A Response to Ray (and my other Critics)

stand-up-for-americaBecause of the view that I get of the comments that come into the site, I see what is posted in the order it was posted, not under whatever topic it is posted under. I know that many of you don’t always go back and read the past articles comments looking for new responses, and even if you wanted to, some of them have a long list of comments to look through. The other night I singled out Ray, stating that he “will label me a closet Republican who is serving a secret undercover agenda, possibly with the assistance of Dick Cheney and Sean Hannity”. To be fair, Ray, you have leveled claims somewhat to that effect at me, but I meant it as a joke. I did not mean it maliciously or as a jab at you, so I wanted to say that publicly and hope that you accept my apology if it offended you. But there is more for me to say here…

I take jabs here and there at people on the site. I especially do so at the liberal leaning folks who spar with me here and with Black Flag, simply because he spars with everyone. I want to let people know that I don’t mean it harshly. I take shots at you mostly to lighten the mood. And I take shots at those who I think can handle it well. I have tremendous respect for Black Flag, along with all the liberal leaning folks who come to this site and debate, often against a large amount of opposing viewpoints. And this is certainly true with Ray as well. What I respect about Ray is that he seems willing to listen to all sides and make decisions based on facts, not ideology. I think he is smart and adds much to the discussions. I also think that he is somewhat more harsh on me than is warranted, but that is OK. After all, I ask for the criticism by writing a blog every night and opening myself up to it.

He wrote a reply tonight to the global warming article. I thought about answering it there. But then thought that there was more I could accomplish in terms of site improvement and getting publicity to the discussion by making it a post of its own. So I am going to paste the reply from Ray below in maroon and answer its points from my point of view. I will delete NOTHING from what Ray wrote, although I may not answer all of it. I will then add some questions for everyone at the end. So from Ray:

“Ok – so teach this pig how to sing”. I’ll offer this evening some hopefully level-headed criticism of this overall post and the prevailing sentiment of most of the USWeaponotrons (Nice… I have followers?!?) herein.

(1) I am not convinced that Global Warming / Climate Change is either non-existent as most all conservatives claim or as pervasive as the far right claims. There is ample science, lack of science, politics and drivers to support each side – missing as I pointed out earlier is objective thought un-colored by political leaning.

I agree Ray. There are lots of sources out there and we can all find what we need to support the side that we believe. I think that the bottom line for me is that this means that there is no consensus. And yet, regardless of this consensus, we are forging ahead with possibly catastrophic plans that can harm us economically and which give further control to a government that has not proven itself capable of showing any restraint in terms of not taking whatever power it is granted and abusing it.

Perhaps I am naive and am asking for something I will never get. I stand by what I said earlier – if we at least know excessive burning of fossil fuels is bad but cannot prove perhaps that global warming even exists or is sourced to fossil burning does that mean we do absolutely nothing? I’m concerned that debate is beyond the ‘we have an answer’ point – where there is scientific consensus. Blogs like this clearly show where some folks reside in that equation – I find that as disappointing as someone who believes we upend everything right now and go even further up the creek w/o a paddle.

No it does not mean that we do nothing at all. But it certainly does not mean that we take the route of calling it a world crisis and inserting one of the most expansive frauds (carbon credits) ever perpetrated by a government on its people into LAW under the guise of being an answer to that crisis. My problem is not that people are making the claims, or that debate happens, or that we look for a way to find better energy sources, or anything of the sort. And I certainly don’t think that we do “nothing”.

But this is being presented to the American people, by the United States government, as a bona-fide fact, and as a bona-fide crisis. And then using that premise that it is a “crisis”, which even you are saying may or may not be true, we are passing bills that have long lasting effects and could possibly damage our economy with a speed that is blinding. If we do not have a consensus, even in the scientific community where there are growing numbers of skeptics, then I submit that we need to slow down, stop yelling “crisis”, and start having an honest debate. But the US government doesn’t seem to be interested in getting it right, they only seem to be interested in getting it right now. Doesn’t that set off your alarms even a little bit? Doesn’t it make you wonder why, even in the face of such divided opinion on the subject in the scientific community, Congress is screaming “crisis” and passing bills that they don’t take time to read? That they don’t allow the citizens of the country to read and voice an opinion on?

It should concern us that while our government cries “crisis” and passes bills with amazing speed, the rest of the world seems to be taking a different stance on the issue:

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

(2) I have a beef. So we have this 1300 page “American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009″. Okay – I don’t have a lot of time to read this – so – in need of objective analysis of the bill where do I go? This USW posting has gone to great length to source an Op Ed piece from the WSJ and a summary piece from Fox News – both of which source to the Heritage Foundation “study” or a general poo poo on the CBO report. Sorry – that doesn’t cut it folks – for all you that nodded in unison – shame on you. Should I start using Krugman and Friedman Op pieces and pass them off as fact? Would you call b.s. on me? Probably. I like Krugman and Friedman and have read both extensively – I’m not ready to pass sainthood on to them. Anyway – to show that I am try to be objective I searched and search and could not find Lieberman’s work that is used so heavily by conservatives to attack the American Clean Energy And Security Act. I found summaries and some other short snippets. When I read in the WSJ the following:

“When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four.”

Comprehensive? Says who? Ben Lieberman (the author)? If you can find his work, please share it with me, otherwise, please offer to me how you are able to support a contrary stance to the Clean Energy Act. FTR – I think at a high level that even this Act if far reaching to offer that it will cure Global Warming. Even existing Green legislation in the EU seems to have the jury out on net effect which I find very interesting (http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/02/11/eu-carbon-trading-not-cutting-carbon/). For the record, I don’t consider the Taxpayer Alliance any more objective than the Heritage Foundation, the Huffington Post, the WSJ or the NYT.

Links at Heritage where I looked but could not find the details of what everyone is pointing to as “LOOK – PROOF THAT CAP AND TRADE WILL NOT WORK”:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062609a.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2504.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2503.cfm

If you can find the details let me know. For me – jury is still out.

I looked for a place ot cut into what you were writing there and figured it was better for me to just come in at the end. Let me first address your comments that what I am offering is not a full and honest account of all the facts. You are correct in noting this. But that, sir, is not what I am here to do. I did not start this blog to offer all the facts on every issue and offer an “objective analysis” on everything. There is lots of research out there for people to find. And I sincerely hope that people are doing so. I have done so before, but allow me to again state what I am doing here:

I write a political blog. It is a political blog that states my opinions and my positions on today’s issues that are out there in the public forums. I do not claim to be objective. I do not claim to be unbiased. I do not claim to offer some sort of “inarguable truth”. I offer what I think. I have given my word to everyone reading this site that I will be as honest as I can be with whatever I offer here. What that means to me is that I don’t have an agenda. I offer the truth as I see it and nothing else. Is it my opinion? Absolutely. If there were any of these issues that could be settled with one article stating all the facts here on my site, I would be the most read blog on the planet. But that cannot be done. All I can do is offer my view on things and open the floor for debate.

A month or two ago, it was you who challenged me by stating that my articles were nothing but my opinion. You said that they offered nothing to back up my opinion. So I have endeavored to do even more research into the articles that I present. I have endeavored to be even more well read, well researched, and forthright with what I find out there. So I write the articles based on what I believe to be true based on all the stuff that I read and based on the things that I know. Do I know more than everyone else? No, unfortunately I do not. I know more than some, but not as much as others. But I put what I know out there. I offer a viewpoint from me. And in the end, what I hope that people get is an education. They learn more from reading here than they would by not doing so, regardless of the issue or the stance. An educated American voter is the desired end state for me.

And what I try to offer as the unique draw to my site is the opportunity for those who disagree with my opinion to debate the subjects without the ridicule and nastiness that exists on most political blogs. I offer links to information, and welcome links to other information that contradicts what I have presented. I present what I know. I then give everyone who chooses to read it the opportunity to do the same in a respectful and honest forum. I do not censor opposing points of view. In fact, I offer every Friday night the opportunity for anyone else to write an article that offers their view on a subject regardless of what I believe. I collected a readership and continue to try to increase it, and offer EVERYONE the opportunity to use the readers I collect as an audience to express what they believe.

Now apply all of this to the particular subject you are writing about here. I offer my opinion of cap and trade and of man made global warming. I offer some links to things that I have read that make me think the things that I think about these subjects. That includes the Heritage Foundation report as reported in the Wall Street Journal article. So while you don’t like my sources, I include them anyway so that people can read what I have read. They are then free, as you have done, to read them and form their own opinions. And they are free, as you have done, to read them and come back and say they are wrong. Most importantly, they are free to go out to the giant world of the internet, and find information that contradicts or negates my information and present it here to show me and the other readers here where I am wrong. And I welcome that. Because if I am wrong I want to know it.

But I don’t have time to go out and read the entire internet. I did the same research you did on the Heritage study. I even emailed that author and asked him if it was possible to get a copy of the actual study. If he sends it to me I will read it and post it here so that others can do the same. You probably read Lieberman’s biography. It states “He has testified before Congress on several occasions and appeared on news programs on NBC, CBS, FOX, CNBC and MSNBC. His commentaries have been published in major newspapers, including the Baltimore Sun, Chicago Sun-Times, Detroit News, Washington Times, Houston Chronicle, Miami Herald, Orange County Register and San Diego Union-Tribune, as well as magazines and journals such as Forbes, BusinessWeek, National Review, the American Spectator and the Weekly Standard.” Does that mean he is not biased? No. But it does paint a picture of a man who has considerable expertise in the area. Congress certainly thinks so at least. And so do most of the major media outlets. We can simply discount his information because he worked for the Heritage Foundation when he wrote this, but I didn’t. On the same token I don’t discount Krugman because of who he works for. He is a smart guy who I sometimes agree with and sometimes disagree with.

But keep in mind that I write 4 or 5 articles a week. And they are usually on different topics every night. Some of them are easy to research, but others are not. Global warming is a massive subject. I have literally read thousands of articles and studies over the course of the last ten years on this one subject alone. And that still leaves millions that I have not read. Can you imagine me posting links to everything I have ever read at the end of an article? How many of them would you click on and read? How many more hours a night would I spend adding just those links? The point is that I do a lot of research, and I read a lot of stuff. And then when I write, I offer my opinions based on all of that. My readers have come to trust that I don’t have an agenda, and therefore will offer my honest opinion based on what I have learned. So they continue to come here and read and debate because they know this is a safe place to do so.

I don’t think it is fair of you simply write off everyone here as “USWeaponatrons”. This is one of the most intelligent groups of readers that I have ever seen on a blog. And it seems to me that they almost all are willing to take what I offer as my opinion, and then add what they think, what they believe, and what they have learned. Are there a few that take what I say as gospel? Maybe, I don’t know. But perhaps you don’t notice how often I get disagreed with as much as I notice it. And I think that you perhaps unfairly assume that they don’t do as much research, reading, or critical thinking as you do. I think that many of them do. Just because they end up feeling similarly to the way I do in the end doesn’t mean that they did so because they blindly accepted what I say.

So there is my rebuttal to Ray. But it leaves me with a few questions for everyone who reads this site.

  1. Are people under the impression that I am trying to slant information in my favor to make me seem right?
  2. Does anyone feel that I make it difficult for diverse opinion to be voiced on this site or that I allow those with differing opinions to get more or less respect or protection than others?
  3. Do any of you feel that the things that I offer are dishonest or intentionally meant to lead someone astray?
  4. What would you like to see me doing more or less of in order to make the site better and therefore attract more readers?


Advertisements

Comments

  1. Good Morning USW.
    Speaking strictly for myself, no, no, no and I appreciate your passion on all subjects. (Thanks to Mrs. USW for her support of you as well).

  2. USW,

    1. MHO, you present your articles in an open manner. You do not claim to be free from bias, just objective. You ask for opposing opinions, which you do consider.

