posted 02-19-2009 05:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
No vested interest there, then.

---

Interestingly, his affiliation with the Republican Party and his role as the former senator from New Mexico, nor the affiliations Paul mentioned above, are not mentioned as part of the advertising for the upcoming International Conference on Climate Change. The only title he is given in the conference bio is "astronaut" (even though he has not been an active astronaut for nearly 34 years). For a group that claims to be non-partisan, I would think full disclosure of these parts of Schmitt's resume would be essential, so that attendees have a better idea of the speaker's background.

Of course, not all Republicans dismiss climate change automatically because of party affiliation...even though historically they have been the political party that has offered the most resistance to the scientific evidence that suggests climate change is occurring (and/or is partially caused by human influences). Whether or not Schmitt's viewpoints are wholly or partially driven by his political party affiliation (and other professional associations) is up for debate. But it seems like something that should be disclosed in the interest of being open and honest about the backgrounds of the speakers.

posted 02-19-2009 07:00 PM               

"Dr. Lindzen has always been a Democrat, too, but he says the global warming controversy has caused him to change parties. The notion that "extremely weak science" could set into motion policies with long-term implications for the economy made him "queasy" about governmental action, he said. In the academic community, he volunteers, laughing, his turn to the Republicans "must have been like coming out as a gay 25 years ago."

posted 02-19-2009 08:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
I I would think full disclosure of these parts of Schmitt's resume would be essential, so that attendees have a better idea of the speaker's background.

---

If that's the case, then a "political disclosure" on everyone speaking anywhere should be included. There's no reason his opinion is any less valid because of his political orientation than anyone else. But of course in the "debate-is-over" world of climate change zeal, this is precisely the one-sided attitude I would expect. After all, isn't it best to tell everyone which speakers to dismiss?

posted 02-19-2009 08:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Charles:
Huh? I haven't noticed anyone determining which light bulbs I use (only making me feel guilty for even thinking about throwing old compact fluorescents in the trash), or regulating the temperatures in my house (not doing a very good job, if they are), or restricting which vehicles I drive, and I am eating more (and enjoying it more) these days.

Which environmental dictatorship did I miss?

---

How many congressmen does it take to change a light bulb? 400.

That's how many members of Congress recently voted for a bill which will force American consumers to change the 50-cent incandescent light bulbs they're currently using and replace them with expensive new, $3 "energy-efficient" light bulbs. As Shane Cory of the Libertarian Party sarcastically put it, "If you outlaw light bulbs, then only outlaws will have light bulbs."

The ban, which takes effect in 2014, was included in the 2007 energy bill which 314 members of the United States House of Representatives and 86 members of the United States Senate voted for.

posted 02-19-2009 08:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
For all you conspiracists, here's a counter-conspiracy argument

---

You proceed from false assumptions here. First of all, this discussion doesn't stem from a belief in a "conspiracy." A conspiracy requires organization. The simple fact is that those who buy into global warming, made up of a wide variety of groups and individuals, through a media that loves end of the world reporting, has fostered a hysterical movement that isn't based in solid science and is asking for drastic action. This has nothing to do with "conspiracy." It just happens and snowballs.

And just because you don't believe the hysteria doesn't mean you don't believe in conserving resources. I drive a small hybrid (no reason to waste gas), recycle over 75% of my family's refuse, use canvas shopping bags at the grocers (because they are much more convenient), and use the most energy efficient lighting possible (no reason to waste electricity).

But I also believe that the AGW zeal is mass hysteria that is dangerous to individual liberty and freedom, and therefore should be met with the kind of skepticism that would usually be applied to such far-reaching claims.

posted 02-19-2009 09:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
"Remember the first principle of wing walking. Don't let go of something unless you have a firm grasp of something else".- Richard Truly,

---

Frank O'Connor, the Irish writer, tells in one of his books how, as a boy, he and his friends would make their way across the countryside, and when they came to an orchard wall that seemed too high and too doubtful to try and too difficult to permit their voyage to continue, they took off their hats and tossed them over the wall--and then they had no choice but to follow them.

This Nation has tossed its cap over the wall of space, and we have no choice but to follow it. Whatever the difficulties, they will be overcome. Whatever the hazards, they must be guarded against. We will climb this wall with safety and with speed-and we shall then explore the wonders on the other side.

posted 02-19-2009 09:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecraft films:
If that's the case, then a "political disclosure" on everyone speaking anywhere should be included. There's no reason his opinion is any less valid because of his political orientation than anyone else.

---

I'm not saying the voting record of each speaker should be made public, but when one has held public office and has represented a specific political party, then disclosure of that affiliation makes sense (especially at a conference where politics is a large part of the focus). They don't even necessarily have to name the party Schmitt was affiliated with, but simply state that he is "a former senator from New Mexico" which allows prospective conference attendees information to further research their guest. Unlike John Glenn, who is well known as a former senator, I imagine many people do not realize Schmitt held political office in the past (and therefore might not think to look up his record as a senator).

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecraft films:
But of course in the "debate-is-over" world of climate change zeal, this is precisely the one-sided attitude I would expect.

---

Interesting comment, since the conference itself is totally one-sided...and represents only those who advocate one general position. It's ironic that those who hate the "debate is over" argument would therefore choose to only stage a one-sided debate. If they feel their viewpoints are valid, surely they would welcome speakers representing both sides of the issue in order to have a fair and honest representation of both viewpoints...so the attendees of the conference could decide for themselves who has the stronger argument.

Instead, it appears they have already decided what the answer is and have only invited those who support that assertion. "One sided attitude" indeed.

Pot meet kettle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecraft films:
After all, isn't it best to tell everyone which speakers to dismiss?

---

Why hide the credentials of a man who once served as the ranking Republican member of the science, technology, and space subcommittee under President Reagan? Surely that experience would apply much more towards his talk than being an astronaut would...especially when his talk is likely to be about the politicization of the global warming debate.

posted 02-19-2009 10:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Interesting comment, since the conference itself is totally one-sided...

---

Which is clearly noted in all of the information on the conference. There's nothing being hidden there, from the name of the conference through descriptions of the speakers.

And it is no more one-sided than previous AGW meetings with a lineup of speakers in the other direction. I suspect, however, that you don't care to look as closely at their previous political records. It only matters when it goes against the "accepted" view.

Of course it isn't this rebuttal group that is asking for drastic action that directly impacts individual freedom, it is the AGW lobby that is screaming for control of other's lives. This part of Schmitt's viewpoint goes directly to the heart of the issue - that it has become a vehicle no longer based in the reality of the data.

posted 02-19-2009 10:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecraft films:
I suspect, however, that you don't care to look as closely at their previous political records. It only matters when it goes against the "accepted" view.

---

Speaking personally about my own views, you couldn't be more wrong. I personally dislike Al Gore's involvement in the debate, for example, because his very high profile position has to a large degree politicized the discussion and made people wary to accept some of the hard science that was conducted with no particular bias. Many people now automatically assume that any science that supports Gore's arguments was somehow tainted by his involvement in the issue and therefore cannot be trusted.

posted 02-21-2009 08:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecraft films:
Liberty is the driver that makes everything else worthwhile, and every tiny advance against it leaves the world a lesser place for the children.

---

However, as I previously stated, our own governments' paranoid security measures are a far bigger threat to individual liberty, e.g. when I have to seek permission from relatively unaccountable police in order to hold a peaceful protest within 1 mile of parliament.

I place my right to exercise democratic privileges, walk the streets without being spied on, suspected or harassed and to have the truth told to me by those who purport to govern, as much more important than gas prices, consumption constraints etc.