We spent the evening in Denver last with some very pleasant fellow bloggers, two of whom we knew by their blogs, but not by their stirling personalities. Most of us write about the environment from time to time.
The subject was wide ranging, but mostly politics. We were the guest of Paul Chesser, who wanted to fill us in on the influence of and tactics being used by the Center for Climate Studies to promote an outcome whose costs they can't predict and carefully don't address.
Paul Chesser had briefed several organizations, and we had seen his presentation once before.
The Independence Institute was escorting him around town, and he did brief several legislators. The Denver Post had a short piece that didn't really do justice to what he was saying, but it did bring out the climate police in the form of 122 comments. One of the more ridiculous was this:
I attended the Independence Institute's meeting last night that was referred to in the article. As a registered Republican, I have to say that I was just amazed by the poor quality of the presentation and embarrassed on behalf of the Institute and the presenters. I expected more from an organization that presumes to be nationally-known. The presenter for the Independence Inst. had NO DATA at all (claiming ridiculously that "the government wouldn't give them the data", which is obviously garbage given that I was able to download university-researched info this morning), he just attacked one advocacy group, and used Bill Clinton quotes to deprecate everything else, and relied on curious statements about economic consequences. I would've expected better argument and more compelling presentation from a high-school class. Random old people standing up, accusing people (presumably Democrats) of being Marxists and Socialists, saying they should "send them to Cuba," it was just pathetic (and again, I'm a registered Republican). The Independence Institute and its supporters should feel ashamed of the totally pathetic presentation and discussion last night. If they represent the "other side" to the climate change argument, trust me, Bill Ritter and the Dems have NOTHING to worry about.
Jim Spencer is a registered Republican, too. Heck, this could be Jim Spencer.
The curious statements about economic consequences are that this group is careful to avoid that discussion.
They want to reduce the production of greenhouse gases by 80% from the present levels by 2050 but admit that they have no idea how that will be done. Consider that the US Population probably will have doubled by then, meaning that every man, woman, and child will be living on 10% of the energy consumption that we live on now. We will drive one mile for every ten we drive today. We will heat our homes to a chilly 50 degrees and cool them in the summer to a balmy 85 degrees.
It isn't just our homes. Our workplaces will be equally unpleasant places to be and the production will be cut to 10% of what it is now. Energy production equates to wealth, and these people are determined to cut both our power and our wealth. Thinking of jetting off to a pleasant vacation? Walking is more like it.
Comments