    2. I suspect we have so few left leaning followers here due to you readers being mostly conservative(myself included ) and their responses to liberal talking points. I was harsh to Chris D. when he stated concerning welfare, we should support people who are unwilling to support themselves. So many conservative responses directed at a few liberals is likely intimidating. I have found some things I can agree with Ray on, and many we likely never will. Global warming might be one where we could reach accord. I do not claim the issue is settled. I would welcome reducing our fossil fuel usage. The question is how to do this. Cap & trade does not attempt to solve this, just taxes all energy users, with rebates to the poor. So its not about reducing fossil fuel use.

    What I see happening here, Ray has taken all of our responses to mean we feel the debate is over, Global Warming does not exist except as a hoax. My thoughts
    are the debate is not over, but stop passing taxation legislation hidden under some “save the world” BS. You want to reduce fossil fuel use? Fasttrack nuclear, natural gas, solar and wind energy. That means fighting the environmentalists.

    “the prevailing sentiment of most of the USWeaponotrons” I may be a follower, but it is because I have gotten to a similar viewpoint as US, but by a different path. How about a little respect Ray, I did my own research on warming, the numbers quoted were not something I made up, or that US emailed to me to post. There were hours spent finding that information, which I did it for myself, because I wanted to know the truth. I think that is a trait most who post here have in common, even Ray and Chris.

    3.NO
    4. I like the site as is, not sure many liberals will ever post here.

  3. Ray Hawkins says:

    “(1) I am not convinced that Global Warming / Climate Change is either non-existent as most all conservatives claim or as pervasive as the far right claims. There is ample science, lack of science, politics and drivers to support each side – missing as I pointed out earlier is objective thought un-colored by political leaning.

    I agree Ray. There are lots of sources out there and we can all find what we need to support the side that we believe. I think that the bottom line for me is that this means that there is no consensus. And yet, regardless of this consensus, we are forging ahead with possibly catastrophic plans that can harm us economically and which give further control to a government that has not proven itself capable of showing any restraint in terms of not taking whatever power it is granted and abusing it.”

    – So it appears we somewhat agree here. Key word you offer is “possibly” – I am not convinced that the Clean Energy bill will be wholly positive or wholly negative. It would seem to me that something this long & far reaching would have far more baking done on it than what it has. I am furious that our legislators do not possess at least enough intellectual curiosity to ask the hard questions if this is the right thing to do or not.

    On the Global Warming debate – please understand I am not taking pot shots at you and the others here (If I have – please accept my apology). What am I pissed about?

    – A lack of consensus. Maybe there is too much ‘we don’t know what we don’t know’ still out there. Personally, I think there is a kernel of truth to the notion that what we have wrought is having SOME effect – it is not clear to me what that is. I read “Hot, Flat and Crowded” and enjoyed it – but it also left more open questions on many of Friedman’s analysis and assertions. Then I realized – duh – well he has an agenda to.

    – I’m pissed about notions that for something this potentially complex, the pendulum is seen to rest on only one extreme or the other (sorry – I am a left leaning moderate). Either the world is coming to an end or we need to drill more, drill now, drill everywhere. It should be obvious that a man-made machine that emits less toxic chemicals (or lower quantities of otherwise harmless chems but in large quantities are bad) is a good thing – but the economics of it don’t make sense. Since the economics do not support it, it becomes easy then to dismiss it (or if you support it you’re labeled in very ugly ways by the far right).

    On sources. Lieberman, etc

    – Look – I have said before that ‘its your blog, do as you wish’. I would not have known you were pursuing the same data (Liebermans’) as I until you just offered. I’d only push back then and say – wow – more power to you that you can offer an opinion knowing that you’re resting it on the opinion of others and not necessarily the data. What I struggle with is the idea that I cannot always read source information either – there is not enough time in the day. This leaves one with limited choices to which you must decide what do you place faith in and feel you can trust. You trust Heritage – fair enough. Just know that will always leave a door open for debate (good thing eh?).

    – As for Lieberman as an SME? Well – SME gets thrown around a lot these days. People make careers out of getting quoted, testifying before Congress, making speeches, etc. Are they media whores or SMEs or both? I used to work for a guy that could tell you fairly accurately how many Google hits come up on his name (he is a frequently quoted SME in my field). Is he truly an SME or just another narcissistic asshole that feels his opinion is the right one and only one? The guy I worked for – he was smart and had good insight – but he’d more than happy to stick his foot in his mouth once every 20 interviews if that meant the interviews and Google hits kept coming. And yes – I know these same folks abound on the left.

    So………..keep writing. I at least know that you put serious effort into this and I can debate on somewhat solid/equal ground.

    For anyone else following this thread – USW and I first met over 20 years ago in the same quircky, quite conservative little town (same place Chris actually lived as well).

  4. Bama dad says:

    Good morning USW
    1. No. I came here as a far right guy who is now a more middle of the road independent. Debate by everyone here is a learning experience. I disagree with some of your opinions, a lot less now than 5 months ago. Your information causes me to think, and research the things I believe in. I’ve left the far right sheeple herd.
    2. No. We need more differing opinions. Sometimes folks get a little testy with each other, but we have been in some areas that carry charged emotions.
    3. NO.
    4. I do not know. I like what you currently do.

    • I am more inline with you BamaDad, was far more right leaning before I came to this site than I am now. I’ve learned to read a lot more, trust few and form my own opinions.

      I appreciate the dialogue and would love to hear from more left leaning sheeple, uh I mean people.

  5. Ray Hawkins says:

    FTR my reference to USWeaponatrons was in jest – coming from a guy who seemingly is seen as a sheeple or Obamatron by most of the readers herein. Don’t like the push back then don’t push. Let me make fun of myself thank you very much.

    I do know that most here either do extensive look up (albeit from biased sources from time to time) or have powerful experiences to share – this is much I way I don’t jump into every fray – its usually because I am reading and learning and challenging my own thinking.

  6. Good morning everyone.

    The answers to the first 3 for me is no. As for the the 4th, I don’t think you need to do anything to make changes here. After all, isn’t the soul reason to be on this site, is to have debates with each other, and to be able to speak your mind without someone calling you stupid or a moron for speaking your mind and what you think. I rather enjoy being here and chatting with others and to be able to see the other side of things, and what the other person thinks or feels. For me, it depends on what the subject of the day is, and if I have anything worth while to say on that particular subject at hand. If I don’t have any answers or can’t back up what I say, then I keep my mouth shut. But most of the time, I will chime in with my opinion. I respect everybody here and value their opinions, even if I might not agree. I like this web site and look forward to USW daily articles, and it’s the first place I head to when I turn on my computer.

    Hope all will have a pleasant day.

    Judy

  7. JayDickB says:

    USW and Ray both touched on this a bit – many people seem to want to avoid real scientific debate on this issue. I have seen this more among the global warming evangelists than among the naysayers, but there are probably examples of both. If USW and others on this blog can help unravel the competing scientific claims even a little, that would be an enormous achievement.

    I really get steamed (pun intended) when the global warming types run around saying that the scientific debate is over and anyone who disagrees can’t possibly be a real scientist. People like that are obviously not very confident in their arguments.

  8. USW, you do a fabulous job of maintaining a respectful venue where people from all sorts of backgrounds feel comfortable in voicing their opinions. I know that writing this blog takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and dedication. The fact that you have built up such a loyal readership speaks volumes. And an intelligent readership it is. I am proud of you all, and glad to know that you are out there.

    As far as your questions 1) No 2) No 3) No.

    My suggestion would be to offer up ideas for how folks can really effect change. This is meant with no disrespect to anyone, as I don’t know anybody else’s circumstances, but if I took the time to comment repeatedly each day on any blog, then that is that much less time available to me to build an army and put it into action. Effecting change one bill at a time in our state as the legislators try to screw the taxpayers again, organizing the myriad like-minded but fragmented coalitions, raising funds, media contacts, etc. This is a job that requires everyone to participate in some way, whether it is just making calls, or meeting with mucky-mucks; everyone, rich, poor, young, old, needs to take action. I know many of you probably do something to participate in your communities, and I hope that you continue to do so. But I have found that by and large, folks don’t really know what to do. They WANT to do something, but need someone to point them in the right direction. That’s what I would like to see more of, USW. Simple boots on the ground action plans. I’m not talking big stuff, like changing our form of government. I’m talking about things that people can relate to in their own communities and things that effect their lives right now which they can work to change. We need to build a farm team before we can win the World Series.

  9. Black Flag says:

    I am, perhaps, one of the few here on the blog who has actually done work in the “Global Warming” field.

    Recently I am a reviewer on a handful of scientific papers on the measurements of Co2 in the atmosphere and in ice cores as well as my own research over the last 10 years or so.

    One of my first experiences with “Climate Change” was participating in experiments of aircraft seeding clouds with dry ice and iodine way back in the summers of 1977-1978.

    The research materials I have fill about 30 legal storage boxes in my basement.

    I appreciate that neither USWep nor most on this blog are organized to do the basic research in mathematics, statistics, physics and chemistry (with a dab or two of biology) necessary to even approach this subject competently.

    And that is the problem.

    The subject is scientific – and it has been pushed into the realm of politics in such a way that the average Joe is bombarded with a mix of fact and myth so to befuddle him. Average Joe simply has no tools capable of discerning the difference.

    His common sense is being called into question by those with a political agenda:

    His common sense:
    – winter kills, summer lives —- but cold is good and warm is bad???

    – the weather man can’t predict rain in the next hour, but climatologists can predict the weather 100 years from now?

    – the measurement of temperature at this very moment is all a ‘it depends’; is it in the sun or shade, on grass or on concrete, 10 feet up or ground level, morning or at night – yet we know what the temperature of Houston 100 years ago with certainty?

    – the sun makes all weather, but the man influence is bigger than the sun?

    – environmentalism is the same as conservationist is the same as anti-pollution, right?

    and so on and so on.

    Average Joe finds himself wading in gobbledygook. He is then told to trust the experts – predictably totted out by the government.

    And these government experts, with no surprise, call for more taxes and more restrictions on Average Joe.

    Fortunately, Average Joe can smell a rat. Will he do something about it? (Shrug)

    So, my mantra for the Average Joe – if the solution to a problem is government, you know something is wrong with 1) the problem and 2) the solution.

    And the last bit of advice on this topic (or any topic):
    If you do not understand the arguments, then stop worrying about it.

    Don’t worry about that which you do not understand.

    Work to understand anything you feel is worth worrying about.

    To Ray:

    Personally, I think there is a kernel of truth to the notion that what we have wrought is having SOME effect – it is not clear to me what that is.

    If you spit in the ocean, you can claim you’ve raised the sea level. If 8×10^320 molecules of water + 1X10^10 are added, there are more water molecules than before you spit.

    But tell me Ray of its significance in the face of nature, which is adding by a plethora of methods (rain, rivers, melting, etc.) and subtracting (evaporation, freezing, etc.) with an effect millions of times more significant.

    The notion of Zero-tolerance is bizarre. An old quote: “It is the measure that makes the poison”.

    Find the significance first. Don’t get confused by big numbers. You personally produce thousands of pounds of Co2. WOW! …. or is it?

    – I’m pissed about notions that for something this potentially complex, the pendulum is seen to rest on only one extreme or the other (sorry – I am a left leaning moderate). Either the world is coming to an end or we need to drill more, drill now, drill everywhere. It should be obvious that a man-made machine that emits less toxic chemicals (or lower quantities of otherwise harmless chems but in large quantities are bad) is a good thing – but the economics of it don’t make sense. Since the economics do not support it, it becomes easy then to dismiss it (or if you support it you’re labeled in very ugly ways by the far right).

    Economics is the measure of ALL THINGS VALUABLE TO HUMANS.

    If it does not make economic sense – this means it is not valuable to people.

    Also remember, all life pollutes. All you can do is change the type of pollution and/or its location.

    Don’t fall into the mindset that there exists some “non-polluting” source of energy.

    • BF Said: “If you do not understand the arguments, then stop worrying about it.

      Don’t worry about that which you do not understand.

      Work to understand anything you feel is worth worrying about.”

      Great advice – thanks BF!

    • JayDickB says:

      BF – Right on the money. The debate is now mostly political when it should be scientific. For quite a while now, I have been smelling the same scent you describe, rat. And that scent comes through clearly, even with a weak smeller.

