Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
It is not surprising that energy producers are going to look favorably upon someone who questions the science of AGW.  But I don't see that connection as being sufficient to discredit somebody like Singer.  After all, this is the field of science, and it is not nearly as easy to blow smoke in that field as it is say in the field of politics or marketing, for instance. The theory of AGW is a direct threat to the economic interest of energy companies, and it is easy to see their agenda in finding flaws in the science that advances the theory.  What is apparently not so obvious to most people is the financial agenda that is advancing the theory of AGW.  By fiat, unutterable sums of money are going to be transferred from individuals and businesses to governments in the name of fighting AGW once enough people are made into believers.  And we all know that governments have an insatiable appetite for revenue, and they spend it on many things other than what it was intended for.  And, incidentally, some of that money will go to scientists who support the theory of AGW.  If ordinary citizens realized what this is going to cost them, they would have an agenda to question the science just like the oil companies do.  Certainly the railroads or any other industry that produces CO2 ought to have an agenda to question the science because the science requires that we stop emitting CO2 within a very short time.  I suspect that most people who do not question the science behind AGW have no idea what this zero CO2 goal will mean to their lifestyle.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag