| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
03 Apr 2007 07:20:35 PM |
| Object: |
Naturalism |
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley Jr.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming
outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable
columnist (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times) opened his essay
last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this
administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House
official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty
of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the
culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the
administration, and on leaving it he took a job with ExxonMobil.
For those with addled reflexes, here is the story compressed: (1)
Anyone who speaks discriminatingly about global warming is conspiring
to belittle the threat. Such people end up (2) working for ExxonMobil,
a perpetrator of the great threat the malefactor sought to distract us
from.
I'd guess that, in the current mood, I should enter the datum that my
father was in the oil business. But having done that, I think it fair
to ask: Are we invited to assume that anyone who works in a business
that generates greenhouse gases (a) is complicit in the global-warming
problem, and (b) should resign and seek work elsewhere? One recalls
the plant in Nazi Germany that manufactured the toxic gas Zyklon B.
The primary use of this gas was in the extermination camps, whose
masters were looking for efficient ways to destroy human beings. Is
the community engaged in oil production the contemporary equivalent of
the makers of Zyklon B?
Critics are correct in insisting that human enterprises have an effect
on climate. What they cannot at this point do is specify exactly how
great the damage is, nor how much relief would be effected by specific
acts of natural propitiation.
The whole business is eerily religious in feel. Back in the 15th
century, the question was: Do you believe in Christ? It was required
in Spain by the Inquisition that the answer should be affirmative,
leaving to one side subsidiary specifications.
It is required today to believe that carbon-dioxide emissions threaten
the basic ecological balance. The assumption then is that inasmuch as
a large proportion of the damage is man-made, man-made solutions are
necessary. But it is easy to see, right away, that there is a problem
in devising appropriate solutions, and in allocating responsibility
for them.
To speak in very general terms, the United States is easily the
principal offender, given the size of our country and the intensity of
our use of fossil-fuel energy. But even accepting the high per-capita
rate of consumption in the United States, we face the terrible
inadequacy of ameliorative resources. If the USA were (we are dealing
in hypotheses) to eliminate the use of oil or gas for power, would
that forfeiture be decisive?
Well, no. It would produce about 23 percent global relief, and at a
devastating cost to our economy.
As a practical matter, what have modern states undertaken with a view
to diminishing greenhouse gases? The answer is: Not very much. What is
being done gives off a kind of satisfaction, of the kind felt back
then when prayers were recited as apostates were led to the stake to
be burned. If you levied a 100 percent surtax on gasoline in the
United States, you would certainly reduce the use of it, but the
arbiter is there to say: What is a complementary sacrifice we can then
expect from India and China? China will soon overtake the United
States in the production of greenhouse gases.
At Kyoto, an effort was made ten years ago to allocate proportional
reductions nation by nation. The United States almost uniquely
declined to subscribe to the Kyoto protocols. Canada, Japan, and the
countries of Western Europe subscribed, but some have already fallen
short of their goals, and all of them are skeptical about the prospect
of making future scheduled reductions. It is estimated that if the
United States had subscribed to Kyoto, it would have cost us $100
billion to $400 billion per year.
There is, now and then, offsetting good news. The next report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we have learned,
will be less pessimistic than earlier reports. It will predict, e.g.,
a sea-level increase of up to 23 inches by the end of the century,
substantially better than earlier IPCC predictions of 29 inches — and
light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President
Al Gore.
Meanwhile, the Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg said something
outside the hearing of the outraged columnist. He noted solemnly that
any increase in heat-related deaths should be balanced against the
corresponding decrease in cold-related deaths. ... We need hope, and
self-confidence.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Naturalism |
04 Apr 2007 03:34:26 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:64r513t4shb9s2u5rnparqkmotfqg8imv8@4ax.com...
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley Jr.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming
outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable
columnist (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times) opened his essay
last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this
administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House
official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty
of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the
culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the
administration, and on leaving it he took a job with ExxonMobil.
For those with addled reflexes, here is the story compressed: (1)
Anyone who speaks discriminatingly about global warming is conspiring
to belittle the threat. Such people end up (2) working for ExxonMobil,
a perpetrator of the great threat the malefactor sought to distract us
from.
A biased person edited a report.
Period.
The rest is irrelevant rambling.
Why doesn't he write two columns instead of combining them?
Nazis? The Inquisition? China? Danish statisticians?
An old man exercising his learning in a desperate attempt to stop forgetting
it.
Irrelevant.
I'd guess that, in the current mood, I should enter the datum that my
father was in the oil business. But having done that, I think it fair
to ask: Are we invited to assume that anyone who works in a business
that generates greenhouse gases (a) is complicit in the global-warming
problem, and (b) should resign and seek work elsewhere? One recalls
the plant in Nazi Germany that manufactured the toxic gas Zyklon B.
The primary use of this gas was in the extermination camps, whose
masters were looking for efficient ways to destroy human beings. Is
the community engaged in oil production the contemporary equivalent of
the makers of Zyklon B?
Critics are correct in insisting that human enterprises have an effect
on climate. What they cannot at this point do is specify exactly how
great the damage is, nor how much relief would be effected by specific
acts of natural propitiation.
The whole business is eerily religious in feel. Back in the 15th
century, the question was: Do you believe in Christ? It was required
in Spain by the Inquisition that the answer should be affirmative,
leaving to one side subsidiary specifications.
It is required today to believe that carbon-dioxide emissions threaten
the basic ecological balance. The assumption then is that inasmuch as
a large proportion of the damage is man-made, man-made solutions are
necessary. But it is easy to see, right away, that there is a problem
in devising appropriate solutions, and in allocating responsibility
for them.
To speak in very general terms, the United States is easily the
principal offender, given the size of our country and the intensity of
our use of fossil-fuel energy. But even accepting the high per-capita
rate of consumption in the United States, we face the terrible
inadequacy of ameliorative resources. If the USA were (we are dealing
in hypotheses) to eliminate the use of oil or gas for power, would
that forfeiture be decisive?
Well, no. It would produce about 23 percent global relief, and at a
devastating cost to our economy.
As a practical matter, what have modern states undertaken with a view
to diminishing greenhouse gases? The answer is: Not very much. What is
being done gives off a kind of satisfaction, of the kind felt back
then when prayers were recited as apostates were led to the stake to
be burned. If you levied a 100 percent surtax on gasoline in the
United States, you would certainly reduce the use of it, but the
arbiter is there to say: What is a complementary sacrifice we can then
expect from India and China? China will soon overtake the United
States in the production of greenhouse gases.
At Kyoto, an effort was made ten years ago to allocate proportional
reductions nation by nation. The United States almost uniquely
declined to subscribe to the Kyoto protocols. Canada, Japan, and the
countries of Western Europe subscribed, but some have already fallen
short of their goals, and all of them are skeptical about the prospect
of making future scheduled reductions. It is estimated that if the
United States had subscribed to Kyoto, it would have cost us $100
billion to $400 billion per year.
There is, now and then, offsetting good news. The next report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we have learned,
will be less pessimistic than earlier reports. It will predict, e.g.,
a sea-level increase of up to 23 inches by the end of the century,
substantially better than earlier IPCC predictions of 29 inches - and
light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President
Al Gore.
Meanwhile, the Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg said something
outside the hearing of the outraged columnist. He noted solemnly that
any increase in heat-related deaths should be balanced against the
corresponding decrease in cold-related deaths. ... We need hope, and
self-confidence.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Naturalism |
04 Apr 2007 01:04:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 01:34:26 -0700, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:64r513t4shb9s2u5rnparqkmotfqg8imv8@4ax.com...
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley Jr.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming
outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable
columnist (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times) opened his essay
last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this
administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House
official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty
of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the
culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the
administration, and on leaving it he took a job with ExxonMobil.
For those with addled reflexes, here is the story compressed: (1)
Anyone who speaks discriminatingly about global warming is conspiring
to belittle the threat. Such people end up (2) working for ExxonMobil,
a perpetrator of the great threat the malefactor sought to distract us
from.
A biased person edited a report.
Period.
The rest is irrelevant rambling.
Why doesn't he write two columns instead of combining them?
Nazis? The Inquisition? China? Danish statisticians?
An old man exercising his learning in a desperate attempt to stop forgetting
it.
Irrelevant.
Are you biased Roger? If that is your name.
I'd guess that, in the current mood, I should enter the datum that my
father was in the oil business. But having done that, I think it fair
to ask: Are we invited to assume that anyone who works in a business
that generates greenhouse gases (a) is complicit in the global-warming
problem, and (b) should resign and seek work elsewhere? One recalls
the plant in Nazi Germany that manufactured the toxic gas Zyklon B.
The primary use of this gas was in the extermination camps, whose
masters were looking for efficient ways to destroy human beings. Is
the community engaged in oil production the contemporary equivalent of
the makers of Zyklon B?
Critics are correct in insisting that human enterprises have an effect
on climate. What they cannot at this point do is specify exactly how
great the damage is, nor how much relief would be effected by specific
acts of natural propitiation.
The whole business is eerily religious in feel. Back in the 15th
century, the question was: Do you believe in Christ? It was required
in Spain by the Inquisition that the answer should be affirmative,
leaving to one side subsidiary specifications.
It is required today to believe that carbon-dioxide emissions threaten
the basic ecological balance. The assumption then is that inasmuch as
a large proportion of the damage is man-made, man-made solutions are
necessary. But it is easy to see, right away, that there is a problem
in devising appropriate solutions, and in allocating responsibility
for them.
To speak in very general terms, the United States is easily the
principal offender, given the size of our country and the intensity of
our use of fossil-fuel energy. But even accepting the high per-capita
rate of consumption in the United States, we face the terrible
inadequacy of ameliorative resources. If the USA were (we are dealing
in hypotheses) to eliminate the use of oil or gas for power, would
that forfeiture be decisive?
Well, no. It would produce about 23 percent global relief, and at a
devastating cost to our economy.
As a practical matter, what have modern states undertaken with a view
to diminishing greenhouse gases? The answer is: Not very much. What is
being done gives off a kind of satisfaction, of the kind felt back
then when prayers were recited as apostates were led to the stake to
be burned. If you levied a 100 percent surtax on gasoline in the
United States, you would certainly reduce the use of it, but the
arbiter is there to say: What is a complementary sacrifice we can then
expect from India and China? China will soon overtake the United
States in the production of greenhouse gases.
At Kyoto, an effort was made ten years ago to allocate proportional
reductions nation by nation. The United States almost uniquely
declined to subscribe to the Kyoto protocols. Canada, Japan, and the
countries of Western Europe subscribed, but some have already fallen
short of their goals, and all of them are skeptical about the prospect
of making future scheduled reductions. It is estimated that if the
United States had subscribed to Kyoto, it would have cost us $100
billion to $400 billion per year.
There is, now and then, offsetting good news. The next report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we have learned,
will be less pessimistic than earlier reports. It will predict, e.g.,
a sea-level increase of up to 23 inches by the end of the century,
substantially better than earlier IPCC predictions of 29 inches - and
light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President
Al Gore.
Meanwhile, the Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg said something
outside the hearing of the outraged columnist. He noted solemnly that
any increase in heat-related deaths should be balanced against the
corresponding decrease in cold-related deaths. ... We need hope, and
self-confidence.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Naturalism |
03 Apr 2007 09:30:43 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:64r513t4shb9s2u5rnparqkmotfqg8imv8@4ax.com...
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley Jr.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming
outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable
columnist (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times) opened his essay
last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this
administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House
official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty
of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the
culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the
administration, and on leaving it he took a job with ExxonMobil.
For those with addled reflexes, here is the story compressed: (1)
Anyone who speaks discriminatingly about global warming is conspiring
to belittle the threat. Such people end up (2) working for ExxonMobil,
a perpetrator of the great threat the malefactor sought to distract us
from.
As usual, Mr. Fbuckley is warping the truth and tossing in a few invented
strawmen.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Naturalism |
05 Apr 2007 03:20:21 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley Jr.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming
outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable
columnist (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times) opened his essay
last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this
administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
It's time to seriously address Global Warming with things such as CO2
sequestration.
And each of us can do their part. I, for example, as they burn out, am
replacing old style bulbs with newer efficient ones. The newer ones last
ten times as long, and each new one saves 100 bucks in electricity over
their lifetime.
Saving 100 bucks! Imagine that! And, I'm helping the planet.
What have you anti-Global Warming types have something against saving money?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Naturalism |
05 Apr 2007 11:01:49 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 04:20:21 -0400, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley Jr.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming
outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable
columnist (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times) opened his essay
last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this
administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
It's time to seriously address Global Warming with things such as CO2
sequestration.
And each of us can do their part. I, for example, as they burn out, am
replacing old style bulbs with newer efficient ones. The newer ones last
ten times as long, and each new one saves 100 bucks in electricity over
their lifetime.
Saving 100 bucks! Imagine that! And, I'm helping the planet.
You are talking sense here. I will try some. Wal*Mart has them at a
good price. If the light is acceptable I will use theme everywhere.
What have you anti-Global Warming types have something against saving money?
What do you think about government mandating their use? Will there
become a black market for old style bulbs? Will there be bulb police?
Would you be surprised to find that "anti-Global Warming types" are
often anti-government intrusion types?
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Naturalism |
03 Apr 2007 08:26:22 PM |
|
|
On Apr 3, 5:20 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley Jr.http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1...
Ahem... Archon Buckley consistent with his mendacious modus
operandae, attempts to split real hairs until there is nothing left of
them - not even enough room for angels to dance on.. let alone facts.
Fact is.. The white house was caught censoring scientific tax-payer
money funded scientific research.
Fact is.. The fellow doing the censoring was, and is now again,
employed by the oil industry.
Fact is.. The fact is that US engergy policy was written by and for
the US energy industry - and not for the public good.
Fact is.. That the executive office refuses to make public the minutes
of those policy making meetings to the US public - in whose good they
supposedly took place.
FINI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Naturalism |
03 Apr 2007 11:24:12 PM |
|
|
On 3 Apr 2007 18:26:22 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:20 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley Jr.http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1...
Ahem... Archon Buckley consistent with his mendacious modus
operandae, attempts to split real hairs until there is nothing left of
them - not even enough room for angels to dance on.. let alone facts.
Fact is.. The white house was caught censoring scientific tax-payer
money funded scientific research.
Fact is.. The fellow doing the censoring was, and is now again,
employed by the oil industry.
Fact is.. The fact is that US engergy policy was written by and for
the US energy industry - and not for the public good.
Fact is.. That the executive office refuses to make public the minutes
of those policy making meetings to the US public - in whose good they
supposedly took place.
The fact that energy companies want to sell energy is not empirical
proof of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropocentric Global Warming).
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Server 13" |
|
| Title: Re: Naturalism |
04 Apr 2007 10:16:09 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:ru9613t3cnccq9100ji36pg08v54joabdg@4ax.com...
On 3 Apr 2007 18:26:22 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:20 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley
Jr.http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1...
Ahem... Archon Buckley consistent with his mendacious modus
operandae, attempts to split real hairs until there is nothing left of
them - not even enough room for angels to dance on.. let alone facts.
Fact is.. The white house was caught censoring scientific tax-payer
money funded scientific research.
Fact is.. The fellow doing the censoring was, and is now again,
employed by the oil industry.
Fact is.. The fact is that US engergy policy was written by and for
the US energy industry - and not for the public good.
Fact is.. That the executive office refuses to make public the minutes
of those policy making meetings to the US public - in whose good they
supposedly took place.
The fact that energy companies want to sell energy is not empirical
proof of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropocentric Global Warming).
rofl You must be a republican.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Naturalism |
03 Apr 2007 09:16:11 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:20:35 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley Jr.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming
outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable
columnist (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times) opened his essay
last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this
administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House
official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty
of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the
culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the
administration, and on leaving it he took a job with ExxonMobil.
For those with addled reflexes, here is the story compressed: (1)
Anyone who speaks discriminatingly about global warming is conspiring
to belittle the threat. Such people end up (2) working for ExxonMobil,
a perpetrator of the great threat the malefactor sought to distract us
from.
I'd guess that, in the current mood, I should enter the datum that my
father was in the oil business. But having done that, I think it fair
to ask: Are we invited to assume that anyone who works in a business
that generates greenhouse gases (a) is complicit in the global-warming
problem, and (b) should resign and seek work elsewhere?
No. You're invited to assume that when a past and future employee of
a business intervenes revise a report which will damage his past and
future business into something less damaging, his reason for doing so
might not be his unwavering regard for the virtues of truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Naturalism |
03 Apr 2007 11:28:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:16:11 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:20:35 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley Jr.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming
outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable
columnist (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times) opened his essay
last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this
administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House
official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty
of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the
culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the
administration, and on leaving it he took a job with ExxonMobil.
For those with addled reflexes, here is the story compressed: (1)
Anyone who speaks discriminatingly about global warming is conspiring
to belittle the threat. Such people end up (2) working for ExxonMobil,
a perpetrator of the great threat the malefactor sought to distract us
from.
I'd guess that, in the current mood, I should enter the datum that my
father was in the oil business. But having done that, I think it fair
to ask: Are we invited to assume that anyone who works in a business
that generates greenhouse gases (a) is complicit in the global-warming
problem, and (b) should resign and seek work elsewhere?
No. You're invited to assume that when a past and future employee of
a business intervenes revise a report which will damage his past and
future business into something less damaging, his reason for doing so
might not be his unwavering regard for the virtues of truth.
Can you think of any scenario where energy companies will not continue
to make profits on the sales of energy?
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Server 13" |
|
| Title: Re: Naturalism |
04 Apr 2007 10:16:42 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:04a6131b33ppnljvaavpkgtckl02f9b8fp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:16:11 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:20:35 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley Jr.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming
outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable
columnist (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times) opened his essay
last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this
administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House
official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty
of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the
culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the
administration, and on leaving it he took a job with ExxonMobil.
For those with addled reflexes, here is the story compressed: (1)
Anyone who speaks discriminatingly about global warming is conspiring
to belittle the threat. Such people end up (2) working for ExxonMobil,
a perpetrator of the great threat the malefactor sought to distract us
from.
I'd guess that, in the current mood, I should enter the datum that my
father was in the oil business. But having done that, I think it fair
to ask: Are we invited to assume that anyone who works in a business
that generates greenhouse gases (a) is complicit in the global-warming
problem, and (b) should resign and seek work elsewhere?
No. You're invited to assume that when a past and future employee of
a business intervenes revise a report which will damage his past and
future business into something less damaging, his reason for doing so
might not be his unwavering regard for the virtues of truth.
Can you think of any scenario where energy companies will not continue
to make profits on the sales of energy?
Relevance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Naturalism |
04 Apr 2007 01:03:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:16:42 -0500, "Server 13" <its@casual.com> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:04a6131b33ppnljvaavpkgtckl02f9b8fp@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:16:11 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:20:35 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
Naturalism
By William F. Buckley Jr.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=
The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming
outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable
columnist (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times) opened his essay
last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this
administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."
What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House
official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty
of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the
culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the
administration, and on leaving it he took a job with ExxonMobil.
For those with addled reflexes, here is the story compressed: (1)
Anyone who speaks discriminatingly about global warming is conspiring
to belittle the threat. Such people end up (2) working for ExxonMobil,
a perpetrator of the great threat the malefactor sought to distract us
from.
I'd guess that, in the current mood, I should enter the datum that my
father was in the oil business. But having done that, I think it fair
to ask: Are we invited to assume that anyone who works in a business
that generates greenhouse gases (a) is complicit in the global-warming
problem, and (b) should resign and seek work elsewhere?
No. You're invited to assume that when a past and future employee of
a business intervenes revise a report which will damage his past and
future business into something less damaging, his reason for doing so
might not be his unwavering regard for the virtues of truth.
Can you think of any scenario where energy companies will not continue
to make profits on the sales of energy?
Relevance?
Nothing will change. All additional costs to energy of any taxes or
carbon offset schemes will not be paid by the energy companies but by
the energy consumer.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
