At this link you will find a letter that denounces NASA's support of Climate Change having human activity as a major cause: http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warm...
On that webpage you can find a link to the report regarding this letter.
If their motive is looked at carefully, what would we find?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Joan, My homes, which number more than John McCain's and Mitt Romney's together, are all on land high enough that they won't be inundated by a rising sea level. It's the thousands of acres of ocean front I bought, intending to resell, that may be underwater later this century.
BTW, this post is a spoof too.
Your cynical sarcasm is what's wrong with liberal arguments on this issue. Believe it or not these people aren't evil. If having a stake in technologies that are harming the climate biases their views, it's an unconscious process. People with biases aren't usually aware that they have them.
The trend of climate change itself and many of the possible warming scenarios it might cause are shockingly extreme relative to what lay people see on a daily basis. The predictions have the same level of disaster as may wild apocalypse theories that should be summarily dismissed. While they're scientifically valid, they don't pass the sniff test for a lay person.
I realize that it can be annoying to calmly explain over and over that climate really is a problem and present overwhelming evidence, but calling those people stupid and evil when they're not severely harms your ability to convince anyone.
Ben, you are correct when you state,
"calling those people stupid and evil when they're not severely harms your ability to convince anyone."
On the other hand, life takes on a "let them eat cake" quality when those who have figured out how to manipulate and exploit people who work for a living, whether in a mom and pop business or those who work for wages, do not know, don't seem to want to know, and perceive only their point of view. The investment counselor who gains his or her wealth by swindling, simply doesn't seem to care how many pension funds disappear. He or she may be a likable bloke, and give lots of money to charity, or contribute generously to political campaigns, or take on noble causes, while performing thefts and corrupting all he or she touches, but that does not make him or her a good citizen.
It is easy to throw the whole lot into a lump and label them "stupid and evil", but when one banker and one financial advisor, then another, and another, until the whole system is corrupt, which one does point to and say this one is evil, this one is greedy, this one is a thug, or whatever label one wants to choose.
If a banker is professional, he or she knows when a family who has owned a hardware store for three generations, goes broke, loses their source of income through no fault of their own but by immoral and unethical laws, and then multiply that family by the millions, somewhere a banker with moral and ethical values will recognize the failure is not in the one going broke, but in systemic crimes.
It seems to me I remember there were a lot of foreclosures on businesses and homes in another era of our history that included Harry Truman, the haberdasher. Was that era, and the one we are in now caused by debtors or creditors? Obviously, both. No one forces an individual to take out a loan or put too much on a credit card, but banks giving loans to businesses that can not service the loans and credit cards to those unable to make even the interest payments, leads one to question intent of the financial industries.
Joan and sarcasm do not mix.
Thank you, Joan, for taking my satire well.
It saddens me that so many people believe their perhaps-sociopathic leaders and get burned by their leaders' greed. There are many varieties of capitalism in the world and America's is among the most cruel. Methinks American capitalism was designed by and for the sociopaths among us.
America doesn't have capitalism right now so much as cronyism. Men in government have given their friends special privileges and bought votes with misguided attempts to help others for so long that our originally capitalism economy has been distorted beyond recognition.
Ben, are you denying the existence of crony capitalism?
Unfortunately I have to agreee Tom :-(
I do remember a time when that wasn't true, but now those times are constantly demeaned and people who think that should be true again are insulted or berated about how un-American they are. Guess Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower should be called the same.
Jessica, on the below dates in the 1787 Constitutional Convention, two of America's founders spoke as follows.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON. The people seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the rich and well-born a distinct and permanent share in the government. (June 18)
JAMES MADISON. An increase of population will increase the proportion who labor under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. The government ought to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. (June 26)
I haven't read all of the records of the early Congresses, so I don't know when in our "free enterprise" system the first bailout occurred. Search on "Yazoo lands" and you'll probably read of an early 1800s bailout of land speculators who bribed the Georgia legislature to sell them land in what was then western Georgia but is now in Alabama. Way back before the Internet, I found the story in histories of the US Congress.
Despite the rhetoric we've all heard, America has always had a subsidy enterprise economy: subsidies for the well-connected and taxes for others.
Though I don't know the details, Teddy Roosevelt was, in a sense, unAmerican; during his presidency the government acted to prohibit adulterated foods and child labor.
There were certainly poor decisions that caused market distortions at the state level in our early history. But, considering that the federal government had a budget of less than 3% of GDP until the early 1900s, they didn't have the ability to subsidize failure during the founder's era the way they do now with a 20% of GDP budget.
We can't help that politicians do bad things, but if we reduce the size of government we can make them impotent so their poor decisions hurt fewer people.
Tom, I agree