My day job is in that of the "green" and energy businesses. My email inbox is daily filled with messages from NRDC and Sierra Club to Hydrocarbon Processing. (The spiritual and humor emails keep me sane.)
This morning I was 'blessed' to read an editorial by the editor of ENERGY BIZ - and energy industry insider publication telling the industry how to "SOFT SELL" the climate debate. You can read this piece of propaganda - I mean - scholarly editorial here.
This man is held in the highest regard including awards from the WALL STREET ECONOMISTS - an impressive sounding organization that looks like it was formed in the past two years. Anyway - my response:
--------
This morning I was 'blessed' to read an editorial by the editor of ENERGY BIZ - and energy industry insider publication telling the industry how to "SOFT SELL" the climate debate. You can read this piece of propaganda - I mean - scholarly editorial here.
This man is held in the highest regard including awards from the WALL STREET ECONOMISTS - an impressive sounding organization that looks like it was formed in the past two years. Anyway - my response:
--------
Ken Silverstein - Kool Aid Drinker
- Jul 28, 2011 - 9:57 AM
Mr. Silverstein's support for action on 'climate change' could be excused a couple of years ago as many of us 'non-scientists' were trying to sort through the clutter of information overload. When the U.K. censored AN INVCONVENIENT TRUTH unless 9 core claims were corrected however, I would have expected someone named "Top Economics Journalists by Wall Street Economists" to have stopped - like the rest of us - and wondered first HOW so many errors could have been endorsed by the world's leading climate change evangelist and, more importantly asked, "WHAT ELSE was wrong?"
Then - I was curious why a number of leading CLIMATOLOGISTS (not philosphy professors with doctorates as included in the 'concensus' claim) were not adamant to embrace this data such as Richard Lindzen, of MIT. In fact they offered caution.
When, however, emails by the very scientists who drove the IPCC report of globabl warming were discovered to admit that even THEY were disturbed by the lack of actual evidence to support their theory - most rational intelligent people were downright (dare I say it) ...skeptical. That could be why GALLUP reports only 44% of US citizens believe in man made global warming from 71% in 2007.
And yet Mr. Silverstein boldly forges ahead to further weaken our fragile economy with more regulation and onerous tax burden solutions - embracing the need to still 'take action' on climate change. He says,
"But it would be highly irresponsible to disregard what many acclaimed scientists have said."
Really? It is RESPONSIBLE to spend money we don't have on a theory that is so controversial that 1,000 international scientists openly challenge the concept of man made global warming? Most of whom now even question data that there is in fact ANY substantial warming AT ALL?
We wake up to headlines this week that, "Arctic scientist who prompted global warming fears for polar bears -- now under investigation for 'scientific misconduct," and with it a critically reviewed paper that gives substantial evidence that nearly all climate models are seriously flawed. Is it "RESPONSIBLE" to continue to push for a complete restructuring of the world economy and the energy industry?
I have lost all respect for the Wall Street Economists who would give any award to such a person.
On the other hand, when I was offered investment cash for our company based on carbon credits - I declined in the case that indeed, this market was based on sham science. Yes, it cost us investment capital but I felt it was prudent to protect our company and shareholders from later embarrassment. Where is the integrity in either journalsim or the energy industry regarding this?
I spoke to one leading energy executive a month ago who admitted he did not believe that CO2 was in ANY WAY harmful. And yet he freely petitioned the DOE for grant money because 'it was there.' Perhaps Ben Franklin would prounounce the great American experiment over since it was he who prophesied it would only last until we as people discovered we could vote for ourselves funds from the public treasury.
Yes. Most of us agree on the dangers and needed actions on particulate pollution, acid rain and toxin groundwater control. If one does not, i suspect that most of those NOT in the 'green movement' would label those borderline 'evil.' But it is now fair to question the motives of people like this author and the holding company that would continue to allow such irresponsible journalism.
How can you NOT cite even one mainstream climatologist who disagrees with your theory? You even try to "stain" the carbon emission argument by bringing issues such as 'acid rain' into your introductory thought.
Put down the Kool Aid Ken. The responsible thing to do is to either resign - or start being a bit more accurate and balanced in your editorial comments.
