They must know that they're pushing junk science. They must know that manmade greenhouse gases cannot possibly influence global temperature by the premise of CO2 emissions any more than bovine flatulence-- or burps--does (the troll Houstonmod's ignorant heckling notwithstanding, there is actually well-endowed research going on that is trying to figure out which end of the cow--moo or poo--causes our baby planet to get feverish--inconclusive to date, btw), and they admit as much when cornered.
The troll houstonmod unwittingly provides an excellent exemplar of that (and is a fine representative of the overall leftist mindset). He is not an independent thinker (no less a "scientist") and has proven that by mouthing the "Precautionary Principle," a fallback position that has obviously--by its repetition and ubiquitousness--been learned by rote and widely circulated by the missionary disciples of The Agenda (like houstonmod):
What I find scary is the hide your head in the sand attitude of some people when looking at global warming. IF global warming can be prevented, it is in our best interest to stop it. IF global warming goes as some say it will, the repercussions would be truly devastating to the world and the US. Even if this is only a possibility, it would be insane to not fight it now while we may still have a chance to avert this catastrophe.
Note also the "hide your head in the sand" descriptive of those who rationally disagree with the "CO2 Dunnit" crowd. It is a stock witticism that's liberally passed around and always thrown down as if it were a playing-card in some child's game: "'Head in the sand!' Ha ha! Lose a turn!"
If you Google "head in the sand" and "global warming," you get 1,070,000 hits.
(and houstonmod called your one-of-a-kind host a "plagiarist")
The point is that they get their talking points from centralized gurus or the grapevine cultivated by them. They read from the same playbook that tells them how to ridicule skeptics.
It's like a church with priests, choir, and psalm books--if not a cult.
Note also the fear-mongering hyperbole and mischaracterization that leftists unfailingly resort to (before launching ad hominems) in lieu of a strong counter-argument:
"Scary," the "head-in-the-sand attitude" implying extreme denial over rational disagreement, not just "devastating," but "truly devastating" (echoes of Lee Harvey--they all think and argue the same), "Even if it is only a possibility, it would be insane to not fight it now...to avert this catastrophe."
So those who don't obey to "fight" on their terms based on the mere possibility that they're analysis is correct are "insane?"
Note also that the insistence upon action is based on "IF," "IF," and "IF."
That is not the language and practice of science!
Furthermore, he engages--right before your eyes--in exactly the kind of histrionic, fear-mongering pleading and preemptive reasoning that Bush & Co. were incessantly accused of engaging in to justify the preemptive invasion of Iraq (which to this day demonstrably has more destructive weapons in the wrong hands than there is CO2 in the atmosphere).
Hey waitasec. Is all this just some kind of vindictive tit-for-tat rhetoric from environmentalists who are also antiwar types (all of them, for sure) being petty because they felt Bush condescended to or tricked them in that same manner?
They're mouthing the same words and engaging in precisely the same kind of specious reasoning they accused the administration of utilizing to invade Iraq.
Irony, hypocrisy, projection, or simply revenge?
(the troll houstonmod tried this in the commentary of a post on Ann Coulter, trying to use her own words against her in the pursuit of his own cause, but it backfired)
If the Global Warming "Deniers" started being called "unpatrotic," perhaps there would be something to that...
Actually, they have been called "unpatriotic."
These are not scientists. They're political activists with axes to grind, and with an ulterior agenda.
Listen carefully to the proposed "solutions" and recognize that they oh-so-conveniently accomplish what far-left environmentalists, socialists, and communists (all three being birds of a feather) have been prescribing for over a century (but have been rejected under their respective banners): Regulation of the free market and Marxist control of the means of production.
The troll houstonmod gives away the game when he defensively heckles:
John's paranoia about "draconian" industrial limits which he clearly believes will destroy the economy are both baseless and short sighted. In fact, a new industry based on reducing emissions would be a huge boom to the US.(and get us out from under our dependency on foreigh oil).John's "paranoia...which he clearly believes will destroy the economy?"
Houstonmod's a liar. Nowhere has Republicus written, with any clarity, no less, that Kyoto would "destroy" the economy (nor has he denied warmer temperatures, as accused). Houstonmod is projecting his own hysterical hyperbolics on your well-measured host for the sake of ridiculing the position that such one-sided-- and yes, draconian-- regulations that would be imposed on American industries (especially when other countries like China would be exempt) would be detrimental to our economic growth and well-being. How detrimental is uncertain, but your host did not blather anything like:
What Republicus finds scary is the hide your head in the sand attitude of some people when looking at the economical consequences of Global Warming regulations. IF those consequences can be prevented, it is in our best interest to stop them. IF the consequences of imposed regulations go as some say they will, the repercussions would be truly devastating to the world and the US. Even if this is only a possibility, it would be insane to not fight the regulations now while we may still have a chance to avert this catastrophe.Republicus respects the intelligence of his readers too much to do so.
And what's this:
In fact, a new industry based on reducing emissions would be a huge boom to the US.(and get us out from under our dependency on foreigh oil)
Note also how he tossed out the red-meat of patriotism to those dumb conservatives by patronizing: "Yes kids! We don't have to worry about giving money to foreigners if we wean ourselves off of oil!"
He himself doesn't care about that. It was simply a condescending aside to simpletons (i.e. "Global Warming Deniers" who must be conservative and who therefore must be xenophobes and so must hate giving money to foreigners). Would he care that the oil industry in Texas would also suffer? Of course not. So why the discrimination?
And look at this: "...the repercussions would be truly devastating to the world and the US."
That slip betrays his leftist, Manichaean worldview: It's not "the U.S. and the rest of the world," but "the world and the U.S."
These aren't first-draft-but-posted typos or errors that are irrelevant to substance (i.e. the kinds of things he attacks your host about by pointing to them and whining "Are facts allowed on this blog?"), but are substantial revelations of his leftist ideology (which always--by its nature-- compromises Reason).
Finally, the new "industry" he refers to will be under the auspices of an envisioned "new and improved" EPA in Washington that would dwarf the DHS by sheer magnitude, by its army of reformers, lawyers, and enforcers.
We should look carefully at the players who decide energy policy in the United States (this carbon credit business came out of nowhere and may very well reach everyone's doorstep soon).
Republicus is not too worried about Bush's people (even though Bush has shown a disturbing tendency to cave since the mid-term elections, beginning with the sacking of Rummy and then paying lip-service to the Kyoto crowd in SOTU), but this new congress is going to make much mischief.