A new look on global warming

Remove all ads!

Well considering we have a typical chicago pay to play leader, whoever he appoints will have contributed to his campaign war-chest.
This statement is based on his actual actions. Just look at his ambassador nominees, 19 of them contributed $4.8 million to the presidents campaign.
Thats the same thing that got rod blagojevich in trouble.

Oh here are some links to that so certain people can't say "prove it!"
Obama Offers Prime Posts to Top Campaign Contributors
Now it's payback time for the big league of Obama fundraisers
Obama rewards donors with plum posts abroad
Another Batch of Obama Ambassador Nominees Give Big Bucks
Big Donors & Bundlers Among Obama's Ambassador Picks
Obama's New Ambassador Nominees Gave Big -- and Bundled Bigger
Three More Bundlers Among Obama's Ambassador Picks
Two More Big Donors & Bundlers Nominated for Ambassador Posts

 

Martaug, I couldn't get all your links to work, but I haven't seen anything incriminating yet. I was able to get several of your links from around the 28th of May to work, and given that 3 out of 12 nominees amounts to just 25%, I fail to see your point. At the risk of stating the obvious, when 25% of Obama's ambassador appointees bundled for him, it logically follows that 75% of them didn't.

Spoiler

...and I find it doubtful that all 7 of his other nominees bundled for him. If my assumption is incorrect or more than, say, half of the other 7 did, feel free to correct me.

The dollars and cents you included are also very misleading since most of Obama's appointees didn't bundle for him. For those who did, though, qualified politicos on both sides of the aisle bundle for their parties' presidential candidates all the time. These qualified politicos are also often given appointments. This is hardly unusual, happens on both sides of the aisle, and when these appointments happen, the reason usually lies with their qualifications rather than their fund-raising expertise. This is, of course, completely off-topic -- especially since I never actually accused the EPA of corruption. Sometimes, martaug, a quip is just a quip.

 

Oopshad some double http:// in some of the links, they are fixed now.

No a quip can't just be a quip(that would take all of the fun out of it & thats DMC's job)

1) Louis Susman, 71, a retired Citigroup Inc. senior investment banker, raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and another $300,000 for his inauguration. On Wednesday, Obama nominated Susman to the post formally known as the Court of St.

2)John Roos, chief executive officer of the Palo Alto, California-based law firm Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, to Japan. He raised more than $500,000 for Obama.

3)Charles Rivkin, chief executive officer of Wildbrain Inc., to France. Rivkin collected more than $500,000 for Obama’s campaign and $300,000 for his inauguration.

4)Laurie Fulton, a partner with Williams & Connolly LLP, to Denmark. Fulton, 59, raised $100,000 to $200,000.

5)David Jacobson, who served as deputy finance chairman for Obama’s campaign and has been at the White House as an aide to the president for the Office of Presidential Personnel, will be America’s ambassador to Canada & brought in between $50,000 and $100,000.


6)White House Personnel Director Don Gips, will become ambassador to South Africa, if confirmed by the Senate. Gips raised $500,000 for the campaign and has been a longtime Obama ally, initially helping Obama assemble staff for his Senate office.

7)Los Angeles businesswoman and philanthropist Nicole Avant is receiving what is perhaps the plushest post. She will head up the U.S. mission in the Bahamas, one of the most sought-after locales in the diplomatic world. Avant raised $500,000 for Obama’s campaign and was a co-host at a Beverly Hills fundraiser the president attended last week. With Rivkin, Avant was co-chairwoman of the campaign’s California finance team.

8)Bruce J. Oreck, for ambassador to Finland. Oreck, a lawyer who previously served as general counsel and vice president of his family's famous vacuum company, bundled more than $500,000 to Obama's presidential campaign. He and his wife, Charlotte, also bundled another $75,000 Obama's inauguration. (Existing disclosure requirements for inauguration bundlers don't make it clear whether that includes his personal contribution of $50,000.) Along with his wife and children, he has contributed $261,550 to federal Democratic candidates, parties and committees since 1989. That includes $9,200 to Obama and $1,000 to Hillary Clinton last cycle.

9) William C. Eacho III, for Austria. Chief executive officer of the financial services and real estate firm the Carlton Capital Group, Eacho also bundled at least $500,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and another $100,000 for his inauguration. Along with his wife, Donna, he has contributed more than $228,900 to federal candidates, committees and parties since 1989, with 83 percent going to Democrats. These contributions include $2,300 to Clinton and $9,200 to Obama during their presidential runs last cycle.

