Are you now, or have you ever been, a denier of AGW?

[Whiskey_Clear]

Don't get me wrong...I'm no huge fan of lobbyists....someone has to educate our ignorant politicians though. True for both sides of the aisle.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Lobbyists work both aisles of Congress pretty hard. It's naive to say only corporate lobbyists aligned with the right do so. I know for a fact this is not the case. My old man graduated from Tech with bachelors in Civil Engineering...also obtained his Masters at Tech...Civil again with some sort of focus on hydrodynamics (I'm not an engineer so sorry for not being more precise here). Bottom line is this, he had a long career at the Southern Company (gasp...a corporation oh my) , was a member of NHA (National Hydropower Association) for many years and indeed lobbied members of Congress to promote hydropower. He was never paid to do so. Did it on his own time and on his own dime to promote something he was passionate about, hydropower. But he did go up against green lobbyists who did lobby for pay and championed those I'd label as environmental whackos....though I expect stinger would classify them as environmental saints.
To summarize though I will repeat. It is incredibly naive to think only corporations lobby Congress on this matter. Equally naive imo to believe that only "corporate" lobbyists benefit financially through their lobbying efforts.

I think you underestimate where the balance of power lies.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Feel free to enlighten me then.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The vast majority of the lobbying wars come down to corporate lobbyists versus non-profit lobbyists. Certainly you have the occasional fat cat on either side of an issue but they tend to be the exception that proves the rule. Since you mentioned environmentalists as an example, keep in mind that most of their organizations are non-profit. Having spent most of my time with non-profits I can tell you they don't have the money flow compared to private sector business and industry.

On a somewhat related topic, a recent poll I read somewhere among scientists found that 83% of them said that government funding for research had all but dried up compared to a decade ago and 88% said the government was not spending nearly enough on research. If you are a research scientist and you can get a job in the private sector you are generally better off than if you are trying to rely on grants and public funding.

Interestingly enough, the former president of Shell Oil had some interesting things to say recently about the need for the government to level the playing field when it came to the climate change debate. He all but said that until the government steps in with some reasonable regulation it did not make sense for them to try to be responsible corporate citizens and that the only way to be competitive in their industry was to base their business models on bad science.

 

[Animal02]

Interestingly enough, the former president of Shell Oil had some interesting things to say recently about the need for the government to level the playing field when it came to the climate change debate. He all but said that until the government steps in with some reasonable regulation it did not make sense for them to try to be responsible corporate citizens and that the only way to be competitive in their industry was to base their business models on bad science.

What a bunch of BS......They do not base their business models on "bad science" They base their business models on existing laws and regulations and pending ones. What they do not want is uncertainty. That costs them money.

Big corporations love regulations, it stifles competition from start ups and small business because of the cost of compliance. The big corporations just pass the cost on to consumers, and with less competition, it is easier to do.

 

[Animal02]

I'm still not sure who is supposed to be wearing the tin-foil hats ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/23/fema-targets-climate-change-denier-governors-could/

And this.....http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/s...ties-with-kochs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

 

[AE 87]

The influence of political ideology:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...debt-the-new-budget-threat-is-climate-change/

 

[Northeast Stinger]

What a bunch of BS......They do not base their business models on "bad science" They base their business models on existing laws and regulations and pending ones. What they do not want is uncertainty. That costs them money.

Big corporations love regulations, it stifles competition from start ups and small business because of the cost of compliance. The big corporations just pass the cost on to consumers, and with less competition, it is easier to do.

I was trying to condense his comments down from a long interview. The point is that they have top notch scientists working at Shell but Shell does not always follow the results of their research because there is often no incentive to doing the right thing. So they go along with "bad science" rather than doing things that would put them at a competitive disadvantage. His point was that there are things they know right now from their own research that would make fossil fuels more environmentally friendly and also help project a future path that does not rely solely on carbon. But there are no incentives in current regulations to do that and in fact the exact opposite is "encouraged."

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@Northeast Stinger
I've seen you espouse non profits multiple times now. I have no beef with non profits. They serve a purpose. But huge money is involved in many non profits. Being a non profit has more to do with tax status than the amount of revenue they generate. And many non profits are glaringly partisan....so I'm not sure why you paint them generally as more trustworthy than a for profit corporation. Seems a bit anti capitalist.

 

[Animal02]

I was trying to condense his comments down from a long interview. The point is that they have top notch scientists working at Shell but Shell does not always follow the results of their research because there is often no incentive to doing the right thing. So they go along with "bad science" rather than doing things that would put them at a competitive disadvantage. His point was that there are things they know right now from their own research that would make fossil fuels more environmentally friendly and also help project a future path that does not rely solely on carbon. But there are no incentives in current regulations to do that and in fact the exact opposite is "encouraged."

So what? Corporations do that all the time. It is is not "bad science".....that is simply your spin on things.
There are countless inventions, scientific ideas etc that are not currently used that simply make no economic sense at the present time, and has been the case from the beginning of history.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

So what? Corporations do that all the time. It is is not "bad science".....that is simply your spin on things.
There are countless inventions, scientific ideas etc that are not currently used that simply make no economic sense at the present time, and has been the case from the beginning of history.

I agree completely that corporations do this all the time.

Since you did not hear the interview I can see why you would misunderstand my comments. To explain, "bad science" was my shorthand, not the words he used. Spin is too strong a term however. The interview was remarkable because he was admitting his company had gone along with the general disinformation about climate change put out by fossil fuel industries, disinformation that he would consider faulty and misleading. He spoke as a person who had a great deal of guilt over this but who nevertheless had an obligation to employees and stockholders to remain competitive.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

@Northeast Stinger
I've seen you espouse non profits multiple times now. I have no beef with non profits. They serve a purpose. But huge money is involved in many non profits. Being a non profit has more to do with tax status than the amount of revenue they generate. And many non profits are glaringly partisan....so I'm not sure why you paint them generally as more trustworthy than a for profit corporation. Seems a bit anti capitalist.

I think the problem with discussing sensitive issues like this on a blog is that it is easy to do two thing wrong. One is assume you know where another person is coming from that you don't even know. The second is to misunderstand what someone is saying.

All I was saying about non-profits is that they generally do not have the kind of political war chests that corporations have. I was not saying one was inherently superior or more moral than another. But if you have ever worked for a non-profit you know that for most of their history they have been pretty heavily regulated and most of them pinch pennies. I do understand that the Republicans recently changed the tax laws to allow for partisan political groups to operate as non-profits (something I saw as a huge mistake) but that is not the general history and not what I am talking about.

 

[AE 87]

Another take on the Shell Oil CEO: bait and switch (according to New Republic Opinion Piece)

I simply can't believe that anyone falls for this stuff. Climate Scientist e-mails come out admitting that they're monkeying with the data. True-Believers still believe. Michael Mann's hockey stick graph is shown to be bad science, potentially fraudulent. True believers still believe. However, perhaps most amazingly, we've had 15 years of no warming while Carbon has been put into the atmosphere at increasing amounts has shown that all the models on which the initial claims of global warming were based were wrong. Yest true believers still believe. And they shout that the millions coming from industry corrupts the science but the billions upon billions coming from the Federal government has no effect. Shake my head.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I think the problem with discussing sensitive issues like this on a blog is that it is easy to do two thing wrong. One is assume you know where another person is coming from that you don't even know. The second is to misunderstand what someone is saying.

All I was saying about non-profits is that they generally do not have the kind of political war chests that corporations have. I was not saying one was inherently superior or more moral than another. But if you have ever worked for a non-profit you know that for most of their history they have been pretty heavily regulated and most of them pinch pennies. I do understand that the Republicans recently changed the tax laws to allow for partisan political groups to operate as non-profits (something I saw as a huge mistake) but that is not the general history and not what I am talking about.

You just seem far more biased to non profits. You have your own personal experience with them so I understand that. Just appears to have biased your opinion of them. And both dems and republicans have utilized non profits politically...just as both have utilized Pacs.

If you are going to quote or summarize an article / interview...it would be helpful to provide a link.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@Northeast Stinger

Is this it?
http://www.theguardian.com/business...aive-but-admits-big-oil-has-credibility-issue

 

[Animal02]

Another take on the Shell Oil CEO: bait and switch (according to New Republic Opinion Piece)

I simply can't believe that anyone falls for this stuff. Climate Scientist e-mails come out admitting that they're monkeying with the data. True-Believers still believe. Michael Mann's hockey stick graph is shown to be bad science, potentially fraudulent. True believers still believe. However, perhaps most amazingly, we've had 15 years of no warming while Carbon has been put into the atmosphere at increasing amounts has shown that all the models on which the initial claims of global warming were based were wrong. Yest true believers still believe. And they shout that the millions coming from industry corrupts the science but the billions upon billions coming from the Federal government has no effect. Shake my head.

Let's face it, carbon control, through tax or other regulation, is the holy grail of big government control of every aspect of life. It is no wonder the big government types will do anything to bring that about.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

@Northeast Stinger

Is this it?
http://www.theguardian.com/business...aive-but-admits-big-oil-has-credibility-issue

No. The speech was from the former CEO of Shell, John Hofmeister. Sometimes I think it is easier for people to say certain things after they leave the industry. Not unlike how it is easier to say certain things after you leave government.

Just looked him up and found he is not an adviser to this organization.
http://www.fuelfreedom.org/who-we-are/board-of-advisors/

 

[Animal02]

And the hysteria continues.......https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/29/text

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

And the hysteria continues.......https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/29/text

Whereas Congress continues to prove the vast and widespread manner of wasting American tax dollars.
Now therefore be it resolved that America would be better off with less government and fewer politicians.

 

[Animal02]

Whereas Congress continues to prove the vast and widespread manner of wasting American tax dollars.
Now therefore be it resolved that America would be better off with less government and fewer politicians.

The original claims of no polar ice, NYC and Miami under water, killer hurricanes have not come to pass, so now they have moved on to "drought in California" (Doesn't anyone remember the song "It doesn't rain in southern California" ? And now we have the nutjob congress critter claiming climate change will turn all mothers into prostitutes.