    • Black Flag says:

      Polar bear expert barred by global warmists

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

      The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.

      Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”.

  10. 1. Are people under the impression that I am trying to slant information in my favor to make me seem right? – I’m not.

    2. Does anyone feel that I make it difficult for diverse opinion to be voiced on this site or that I allow those with differing opinions to get more or less respect or protection than others? – I really don’t think so.

    3. Do any of you feel that the things that I offer are dishonest or intentionally meant to lead someone astray? – No.

    4. What would you like to see me doing more or less of in order to make the site better and therefore attract more readers? – It seems to me that you are doing just fine, and I don’t see any need for “improvement” to draw more readership(just wish I had some of your talent so I could get more readers to my site – not your readers specifically, just more in general).

  11. USW, I told a friend of mine to check out your site and to let me know what he thinks of it, but it looks like he hasn’t done so yet, and I’m hoping he’ll jump on here soon. He has very strong ideas and opinions about things and is very informative about the things in which he speaks. I told him how informative you are with all the articles you write up on here, and that everyone has the right to their opinion and speak their mind without being bullied or called names here. I also told him that everyone here has respect for each other and are decent to one another and can have debates without any derogatory words or put each other down. Just thought I would let you know that I’m trying to get another person to join your site.

  12. Amazed1 says:

    Well USW….my personal answers are No, No & No. The forth is I think you do very well. I think maybe that some of the people on this site are soooo smart that it actualy scares other writers, they ome to read but the don’t write. Your readership maye alot bigger than you think.
    I think part of the global warming problem i the US trying to uphold to other countries ideals…kinda of look I am upholding my end of the bargin. Do humans have an impact on the world as a whole the answer to that is yes….if you don’t believe it try watching some film on the smog belts of the 60’s…they were horrible, hurt your lungs, made it difficult to breath and hide the sun.
    I think the key to change is not taxes but to put the available equipment out there for folks to buy at a reasonable price that actually work. A car that only travels 60 miles on a charge is good for people who just drive around town but is horrible for a farmer that drives 60 miles to pick up feed. Solar panels are great if the cost of the panel was less than the benefit and right now they are not. I would hate to depend on a solar panel if I lived in Great Lakes Il with 5 foot of snow on the ground. Some things just are not practical. Taxing people and making them pay for using the old way is not really fair if it won’t work for them.
    The key is like everything else……make the benefit out weigh the cost and everyone will jump on the band wagon eventually. Tax people, give them horrible inefficent products and they will not change.

    • Amazed1 says:

      I hate this wore out computer where the keys don’t type half the time…sorry folks.

      • Judy S. says:

        Amazed1

        Hey, don’t worry about it, I just read between the letters to know what you’re saying. My problem is, I think I try to type too fast, and I leave letters out. Either that, or I just don’t know how to spell too well.

        Have a good night Amazed.

        Judy

        • Amazed1 says:

          LOL….I have been guilty of that….but if I don’t pay attention the keys on my old computer do not work to well….when I get excited my mind works faster than my fingers.

  13. You might want to read this: E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming

    This doesn’t PROVE anything, of course, but it still contributes to the pattern.

  14. A site I just stumble onto posted this,

    Over the last hour Stumble Upon has been single handedly responsible for nearly 800 hits to this site. I have only recently begun to use Stumble to try and get traffic, but so far it is fantastic!

    I am a long time user of the famous Stumble button to browse the internet, and have yet to find anything online even remotely close in terms of fun. Here’s the stats for this site in the last hour or so.

  15. Mike M. Houston Texas says:

    I can only say that this site is open to many and varied opionions. Some I agree with and others I do not but I am open to having them shared. However I have not seen anyone threatened to be removed, have their postings limited, or be told to go to a site whose opionions already agree with your position. I am very passionate about my positions on issues as is USW. Some people dont know how to take that. Passion does not equal authoritarian. I will always believe my position on any issue is more right than wrong. There are very few absolutes.

    This site is refreshing in that it is open and not closed minded like so many others. Either take what you get here as food for thought or dont.

%d bloggers like this: