Another Scientist Switches Sides on Global Warming
By Don | July 23, 2008
Dr. David Evans who helped measure Austrlali's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol has now declared that CO2 emissions aren't causing global warming.
From The Australian.
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Evans makes a strong argument that Al Gore and his followers are wrong on global warming. The problem is that the media loves the Gore message and continues to ignore the facts. If this country goes down a hellhole then Gore will be largely responsible as he leads us to renewable energy doom.
36 Comments | Post a Comment
Renewable energy is a wonderful resource ... a true gift of God. Why not use Solar and wind energy and any other ‘renewable’ energy potential? Why not make every effort to have a gas alterantive! I agree with Mike, it is a good idea “to avoid entanglements with Mid-East oil”. It seems to me that the oil companies must have been behind ‘blocking’ energy alternative research -especially for cars. With all the incredible advances in technology - i can not understand that we don’t have valid and affordable alternatives to gas run moving vehicles. I agree with the article that a lot of the Global Warming scare is false, but continuing to pursue whatever good might come out of renewable energy alternatives - is still extremely commendable. I believe that nuclear energy is NOT on the level of Man ... it is too dangerous—- and for too long! How many thousands of years does it take to have the nuclear ‘waste’ not be harmful anymore? !! We are creating huge waste problems that can not be contained even in our lifetime. And for me this seems a gravely criminil ‘oversite’ and problem, and i can’t understand that no one seems to be interested in this aspect of our energy ‘problem’.
It is no longer Global Warming but Climate Change. The warming cycle has not cooled!
When real facts are uncovered, the wise thing to do is to either accept them or reject them. Only fools reject real facts. So far, there are no facts to support the theory that Global Warming is caused by human activity.
I agree that global warming is a fraudulent pseudo-scientific cult conceived by Al Gore as a means of controlling our lives and money. He has become immensely rich because of this sham. The earth has not warmed since its peak in 1998, and has actually cooled nearly one degree. That’s why the scam artists now call it “climate change” instead of “global warming.”
Conservation is important to all members of society, and America has made tremendous progress in cleaning up our land, air and water over the past two decades. The worst destroyers of the environment are the poorest countries of the world, and until they are able to increase their economies as we have, they will be unable to do their part.
The reason this country has been so successful in increasing the lifestyle and longevity over the past century is the discovery and utilization of oil. Our whole economy is based on manufacture, production of goods, food and services, and delivery of the same using oil. Few people would agree to allowing our economy to collapse to a point where we could no longer build homes, travel for work or pleasure, or buy our needed food and clothing from businesses. There is simply no viable alternative to oil in the near future to replace the amount of energy consumption of a population this size.
Certainly we should be developing every possible form of renewable energy, but over the past few decades special interest groups have denied our country this option. Mainly the environmentalists keep us from building wind farms, water-powered generators, and nuclear plants. These same groups deny us the ability to drill for our own oil and build more refineries.
Democrats in Congress are totally controlled by these lobbyists, which is becoming more and more evident as Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow Congress to pass legislation that will put us on an energy-independent path. She is not at all concerned about the price of gasoline, even if it goes up to $10 a gallon. Of course, as a multi-millionaire, she can afford it, and she has no sympathy for the poor people who vote for her.
Now Congress has the solution - Raise the tax on gasoline by 10 cents a gallon! They should all be thrown out of office. We are so totally doomed if this Democrat domination of our government continues another election cycle.
I agree with Slinkiecat. We need to toss these Democrat obstructionists out like the trash they are. You are right, Pelosi is a multi millionaire who could care less about the hardships she casts upon us, the people. She and the majority in congress are just thieves with a title. We can be sure that she and her cronies are awash in graft and under the table millions funnelling into their pockets. Why else would they be obstructing common sense drilling for our own oil? Their actions only benefit the OPEC bunch and we can be sure they are paying them off.
If you think McCain and most of the Republican establishment are serious about drilling, think again.
Up until very recently, McCain has been opposed to it. I guess being involved in a tight race for the presidency can push anyone to change their career-long positions temporarily.
It worked for Bush when he campaigned that he’d secure our borders. Even in the wake of 9/11, he couldn’t find it in himself to fulfill his campaign promise.
Gas has been high for the past decade, yet I haven’t heard Bush or the rest of the Republican establishment call for drilling during his two terms until very recently during this election,
(and his legacy) year.
When McCain was opposed to drilling, our gasoline cost about $2.50 a gallon. Once it hit $4 and threatened to keep rising, the only intelligent response was to agree that we had to increase the supply to stop the escalation in price. Only an honest leader changes his tactics when the facts change, and then explains clearly why the change is necessary. I can’t fault John McCain for that.
Bush is very wrong on immigration, and his popularity dropped like a bomb because of that. I don’t recall him having promised anything except a great friendship with Mexico, but then that was eight years ago, so you could be right.
Bush has been pushing since 2001 for drilling, and he was ignored by Congress. When Cheney tried to get Congress to pass his energy bill it was discarded by Congress because Cheney actually conferred with the oil companies. I guess they thought he should have talked to toy makers instead. Anyway, since gasoline was still pretty cheap for a long time, no pressure was ever put on Congress to get serious about our energy situation. Now that this is an election year, Nancy Pelosi wants to kick the can down the road and see if the 2009 Congress is interested enough to stand up for the people they represent.
slink:
‘I agree that global warming is a fraudulent pseudo-scientific cult conceived by Al Gore as a means of controlling our lives and money.’
Good God! I hope you’re joking.
can anyone point me to any peer-reviewed work on climate change by Dr. David Evans?
And isn’t a rocket scientist someone who knows rocket science? I’m pretty sure that’s right. I’m also pretty sure he doesn’t.
No, I’m not joking. There is as much published documentary evidence opposing the new religion of AGW as there is in favor of it. Algore, the cult leader, has perpetrated this fraud to enrich himself and get even with the U.S. for defeating his bid for the presidency in 2000.
You might note that Al Gore continues to use hundreds of times more carbon fuel than the average American. Wouldn’t you think that if he actually believed what he says he would start living the way he says the rest of us must? What a hypocrite!
The IPCC is composed only of scientists (very few of which are Climatologists) who signed onto the AGW scam. The disbelievers need not apply. There is no money in research that doesn’t support the claim, only in that which starts with the goal of “proving” it. That makes it a pseudoscience, not a true one. AGW is only a theory, which has evidence to support and to disprove it, which makes it a religion, not a science.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Grand Exaggerator [Patrick J. Michaels]
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzMwNzI1N2FjOWE1ZWNhMzg2MjBlODlhZjFlMTYyNDg
What is it with Al Gore? Why is he compelled to exaggerate climate change (excuse me, “the climate crisis”), and then to propose impossible policy responses? It’s like he’s inventing the Internet all over again!
OK, it’s pretty much standard rhetoric in Washington to say that if you don’t do as I say, there will be massive consequences. But to say, as Gore recently did: “The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk;” and: “The future of human civilization is at stake” — that’s a bit much, even for the most faded and jaded political junkie.
Here’s how Gore works. He’ll cite one scientific finding that shows what he wants, and then ignore other work that provides important context. Here’s a list of his climate exaggerations from his well-publicized July 17 rant, along with a few sobering facts.
Gore: “Scientists . . . have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire [North Polar] ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months.”
Fact: The Arctic Ocean was much warmer than it is now for several millennia after the end of the last ice age. We know this because there are trees buried in the tundra along what is now the arctic shore. Those trees can be dated using standard analytical techniques that have been around for decades. According to Glen MacDonald of UCLA, the trees show that July temperatures could have been 5-13°F warmer from 9,000 to about 3,000 years ago than they were in the mid-20th century. The arctic ice cap had to have disappeared in most summers, and yet the polar bear survived!
Gore: “Our weather sure is getting strange, isn’t it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory. . . .”
Fact: The reason there “seems” to be more tornadoes is because of national coverage by Doppler radar, which can detect storms that were previously missed (not to mention that every backyard tornado winds up on YouTube nowadays). Naturally, the additions are weak ones that might, if lucky, tip over a cow. If there were a true increase in tornadoes, then we would see a definite upswing in severe ones, too. If anything, the historical record indicates a slight negative trend in the frequency of major tornadoes, based upon death statistics.
Gore: “ . . . longer droughts . . . ”
Hogwash. The U.S. drought history, given by the Palmer Drought Severity Index, is readily available and extends back to 1895. There’s not a shred of evidence for “longer droughts” in recent decades. The longest ones were in the 1930s and 1950s, decades before “global warming” became “the climate crisis.”
Gore: “ . . . bigger downpours and record floods . . . ”
It’s true, U.S. annual rainfall has increased about 10 percent (three inches) in the last 100 years. But it’s equally true that this is a net benefit. Temperatures haven’t warmed nearly enough to increase the annual surface evaporation by the same amount, so what has resulted is a wetter country during the growing season. Farmers love this, because most of the nation runs a moisture deficit during the hot summer growing season. Increasing rain cuts that deficit.
Gore: “The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.”
This is likely James Hansen of NASA, Gore’s climate guru. He has written and given sworn testimony that six feet of sea-level rise, caused by the rapid shedding of Greenland’s ice, could happen by 2100. Why didn’t Gore defer instead to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization with at least a few hundred bona fide climate scientists? Its 2007 compendium estimates that the contribution of Greenland’s ice to sea level during this century will be around two inches. Gore also forgot the embarrassing truth that there has been no net change in the planetary surface temperature, as measured both by thermometers and satellites, for the last ten years.
It would be easy to go on, particularly about the preposterousness of Gore’s “solution,” which is to produce all of our electricity from solar, wind and geothermal sources within ten years. I’ll leave that for the energy economists to tear apart.
— Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and an active member of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
07/24 12:00 PM
slink-
I liked it better when I thought you were joking. At least then you could claim to have a sense of humor, albeit not a very well developed one.
“Documentary evidence” opposing AGW matches that supporting it? If that’s even remotely close to the truth (which is unlikely) I’ll wager that if we insist it be peer-reviewed (You know, the kind that the IPCC uses) the numbers change dramatically. And I’m sorry, but if you claim that Gore is trying to get even with the US for defeating his bid for the presidency, you simply sound like a loon. (The US, rather than defeating his bid, ELECTED HIM! So his gripe should solely be with the Supreme Court)
you say “AGW is only a theory, which has evidence to support and disprove it, which makes it a religion not a science.” This indicates that you know nothing about both religion or science.
Sheesh!
Slinkiecat,
I thought it was outrageous that McCain didn’t want to drill when gas was $2.50 a gallon and the times it was up to around $3.25 a gallon during the past 8 years. Conservatives, like myself, were outraged over this, and saw the importance of drilling our own oil, especially considering the price of 99 cent to $1.50 per gallon average during the Clinton years.
McCain has been in the Senate for a long time, and has clearly shown himself to be a RINO who now finds himself in a very close election. He’ll say what he feels he has to say in order to trick the Conservative base.
Besides, how can anyone vote for a candidate who would appear before a racist, anti-American group such as La Raza (The Race)? This type of pandering presents McCain with an aura of weakness and corruption similar to the present administration. We need strong, pro-American (not globalist) leadership during these perilous times and unfortunately, we have no one presently.
Dave,
Any public figure who preaches to us about ‘man-made global warming’, and yet lives the lifestyle of Algore as described by Slinkiecat, is an obvious fraud, not to be taken seriously.
The fact that Gore’s willing accomplices in the
“mainstream media” rarely, if ever, interview scientists who disagree with this theory should be a heads-up to everyone.
Actually, you don’t have to be a scientist to conclude the GW Crises is a fraud. Plain old common sense will bring us to that conclusion. There are also plenty of studies listed on the web site, http://www.schnittshow.com under the title Global Warming.
Of course you don’t have to be a scientist to conclude that global warming is a fraud! The less you know about science, the easier it is to “debunk” it. (And don’t look now boys and girls, but the “studies” that “debunk” global warming have Exxon/Mobil’s fingerprints all over them!)
pizcaj-
There is a big difference between being a hypoctrite and a fraud. Gore may be both, but the only thing we know for SURE is that he is a hypocrite.
As far as drilling goes, it’s the latest and greatest straw man. There is more oil (by FAR) in the places we are already allowed to drill than there is in those places presently protected. Add to that the fact that the US, in the last year, EXPORTED A RECORD AMOUNT OF DOMESTIC OIL, and you can see that the point is moot.
Dave, what are the places where there is more oil in which we are allowed to drill? How was a record amount of domestic oil exported derived? Compared to what?
To whom was it exported?
These are things we really need to know. Thanks, John
Fortunately, McCain has changed his mind as the facts have changed regarding the cost to the American people of dependence on Middle East oil. I hope there are many other areas where he can learn from his conservative base. As on other issues, I have to remind myself that the alternative of not supporting McCain is the unthinkable Obama, who will bankrupt this country with his “No drilling anywhere, no nuclear plants” strategy. McCain is even softening on the issue of ANWR.
However, the issue is filibustered now in Congress, and they intend to drop it instead of voting before the summer recess. The Dems need to be ousted from the government before they turn our economy into chaos.
Yes, McCain has always been a RINO, just as both GW and GHW Bush are. We just have to remember the words of Reagan, that someone who agrees with you 75% of the time is your friend. Obama agrees with conservatives 10% at most. Better elect someone who truly loves this country than one whose loyalty appears to be more to Europe and the rest of the world than to America.
I cannot vote for a third-party candidate and thus be responsible for Obama winning.
BTW, Obama is also addressing La Raza, and has assured himself of their votes.
Certainly, our choices are limited this election, but we can take heart in the younger generation of conservatives who are now building their already impressive resumes and will be ready to take on the national scene after McCain finishes his term of office. Support them vigorously.
Dave,
How can Gore not be a fraud when he doesn’t set an example for the rest of us?
Why would you be happy seeing your standard of living go down while elitists like him continue to use up as much energy as they please?
How can you not be suspicious of someone who doesn’t practice what they adamantly preach over such a long period of time?
If you’re correct about us exporting a record amount of domestic oil last year, how is it that the majority of oil we consume each year is imported?
Whether we have enough oil in the places where we’ve drilled or drill elsewhere in the country, it won’t do much good until we start building refineries.
We have to export a lot of the oil we produce in the U.S. because we lack the refinery capacity to handle it. The Prudhoe Bay oil (Alaska) has to travel by tanker to a refinery, so it costs the oil company a lot less to ship it to the Far East than down to South America.
Likewise, it costs less to buy oil from Canada and Mexico than from the Middle East, because of shipping costs.
The Democrats, including all the NIMBY and environmentalist wackos, refuse to allow us to build new refineries (last one built was in 1976), so in order to have a continual supply of gasoline and other fuels, a lot of it has to be imported to supplement what our own refineries can process.
You are totally right in this, Pizcaj
John- OK I misspoke, we didn’t export a record amount of oil, but rather refined oil (gasoline and diesel)...here’s the blurb from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/07/03/2008-07-03T184028Z_01_N02435397_RTRIDST_0_USA-OIL-EXPORTS-ANALYSIS.html
OF course that Reuters/Forbes nexus could be the next liberal media axis of evil.
pizcaj- maybe I’m just playing with semantics, but I think there is a vast difference between a hypocrite and a fraud.
the issue of drilling in ANWR is a joke. The conservative pundits keep at it for one reason and one reason only: it pisses liberals off. But think about it: who is the ONLY benficiary of OKing the drilling in ANWR? The oil companies! But the joke could be on them. It’ll take over a decade to realize any actual OIL from such an endeavor. At today’s prices, that would very likely make sense, but who knows what the world energy picture will be in 2020? Oil could be irrelevant.
slink-
It’s not oil but the refined product thereof that we are exporting in record quantities, so your point about refineries falters. But speaking of which…the dems and environmental wackos (I love hearing rush’s parrots squawk the same tired bs) have prevented us from building refineries?
This would imply that the dems and environmental wackos have more clout than the oil companies. Surely you’re not suggesting that this is the case?
Thanks for that link! It explains a lot better than I could about things like different grades of fuel that can’t be used (without further treatment or refining) near where it’s produced.
All oil drilled goes into the global market and has to be bid for and transported to the distribution center or refinery. The cost of this transportation has to be included in the final cost to the consumer.
A tanker of oil to be delivered to Florida, perhaps from Brazil, comes in through the Gulf of Mexico to a refinery in Texas and then the gasoline is brought to Florida via truck. It would cost more to buy oil from western Texas because the tanker would have to go down through the Panama Canal and around, when it could be sent to a Central American country more economically.
The point of drilling in ANWR, as well as in other U.S. sites, is to lower the price of gasoline by greatly increasing the global supply. All countries are buying the oil and fuels, and until the supply is doubled the tight market determines a high price.
If the oil in ANWR was easily recoverable I’d be more excited by the prospect. In Iraq, for instance, all you need is a straw! It’s practically “bubblin” up like it did for Jed Clampett. Besides, there are like 500 million barrels in ANWR, while there are 25 BILLION barrels down the road in Prudhoe Bay.
What I find strange is the absolute lack of discussion of conservation. (I’m pretty sure that the word “conserve” is the root for the word “conservative”, although you’d never know it) Things like car-pooling, utilization of mass transit and other measures could help.
Next time you’re on the highway, make a mental note of the number of vehicles with a single occupant.
Dave,
Why would someone constantly, over a long period of time, ring the alarm about some perceived danger we are doing to the environment when he or she is guilty of the same and is unwilling to lead by example?
I can only come to two conclusions about that person
1)He knows that what he’s peddling to us is, indeed, fraudulent and serves as a smoke-screen for some nefarious political agenda.
2)He truly believes in the perils of this issue, but is too weak or elitist to lead by example, and instead, having the rest of society carry the burden of making sacrifices in their lifestyles to avoid a global catastrophe.
If #2 was correct and Algore wasn’t a fraud then he had no business running for President because who would want a weak or elitist person to be in charge.
Wouldn’t you agree with that?
I would never vote for anyone, conservative or liberal with those character flaws - would you?
Also, as a conservative, I’ve got better things to do than think about ways to ‘piss off liberals’. One of them would be supporting and electing politicians who might make this country great again and holding accountable, those such as the Democrat Party and the RINOs who have infested the Republican Party.
If, however,your reference to ‘conservative pundits’ translates into people such as Newt Gingrich and his ilk, calling for ANWR drilling in order to ‘piss of liberals’, I would disagree. They’re simply pandering to the conservative base during a crucial election year.
Sadly, their main campaign slogan is “We can’t let Obama get in!”
Dave, here is one link about environmentalists who control our access to oil, building of refineries, etc.: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229424,00.html
The environmental lobbyists are the biggest special interest group of donaters to Democrat campaigns and organizations in the country. They affect legislation at all levels from local through national. Some of them are even classed as “domestic terrorists” because of their violent attacks on American businesses in the name of “saving the environment”.
This is another field where the government should back off and let the free market work.
If the politicians of both party’s weren’t bought and paid for by lobbyists and special interests, we would have gotten most of our energy the same way France gets most of theirs - Nuclear.
slink-
the environmentalists control nada. their clout, compared to big oil, is zip. You’ll have to do better than a puff piece by the most biased alleged “news” organization of them all.
pizcaj-
I’m not a Gore apologist. I held my nose when I voted for him just as I did with Kerry. But who in their right mind would deny that we did far worse than we would have with either of those two clowns?
I’m one who dropped to my knees and thanked God that Bush defeated both Gore and Kerry. Neither of them were any wiser than the infantile Obama when it came to defending this country from terrorists, and we were attacked a dozen times during the decade before GWB took office, and not once since 9/11, because we had the right man for the job to defend us.
Sure, like every president before him, Bush has made mistakes. Maybe the worst one was trusting the leftover Clinton loyalists to stay in the CIA and Pentagon. Another was his determination to be a “uniter” and reach across to the Democrats in the Senate (Kennedy, for one) and take the fall for letting him write the NCLB education act.
As far as conservation, I believe Bush did far more than Algore ever did about bringing our factories and refineries into compliance, reducing emissions by a large percentage. He also signed bills protecting millions of acres of wetlands that preserve our southern coastline and wildlife preserves. Of course, he gets no credit.
Most people naturally conserve on gas when the price gets to a point when it interferes with their ability to pay their bills. They do carpool to work, combine their shopping trips, walk or bike when the weather permits, and use public transportation when that is convenient. The amount of energy saved is not great nationally, because most of our energy is used in businesses, transporting goods and produce, and of course the airline industry.
slinky say, regarding Gore and Kerry-
‘neither of them were any wiser than the infantile Obama when it came to defending this country from terrorists, and we were attacked a dozen times during the decade before GWB took office, and not once since 9/11, because we had the right man for the job to defend us.’
you do know who was President on 9/11, right? just how did he “defend us”?
Surely you don’t think 9/11 was dreamed up in the few months after GWB took office! Even its mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, admitted that it took over four years to complete the plans, training and infiltration of willing participants to carry out that horrible act.
Don’t forget also that the threat was that al-Qaeda was going to do more terrorist acts on this country in the months after 9/11. Bush’s resolve to retaliate, as well as his beefing up the nation’s security forces, Patriot Act, FISA, and even inspiring Congress to back him, are what have prevented further attacks.
Make no mistake, Gore would have shrugged it off, just like Bill Clinton did after the many attacks during his term. Terrorism fluorishes in the face of weakness but weakens its effect when faced with a strong response. We must never again let our defenses weaken like they did during the 1990s.
Obama intends to reduce our military, our nuclear arsenal and our ability to defend ourselves. He “hopes” the terrorists will do the same.
GWB was pres when 9/11/ occurred. He ignored a PDB that spelled out what was going to happen.He showed his leadership by hanging out with a bunch of schoolkids for a half hour while America was under attack.
Reducing the rights of Americans by snipping away at the Constitution in the name of fighting terrorism is not something to brag about.
Nice try, though.
We need to get back to the issue at hand, that is, the price of gasoline for our vehicles.
I think the source of the increase of the price of a barrel of crude oil is the source of the crude oil:
OPEC and other crude producers. It seems logical that if they can boost the price of their crude with no resulting loss to themselves, then they will do so. After all, they have no real competition. Most of the consumers in the world have no other choices right now. Where else can we go to get oil?
Ultimately, we need to aim for energy independence for our country, whatever it takes.
John- first of all, I agree that energy independence is crucial. If you agree that “whatever it takes” includes CONSERVATION, then we are on the same page.
As far as the price of oil, there is another factor in the market price of crude: TOTALLY UNREGULATED FUTURES SPECULATION.
In 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration (hint: there’s your ammo, Bushies!) legislation was passed which effectively regulated the commodities markets. Exempted from this regulation, as a direct result of heavy lobbying (i.e. $$$$$$) from Enron, were the energy commodities. Many are clamoring for the closure of this so-called “Enron Loophole”. http://www.stopoilspeculators.com/
By the way, we get most of our oil not from the Middle East but from Canada and Mexico.
OK, Dave. Good info. Yes, whatever it takes includes conservation. Whatever makes sense is what needs to be done.
As for speculation, I think that means someone buys a product or commodity at a current or low price, hoping the price will increase somewhere down the line. That is one of the ways to use capital and I don’t see anything wrong with that. If the government puts a limit on speculating, how would that work?
john-
please re-read the info at the site referenced above. Notice how speculators, unfettered, can manipulate the markets. Regulation of speculating is generally a good thing. Look at the history of the formation of the SEC. (seemingly perversely, but ultimately sorta logical, is the fact that Joe Kennedy was the first head of the SEC. Joe was the inventor of green mail among other nefarious things, and one of the nastiest SOBs ever. (which could, of course, bring us to the next thread: are the sins of the father visited on the sons? Hint: YES!)
July 23 at 10:23 am | #1 | Link
If this Earth can rebound from it’s own destructive nature, I have no doubt it will bounce back from our stupidity and careless actions. The REAL argument for renewables and domestic drilling is to avoid entanglements with Mid-East oil. For 40 years the actors in the House and Senate have preached of our dependance on foreign oil yet do nothing to alleviate the situation. To them, this subject is only a talking point to get re-elected.