Welcome Brooke Oberwetter

Welcome, Brooke! I’ll look forward to reading your posts here.

Welcome, Brooke! I’ll look forward to reading your posts here.

Welcome.

I’ve seen a lot of great tech policy work from CEI over the years.

Welcome.

I’ve seen a lot of great tech policy work from CEI over the years.

It’s always good to know what people of great stature have to say, their perspective being unique and all.

It’s always good to know what people of great stature have to say, their perspective being unique and all.

If TLF had a holocaust denier on board, they would probably be roundly criticized.

But, the CEI does now have a holocaust denier on board, only the holocaust is in the future, and it will impact my children and their children.

From the website http://www.sourcewatch.org about CEI Global Warming mis-information:

“CEI was also active in opposing the 1997 international global warming negotiations in Kyoto. CEI staff including Fred Smith, James Sheehan, Jonathan Adler and Marlo Lewis featured prominently in a list of “experts” provided to reporters by the industry-funded Global Climate Coalition. “The campaign against the 1997 Kyoto global warming treaty waged by right-wing think tanks has been another area where corporate America has heavily invested in right-wing policy groups that advance its interest” noted author David Callahan in 1999.”The Competitive Enterprise Institute has been a particularly aggressive advocate of the notion that global warming is a ‘theory not a fact.’ Since 1991, CEI’s budget has grown from less than $1 million to over $ 4 million.” [11] Callahan also noted that although the extent to which conservative think tanks rely on corporate funding support varies widely, CEI and the American Enterprise Institute “have two of the highest levels of corporate support, with both getting roughly 40 percent of their 1996 revenues from corporations.”

It is wrong for TLF to give such a manifestly evil and wrong entity a platform, by having anyone from CEI as a poster.

If TLF had a holocaust denier on board, they would probably be roundly criticized.

But, the CEI does now have a holocaust denier on board, only the holocaust is in the future, and it will impact my children and their children.

From the website http://www.sourcewatch.org about CEI Global Warming mis-information:

“CEI was also active in opposing the 1997 international global warming negotiations in Kyoto. CEI staff including Fred Smith, James Sheehan, Jonathan Adler and Marlo Lewis featured prominently in a list of “experts” provided to reporters by the industry-funded Global Climate Coalition. “The campaign against the 1997 Kyoto global warming treaty waged by right-wing think tanks has been another area where corporate America has heavily invested in right-wing policy groups that advance its interest” noted author David Callahan in 1999.”The Competitive Enterprise Institute has been a particularly aggressive advocate of the notion that global warming is a ‘theory not a fact.’ Since 1991, CEI’s budget has grown from less than $1 million to over $ 4 million.” [11] Callahan also noted that although the extent to which conservative think tanks rely on corporate funding support varies widely, CEI and the American Enterprise Institute “have two of the highest levels of corporate support, with both getting roughly 40 percent of their 1996 revenues from corporations.”

It is wrong for TLF to give such a manifestly evil and wrong entity a platform, by having anyone from CEI as a poster.

Belief in the reality of Global Warming and support for the Kyoto Treaty are two different things, enigma. Kyoto is a severely flawed vehicle, precisely because it fails to address the major sources of greenhouse gases in the foreseeable future, developing countries like India and China.

I’m all in favor of ideological purity, which is why I don’t approve of the anti-rationalist Discovery Institute, but I don’t know that it’s fair to lump CEI into the category of Holocaust Deniers.

Belief in the reality of Global Warming and support for the Kyoto Treaty are two different things, enigma. Kyoto is a severely flawed vehicle, precisely because it fails to address the major sources of greenhouse gases in the foreseeable future, developing countries like India and China.

I’m all in favor of ideological purity, which is why I don’t approve of the anti-rationalist Discovery Institute, but I don’t know that it’s fair to lump CEI into the category of Holocaust Deniers.

Richard: opposition to Kyoto is one thing. But repeatedly, CEI triess to undermine the very Science itself which gives us the urgency to act and do something about Global Warming.

So I stand by my statement that CEI, and Brooke Oberwetter, by asssociation, is worse than a holocaust denier, because the holocaust which will result from Global Warming is still, to some degree preventable.

I would not that the companies that give to CEI, such as ExxonMobil, have a clear financial motive for obscuring the truth about Global Warming. That truth, however, remains, and there is a clear moral imperative, just as clear as the moral imperative to oppose Nazism, to do something about Global Warming.

Sure, Brooke should still have the right to say what she believes, but TLF should not, I feel, give her a platform.

It is a good sign that the negative publicity about groups such as CEI has caused Chevron, for example to stop funding groups which deny Gloabl Warming. But we can not stop there, there needs to be a clear distancing of all moral people and institutions from the dangers and manifest evil represented by groups such as CEI.

There are plenty of businesses by the way that go out of their way to do something about Global Warming. Take Ray Anderson of Interface Carpet, for example:

http://www.interfaceinc.com/who/founder.html

Richard: opposition to Kyoto is one thing. But repeatedly, CEI triess to undermine the very Science itself which gives us the urgency to act and do something about Global Warming.

