It just doesn’t seem to make much sense from a sociological/psychological point of view. Replacing old ideas with new ones is what drives most scientists, it’s what makes them famous and respected among their peers. It’s every scientist’s wet dream to show a major theory being wrong. Why would it be any different with evolutionary theories? Where’s the flaw in my argument?

  17. 17

    I had not planned to weigh in on the question of global warming, but at the risk of assuming I am one of the few individuals who has actually seen the movie in question during opening week, perhaps I can offer a few observations.

    Kyle Smith’s review is rather unbalanced, obviously written by someone who dislikes Gore personally. Yes, there were some frivolous parts (like the gold bars), but Gore used them principally as object lessons and to lighten the mood. Hardly cause for outrage. I also did not get the impression that Gore was holding up China as an example of environmentalism. My recollection is that Gore’s “cutting edge” comment came in the context of his meetings with Chinese scientists (particularly experts in coal deposits) to talk about the environmental impact of the mining and burning of coal in China.

    Did Gore make his case about global warming? I think he made a good case, *if* one assumes that CO2 is a primary cause of global warming. I would like to have seen a more thorough analysis of this issue, as it is a key question in the debate. Also, I don’t recall if Gore acknowledged solar variance as a factor — if so, it must have been fleeting. Recent temperature trends were well laid out, but more context regarding temperature fluctuations in the distant past would have been helpful. Each of these scientific questions could have been fleshed out better.

    Two areas where I agree with Smith’s review:

    First, Gore’s appeal to “consensus” among scientists was eerily similar to the appeal to authority invoked in the evolution debate (just those pesky journalists and non-scientists who aren’t on board with the program). Second, Gore could not quite help slipping in several political comments and jabs, particularly against the current administration. A different approach on these two fronts would have resulted in a stronger film, and one that would have been more successful in “reaching across the aisle,” as it were.


    On a related note, I agree with bFast that there is considerable value in taking steps that result in less polution and better conservation of resources. In seems that one can be committed to these efforts, regardless of their views on global warming.

  18. 18


    One flaw in your argument might be that we are simply going to swith from one evolutionary theory to another.

    Throwing out the entire concept of evolution as a biogenesis is the desired goal. RM+NS is a great observation of science. Intelligently designed life really does adapt to the environmental pressure RM+NS creates. Unfortunately, RM+NS has been elevated to a biogenesis, creator of life.

    RM+NS could actually be the final proof that ID requires. Adaptivity is the real issue – it is so obviously mechanized and automated that it must be have designed to overcome RM+NS pressure (entropy in fancy lingerie). Darwinism will be dethroned and take its proper place at the footstool.

    Note that the throne will always exist.

  19. 19
    Rude says:

    Balderdash?!? bFast, must the economy be perfect and freedom complete before we can observe the environmental record of totalitarian states?

  20. 20
    Michaels7 says:

    Tina, I have not read the book, but the recognition is correct. Our free market system is not fully free. It goes the same for the food on our table, not just energy.

    Do we allow prices to rise for all products? Who could afford them? Certainly not the poor. Incentive to reduce prices, yes, but would it be thru a rational change agent? Or, just another socialist option?

    So, where is correction required. The energy field certainly needs addressing.

    Britain and Europe have long been above our prices on gasoline. France derives most of core energy from Nuke Reactors. Are some environmentalist now on board with such causes? Venezuela is currently pursuing oil field exploration in our front yard with China along Cuba in the gulf. Our hands are tied by environmentalist while other countries start to rake it in. There needs to be a healthy balance. Will Chinese companies protect gulf coast water ways? Ask Barry….

    We have a partial free-market energy system. Due to unlevel subsidies, alternative energy research were/and still are woefully behind. Would the advent of nano-scale technology, their should be increased competition rapidly building in some areas like solar. But still the energy demands are high.

    The research money is politically earmarked. This is due to government intervention on the behalf of powerful corporate lobbyist. Take away the subsidy, or at least equal the playing field with the same subsidy and expect larger breakthrus in alternative energy.

    At the same time there must be compromise by environmentalist. We should not be so hamstrung as to let China drill in our front yard with madman Chavez.

    It was interesting to hear Ehud Olmert’s comments to the Congress regarding energy. If anyone has incentive to break OPEC and the oil market, its Israel.

    As to the question of overall corruption in science, that’s just a mere component of mankind’s nature. And even in a free society, greed finds its way thru all the checks, balances, laws and regulations. Dictatorship, Feifdom, or Free Market. There will alway be corruption. At least in a free market system, given the right incentives, more people are free to look for viable alternatives and can produce amazing breakthrus.

    Global warming is difficult to determine if its due to human footprint imo based upon recent research. Here’s a recent article due out in Nature:

  21. 21
    mike1962 says:

    “…the burden of proof must be with those suggesting that global warming is not caused by human activity!”

    How so? It all depends on one’s priorities. The way I see it, I am overtaxed as it is, and am completely unwilling to have my life and livelihood impacted by austerity measures with regards to energy consumption and what it does to “mother” earth. Even if global warming is caused by humans, I don’t give a damn, quite frankly. Either there is a god/gods/extraterrestrials overseeing this planet who will step in at some time (due to their OWN priorities and goals with regards to this planet) to prevent humans from screwing it up completely, or else there isn’t any such higher power, and life (and this planet, warm or cold) is but a collosal accidental joke anyway. Either way I am not worried about it.

  22. 22
    bFast says:

    Mike1962 – good plan!

  23. 23
    Mung says:

    I live in Texas. Am I the only one in favor of global cooling?

  24. 24
    John says:

    The Earth has been warming for 18,000 years. I would say the burden of proof is with those who claim to know how to influence the Earths climate cycle. And while they are at it I would like them to explain how to achieve stasis in global temperatures and CO2 levels.

  25. 25
    tribune7 says:

    bfast, you’re suggesting we err on the side of caution. Maybe it’s my natural cynicism but I think the global warming proponents don’t give a whit about either the planet or the future. I think they are pushing this for political power, prestige and money. Think Dr. Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged. (See even IDers read atheists.)

    One thing that’s raising a red flag for me is that there are practical things that can be done to cut CO2 emissions that aren’t being pushed very hard by the “Earth is doomed” crowd. One is nuclear energy. Granted it has become significantly more fashionable — and I give GW fears complete credit — but if there was a crisis you would think Al Gore would be screaming to replace our 600 coal fired plants with nukes in a decade, and our gas fired plants within 20 years.

    Then are are the little things. Our backward West Cost ports are an unnecessary CO2-causing bottleneck. Would Gore support their modernization? Of course not. The biggest opponent of modernization there is Democrat-friendly unions.

    Or how about telecommuting? If we converted 5 percent of our commuters to telecommuters, I would strongly suspect the cut in CO2 would well transcend any new restrictions on automobile engines. One way to do this would be to exempt the homes of telecommuters from OSHA regulations and indemnify employers for home accidents.

    Would Gore or any Dem get behind this? It’s a crisis after all. LOL.

    They haven’t, and that leads me to think that global warming is a lot of hot air.

  26. 26 says:

    Raevmo “Replacing old ideas with new ones is what drives most scientists, it’s what makes them famous and respected among their peers. It’s every scientist’s dream to show a major theory being wrong. Why would it be any different with evolutionary theories? Where’s the flaw in my argument?”

    Although I tend to agree with you, I think there are very few scientists who actually have the autonomy to go it alone. There are very few who are willing to risk the ridicule, risk the loss of funding, risk the rejection of their papers and risk their jobs for ID.

    There are also an awful lot of scientists who will have egg on their faces if ID does move into a complimentary role with other evolutionary mechanisms. By the nature of ID it must occupy a significantly prominent place in the scheme of things. They will not look kindly on those who threw the eggs.

    Hawking humiliated Hoyle. He paid for it.

    For the moment ID thinking has to remain significantly underground. I am keenly awaiting the cominig out party.

    (ds can we get a spell checker for this blog?)

  27. 27

    Those who are in the “just do something because it might be true camp” I would advise thinking that through. If proposed measure devastate the world economy, a better approach would be to simply adjust and expend resources on adjusting, fighting AIDS, malaria, etc.

    I’m still not convinced that after perbutations of the Earth’s orbit and variable solar output are taken into account, we have much man-made global warming. But I would like to see a study that actually controls for these variables.

  28. 28
    John says:

    Hey, if you didn’t think the fact that the globe has been warming for 18,000 years was relevant to the discussion, then you will simply hate this one. :-}The Geologic Record and Climate Change

  29. 29
    tribune7 says:

    Good points geoffrobinson re 27. I’d like to note that the “just do something because it might be true camp” has historically been used by priestly castes to keep their jobs — If you sacrifice a cow on my alter it might just prevent a drought (and of course the priest gets to keep a cut of the meet).

  30. 30
    Chris Hyland says:

    “Would Gore or any Dem get behind this? It’s a crisis after all. LOL.

    They haven’t, and that leads me to think that global warming is a lot of hot air.”

    Of course there’s the option that most politicians are in fact out for number one, regardless of whether they are liberal, conservative, republican or democrat. Personally I wouldn’t believe a single thing a politician told me about science, because I’d assume that they are just trying to further their own agenda. I am only worried about climate change becuase I have read articles by climatologists on the subject, and the climatologists and environmental scienctists I know have very different ideas about solutions to the problem than the politicians do. For example the govermnent in the UK want to put tracking devices in everyones cars so that they can tax people based on how an where they drive, so obviously to get people to accept that they have to paint a pretty grave picture. A much easier thing to do would be to enforce the standards on catalytic converters, which could be 99% efficient but are ussually less than 75. Same goes for housing, they seem to be more interested in creating new laws and taxes then enforcing existing energy effeciency reulations, which aren’t adhered to in over 40% of houses.

    So while mostly agree with:

    “Maybe it’s my natural cynicism but I think the global warming proponents don’t give a whit about either the planet or the future. I think they are pushing this for political power, prestige and money.”

    I think it’s politics that is corrupt rather than science.

  31. 31
    bFast says:

    Tribune7, your comments are well taken. In many ways I agree with you.

    Despite Chernobyl and three mile island, I agree that there is a lot to be said for nuclear power. Nuclear power may have some issues, but it does not produce CO2. It is hard, however, for the environmental community to jump onto a bandwagon that they preached against just a few years ago.

    There certainly is a corruption within the environmental movement. I remember, for instance, when I lived in California. A new gas additive was legislated in because it would reduce polution. Gas prices shot throught he roof because the gasoline refineries had to retool for the new additive. Then some cars were destroyed because their engines could not handle the new gas. A news teem did some semi-scientific testing (where were the real scientists). They found that the benefits for low-speed city driving were measurable, but barely. But they found that at high speeds, the additive actually increased emmissions output. That made no difference. Then it was discovered that the additive was polluting the water, so they shut down boating on lake Tahoe. They eventually decided to permit the removal of the additive. Right about then the Chevron refinery went boom. Chevron said, we’ll just import gas from Oregon. The California government said that the gas didn’t have the additive, so Chevron would have to pay a significant levy to import gas from Oregon. Yes, I beleive that the environmental movement has a corrupt, power hungry component to it.

    However, I currently live in northern Canada, north of 60. Our sense of the environment up here is quite different than it is in the rest of the world. Dawson City, built on permafrost, is sinking. Our ice roads are more tenuous (yes, we have ice roads). We have noticed an influx of scientists who are quite excited to explore the snow-capped mountains. You see, the caps are receeding, revealing 10,000 year old caribou dung. The strangest things attract scientists. Virtually nobody north of 60 questions the reality of global warming. Now, causation is always a more difficult question. Is human activity causing the global warming? What if it is?

    Is it, therefore, possible to conclude that there is a corrupt component to the environmental movement, that environmental types are human with their power hungry, self-serving, I’m right and you’re wrong attitude like humans everywhere, and still concede that global warming is happening and that the most likely culprit is human activity? If so, then somehow we must be careful to notice and draw attention to the power-seeking corruption, but do our bit to curb our influence on the environment at the same time.

  32. 32
    tribune7 says:

    bfast, something else to consider. The steps I’ve suggested would cut CO2 AND help the economy/living standard. These steps are generally opposed by the environmental movement, which invariably support policies that do the exact opposite.

    Heck you have “environmentalists” talking about breachng hydroelectric dams to save salmon, for Pete’s sake. Another one of the those things that make me go hmmmmm.

    Or take Kyoto. It exempts India and China. Is there a crisis or is there not a crisis?

    Did you ever read Wired’s famous “Doomslayer” article on the late Julian Simon?

    I agree with you 100 percent, btw, about the desirability to reduce CO2 emissions.

  33. 33

    Anyone still following this thread might be interested in the video link on CNN in today’s Science and Space Section, entitled “Global Warming or Hot Air?”

Leave a Reply