It seems that the global warming conspiracy theories are going as strong
as ever. In particular, there seems to be this guy named Lord Monckton who
seemingly could just as well be named "the Kent Hovind of global warming".
He seems to use all the same tactics and antics. The major difference is
that the US congress is listening to him (even though he's not a scientist,
by his own admission).

  I think this is a superb video series debunking his lectures. The total
running time is a bit long, but it's very informative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

you don't see global warming because you're well protected in your Finnish
igloo. :p

Haha, seems the guy is mocking everyone...

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> ...The major difference is
> that the US congress is listening to him (even though he's not a scientist,
> by his own admission).
>
It's not so much that this guy is actually *swaying* anyone in Congress, rather
it's simply the case that a large number of are legislators are bought and paid
for by corporate interests who are intent on maximizing their profits regardless
of the reality of global warmimg.  These folks are more than willing to exploit
any ol' diversion, misdirection or smoke screen (a genuinely accidental pun)
that becomes available.

Warmest Regards,
(deliberate pun)
MIke C.

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> It's not so much that this guy is actually *swaying* anyone in Congress, rather
> it's simply the case that a large number of are legislators are bought and paid
> for by corporate interests who are intent on maximizing their profits regardless
> of the reality of global warmimg.  These folks are more than willing to exploit
> any ol' diversion, misdirection or smoke screen (a genuinely accidental pun)
> that becomes available.

  I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term. It's
like they are thinking: "Who cares what happens to the world 50 years from
now? It's not like our company will even exist that long." Eh... Many
companies, especially the successful ones, *do* exist decades, even
centuries. Such short-term planning seems counterintuitive to the goal of
a company succeeding big. Big success = company is prosperous for decades.
Short-term planning = company dies when the world dies.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 21/07/2011 18:06, Warp nous fit lire :
> Mike the Elder <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> It's not so much that this guy is actually *swaying* anyone in Congress, rather
>> it's simply the case that a large number of are legislators are bought and paid
>> for by corporate interests who are intent on maximizing their profits regardless
>> of the reality of global warmimg.  These folks are more than willing to exploit
>> any ol' diversion, misdirection or smoke screen (a genuinely accidental pun)
>> that becomes available.
> 
>   I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term. It's
> like they are thinking: "Who cares what happens to the world 50 years from
> now? It's not like our company will even exist that long." Eh... Many
> companies, especially the successful ones, *do* exist decades, even
> centuries. Such short-term planning seems counterintuitive to the goal of
> a company succeeding big. Big success = company is prosperous for decades.
> Short-term planning = company dies when the world dies.
> 
You forget one term: the people at the direction of the big companies
are nowadays playing a game of "get me a better score and I move to the
next company with a bigger raise".

Old companies were made and kept by old sentimental people.
New greedy goldenboys have another scale to measure their success: how
much did you get when selling your company ? (or how much would you...
like facebook: it's worth nothing, AFAIK, yet everybody think it is more
important than a banana-selling company).

And if you are not the owner of the company, the scale turns into: how
much raise can I get soon before swapping job in another big company.

It was a time in which 40 years in a single company was seen as good.
Nowadays, more than 3 years is stated as a failure!
(the failure on the first year is not your fault, it was due to your
predecessor... you have the second year to promote an empty picture as a
wonderful budget win... with a bit of luck, the third year is still ok
and nobody with power has interest in showing the potemkin villages as
what they are, while you move in your successful carrier to the next
company)

The basic of this gymnastic is: come in, a reform is needed, have a
committee study the issues, validate the reform, goes out before the
last part of the reform even reach all.

With enough luck, your reform can even be in progress with 2 previous
reforms and the next one too. Go find a guilty for the mess and good luck.

Post a reply to this message

On 7/21/2011 8:45 AM, Mike the Elder wrote:
> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>> ...The major difference is
>> that the US congress is listening to him (even though he's not a scientist,
>> by his own admission).
>>
> It's not so much that this guy is actually *swaying* anyone in Congress, rather
> it's simply the case that a large number of are legislators are bought and paid
> for by corporate interests who are intent on maximizing their profits regardless
> of the reality of global warmimg.  These folks are more than willing to exploit
> any ol' diversion, misdirection or smoke screen (a genuinely accidental pun)
> that becomes available.
>
> Warmest Regards,
> (deliberate pun)
> MIke C.
>
Doesn't help that we have thinks like Kato, which are bought and paid 
for by the same people, and "do" have scientists (of the sort that sold 
out for lots of money, to lie for the corporate world). Since the 
public, and even a fair number of representatives, don't comprehend why 
corporate paid think tanks are a bad thing, and shouldn't be the "go to" 
people when figuring out what is factual...

Post a reply to this message

On 7/21/2011 9:06, Warp wrote:
>    I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term.

Part of it is taxes. If you get paid in salary, you get like 39% tax rate. 
If you get paid in stock and you leave it sit for a year, you get a 15% tax 
rate. So the top executives ask to take their pay in stock, and then when 
they want to leave the company, they want a giant boost in stock price. This 
is how folks like Warren Buffett manage to pay less tax than their 
secretaries, percentage-wise.

I.e., the future of something long-lived like a corporation is bollixed up 
by the fact that the humans get a pay-out of company performance much 
earlier.  It's simple greed, basically.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:06:13 -0400, Warp wrote:

>  I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term.

That's easy - they're public companies driven by quarterly earnings and 
not much else.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7/21/2011 16:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:06:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>>   I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term.
>
> That's easy - they're public companies driven by quarterly earnings and
> not much else.

Basically. The rich people have gotten so rich that their groups (i.e., 
mutual funds) control most of the stock in most of the medium and large 
companies. And since the mutual funds don't really care if the company is 
around long-term (since there will always be other companies to invest in), 
they're more interested in forcing policies that will make the mutual fund 
look good at the cost of the companies the mutual funds invest in.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:15:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 7/21/2011 16:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:06:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>>   I have always wondered why companies seem to think so short-term.
>>
>> That's easy - they're public companies driven by quarterly earnings and
>> not much else.
> 
> Basically. The rich people have gotten so rich that their groups (i.e.,
> mutual funds) control most of the stock in most of the medium and large
> companies. And since the mutual funds don't really care if the company
> is around long-term (since there will always be other companies to
> invest in), they're more interested in forcing policies that will make
> the mutual fund look good at the cost of the companies the mutual funds
> invest in.

Yup. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message