The Global Warming Scam(?)

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

It appears to me that the argument for AGW has been carried by pompous, preachy messengers, and regardless of the science behind it AGW needs better messengers if it is to have political life.

Shouting FILTHY FINITE FOSSIL FUELS, creating an adversary relationship with legacy fuel providers that actually heat our homes and move our cars, and belonging to the Gulfstream IV club does nothing in the political sense to bring home any message they may have.

The messengers are the problem with AGW. There must be a message somewhere between scientists, who are notoriously poor communicators, and scaremongers who do not walk the walk, where rationality exists on this issue.

I have not yet seen it.

Sources of Information

<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

There is a constant barrage of snide remarks about where conservatives get their information, and constant blasting by name of Limbaugh and O’Reilly

I will admit to listening/watching both, and using their links to get further information. There is no “reliability” factor I can find for them, but there is a knowledgeability rating for their audiences.

Using “High knowledge” as a factor.as determined by a questionnaire of information, nd not trying to post everything, just the ones more interesting to me, this is the List:

NPR (44);

Hardball (43),

Hannity (42),

Rush (36),

BBC (34),

Colbert (34),

News Hour (33),

Sunday AM Shows (32),

O’Reilly (28),

Lou Dobbs (27),

Cable News (25),

MSNBC (25),

C-SPAN (24),

NBC News (21),

Larry King/ABC News/CNN/Fox News tied at (19).

The national average was 18, and those that ranked below 18 included religious radio, local TV, the National Inquirer, CNBC, Weather Channel, Access Hollywood, personality magazines, and CBS News.

Now liberals may not like the information given on one or more of theses sources, but their audiences are comparatively informed.

The Stimulus as Described by Robert Reich

“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs [hopefully being created by government spending] not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers.” Robert Reich, Obama Administration designer of the stimulus packages.

 

At first I was concerned that unskilled workers would be preferred to build bridges, but then I remembered the Congressional Budget Office estimate that less than half the stimulus money would be spent before 2011 — by which time it is likely the recession will be over.

 

Of course, the environmental lobby is not going to let anything get built anyway, so the government may just as well throw the money down the bank drain.