So I stand by my statement that CEI, and Brooke Oberwetter, by asssociation, is worse than a holocaust denier, because the holocaust which will result from Global Warming is still, to some degree preventable.

I would not that the companies that give to CEI, such as ExxonMobil, have a clear financial motive for obscuring the truth about Global Warming. That truth, however, remains, and there is a clear moral imperative, just as clear as the moral imperative to oppose Nazism, to do something about Global Warming.

Sure, Brooke should still have the right to say what she believes, but TLF should not, I feel, give her a platform.

It is a good sign that the negative publicity about groups such as CEI has caused Chevron, for example to stop funding groups which deny Gloabl Warming. But we can not stop there, there needs to be a clear distancing of all moral people and institutions from the dangers and manifest evil represented by groups such as CEI.

There are plenty of businesses by the way that go out of their way to do something about Global Warming. Take Ray Anderson of Interface Carpet, for example:

http://www.interfaceinc.com/who/founder.html

Enigma, I’m not real big on trying to settle scientific questions on a moral basis. The issue with global warming is cutting through the denialism and the hysteria to the facts, whether they’re good for us or not. While I don’t agree with CEI’s assessment of global warming, I do think it’s good that contrarian viewpoints are part of the discussion. Government never goes as far wrong as it does when there’s massive agreement on the issue.

And I also think it’s poor form to brand them as shills just for taking money from people who happen to agree with what they’re saying, right or wrong. That sort of thing cheapens the debate and distracts attention from the real issue. Global warming is a very serious threat, much worse in its implications that probably any other single issue. So let’s get the facts right and not blindly accept extreme viewpoints because they’re “moral” or put forward by people we like.

Enigma, I’m not real big on trying to settle scientific questions on a moral basis. The issue with global warming is cutting through the denialism and the hysteria to the facts, whether they’re good for us or not. While I don’t agree with CEI’s assessment of global warming, I do think it’s good that contrarian viewpoints are part of the discussion. Government never goes as far wrong as it does when there’s massive agreement on the issue.

And I also think it’s poor form to brand them as shills just for taking money from people who happen to agree with what they’re saying, right or wrong. That sort of thing cheapens the debate and distracts attention from the real issue. Global warming is a very serious threat, much worse in its implications that probably any other single issue. So let’s get the facts right and not blindly accept extreme viewpoints because they’re “moral” or put forward by people we like.

Richard: I totally agree that scientific disputes should be settle by refering to science.

However, that is not what I am talking about here, which is: the deliberate concealment of scientific information of public importance by a deliberate campaign of mis-information.

In short, telling lies that will kill people, because you are paid to do so.

That, in any moral system, is evil.

Richard: I totally agree that scientific disputes should be settle by refering to science.

However, that is not what I am talking about here, which is: the deliberate concealment of scientific information of public importance by a deliberate campaign of mis-information.

In short, telling lies that will kill people, because you are paid to do so.

That, in any moral system, is evil.

Yes, lying breaks one of the Commandments, so God is clearly against it.

Perhaps you can answer a question for me. CEI claims that Al Gore lied in his Personal Biography/Environmental Thriller about the Florida recount and Global Warming “An Inconvenient Truth” in claiming that the icecaps are melting. According to CEI, Antarctica is losing ice in some areas and gaining it in others, so the net effect is nil.

I don’t have time to research this question, so can you tell me who’s right and who’s wrong?

Yes, lying breaks one of the Commandments, so God is clearly against it.

Perhaps you can answer a question for me. CEI claims that Al Gore lied in his Personal Biography/Environmental Thriller about the Florida recount and Global Warming “An Inconvenient Truth” in claiming that the icecaps are melting. According to CEI, Antarctica is losing ice in some areas and gaining it in others, so the net effect is nil.

I don’t have time to research this question, so can you tell me who’s right and who’s wrong?

While this is a relatively old post I believe the topic is still very relevant and will be for the foreseeable future. As to your question about Antarctica ice caps. The data I have seen shows the density of the ice caps to be increasing, especially in the middle of the continent, this can be attributed to the cooling effects of the clouds and the weather patterns of the region. As for Gore’s movie, I believe he shows a mere fraction of the continent (the infamous melting ice shelf) when he makes the claim that Antarctica is melting. CEI is correct in its claim (and I’ll be honest I’m not an expert, just a skeptic, but I certainly believe there is not a consensus on global warming and I will admit the climate is changing but for better or worse: I do not know).

While this is a relatively old post I believe the topic is still very relevant and will be for the foreseeable future. As to your question about Antarctica ice caps. The data I have seen shows the density of the ice caps to be increasing, especially in the middle of the continent, this can be attributed to the cooling effects of the clouds and the weather patterns of the region. As for Gore’s movie, I believe he shows a mere fraction of the continent (the infamous melting ice shelf) when he makes the claim that Antarctica is melting. CEI is correct in its claim (and I’ll be honest I’m not an expert, just a skeptic, but I certainly believe there is not a consensus on global warming and I will admit the climate is changing but for better or worse: I do not know).