Will Media Report Global Warming 'Carbon Credit' Fraud?

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

It’s conceivable that years from now, America’s media will be reporting one of the biggest frauds in history: the idea that a wealthy person, for instance, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, can purchase “carbon credits” to offset his lavish lifestyle making him quote “carbon neutral.”

Given the media’s love affair with the former vice president as well as advancing man-made global warming hysteria, few American press members have dared to expose this hoax for what it is.

However, on Wednesday, an impeccably reputable publication, the Financial Times, published an article that is a deliciously inconvenient truth for folks like Gore, Laurie David, Sheryl Crow, and all the rest of the alarmists that are actively involved in what years from now will be considered one of the biggest scams ever (emphasis added throughout):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on "carbon credit" projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

Yikes. Think Charlie, Brian, or Katie might report this anytime soon?

Regardless of the answer, FT outlined its findings:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Amazing. Now, imagine for a moment that these companies were in either the oil, electricity, or healthcare industry committing such a fraud. Do you think this would be headline news?

If your answer is "Yes," why do you think this will be totally ignored?

I know; it's a rhetorical question.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It has become very clear to m

The reason all of these famous people, along with the main stream media, are so scared of the world dying is that they have no hope of heaven. All they have is this life and this world and they are trying to hold on to it for, well for ‘dear life!’

It is so amazing how they do not want to admit that all that is, came to be by a Creator, and yet they see how delicate it all is. hmm....

Well, any way, thought some might get a kick out of the latest 'sign' that our earth is dying from ‘global warming.’ I heard the latest from none other than, yep, you guessed it -- Bill Maher, the Science flunky! And I heard it on our favorite 'news source,' Jay Leno... (Hey it is not as if he is any worse than the main stream media. Right?)

It turns out that Bill Maher is scared that the earth will only have four years left. Bill Maher says that the bees are disappearing. Yes, the bees. He believes that the bees are dying off, so their will be no more plants for the animals to eat, hence we will all die.

bzzzzzzz.....

Debra...

Oh, in case you missed this: Click Here

Well, FYI DebraJMSmith,

Well, FYI DebraJMSmith, I know of a few Killer B's that are alive and well in Houston. A few have retired, yes, but I don't think that any of these have died off.

(Sorry for the sports joke. If you want an explination, get in touch with me)

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?

Hi Elicani,I have to admit th

Hi Elicani,

I have to admit that I do not get the joke. But I assume that there is a sports team in Houston by that name or a play on it?

Debra...

On the Bs

Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell are the best known of the Killer Bs in Houston.  I should catch that reference; I am a huge Astros fan.

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

Wait....I thought they were D

Wait....I thought they were Dolphins....

Buoniconti, Baumgarten, oh...I can't remember anymore.

Bee's aren't my thing. But I

Bee's aren't my thing. But I was under the impression it's mainly the honey bee. And the problem is caused by a parasite. But not to worry. I understand the native bee population is returning. And doing the job. Plus as pointed out. How far have the africanized bees gotten.

I know the "killer" bee's are headed my way. Plus all the stuff headed this way from Florida. (But we gave you the nutria. And Auburn gave us kudzu. And Tennessee gave us Al Gore. Payback time I guess.)

If Bill's right. Let's forget about aging the wine. Let's drink it.

How many times have we been told the world is ending. We were uspposed to be out of oil what 20-30 years ago. Out of food..

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Hi Dando,I like your way of t

Hi Dando,

I like your way of thinking... :o)

Debra...

I'm sorry, but I'm still tryi

I'm sorry, but I'm still trying to catch up with this topic; trying to get my head around this. Maybe someone out there can help.

Let's say I'm a huge star in the alt-rock scene or something. I make so many millions of dollars from my albums and my concerts. Because of that, I also happen to be responsible for quite a bit of secondary consumer packaging (waste) to promote myself, as well as alot of exhaust from my private jet and motorcade.

That being said, I have questions about the following:

1. Who are these people that are telling me that I can "offset" my unbalanced share of my own industrial waste? What are their names and what are they offering? Can I get a package deal on carbon offset credits? Who do I contact? What's the name of these companies?

2. What am I getting in return? Am I investing in some environmental cause or something that promises to fix everything with all the pollution credits I bought, or. . .what? What's the portfolio look like?

Waiting with anticipation and baited breath here. This is prolly the one subject that I have been trying so hard to figure out, but gotten nowhere with.

Thanks in advance, and please, no speculative replies.

-PJ

I am starting my own carbon c

I am starting my own carbon credit business.

Prices start at $1 million, but since I am a really nice guy and want average Joes to be able to help "save" the planet we do offer financing.  With an APR of10% payments start at only $1000 a month!!!  You can be like Uncle Al and save the planet too!!!  Just send me a message with your name and address!!

/sarcasm  

The guy who invented the Pe

The guy who invented the Pet Rock is nothing compared to this Carbon fiasco. It almost as if people are wanting to buy air. (not radio air)

You'd like that, wouldn't you

You'd like that, wouldn't you radiofitz34?

Us, just buying "air"?  :)

Too bad you didn't think of it before ALBORE started selling carbon credits!

LOL.

I had an idea like that once....but I can't quite remember what it was. But I know, it was a good one.

Dam I always get in too late.

Dam I always get in too late. Just when I was ready to get a shovel (used for more then one reason) and start to plant nice little trees for AlGore. Maybe a few more trees to Sheryl Crow, so she can wipe her A$$ with more then one sheet of paper. They expose the racket. Well I can always e-mail people and tell them to send me money, so I can smuggle the rest of the millions I have out of the country and willing to split it with them.

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagn- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

It depends on what kind of ai

It depends on what kind of air you want. If you need mountain air. I can ship you mountain air next week. And for you! At a reduced rate.

Now for those living in the interior, we can sell them ocean air.

There are conoisseurs of air. But then at a reduced rate we can ship all purpose air. For general breathing. 

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Let me add. Being I live just

Let me add. Being I live just down the road from the Stennis Space Center, this air is the same air as used by NASA. Air as seen on the NASA chanel. NASA, the employer of James Hanson. This is quality air.

I'm so convinced you'll like it. I'll give it to you absolutely free. Just send me a $25 shipping and handling fee.

And if you're not completely satisified. Just return it with a $25 processing fee. And we'll return the purchase price.

Grin. I'll put my grins, and winks in. Unlike Crow.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Radiofitz - hey don't diss th

Radiofitz - hey don't diss the Pet Rock creator - he was my inspiration to have a career in marketing because it was proof that the American public will buy anything one time with the right spin.

The analogy of pet rocks with carbon credits does not really work because in the case of the pet rock when you paid the money you actually walked out with something tangible in your hand.

Maybe Al Gore is keeping everyone's carbon credits in a lock box somehwhere for future use.

Will Media Report Global Wa

Will Media Report Global Warming Carbon Credit Fraud?

Um.....No.

Carbon credits are just another liberal piece of feel-good nonsense to help liberals "feel better" about their lifestyles. If you really believe that global warming is caused by fuel emissions, get rid of your private jet. Don't pay a company to encourage "others" to use less energy to make up for your extravagance.

Remember Barbra Streisand's list of things that "we" could do to reduce energy use? I'm still waiting to see a photo of that laundry-filled clothesline in her back yard......

Let's say I wanted to drive 2

Let's say I wanted to drive 20 miles per hour over the posted speed limit of 60mph. All I have to do is pay someone else to drive 20 miles per hour under the speed limit. Unfortunately, the person paid to drive 20 under is driving on a road with a 40mph speed limit. So he's being paid to do something he would have done anyway. As a further twist, he doesn't drive 40mph - he drives 45. And he already works for me and is making deliveries for my profit. And I'm claiming a business expense on the car he's driving and the gas he's using. And most importantly - I'm still speeding, but I bought offsets, so it's alright. And finally, NO ONE SHOULD SPEED - IT'S DANGEROUS TO EVERYONE AROUND US AND WILL PROBABLY LEAD TO THE DOWNFALL OF CIVILIZATION AS WE KNOW IT!!! No, I don't include myself in that statement. I have to get around faster than everyone else so I can spread the word about how dangerous speeding is...

The issues here are:

1. The person paying the offset, who is usually the "advocate" for the problem in the first place, isn't the one reducing the problem they're advocating.

2. The person offering the offset isn't really offering anything or is selling something which is already a done deal (like charging people for tomorrow's sunrise).

3. The people buying the offset (the "advocates") are elbow-deep in the offset companies, so they're taking money out of their right pocket and putting it into the left pocket, while at the same time making more money off those few who aren't in on the scam who are also buying offsets.

4. The issue is so partisan as to make congress seem like agreeable children. Why the vehement cries to silence any and all dissent? Why the almost total silence for anything but complete agreement from the MSM? Could it be that the "advocates" are hiding something???

The concept is simple, yet it is very seldom discussed.

The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers

Love it! Beowulf are th

Love it! Beowulf

are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagn- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

I'm driving to the N Georgia

I'm driving to the N Georgia mountains tomorrow and will return the next weekend. That's 1066 miles round trip. I was planning to drive 78 mph. I will set my cruise control at 70. Therefore I have a credit for sale. You can drive an extra 8 mph for 1066 mile.

What is the opening bid? 

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

I will be off work for 2 week

I will be off work for 2 weeks, starting Tue, the 1st. I drive 12 miles, one way, at 70 mph to work. That is 24 miles round trip. I now have carbon credits for 120 miles at 70 mph for sale. Carbon is cheap, so hows $25.00 a credit sound?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

While this was clearly intend

While this was clearly intended as a sarcastic satire of the carbon offset scheme while attempting to portray an accurate anecdote of the hypocrisy, it  seems to have turned into a real possibility as a money-maker. Let's all just hope the GW advocates don't hear about this...

The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers

carbon offset riches

Just as soon as the son of the deposed defense minister of Ghana despsits my share of his late fathers 100 million dollars in my bank account i'm going to make my next killing in carbon offsets

conant

conant,

Absolutely hysterical. Maybe the funniest comment ever posted at these boards! Bravo.   ns

I wonder how long it will be

I wonder how long it will be before someone does an accounting of Dr. Al Gore's English Carbon Credit company to see what it actually has done with the money it collected? How much an annual salary was Dr. Al Gore receiving again as a board member? And how much did Dr. Al Gore spend on purchasing carbon credits in any one year?  Now that will be a juicy story...

I would like to point out something that was briefly touched on by some in the past.  If the carbon credits were used to plant trees, what rate of CO2 consumption was used?

1. tree species grow at different rates and hence have different rates of CO2 uptake, so what trees species are being planted and where?

2. the rate of CO2 uptake must change over the life of the tree, i.e. does a 1 yr old tree take up more CO2 than a 5 yr old tree, etc. What is the efficacy of 20 yr old tree to a 30 yr old tree and at what point do you cut it down to make room for a new tree?  What do you do with the old tree since burning it just puts all the CO2 you stored back into the air making the entire concept worthless.  Or does everyone think they will just keep planting trees until we run out of land?

3. If the total amount of CO2 uptake is based on the life expectancy of the tree, then too few trees are being planted in any one year to offset the CO2 produced in that year, i.e. the uptake of CO2 always lags the production by at least 20 or 30 years under that regime.  To be effective, any tree planting program must plant enough trees to uptake all the CO2 produced in that year.  Because in the following years, those trees need to uptake CO2 for the years you failed to begin the practice in the first place. If you want the CO2 to go back to where it was in the 1900s then you must take more CO2 out than you put into the air.

4. Related to item 1 on tree species, different trees have different albedo (reflectivity of sunlight) which either promote warming temperatures aside from CO2 or promote cooling.  On the whole were the trees that were planted warming or cooling the area in which they were planted?

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

First of all, extremely inter

First of all, extremely interesting information dscott.

Unfortunately, the Goracle will never be called for an accounting. Every time his hypocrisy is brought up, the issue is sidetracked, discounted, excused, and/or the person bringing it up is denigraded.

And the issue here isn't really how many carbon credits are bought, if they're legitimate, if they're effective, or any of that. The key issue is the fact that simple common sense dictates that if you advocate something, you have to live by your own words. If the Goracle really, truly believed in his GW advocacy, he would be REDUCING his "carbon footprint", not "offsetting" it. The hypocrisy is plain for anyone to see who bothers to look, and everyone knows the old saying, "Do what I say, not what I do". Well, that may work for 4 or 5 year olds, but I think adults are a bit past the point where that's effective.

The problem is that so many are willing to do what the Goracle says, and not challenge his hypocrisy on what he does (or at least many are willing to pay lip-service to it). No one wants to examine his "science", question his financial interests in the issue, or admit to the politics involved. And until we do, this will remain the hot topic (no pun intended) of our time...

The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers

Exactly, the biggest questio

Exactly, the biggest question here is why would Dr. Al Gore not live sustainably as an example to people in his Class? His Class (15 million people) consumes half of all energy in this country.  What stops him if he believes mankind can control the environment by his actions?  Do we expect Dr. Al Gore to live in a cardboard box?  NO.  We expect him to live sustainably by installing solar panels and wind turbines to produce all the electricity he wants to waste. 

Why is he flying around in private jets consuming more oil than you or I could in an entire year of driving?  Why isn't he taking first class seat on a commercial carrier just like Prince Charles did?  Is he better than Prince Charles?  Whether you believe in AGW or not, at least I can respect Prince Charles for living according to his beliefs.

This is why I say AGW is a cult, and Dr. Al Gore is it's leader. The prime mark of any cult is that the leader does not subject himself to the same demands he makes of his followers.  Legitimate leadership is by example.  This is no different than a pastor who proclaims godliness all the while whooping it up with the wives of the congregation and pilfering the collection plate.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

BTW- I forgot to mention that

BTW- I forgot to mention that since a tree is 90% water or thereabouts, simply weighing the tree and claiming you have removed the same weight in CO2 is false.  At most, the weight of the tree is 10% Carbon, probably less.  So I want to see how they calculated this so called Carbon uptake.  That may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back on carbon offsets, just a minor math error that all!

------

Correction to my statement above, apparently by dry weight a tree is around 50% Carbon, yielding on average 1 ton per acre.  However my premise and question is still correct, what is the true basis of their accounting for offsets, who's doing the auditing to verify they are doing what they say?

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

CARBON CREDIT FRAUD

Is planting trees for carbon credit offsets fraud?  Read the following & deciede for yourself.

The following are excerpts from an article in The View magazine of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, several months ago.  (I am not sure of the exact date)  The MSM won't use an alternative view even if it's from an lab in the left wing whacko capitol of the world, San Fran.

STOP GLOBAL WARMING!!!!  How can you stop something that has not been proven to exist?

"A study released last month by Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in San Francisco showed that, in certain latitudes,
planting trees has minimal impact on reducing global warming
and, in some cases, may worsen the situation.
Tree plantations, or carbon sequestration, are one strategy
endorsed by Kyoto to combat climate change. The theory goes
like this: trees act as a filter, absorbing carbon from the
atmosphere and scuttling it into the earth when leaves fall or
trees decay, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and cooling the
planet. Or so it was thought.
The Livermore study was one of a number released in the
past year that fingered trees, widely believed to be part of the
solution to climate change, as part of the problem.
Perhaps the most damning evidence came from the Max
Planck Institute. Scientists there discovered that trees emit up to
one–third of the planet’s methane, a potent greenhouse gas
second only to carbon dioxide. The results were surprising. First,
because it was believed that methane could only be produced in
low oxygen areas, but also because, well, they’re trees. Since
when do trees have emissions?
The evidence was conclusive. No longer were trees a passive
bystander in climate change, they were actively causing it."

Since methane (2H2O + CO2 &gt

Since methane (2H2O + CO2 > 2O2 + CH4) is a thousand times more potent than CO2, trees are in fact a major source of greenhouse gas effect by their sheer numbers, never mind what the wetlands produce.  So basically what they have done is traded the evil CO2 for the super villian CH4.  But since I don't have a problem with nature doing it's thing, this is much ado about nothing.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I knew that carbon credits were akin to the contents of a used baby diaper. ROFLMAO!

Newsbusters should put a poll up to guess just how long it will be before the MSM picks up on this. If ever.

I bet Rush, and Sean are going to have a field day with this today.

Quick poll - How many follow

Quick poll -
How many follow the faith of our parents?
How many vote the same way our fathers do/did?
How many counterbalance their views by regularly reading the more substantial liberal newsletters (ie The Nation or The Progressive not NBC and the blogs) or the foreign press?
How many of us are scientifically trained beyond high school?
How many of us either serve in the armed forces or law enforcement (and I dont mean lawyers!)?
How many of us have children serving in the armed forces?

Art, that's a good poll, bu

Art, that's a good poll, but not very quick. A quick poll would be: "How much does Rosie weigh?" Other than using a floating point rather than an integer, that question can be answered fairly quickly.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

So mighy mouth I can safely a

So mighy mouth I can safely assume your answers are:

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No

Nope mine would be like thi

Nope mine would be like this:

Yes

No (dad rest his soul was a damn democrat)

No (I don't read the Quran either)

Yes

Yes

Yes (does a nephew count?)

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Thanks for the elucidation. O

Thanks for the elucidation. Out of interest, what scientific discipline did you study? And as someone with a scientific background don't you think that studying what the other side thinks is an invaluable part of critical inquiry, even if it's just to know thy enemy?

"don't you think that

"don't you think that studying what the other side thinks is an invaluable part of critical inquiry"

Computer science, and I would agree with you if I had majored in political science. But politics is just a hobby for me, and I see enough on the news and NB each day to know who the enemy is. BTW I use the word "enemy" as almost a term of endearment with regards to political discussions. I am not too sure about you at this point, but I will say the needle on my BS meter is not resting on zero.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

MM I don't know why you would

MM I don't know why you would be not too sure about me, I'm merely asking genuine questions I'm interested in. Personally I do try and read as much as I can from as many sources in order to make sure I'm not settling for my own prejudices and to keep my critical faculties working as well as they can.
From my reading it seems that there is a huge gap in genuine acknowledgement of the opposing views on both sides of the political spectrum. Instead innocent misrepresntation and willful ignorance abounds. As many smart people have pointed out on NB there are lies, damn lies and statistics, and it also seems that people of every spectrum play fast and loose with the facts, which is easy to do as the world is so incredibly complicated and one set of 'fatcs' rarely gives the whole picture of anything.
In my line of work I have to deal with an incredible amount of human failure, willful deception and many sided stories, my job is to seek out the truth which as much certainty and clarity as possible. I think this spills into my political understandng as I'm always seeking the deeper truth and unfortunately there are many people, even here at NB, who prefer to take the simple route of accepting the dogma of their chosen 'team'.

Ok, fair enough. Your poll

Ok, fair enough. Your poll seemed to me to be a list of loaded questions. Hence my silly reply. I may have been wrong about that, but then again...I may still be right.

Unlike some sarcastic people here, I am more than willing to admit a mistake when I make one. Having said that, I suspect that you have made up your mind regarding Global Warming, but again, I may be wrong about that too.

Check back through the NB archives and you will see many posts that refute the human caused GW sham. And I don't think you will find too many people taking the simple route of accepting the dogma of the chosen team (I speak of conservatives here). I think what you will find is that the other team is swallowing this GW crap-- hook, line and sinker.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Sorry it's taken so long to g

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you MM, actually had to do some real work:-)
No my mind's not made up abut GW, it's still open. I've read hundreds of opinions from NB and other conservative sources to the lib litertaure to scientist's blogs and it seems that no-one can know too much with any certainty. It also seems that to call GW a simple scam is to be overly certain and not show a genuine acknowledgement for the complexity of the facts. To make policy based on GW seems foolsih but I trust the marketplace to sort out the mess, I can imagine the oil and energy companies switching to other forms of energy production and making even more money. Also if the GW advocates are right I trust the US to cope with any problems the best of any nation and as they claim that the worst hit areas will be sub-Saharan Africa and other tropical zones we have less to worry about anyway.

I am very respectful of scientists however and I give serious credence to their orthodoxies. I am a very grateful and beneficial recipient of scientific discoveries and inventions from modern medicine, pesticides and nuclear weaponry to computers, microwaves and air travel. And I am vary wary of conspiracy theories of any stripe. The idea that the majority of the world's scientists are deliberatley misleading us seems absurd, scientists live in a world of 'to the best of my knowledge with the current data available we posit...' and are one of the groups of people most ready to admit mistakes and change their minds. Sheeplike and misguided they may be, duplicitpous and evil, no.
Also I don't want to be a patsy to sloppy science as so many conservatives unfortunately are with the absurd intelligent design movement, which is so clearly a religious movement and not a serious scientific program.

"I am wary of conspiracy theories" -Artwhite

"I am wary of conspiracy theories..."  

How about this one, Artwhite?

"Did we think Kyoto would [reduce global warming] when we signed it?  Hell no!" (Al Gore)   "The former vice president then explained that the real purpose of Kyoto was to demonstrate that international support could be mustered for action on environmental issues." (columnist Steven Milloy) 

When you start from the above, everything that comes afterward regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming must be seen as likely manipulation for an agenda.  I say "follow the money"....Read Kyoto, and the agenda becomes clear:  manipulation of the world economies. 

As for scientists being one of the goups "most likely to admit mistakes and change their minds", my observation is that scientists are exactly the opposite:  because they invest themselves and their standing in the scientific community into their theories, most scientists both go along with the majority opinion and stubbornly cling to that position.

RJbecause they invest themsel

RJ

because they invest themselves and their standing in the scientific community into their theories, most scientists both go along with the majority opinion and stubbornly cling to that position

they also obtain most of their money from grants based on someone approving the grant.  Buck the system no bucks.

true, botg. "buck the system, no bucks"

"Buck the system, no bucks."

True, botg.  Another piece of "follow the money" regarding AGW.

RJ, Imagine something like

RJ, Imagine something like this: a scientist put his life work on the line to validate AGW. The grants that come in are based upon one thing: proving AGW. Now suppose the scientist, in the normal process of discovery, determines that AGW cannot be supported by evidence. What does he do? Report his findings OR (the more likely scenerio) start over and try again? If he reports his findings, his funding will be cut off and will go to another scientist who is willing to try harder to prove the reason for the funding (AGW). On the other hand if he try's again, the funding continues. For this reason, I give more credibility to research that has no yield in the outcome. The idea that modern "science" is somehow pure and immune from bias is simply not realistic.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Exactly, MM

Exactly, MM.  Your description is a realistic view of what could easily motivate scientists.  They're human, not idealistic, ethically pure creatures.  I can think of several examples where a contrary view to "established" science was rudely rejected by those on the other side.   It's a common knee-jerk reaction to protect reputations, careers, and money. 

I think artwhite is trying too hard to present his agenda, and that causes me to have suspicions about him.

So all but a tiny handful of

So all but a tiny handful of scientists are a spineless lot who have no genuine interest in their subjects and will distort years of research for a mediocre wage check...and their bosses don't have the skill or interest or any other mechanism of oversight to know what they're up to for all those years of funded research until they're presented with a paper at the end of it which they simply accept carte blanche...and not one lab assistant or student has the slightest clue when data is distorted or the backbone to leak it.....
hmmmm maybe in the Soviet Union, but not in America.

Wonderful strawman you buil

Wonderful strawman you built there. Very well done, and you even managed to contrast the US to the defunct Soviet Union. Bravo. <golf clap>

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

MM where's the strawman? I'm

MM where's the strawman? I'm being facetious yes, but with both feet very firmly planted in the real world.

And I was comparing the US favorably to the Soviets so why the offence? My point is that maybe a totalitarian regime can suppress genuine scientific inquiry but that doesn't happen here. America and Americans are way beeter than that. Not all scientists are crazed libs, some undoubtedbly but not all of them by a long stretch.

I'm confused as to why everyone here is so determined to tar all scientists with the same brush. I have scientist friends who vote Republican, marry their childhood sweethearts, raise sensible kids and work in a variety of industries including research. This is why I keep coming back to the same answer. There is a tendency to believe what suits one politically regardless of the science and I for one don't want to be that way.

You are not being firmly pl

You are not being firmly planted in the real world you are being idealistic.

You implied that those who don't believe your point of view are "Soviets", you really meant "Nazis", didn't you?

"All but a tiny handful of scientists" is the strawman. There are plenty of scientists who are skeptical of manmade GW. Yes most scientists agree that the planet may be warming slightly, but they differ on the reason why and what (if anything), can be done about it. What's going on right now is fear mongering and people setting themselves up to cash in on it. And this time it's NOT big Oil.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

MM, respectfully you are miss

MM, respectfully you are missing my points completely.
I'm not accusing anyone here of being a Soviet or a Nazi!! Of course not! I'm merely saying that the suppression of honest science that is being suggested may happen in a totalitarian regime but not here in the States. I'm as aware as anyone that our society is not perfect and that there are some seriously deluded and evil people here but we're not living in a totalitarian society and free thought makes itself heard. Look at this website!

The straw man claim..well you still haven't answered any of my points about conservative or genuine scientists, real-world oversight and leaks from a few posts back which is when you accused me of setting up a strawman arguement. My reference to a tiny handful would be the supposed number who aren't craveny corrupt and devoted more to their paycheck than to their scientific endeavors, nothing to do with the numbers advocating AGW.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, I don't see that there is a stronger scientific argument against AGW than there is for it and if people make money out of a hyped up non-existent threat so be it, I believe in capitalism and the free market and if it turns out to that AGW is true then our free market and capitalism will also save us.

Don't feel bad art, my wife

Don't feel bad art, my wife tells me I miss her points too. I just chalk it up to her being an irrational thinking female<yikes>. Anyhow, if as you say, you are agnostic on this subject then I would think you would want to be cautious and not alarmist in your reaction to the hype.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Thanks MM, but as I hoped I'd

Thanks MM, but as I hoped I'd made clear I am cautious of the AGW hype. And I'm also cautious of the anti AGW hype in certain consertive circles. That's all I was ever saying.
Regards to the wife I'm sure she's a great lady!

RJ Milloy is a bad choice for

RJ Milloy is a bad choice for an authority to quote epsecially if we want to 'follow the money'.
And if you've ever seen the ridiculous cult movie "What the Bleep Do We Know" you'll know that it's very easy to line up a few 'reputable' scientists to suport anything. Anotehr example is Behe and the Discovery Institute.
I have to poitely disagree with you about scientists generally, from all my reading it seems very clear that scientists are always changing, updating and occasionally radically altering their views. There are the usual petty jeaousies and egos that frequent any human activity and a hunkering round the 'idea of the day' but science with it's peer review system is clearly one of the most adaptble forms of thought. Of course this doesn't mean everything they say is right and as I stated earlier I'm not a proponent of AGW but I'm just as skeptical of the antis.
I think you should generally be more skeptical of conspiracy theories, the Al Bore comment is not that meaningful, it's just an example of realpolitik as practised by all politicos of every stripe.

Do you dispute what Al Gore s

Do you dispute that Al Gore said that?  That was the point of RJ's post.  It is unclear why you have brought in the author of the article, unless that author is known to manufacture quotes.

I don't care that Al Bore sai

I don't care that Al Bore said that, as I state it's more a case of politicos and their 'pragmatic' realpolitik and not a redflag for a rather convoluted conspiracy theory.
I referred to Milloy in repsonse RJ specifiaclly and others in this discussion who talked about 'following the money' as a means of understanding this issue Mlloy is a good case of the kind of character we conservatives should disassociate ourselves from. He may not make up quotes - few people do - but, like the manipulators on the left, he's a master of twisting quotes and facts to fit his own agenda.
Beware of false prophets...

Either Gore said it or he did not.

As Dahlia said, Milloy is irrelevant to this argument.   Either Al Gore said it or he did not.  The WSJ, where I got the quote, apparently thinks he did.  Further, Gore's statement and his shlockumentary shows he is willing to go to great lengths, including massive deception, to accomplish his goals.  Since he is one of the main driving forces, if not THE main driving force, in the entire AnthropoIogical Global Warming scheme, it doesn't matter that he is a politican.   On the contrary, his political contacts around the world make it very important.

I don't know what your agenda is, artwhite, but it appears that you're attempting to downplay the underlying worldwide economic goals of Kyoto by dismissing talk about it as foolish "conspiracy theories." 

As for the scientists, we'll just have to disagree.  My own reading shows they have a clear reluctance to back off from positions taken....particularly when there's ego and/or money involved. 

RJ I'm not disputing the vera

RJ I'm not disputing the veracity of the quote just it's importance.
I don't understand why you think I have an agenda. Your accusation would sugest that you are either 1) not really interested in honest inquiry 2) so wise and so well-informed that there can be no possibility of any correction to your settled position 3) simply siding wth your 'team' in a knee jerk fashion.
To think there is a world wide economic plan in play through Kyoto led (and devsied by?) Al Bore is very naive. Firstly just because nations sign protocols doesn't mean they pay any attention to them. And secondly do you really believe that Japan, Switzerland, most of Europe and Russia and the US Democrats secretly led by Al could actually work together on a unified anything.
I think if you were to speak to a memebr of govt, a Wolfowitz or a Gingrich or anyone smart they'd explain to you that things are not so simple.

artwhite, your behavior indicates an agenda

artwhite, it's your behavior that indicates an agenda.  For example, your posts to me and others consistently attack the messenger, a common tactic of the agenda-driven.  Each of your numbered slurs, by the way can be applied to your own arguments.

BTW, anyone who makes a statement like "embarrassing for real conservatives like myself" causes my BS meter to activate.  I'll wait to see if you're a "real conservative" or not.  For now, I have my doubts.

RJ, I apologise that I got ov

RJ, I apologise that I got overly personal, I read back over this converstaion and see that I started off cordially and have become increasingly unpleasant, I guess it's a back to the wall NYC instinct and I do apologise.
However I still fail to see where I have an agenda. I thought I'd stated very clearly that the conflicting scientific opinion leaves me undecided. As all the people I've been corresponding with here over this subject are convinced that AGW is a scam and I find their reasoning and evidence for this scant and inconclusive of course I may come off as a defender of certifiable AGW but I am not, I'm merely asking for us to be more critical of our sources too.

As far as my statement re: "real conservative" I stand by it as I am extremely dissapointed by what seem to me aggressive, childish and shrill language from some contributors that only serves to drive away decent moderate people who would probably learn much from sites like this if they weren't so put off by some of the tone. It's the same reason I cringe at Ann Coulter and admire Richard Perle (even if I don't always agree with him). I used the term real conservative because I believe a huge part of conservatve values are respect for family values (remember there might be kids reading this), decency, honesty and maturity. Let's leave vainglorious aggression and frat humor for the liberals.

I'm a real Conservative and you're not

"I'm a real Conservative and you're not, because you're not good enough to belong to my Conservative Party?"  Pretty Draconian, artwhite.  Sorry, I'm just not buying it.  For me, it smacks of the liberal posters who come here and try to instruct conservatives and NewsBusters how they should behave.  

As for AGW, it's an obvious scam, right from the beginning with the phony Kyoto Treaty.  Some questions:  Why do high level AGW proponents refuse to debate the subject?  If the IPCC is so confident of it's position, then why does it engage in fraudulent reporting and political manuevering?  Why is AGW being so aggressively pursued by the left around the world?   Because it helps with the goals of socialism?   Who are the real players? (and I don't mean the leaders of each country)   

If the environment is the true purpose of Kyoto, then why are China and others allowed to continue pumping massive amounts of pollutants into the air, land and water?  It's been admitted that even if the entire world were to comply with Kyoto, the change would be negligable.   If that's the case, then why the urgency?  Add to that the fact that if the U.S. were to be forced to preciptiously comply with Kyoto, it would probably have a devastating economic effect. 

The questions go on and on...all this and much more have been addressed repeatedly on this site. 

Is there a "conspiracy" in the sense of a cabal that meets to plan the destruction of the U.S.?   Probably not.  But, given the anti-US feelings around the world, it's not so much a stretch to believe many, many groups and organizations would work together when they see the opportunity to force the US to be financially "equalized."  Those who don't accept the realpolitik of that kind of a loose conspiracy are deluding themselves....or they have an agenda.

RJ, thanks for the paraphrasi

RJ, thanks for the paraphrasing but I think you've twisted my sentiment. I didn't know we were such a narrow and insecure church that we can't disagree with the majority view on a subject without being accussed of being a liberal and that we can't talk frankly to each other either for fear of attack. I look at the title of this website and see it contains the ethos 'combating liberal bias' and I take this seriously. If we actually want to combat liberal bias we need to reach out to the moderates and confused swing voters who unfortunately have such an electoral impact not just preach to the choir. As someone who is possibly more moderate than many here I can tell you that aggressive language such as calling on murder even if it's meant to be a joke puts off the very people we need to reach if we're not just to be a self congratulatory society.

To answer your points, I think you put too much stead in Kyoto. These kinds of international treaties are usually mere words on paper and are normally completely ignored by the nation states who sign up. I also think you misread the international community. Playing 'anti-US' for nationalist/patriotic reasons to their own public is one thing but nothing to do with actual policy and most European and other advanced nations are very aware that the US is the engien of the global economy as well as their protectors and don't wish bad for us. The David to Goliath act is just that an act, especially in France. Incidentally the publics of these nations are huge consumers of American goods and culture and many of them vacation here and want to live here. As in the US the European media tends to be very liberal but just as in the US this isn't really reflective of your normal working family. I'd suggest reading the Daily Telegraph newspaper and the Economist magazine from England for a sense of international solidarity.

The Economist is a leftist ra

The Economist is a leftist rag.

A well researched rag, but leftist all the same.  International Solidarity?  Hardly.  Every other cover is a blatant potshot at the United States.

"Too much stead in Kyoto".  Hardly.  We know what it means.  They mean to get into our pockets.  Nothing less.

The Economist is not a leftis

The Economist is not a leftist rag. It's more moderae than it was in the heyday of monetarism in the 80's when it was a staunch Reagan/Tatcher supporter but leftist!

artwhite, the prime goal of "AGW" is a UN

artwhite, my intent was not to call you a liberal.   I was explaining that liberals often come in here and try to tell everyone how they should behave....just as you keep doing.   As I look back on your postings, I don't think I twisted your sentiment at all.  After all, it was you who set up the narrow parameters of a conservative "church", with yourself among the elite.  As for reaching people, can you really believe that everyone must be the same kind of evangelist?   We come with different experiences, temperaments and beliefs.  Good luck trying to usher everyone into safe little rows of pews for "nice conservatives." (P.S. I like Ann Coulter)

As for Kyoto's significance, I refer you again to Gore's words.  Clearly, he believes it has a much larger purpose than "words on paper."  As the man with the bully pulpit, he's been the prime driving force behind pushing the concepts of Kyoto.  Your insistence that all our friends around the world want the U.S. to continue being the "engine of global economy" is (sorry) naive.   The US economy has been the target of leftists for decades.  For example, there are constant international calls for UN enforced taxes that would hit the US hardest.  These calls come from the heads of many governments, including most of those in Europe.  And that brings us to the nub of the entire AGW program.  The prime goal of "AGW" is a UN tax on carbon.  This would open the door to international taxation and rule by the UN.

RJ, whatever you claim your'e

RJ, whatever you claim your'e still slandering me even if you're doing it in a passive -aggressive manner. I make no clam to be in an elite, I merely took one swipe at a childish tag of which content you still haven't actually defended. I'm not trying to tell me people how to think, merely questioning certain statements and beliefs and giving examples to the contrary and I don't want to set up a narrow church in the slightest, please show me clearly where I am and I'll learn something. I'm actually suggesting that this forum is practising a form of narrow churchism (sic) and therefore in danger of being a marginal and fringe voice rather than a force that actually combats liberal bias.
Your'e free to love Ann Coulter, I find her embarassing in her shrillness and looseness with the facts.
Their are leftists in the US, many in governement who have idiotic ideas about economic management but the idea that the US would ever allow itself to be ruled and taxed by the UN is fear-mongering, the UN can't even make us pay our dues! And this was true through the corrupt Clinton admn too. We host these people in NYC, and could shut them down too, and we have a veto over pretty much anything that is proposed, and as 43 showed we dont' need a full UN mandate for anything.

Artwhite, you're patently attempting to revise your

Artwhite, you're patently attempting to rewrite and revise yourself.   You did much more than "merely" taking one swipe at a tag.  You called yourself a "real" conservative and you set up multiple rules for "correct" conservatism.   I've already produced examples, and I don't have the time or inclination to do it yet again.   If you want to review them, go back and read the thread.   Even in this latest post, however, you blatently attempt to define what a mainstream conservative "should" be.   Call it slander if you wish (it's not), but yours is the same behavior practiced by many other liberal posters.  

It's naive of you to believe that the leftists in our government (currently in control of both houses and poised to take over the Presidency) could not endorse a UN tax.  To call that reality "fear mongering" smacks of more agenda-driven rhetoric.

RJ I won't fall for your game

RJ I won't fall for your games. I've done nothing of the sort, merely called out a childish tag for what it is, and I notice you still haven't defended the quote in question! In defending my reasons for calling out this childish tag I did list a few things I believe are conservative values but these are not a complete list or exclusive, they were merely to stand in contrast to 'the childish tag you will not defend'. I regret my use of the term 'real' conservative but I was annoyed when I wrote it. Big deal. Boo-hoo.
I am not trying to define what a mainstream conservative is. I am talking about reaching moderate conservatives and swing voters as I'm not a defeatist as you appear to be who believes that the presidency is lost. I think there is a choice how strongly lucid conservative thought can be conveyed and I happen to think toning down the aggression and highlighting the decency and the rationality is the better route.
If the leftists were so keen to pay a UN tax you'd think they'd pay their UN dues and up the money they pledge to the World Bank and IMF and Unesco etc...the leftists want to bilk us Americans not give the money away so they can't spend it!
So what's my agenda exactly RJ? I'm beginning to think this might be a case of the kettle calling the pot black.