It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cato Ad: "With All Due Respect Mr. President, That (AGW) Is Not True"

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
In response to President-elect Barack Obama's 11/19/2008 statement:

Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.
,

The Cato Institute has take out a full-page ad consisting of a statement, signed by 50 scientists from around the world, that states:


We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been
no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.

www.cato.org...

Before you criticize the source, consider a few things.

Cato's Mission:

The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.

www.cato.org...


Any problem with that?

Now, I know that AGW advocates will claim that $75,000 of Cato's $15,000,000 budget comes from Exxon, but such statements are meaningless when taken together with the fact that Exxon, Conoco/Phillips, and others are supporting "Cap-and-trade" regulations.

Moreover, funds that are not linked to any specific program or result are not probative evidence of anything.

Cato also receives almost 1/4 of its overall funding from Government-aligned and government-supported institutions, many of whom are voice no opinion on AGW.

The Cato Institute provides the an important voice for individual liberty and limited government. Cato's various projects and publications support the ideals that animated the American Revolution and that substantial numbers of Americans believe in.

Cato scholars have been influential in a range of policy debates, including Social Security reform,
Medical savings accounts, Term limits, Welfare reform, Fundamental tax reform, Free trade, Role of the Constitution in the courts, and School choice, among others.

Any problem with that?

These scientists continue their work with treir respective employers and institutions, REGARDLESS of Cato support.

Just thought I'd keep you informed about what's being said in the papers today.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 30-3-2009 by jdub297]




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Thanks JW, good post.

I am always suspect of agendas that come out with dire warnings quickly followed by the remedy whcih convieniently costs bazillions of $$ and lines the pockets of the very people warning us.

I am by no means a scientist nor can I intelligently interpet the data for or against this argument, but what I can say with reasonable certianity, is Mr. Gore has done all of us a disservice by muddying the waters...to be a phrophet and capitalist on the same subject matter really calls into question IMO...his motives.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by deadbang
 

Believe it or not, Greenpeace is arguing that support for forests and avoidance of deforestation are bad for the climate change movement because they recduce the value of the carbon taxes they are relying on to support theri own AGW agendas.

Related post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
jw


[edit on 30-3-2009 by jdub297]

[edit on 30-3-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Thanks for bringing this up.

Climate Change is being used for political power, to fill the pockets of a few, including Al Gore, and to keep people under more control with the excuse that otherwise "the world will end".

Climate Change is a natural cycle, if environmentalists really cared about the environment they would be trying to clean up the plastic island with their own boats, but instead they use their boats to yell and scream at workers in oil rigs, or oil tanks.

If the environmentalists really cared, they would be demanding the UN to control China, Russia, and other countries which have no respect what-so-ever for the environment, and are releasing toxic chemicals into rivers, lakes, and oceans. Yet of course, all they do is yell and try to blame it all on the west, and keep asking for more donations so they can continue yelling and blaming the west meanwhile they do barely anything constructive.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
If the environmentalists really cared, they would be demanding the UN to control China, Russia, and other countries which have no respect what-so-ever for the environment, and are releasing toxic chemicals into rivers, lakes, and oceans. Yet of course, all they do is yell and try to blame it all on the west, and keep asking for more donations so they can continue yelling and blaming the west meanwhile they do barely anything constructive.


If there weren't a 'credit crunch' the spigots would be flowing into the AGW buckets. Now that countries have to manage their spending more closely than ever, the demand for radical solutions to an imaginary problem is being muffled.

If the U.S. hadn't had "deep pockets" from which to extort support, this 'movement' would have died out long ago as evidence of the AGW hoax grew and proof of alternatives refused to be ignored.

As it stands, even Democrats in Congress are hesitant to roll over and throw money at programs without imminent need, and are less receptive to "cap and trade" than they had been just 1 year ago.

I never thought I'd be thankful for hard economic times, but they've certainly changed peoples perspectives and priorities.

Funny how AGW advocates can't support solutions that don't require huge subsidies and new outlays. (everyone made fun of the 'tire-pressure' suggestion, and no one is talking about agricultural/vegetative solutions)

Since no one has screamed about the Cato ad, maybe people are coming to realize that there are 2 sides to the AGW hypothesis.

jw




top topics
 
3

log in

join