I see by some of the posts that we all shared some skepticism about Hanson's initial claims of global warming.
If it was budgetary or political (it could not have been simple stupidity), why did so many people buy it when someone like myself whose understanding of meteorology goes no further than the simplest of local weather forecasts doubted its veracity from the beginning?
posted on 02/03/2002 8:47:38 AM PST
by Lady Jag
The history of this "debate" goes back to the early 60's when the Democrats began losing congressional seats in oil producing states. When "Big Oil" (like Big Tobbaco after them) began making larger campaign donations to the more business-friendly Republicans than to the diminishing 'dixiecrats' (just as happened later with tobbaco) the Dems party leaders switched into Demonization mode and started the "Get Oil Out" campaign. This, of course, was cloaked in the resectable flag of the infant conservation movement and abetted by the traitors who saw America's energy superiority as a threat to the Communist revolution they so dearly hoped would overtake the west. The current Global Warming ploy was to have the same effect of hurting domestic oil producers (and therefore consumers) to the point that 1) when in power Republicans would find it hard to openly accept "oil money" and 2) when Dems are in power they would be the happy recieptiants of oil company 'protection money' to keep the most Draconian of possible laws at bay!
In short...FOLLOW THE MONEY!
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson