Not only is this an American scientist, Harold Lewis is Professor Emeritus at the University Of California, Santa Barbara - the same California that is about to commit economic suicide by becoming the first state in the US and most likely the world, to forcibly limit those terrible greenhouse gases.
You might think any one of those venerable and obviously unbiased news organisations would be interested in exposing this scam...
That they are getting scooped by the little Retro Housewife blog is an indication of the corruption of our national media as well.
How Does This Affect Me, Registered Voter?
Prop. 23 will postpone AB32 - The Global Warming Final Solutions Act from taking effect in the foreseeable future. I am going to vote YES ON 23
Gubernatorial Candidates Positions:
Chelene Nightingale: - I nabbed this banner from Nightingale for Governor website:
|Which countries do the most for the environment? Rich countries with the resources to protect our environment, or poor countries with high unemployment? I would like to live in a happy, peppy place...|
|Not this downer place ==>>|
|Is Poverty Really The Best Way To Help The Environment As Jerry Brown And Meg Whitman seem to think it is?|
Jerry Brown: Against Prop. 23
Meg Whitman: Against Prop. 23 - Though she says she wants to get rid of the AB 32 law altogether... but since we know she lies, who can really say?
California passed a global warming law back in 2006, when no one was paying attention, that is going to cut greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels over the next decade. How will it do this? Every company doing business in California which emits these gases will have to spend money on technology upgrades so that they emit less of them. Now, you know darn well this is not going to be free; it will cost each company real money...that is certain.
What is not certain, is whether there is really any reason to do this at all. I am all for a cleaner environment, but the corruption involving the issue of global warming is so rampant, it will probably turn out that the considerable pain we are about to inflict upon ourselves does absolutely nothing for the environment.
The science is not incontrovertible by any means. Incontrovertible seems to be only the suppression of the arguments and evidence against the theory of man-made global warming, and the persecution of those who attempted to engage in genuine debate. My own view is that we have no way of knowing whether we humans have any effect whatsoever, since the scientific community is apparently completely corrupt. Basing any sort of policy on the purported causes and effects of global warming is just plain foolish.
Watch As The Left Tries to Discredit Dr. Harold Lewis
- Blog Slam From "Hugh Mann" - Lots of name calling and accusations - no facts
Newspapers Where This Is Reported
- Rush Limbaugh - I guess this helps explain why people listen to him...
Other Scientists Not Freaking Out About Global Warming
Richard Linzen, MIT
SPECIAL OFFER! GET a FREE, GENUINE, MIT Lecture from REAL MIT Professor!!! Most people pay THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS for the chance to listen to MIT PROFESSORS - BUT NOW, I am offering you a special, limited time only offer! (Just hit the play button below...hee hee hee)
What is a Climate Change Denial-ist or CLIMATE-DENIER?
- This is a curious epithet to apply to somebody questioning a particular scientific finding, especially when the entire scientific process is defined by scientists presenting various theories and hypothesises to their colleagues in the form of papers or lectures which can then be scrutinized, reproduced, refuted and/or hopefully referenced (the scientific community's equivalent of the Google back link).
- Calling somebody a denier, or denialist serves the agenda of silencing debate and puts the person's credibility in the spotlight and in question, just as calling a somebody a racist for pointing out the unlawfulness of sneaking across the border into the United States is an attempt to disparage the person's character instead of being forced to defend a losing position. (Laws are clearly being broken, to argue otherwise is futile.)
- Religious aspect of "denial" - Peter denied Jesus, a rather famous episode from the Bible. The use of the term denier is an indication that the speaker has elevated the topic climate change to one which they approach with religious fervor, if not fanaticism. Scientific debate is never over, done, closed to discussion. It stagnates, perhaps, until a new paradigm emerges and begins to run its course. What the person is actually saying is, "I do not want any further discussion on this topic, as I am very concerned that new findings will conflict with my own agenda". Therefore the only logical response, in my opinion, is to pose the question: "How are you planning on making climate change work for you?"
- Al Gore for example, does not advertise the fact that he and Goldman Sachs (co-inky-dink?) stand to make billions if not trillions from their investment in setting up the Chicago Cap and Trade Exchange. He can't just come out and say, "Hey guuuuyyyyysss, I want to be richer than Bill Gaaaaateeees so hurry up and pass the Cap and Trade bill!" - I think even liberals might find that hard to stomach. So poor Al has to come up with elaborate tales of woe-to-thou-should-you-not-heed-my-warning. One starts to pity him somewhat when one considers what a dullard he is, and how hard he must be working to weave his tall tales. Until one learns that Al's company is incorporated in the UK, most likely because, get this, foreign companies in the UK are subject only to a flat tax of £50,000, regardless of their actual income. Not such a DODO after all, eh? No need to worry about the pesky IRS wanting a slice of the pie.