10)Daniel M. Rooney: Owner and chairman of the Pittsburgh Steeler's football team, he and his wife have contributed at least $152,400 to federal candidates, committees and parties since the 1990 election cycle, including $500 to Obama. Ninety percent of their funds have gone to Democrats. Rooney also endorsed Obama in the run-up to Pennsylvania's heated presidential primary in April of 2008. He is a co-founder of the Ireland-related fundraising organization, The Ireland Funds, as well, and he has been nominated to be the ambassador to Ireland.

11)Colorado business executive Vinai Thummalapally for ambassador to Belize. Thummalapally has been a longtime friend of the president's, ever since they were roommates at Occidental College. He has also been a longtime financial backer of Obama's, including bundling between $100,000 and $200,000 for his 2008 presidential bid.

12)Former Virginia lieutenant governor and businessman Donald Beyer for ambassador to both Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Beyer and his wife, Megan, have contributed more than $399,000 to Democratic candidates, parties and committees since 1989.

13)Washington lawyer Howard W. Gutman for ambassador to Belgium. He and his wife, Michelle Loewinger, have contributed at least $86,150 to Democratic candidates, parties and committees since 1989.

14)Mark Gitenstein, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank and a partner with a DC-based law firm, for ambassador to Romania. Gitenstein and his wife, Elizabeth, have contributed more than $128,600 to federal candidates, parties and committees since the 1990 election cycle — with 98 percent of that money going to Democrats

15)Kentucky Internet media executive Matthew Barzun for ambassador to Sweden, Barzun and his wife have contributed at least $376,300 to federal candidates, parties and committees since 1989. Barzun also bundled at least $500,000 for Obama's presidential campaign, personally contributed $25,000 to his inauguration and, according to Public Citizen, some $187,500 for his inaugural committee.

16)Minnesota lawyer Samuel L. Kaplan for ambassador to Morocco,
has contributed more than $273,100 to federal candidates, parties and committees since 1989, including the legal maximum of $9,200 to Obama last cycle and $2,000 to Clinton since her 2000 U.S. Senate bid. The Kaplans also bundled at least $100,000 for Obama's presidential campaign

Now this is an established practice in washington(one i personally find offensive) however obama ran on the platform of not doing the same old washington two-step. So far he hasn't done anything to prove he isn't just another crooked politician.

Edit
Did you know there is a post maximum length? anything over 30,000 characters is a no-no.

 

Personally, I don't think this is a big deal. I see a huge difference between running fundraisers with maximum donations of $2500 for a presidential administration and some wealthy fat-cat just cutting a check -- you know, the way they did it back in the good old days. If almost everyone Obama appointed was a bundler, we would have a clear case of corruption, but that isn't what happened. While the percentage of bundler-appointees may seem high at first glance, it needs to be remembered that the percentage of high-level qualified political operatives who bundle for their party during election year is also going to be pretty high.

If you don't like it, I suggest you get on board with limiting the spending power of (and setting maximum donations for) 527 groups, the DNC, the RNC and other parties' national committees the next time they try to pass a campaign finance reform bill. We won't be getting the money out of politics until we remove the opportunities that wealthy fat-cats currently have to wield disproportionate influence by making capless donations to the DNC or RNC and by starting or making capless donations to 527 groups that can then place an unlimited number of ads in an unlimited number of media outlets.

 

Martaug - Sorry, but you know that many of those on your list are flat-out energy lobbyists (like Labohm), or are on the payroll of the energy groups, or activist groups themselves. That in itself does not discredit them. Being an activist for a cause you believe in is commendable. You should feel confident though - Big money and the lobbyists will eventually control the debate, and in the end, their agenda for the use of more fossil fuels and American dependence on the energy companies will win out. What that means for GW, I can't say, since its a global issue and there are many factors and players that will determine the final outcome. But it seems the energy companies are leading the charge against the notion of GW.

There's nothing wrong with being a political advocate for fossil fuels and an unclean envirionment (and I don't mean you personally), as long as the filth does not damage the health of my family and my make my community an undesirable place to live. Places like Deer Park and Pasadena, TX are awash in the stink and filth of the energy companies clustered on the East Side of Houston - I know I've been there. I would never live there. When I lived in the center of Houston there were mornings I could taste the dirt in the air - but you kinda get used to the smell after awhile, unitl you go somewhere else, where you notice that the air is pure and doesn't have a strange chemical taste to it. Of course, Houston has some of filthiest air on the planet. That is why I live out of the city, in the woods, where the trees filter the air a bit for us. Lucky me (and my children).

I wonder if carbon dioxide is a good thing to have in the atmosphere anyway, GW aside. Maybe Vincent Gray could demonstrate by sticking his head into a bag of carbon dioxide and proving to us that there is no effect from it. Last time I checked it was a poison. Of course, NZ is not the East Side of Houston, with its huge petro and chemical plants. It must be nice for him, since NZ is a rather beautiful place with a nice, and probably very clean environment to live in.

But wait, let's see what we can learn about Vincent Gray. Do you think he was ever on the payroll of an energy company? Could be. Maybe he even worked in the coal industry.

But who is the Coal Research Association of New Zealand?

http://www.infomine.com/index/suppliers/Coal_Research_Association_of_New_Zealand_Inc.html

What do all these coal people have to say anyway?

They too are concerned about the "effects" of GW (more specifically that there are not any on their business model). It would seem that "warming" of profits is the concern for these boys. Can't say I blame them though; everyone wants to make a buck.

http://www.coalassociation.org/main.php?page=31

 

David Bellamy? Now that's a name I recognize; he was the 'other David' in biology in the UK, so long ago. Whatever happened to him...

So, the guy got duped by a bogus website, and made a fool of himself (sound familiar?). That's sad. He's a glutton for punishment, coz after that last statement, he went at it again. And now only the AGW skeptics will have him. He used to be a meritable scientist.

I'm all for knocking down loads and loads of weak criticisms of AGW, martaug. But when the arguments made are based on outright falsehoods, then it's a dirty fight. I'm searching for truth, AGW skeptics are out to sway the public. I find their approach tasteless and pathetic.

 

And I'm, telling you that you're way off. You don't even understand the magnitude of the approximation we're talking about. In fact, my comparison to phone numbers is actually vastly smaller than what they're trying to do. They're taking, what, 1000+ temperature samples for the entire US? They're error margin should be about +/-95% of their results.

I was actually talking about the original one that started the whole GW movement. It has been shown to be blatantly fallacious, and the author threw out 95% of his datapoints as error without definition of criteria for error. Ladies and gentlemen, even if you have a definition of criteria for error, if you ever do a scientific study and find 95% of your datapoints are error, you need to re-do the entire study.

As I pointed out before, they really aren't. The fact that you seem to believe we can make some meaningful comparisons by comparing temperatures in London in 1450 AD with temperatures in Cairo in 400 BC alone tells me there's a problem.

No they aren't because they aren't in consistent locations, which screws up everything. If you had 50K data samples of temperatures in London over the past 2000 years, then you could make some claims about temperature changes in London, but if you scattter those datapoints over the entire world, it becomes meaningless. Local and unusual changes, like an earthquake or a volcanic eruption or a forest fire, become significant factors. The different locations for those data points actually invalidates any conclusions that can be drawn from them.

Again you rely on Wiki. Seriously, it's not reliable on anything of any political or social significance. They've even had cases of moderators fraudulently attributing quotes to experts that actually hold the opposite position. And, as to the claims linked, CO2, by itself, is a terribly ineffective greenhouse gas. It accounts for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse effect, and that's with modern levels of CO2.

Yes, in life forms. That's part of the carbon cycle.

Actually, activated nitrogen compounds, such as nitrate and nitrite, are the limiting factor of growth in just about all ecosystems we know of, including the ocean. It isn't carbon at all, and certainly isn't CO2.

Wow, burning trees made black smoke? Stop the presses! Coin, that smoke is burning sap and pitch, which becomes particulate, which makes the smoke black. That same particulate matter then settles out of the air in a couple of days/weeks (depending on how long the fires last) and fertilize the soil. That's not going to have any noticable impact on the greenhouse effect.

I think your problem is that you're confusing carbon with CO2. The amount of carbon in the environment should never really change (unless we shoot something into space). The amount of CO2 in the air may.

Unfortunately, the problem is that more questions aren't becoming more research (at least, not commonly accepted research) because GW has become policial and anyone that questions it is ostracized.

This is only a problem if the consensus is right, which is why we're questioning it: we don't think it is. If the consensus is wrong (which mounting evidence is pointing to), then those regulations could cause a GREAT deal of harm without providing any benefit at all.

Not 100%, just on big political issues. Remember, their funding is based on how much of a result people think they're getting. People only see big moves, and big numbers spent. A $50,000 basis for a grassroots campaign to put up fences, though it would actually make a HUGE difference, doesn't show up on the public (or congressional) radar.

No, the problem is we're claiming there's no problem to solve in the first place.

Coin, if you actually believe that, you are idealistic an nieve. It happens in all fields to some degree or another. Did you know that Einstein's original Special Theory of Relativity actually had a fudged Universal Constant, so that his results and predictions wouldn't fly in the face of the currently accepted Static Universe theory? He later called that constant the greatest mistake he ever made. No, the fraudulent studies will stay in until a majority of scientists challenge them. Even then, nothing bad is likely to happen to most of the scientists who published/supported them.

Being in the media is one thing. Being hired for a job is another. Here in the US, scientists that challenge AGW are sidetracked. They don't get the funding for studies (even non-AGW studies), they're classes are limited, their results aren't published, etc. Sure, once in a while one of them makes the news for challenging AGW, but they are largely ostracized from the scientific community.

Actually, it is a well-established fact (though not highly publicized) that increased CO2 causes increased plant size. Also, no, it's not a poison. It just pushes Oxygen out of the way for us Oxygen breathers (once you reach 7-10% concentration, that's about 250X what we have in the air today).

Additionally, history shows that all the most productive and idealic periods of human history were durring warming periods, so warm temperatures are probably a good thing, not a bad thing. If they pose any threat at all, it's only because our society is adjusted to the current levels and is inflexible.

 

Coin, I believe global warming is occurring. That part of the message I get. But the conclusions that some people are reaching based on that knowledge are just utter crap. The message that if I radically change my life, making huge sacrifices along the way, it will make a big difference, is horsepoop. I don't need any data other than the simple population data I presented in my last post. I categorically refuse to be cowed by scare tactics.

Now I believe that as a society we should make efforts to be cleaner. We should recycle more. I get that message. But the activists are not content with that. They start in with the "You people are so selfish and wasteful, you are killing everyone with your extravagant lifestyle!" crap. I don't believe that part of the message. Not for one second. I'll make the changes I think are necessary, but I'm not about to live my life in fear, constantly second guessing myself at every single aisle of the foodstore. If I followed every activist piece of advice, I'd be paralyzed -- I'd never be able to do anything.

So I'm a common sense person with a social conscience (or to use your phrase, environmentally aware.) I don't litter, I try not to waste electricity, I recycle, and that sort of thing. A regular guy, just like you. My "caricature", though, was of people who become so wrapped up in their cause that their shrill, sanctimonious preaching tends to make me want to go burn plastic bags rather than make any of the changes they try to guilt me into. But I understand the message they are spouting and I understand why they do what they do. I just don't buy all of their conclusions and I think their scare techniques will backfire in the long run.

 

Yeah, uh... you and I aren't going to see eye to eye on this, NOG. Your claims are based on studies which I, as well as the mainstream scientific community, find questionable. You claim that the majority of the community actively and willingly participates in shunning legitimate researchers and critics.

That's what happens when scientists' research has been shown to be unreproducable, and/or not make it past peer review. It makes no difference whether the person accepts the conclusion or not. Now if you haven't heard about the negative review, or choose to ignore it, or dismiss it as biased... Well, then you become convinced that mainstream scientists are corrupt.

That's a lousy solution. Your conclusion is that it's impossible to make a collective effort to tackle global warming, so you give up. It solves YOUR dilemma, but leaves the problem untackled. And just don't worry about those caricatures: They are poor spokesmen for the issue, and their crummy rantings do more harm to environmental awareness than NOG or martaug could do! Appealing to the public requires a certain eloquence, and they totally fail in their goal. Look at how you reacted; they got an aware person contemplating pollution just to spite them. They're more like hormonal teenagers venting their frustrations.

I'm glad to hear that I'm preaching to the choir here. We are alike on this issue: Just try to do what's practical in your own lifestyle, and support plans and projects that will make recycling and conservation easier. It's not reasonable to ask more of the common person; if you insist on doing more, it should be your own business.

 

That's the basic thrust of what I've been saying.

 

I've been largely silent on this topic, mostly because I do not think it is possible to change many people's minds on this issue. However, I do feel compelled to bring up this point:

Even if you think the concept of anthropomorphic global warming is total and utter crap, there are good reasons to take steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The worst that can happen if we reduce fossil fuel use and turn to more green energy sources is cleaner air and a reduced dependency on foreign oil. That is something that I hope all of us can agree is a good idea - regardless of your political stripe, and regardless of your ideas of global warming.

 

Actually, unfortunately, the "scientific community" is a remarkably subdivided group. Geologists and astrophysicists don't talk much. Basically, the bulk of the "research" is being done by this new field of Climatology, which is a pretty new group, almost entirely raised durring the whole "GW is teh devil, we're killing the O-Zone layer" period. People raised durring that period who then go on to focus on studying climates and climate change are probably mostly the True Believer type, the type who accept a party line and need remarkable evidence to question it. This also explains why the bulk of those challenging AGW are not climatologists, but rather geologists, meteorologists, chemists, etc. Those fields overlap enough with climate change that they can easily see BS in particular claims and cry foul, but because they aren't "specialists" in the field, fewer people listen to them.

Normally, yes. Here, though, it's being done before the research is even conducted. A proposal gets put forward for a study that will "test the theory of Anthropomorphic Global Warming" and, if the researcher isn't a die-hard AGW fanatic, it dies on the budget table. Other reseachers are shunned just for saying in public that there are any problems at all with AGW.

I agree, with some caveats. A resticted, planned progression to cleaner, more renewable power sources is a wonderful idea. Petrolium products of almost all kinds put all kinds of waste into the air/water other than CO2 and I'd love to see an end to them all. Coal, too. Unfortunately, what's being proposed at current isn't a planned and careful conversion, but a mad dash which may well cripple our economy for decates. And worse, if it's passed on to developing and undeveloped nations, it pretty much screws any chance of development. The one thing coal and oil provide better than anything else is cheap and (relatively) plentiful energy, which is what developing nations need to develop. In other words, trying to put India or Uganda on solar power will only serve to ensure they remain at their current level of development for longer.

In other words, the worst case scenario is much worse than what you propose, Aldeth, but a careful, planned approach to it would solve a lot of issues.

 

That's a bit of a bait and switch you pulled on me there NOG. While I did not explicitly state as much, it should have been clear that my previous post was talking mostly about the US - or at the very least industrialized western nations. I wasn't really talking about the Ugandas of the world.

I'm not trying to minimize nations like Uganda, but the facts are that the per capita carbon footprint of the typical Ugandan is so much smaller than the average American that it would disingenuous to wag a finger in their direction for what they contribute to global pollution. While I don't have any figures to back this assertion, it would not at all surprise me if the US puts out more CO2 and other pollutants in the air than the entire African continent combined. We almost certainly have more vehicles on our roads.

The other issue is that you totally skipped over my second reason: reducing dependecy on foreign oil. I don't have figures for this either, but I cannot imagine that the percentage of their GDP that Indians and Ugandans spend on foreign oil is anywhere near as great as what Americans spend on foreign oil. Foreign oil purchases do not represent a drag on those nations' economies like they do in the US.

Having said all that, I agree in prinicple with what you are saying - that a controlled tranisition would be most desirable. While I think the current cap and trade system likely to be implemented sucks balls - the energy companies will pass the extra costs onto consumers and take the tax hit if retro-fitting their power plants to reduce emissions proves to be economically infeasible - it may accomplish moving us towards cleaner energy in a round about way.

Specifically, the main reason wind and solar power plants comprise such a small percentage of our energy output is the startup costs are high, and most people can get their electricity much cheaper by going with a fossil fuel powered plant as opposed to a solar or wind powered one (if you happen to live in an area where you have a choice in your utility company). Not many investors are willing to foot the bill for the startup costs of solar or wind plants because they currently cannot compete in the rates they charge. What cap and trade might accomplish is to increase the rates that fossil fuel powered plants charge so that solar and wind powered plants can be competitive. The sad truth is people won't go for greener energy so long as traditional sources remain cheaper.

And for all I know, that might be the current administration's plan. IMO, that's a ****ty thing to do to people at a time when 1 in 10 Americans are looking for a job, and will reduce the disposable income of the 9 in 10 Americans who still have a job, but over the long run in might make us greener.

 

Well, on the issue of developing nations, unfortunately, if AGW is right, we need to stop them just as much as we need to stop ourselves.

The dilema, unfortunately, is that, if AGW is right, we need to act now (or soon at least) and across the board; but if it's wrong those same actions could have catestrophic consequences to not only ourselves but others as well. That's the problem with AGW, it's an inherrantly global issue, which would require global solutions with global consequences.

And yes, lesser dependance on foreign oil is good.

 

Aldeth, i think you are pulling a bait & switch on NOG not the other way around. We are talking about Big developing countries not the ugandas of the world. Take the aforementioned china & india, they cover ~9% of the land mass of the earth but have almost 40%(38.6%) of the population & could care less what kind of pollution they do.
Thats without even mentioning russia, do you think they are going to do anything to hurt their economy because we say so?

 

Geologists are often in the employ of oil companies, mining corporations, etc. Meteorologists are linked to the media, which is also privately owned by 'polluting' stakeholders. Chemists, need I even explain? It's easy for opponents of climate awareness to round up some scientists in these fields to voice criticisms about AGW. But (paleo)climatologists are employed directly by universities and research institutes; meaning they face daily scrutiny from colleagues. It's more difficult for corporations to get to them.

I can imagine that such a thing is possible. Perhaps researchers feel so strongly about AGW that they get impatient when a critic voices simplistic doubts. So maybe they don't follow proper scientific procedure, and ostracize a scientist prematurely. If you're suggesting that the scientific community is exhibiting 'guilty demeanor', then I'm not convinced. It would still only be circumstantial.
What is just as possible, if not more so, is that an AGW skeptic bombards the peer review with fallacious arguments, forcing the review board to actively ignore him. The AGW skeptic subsequently interprets this rejection as evidence of corruption in the scientific community. Another dirty trick; one where the culprit tries to appear the victim.

It shouldn't be forced on developing countries; when renewable energy becomes competitive with fossil fuels (and one day it will), then they can take over the new technologies, perhaps encouraged with some subsidies. Heck, the developed world will probably gift obsolete solar panels and similar stuff to the developing world, because it's in everyone's best interest. So never mind the 3rd world: they are neither the source of the problem, nor the solution.

 

Context is a beautiful thing. While flipping someone's rhetorical device is a fun way to make a point, it only works when your point is cogent. In this particular case, NOG really was (probably unintentionally -- I've always known him to argue in good faith) making a bait and switch. It was NOG, not Aldeth, that first brought up the Uganda's of the world.

 

He(nog) actually used INDIA and uganda, so i still think it was a bait & switch(by aldeth)(but possibly not intentional).

 

The India and China points are very valid. If the U.S. cripples its manufacturing industries (in the interest of climate change) it is a falsehood to believe that the manufacturing will disappear. It will instead move to somewhere else and it is foolish to believe that where it moves to will be more "carbon friendly" then where it already was. Does anyone else remember the Beijing Olympics and the pollution? I work with many Indians and they always talk about the pollution.

I think the same thing is true with energy. The U.S. requires a lot of energy. If the government forces the shutdown of power plants, I think a great investment will be in Mexican energy companies which I'm sure will pop up just over the border.

IMHO not only is the science of global warming faulty, the solutions to this fake problem are even more stupid and ineffectual.

However, to build on what someone else posted, I agree that it makes common sense to do things that are as enviromentally friendly as possible. I just see no reason to cripple our economy and decrease our standard of living for what in all probability is nothing.

 

Those organizations are big employers in those fields, but "big employers" means about 30% of jobs, at most. My mother's a geologist and, yes, she worked for Texaco for a number of years, but she's also worked for private organizations that had nothing to do with Big Oil, and currently works for the State version of the EPA, cracking down on oil. She specializes in oil permiability and motility, meaning knowing how oil moves in different environments (groundwater, for example).

And anyway, the real problem is that both sides have defendable arguements of elite bias, one side from Big Oil, the other side largely from the University Liberal Intellectual Elite.

It's widespread and pernicious, which speaks to me of intentional bias.

If that were the case, they'd flat out be fired (assuming they don't have Tenure). Instead, they're sidelined on all the important stuff. On top of that, if the issue were falacious arguements, the moment said skeptic gets in the news as yet another university skeptic being sidelined, the University would just show all the poor arguements the individual had presented. I have yet to hear about that being done.

I'd count that as if rather than when, though I do still hold hope. Still, in the mean time, you're forcing these nations to stay in 3rd world conditions, and these nations won't like that in the least. And if you don't force it on them, then they continue spewing CO2 into the air at 100X the rate we do today.

As to India and Uganda, there was no intentional bait and switch, but rather an inclusion of future projections. Uganda is not developing now, but it will likely do so someday, and (at least at present) fossil fuels are the only real way they could do so. India and other nations like them are seeing problems now, but don't think that, once they're through, that's the end of it. There's still all of Africa, many places in South America, and other parts of Asia to develop, and I don't expect those places to sit idly by and wait for handouts.

Lastly, as a whole, history shows us that prosperity doesn't breed generosity, so don't assume that, just because we've advanced to the point of efficient solar cells, we'll be giving them away for free, even old ones. How many computers, even old ones, are given to African nations today? How many radios? How many other things? Sure, it's there, but it's a trickle, not a flood.