Global Warming

Can the Climate Conference Avoid Diplomatic Doom?

Ronald Bailey's third dispatch from the Copenhagen climate conference

|

Copenhagen, December 16—It's déjà vu all over again. Another year, another climate summit on the verge of collapse. As usual, this year's conference is filled with lots of diplomatic drama, outraged activists, and high-minded rhetoric. This is the sixth time I've reported on the annual U.N. climate change conference and the script has not changed. Two years ago the chaotic climate change talks in Bali "nearly collapsed." The conference concluded with an thirteenth hour "roadmap" for future negotiations. That last minute deal was supposed to set the stage for a legally binding global climate treaty from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC) 15th Conference of the Parties (COP-15) in Copenhagen.

But even before the delegates convened at the Bella Center south of Copenhagen, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen stated that no such comprehensive treaty would be completed at COP-15. The aim shifted to negotiating a political agreement that set out specific goals for cuts in the emissions of greenhouse gases and the amount of money that developed countries would pledge to give poor countries to help them adapt to climate change.

It appears that a lot people assumed going into COP-15 that the replacement of the widely loathed George W. Bush with Barack Obama as U.S. president would change everything. Much to the shock and horror of many of the "climate justice" activists gathered here in Hopenhagen, it hasn't.

At a Climate Action Network press conference today, an Oxfam campaigner warned that the U.S. risks "being seen as the country that brought these negotiations to its knees." And a Greenpeace activist lamented that the U.S. could come out of these negotiations being thought "obstructionist, much like the Bush administration." He's right. Following in the footsteps of their Bush administration predecessors, negotiators for the Obama administration are insisting that big emerging economies must take on some verifiable obligations with regard to their greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, if countries like China don't make some international commitments to controlling their emissions, then neither will the United States. Now COP-15 conferees are waiting to see if either country will blink in the next 24 hours.

Speaking of soaring rhetoric, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was afforded an opportunity to address an adoring crowd at the conference this afternoon. A very busy Yvo de Boer, the UNFCCC executive secretary, took time out of tense negotiations to personally introduce Kerry. The senator assured the audience, "President Obama is coming to Copenhagen to put America on the right side of history." Kerry then promised, "Next year the House and Senate will pass comprehensive energy and climate change legislation that will reduce our emissions." At a later press conference, Kerry said he didn't know what form the legislation would take, but mentioned that some members of Congress favored a carbon tax. In his speech Kerry added that meeting the challenge of getting climate change legislation passed this spring, "can be enormously assisted by what happens here." What Kerry is saying is that if President Obama can take back a Copenhagen agreement that looks like the whole world is on board already, that would put pressure on recalcitrant members of Congress to go along with carbon rationing schemes.

However, the Massachusetts senator made it clear that whatever is agreed to must include commitments by emerging economies to control their greenhouse gas emissions. "In order to pass a climate change bill, we have to reassure senators that steelworkers in Ohio won't lose their jobs to India and China," Kerry added. "Countries that fail to make commitments can't dump their high carbon products in our markets."

Carbon trade wars, anyone? At an earlier session sponsored by the Bellona Foundation, Michael Williams of the Blue Green Alliance, a labor union/environmentalist lobby group, pointed out that the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act passed by the House of Representatives last June contains provisions establishing "border tax adjustments" that aim to protect 47 sectors of the U.S. economy from foreign carbon dumping. The previous day, Chinese Ambassador Yu Qingtao strongly rejected the idea of carbon tariffs and warned, "We oppose action by any country to set up new trade barriers using climate protection as an excuse." It was pleasant to hear a vigorous defense of free trade from a representative of Communist China.

Recognizing that the U.S. proposal to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below their 2005 levels by 2020 is being widely criticized at COP-15 for "lack of ambition," Kerry told his audience not to get too hung up on that figure. He predicted that in the coming years it will be so easy and cheap to cut emissions that "every country that has put a reductions target out there will exceed their targets." A bold prediction, given the fact that lots of Kyoto Protocol signatories have already failed to meet their reduction targets.

At a press conference this evening, UNFCCC executive secretary de Boer said, "I still believe it's possible to reach real success, but I must say that in that context the next 24 hours are absolutely crucial." Major issues to be decided (or not) during the next 24 hours include scrapping the Kyoto Protocol and replacing with comprehensive treaty that includes commitments from developing nations; requiring developed nations to cut their emissions by 20 percent or by 40 percent by 2020; setting a limit to global warming of 1.5 degrees C or 2.0 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to 350 ppm or 450 ppm; and supplying $100 billion in annual climate change aid to poor countries by 2020.

So the pressure is on. Both President Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and 113 other heads of state will be at COP-15 on Friday to sign something or other. Of course, COPs have always in the past managed to avoid diplomatic doom, if not planetary doom. There is every chance that this COP will do much the same: reach an agreement long on self-congratulation and short on specific commitments.

A couple of additional notes about the conference:

Climategate reared its ugly head a couple of times today. For example, during the Bellona Foundation session, Jeremy Symons of the National Wildlife Federation adopted Al Gore's meme that it's a smear campaign orchestrated by climate change "deniers" funded by oil companies who are trying to derail climate change negotiations by playing "gotcha politics with 10 year-old emails." Never mind that the some of the emails are as recent as October.

President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who went 40 minutes over his allotted five minutes in his address to delegates, turned in his usual amazing performance. Chavez declaimed, "There is a ghost running through the streets of Copenhagen…a terrible ghost. Capitalism is that ghost." The Venezuelan despot also compared the conference to an "imperial dictatorship" and threatened that "no document created during the summit would be accepted by the Bolivarian Alliance."

Polar bears continue to pop up all over the conference. This one wants to keep the climate cool by cutting back atmospheric carbon dioxide to just 350 parts per million, down from 387 today:

Note: Yes, I did say in my last dispatch that I would report on the latest findings about melting ice and snow, but reporting on the negotiations prevented it. I will try to do so in tomorrow's dispatch.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is available from Prometheus Books.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

309 responses to “Can the Climate Conference Avoid Diplomatic Doom?

  1. Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data ? cherrypicked warmest stations
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..-stations/

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/1…..mate-data/

      1. This shit just keeps getting better. I cannot wait to hear the AGW fundamentalists try and spin this one.

        1. Epi, it’s just a storm in a teacup you know, thousands, … no millions, err I mean billions of scientist agree that AGW is a settled science, the debate is over!

        2. Yeah Epi, how in the world could we counter this? A “pro-market” think tank in Russia released a report saying data was improperly cherry-picked. Man, that’s devastating!

          Think tank ideologically against climate change policy says climate change findings improper!

          C’mon Epi, I thought your side was supposed to be “skeptics.”

          1. The fact that you use the words “your side” shows just how much of a team sport the whole AGW thing is for you and a lot of other people, and why I was 100% right to be wary of it. You have no interest in whether it makes any sense or is true; it’s your team’s position and must be defended to the death regardless of merit.

            The fact that you can’t understand how crystal clear this is and has been to a number of us is just another reason why you’re a fundamentalist.

            Understand that I don’t like seeing right-wingers arguing their own set of talking points against AGW, because with many of them it’s just team sports too.

            1. Cut MNG some slack. The minute they admit any conspiracy whatsoever, they lose “conspiracy theorist” as a slam against anyone arguing against one of their plots to gain power.

            2. Epi
              If global warming is true that will be a bad thing for most of my “pet” causes; for example it will devastate the AFL-CIO and most traditional unions.

              I don’t think AGW is true because Democrats tend to agree it is, I think it is true because most people who know a lot more than I do about it say it is.

              My point is that there is really nothing to “spin” here; like I said “Think tank ideologically against climate change policy says climate change findings improper!” To quote Adam Sandler “Whooopedy-doo!”

            3. It’s a religion for these fucked in the head fetuses.

            4. Yeah Steve Mcintyre is actaully a moderate progressive and if he was not Canadian it is safe to say he would proabably vote for democrats.

              Most here are libertarians some of whom voted for Obama. (Mcain was more evil or somthing like that)

              I am sure there are many independant voters who take both sides of the climate issue. They have to seeing as only like 30% or less consider themselves conservative and a larger percentage of the public do not trust AGW.

              MNG is simply a hack. His team says AGW is the truth so he needs to defend that “truth” no matter if they abandon the scientific method or even simply democratic ideals like access to government information.

              Pure partisan hack nothing more.

              There are tons of people here who question libertarian orthidoxy simply to test thier own ideas. Conservatives here as well. It would be nice if we actaully got a progressive here that was principled and could question thier own politics. I suspect though that lefties here who do that quickly become libertarians.

              Like Matt Walch on campaign finance reform…the brute logic simply forces one to see the better path.

              1. I suspect though that lefties here who do that quickly become libertarians….the brute logic simply forces one to see the better path.

                Really?

                As a moderate centrist I find this to be a fascinating conjecture. Truly.

                Faith is a powerful force in human nature, ’tis true.

                1. Neu,
                  “Moderate centist”?

                  Then Mao was a free market ideologist.

              2. Josh, I have repeatedly posted lists of issues where I disagree with Democrats.

                Can you do the same with Libertarians?

                Not only that, but 15 years ago, I considered myself a Republican, and 10 years ago, I considered myself a Libertarian. However, facts change my mind. What changes yours? Can you give examples?

                1. The latest fad changes your mind. You just like to be trendy, you unprincipled loon.

                2. Well, Ed Schultz says he used to be a Republican… and look at him now.

                  Guess people can fall for either dark side, eh, Chad?

          2. Think tank ideologically against climate change policy says climate change findings improper!

            C’mon Epi, I thought your side was supposed to be “skeptics.”

            Nice upside reasoning there, El Doctor. The same can be said (and demonstrated) on the flip side; some motivated actors with an ideological agenda have chosen to manipulate data.

            1. I’m stuck on the “Russian pro-market think tank” bit. Applause!

              Though “it will devastate the AFL-CIO and most traditional unions” is also applause-worthy…

              1. Hey! We got left out! We’re gonna beat the shit out of a black guy – again! Because we’re so angry! And we got shitloads of cash now!

                1. Ain’t nobody beatin’ the shit outta nobody unless WE give the okay. We got squads of goons experienced in that, and you SEIU pussies aren’t any good for anything but changing sheets in Super 8 rooms.

              2. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

                1. *yawn*

        3. They will. I am sure you won’t have to wait long.

    1. A partial list of donors to “Reason” that explain why “global warming is a lie”:

      American Petroleum Institute,
      American Plastics Council,
      ARCO Foundation,
      BP Amoco,
      Chevron Corporation,
      ENRON (R.I.P ODB),
      Exxon Mobil,
      Koch Industries,
      Shell Oil,
      Western States Petroleum

      The world is getting warmer,
      the wallets of the Reasonistas are getting heavier,
      and Leon’s getting larger!

      1. DURR HURR

        REASONTARDS GET DONATIONS FROM COMPANIES N STUFF

        DURR HURR HURR

        1. Since when is “follow the money” incorrect?

          Whole Foods, a corporate donor to “Reason”, gets a very nice treatment by the Reasonistas, despite the inherent hippie stupidity of “organic” food.

          The National Soft Drink Association contributes a couple of fizzy lucres and get a nice “taxing soda is worse than the holocaust” article in return.

          But I’m sure these are just coincidences…

          1. No, they’re obvious statements that you haven’t a clue.
            Take Whole Foods; see any defense of “organic” in the article? Didn’t think so.
            They also sell quite a bit of (what?) non-organic. I know, because that’s what I buy.
            But I’m sure you’d like to outlaw “organic foods” since the typical lefty approach is to use coercion rather than let anyone buy what they please.
            And the non-sense of taxing soda was mentioned in the article; too much logic for you?

            1. Whole Foods gives money to “Reason.”
              Whole Foods gets a softball interview with the Whole Foods CEO in “Reason” magazine.

              The National Soft Drink Association gives money to “Reason.”
              The National Soft Drink Association gets an article about “why taxing soda is an abomination unto the Lord” in “Reason” magazine.

              And you think this is just a coincidence?

              1. You have cause and effect mixed up, crayon. Reason is known for generally opposing taxes and regulation, so industries that don’t want to be taxed and regulated give them money. Duh. By your “follow the money” logic, doctors must be the cause of all illness, because they financially benefit from it.

                1. crayon is one of those anti-capitalist, anti-freedom types. Attempting to engage it in conversation is pointless.

                2. “Reason” should be more open about their corporate sponsors.

                  Pretending to be a publication with ethics and standards while publishing the journalistic equivalent of payola does not endear “Reason” to anyone except the true believers.

                  Disclosing the financial ties between “Reason” and the subjects being written about would be quite sufficient so that overly suspicious individuals such as myself wouldn’t have anything to kvetch about.

                  1. Ah, the Great Reason Takes Corporate Money Conspiracy.

                    Yawn.

                    1. So climate scientists should release all the email correspondence, all their data, and put their entire hard drives online, but it’s OK for “Reason” to hide information about their corporate sponsors?

                      Hypocrite.

                    2. Well, you know, since Reason wants to force all the rich countries of the world into crippling financial stagnation that could totally destroy their economies, all based on a myth, I guess you have a real point here.

                    3. So since nobody gives a shit about “Reason”, they are allowed to do whatever the fuck they want without anyone pointing out their flaws and corruption?
                      Nice logic there, enviro-sparky.

                    4. Since nobody gives a shit about Reason, why are you here worrying about what they write?

                    5. I’m on a humanitarian mission, trying to save you sad, pathetic souls on the wrong side of history from a philosophy of capitalist impotence and misguided dissidence.

                      Consider me a freelance social worker, working tirelessly amongst you, the intellectually feeble, trying to salvage the few of you from hallucinating your life away.

                      Your dreams about this pitiful, incoherent, and cowardly utopia of petty fascism you call libertarian society will never come true, but that doesn’t mean that you have to endure being history’s saddest joke.

                      There’s still hope for you.

                    6. “Fascism” and “libertarianism” aren’t anywhere near each other, crayon.

                      But if you weren’t so blinded by your own ideology, you’d cop to knowing the difference.

                    7. And what’s my ideology, dear?

                    8. consistently being a douche.

                    9. HURRR DURRRRR
                      DOUCHE IS A FUNNY WORD
                      HEEERP DEEERRP

                    10. douche is a french word. crayon is french, vrai?

                    11. I with you crayon. What do we do now? This whole changing the world via typing on comment boards is new to me. Is there a dummy book?

                    12. I also! Draw plans for liberal world conquest in dirt! Get sharpened by union guy with pocket knife!

                    13. Hey! Why doesn’t anyone use us anymore?

                    14. It’s hard to save libertarians, pencil.

                      They are na?ve, perverse, overweight, racist, pedophilic, homophobic, un-patriotic, selfish, arrogant, self-proclaimed “high-functioning autistic” virgin man-child bastards.

                      But we must try to rescue them from their own illusions of unwarranted self-importance even if the only cure is to remove their heads from their respective assholes.

                    15. Please throw away your computer.

                    16. You have proof of all of the above allegations, of course… right, crayon?

                    17. Thanks for the laugh crayon. That was a funny post.

                    18. +1, Hyperion.

                    19. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

                    20. crayon: Hide? We publish our donor list. How do you think the intrepid investigators you rely upon found out? Just saying.

                    21. He doesn’t care, Ron. Reason is pro-capitalism, and that’s all that matters to crayon.

                    22. Not only can you see into the future, Libertarian guy Nostradumbass,
                      but you can also read my mind.

                      It’s not like you’re making up shit as you go along, like some fucked up, shit-covered crack-baby, right?

                    23. You’ve made your views clear – if not coherently – on more than one occasion.

                      Your mentality is more suited for DemocraticUnderground than on here, but you have a right to air your views… even if they are antithetical to freedom – um, er, “freedumb”, as you put it.

                    24. Yes, the great Professor Libertarian Guy read my mind and now he knows everything about me.

                      Truly, you are like an uncircumcised Harry Houdini.

                    25. Oh, I’m circumcised. Your mom found that out.

                      By the way, the ointment isn’t working. And she owes me fifty bucks.

                    26. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

                    27. Their donors are as hidden as the climate data…

                      Boooom!
                      Thanks ya’ll I am here all night.

                      ;^)

                    28. Would you kindly post the link to your donor list?

                    29. Hey, crayon… Reason hasn’t done a story on pinball repair specialists – because Big Pinball Repair is paying Reason NOT to run stories about them.

                      There, I just gave you a HUGE scoop.

                    30. The key difference is that the former scientists you’re defending, and Reason, is that Reason’s not using MY money to support an attempt to expand government power.

                      If there are any climate scientists working entirely on private funds, then what’s in their e-mail would be their own business, not mine.

                      -jcr

                    31. They publish their donor list. Exactly what information do you believe Reason is hiding?

                      -jcr

                    32. So where is the donor list in question?
                      Do you have the link to their donor list?

                    33. Crayon
                      If its hiden information about their corporate sponsors, how do you have this information?

                    34. Yawn, like, corruption and crony-ism amongst libertarians is, like, so totally cool and stuff?

                      Like, all the cool libertarian kids are doing it, getting money and writing cool articles about their friends with money and stuff?

                      Like, totally, yawn.

                    35. STEVE SMITH LOVES YAWN! THAT MEANS CRAYON IS READY FOR RAPE!!

                    36. Wow Crayon! You mean Reason has donors? No way!

                    37. He’s just disappointed that Reason doesn’t take taxpayer funds, then write puff pieces about government.

                      Now, NPR…

                    38. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

                  2. Honestly, I thought Lobster Girl was the primary funding of this site. Thanks for the tip crayon. Looks like I’ve been fooled and need to dig deeper. I am writing my Congresswoman to demand an immediate investigation of improprieties.

                    1. I’ll drop the shithammer on Reason. Our mole known as “crayon” gave us the tip.

                    2. Don’t forget to put put a sternly worded letter in writing!

                  3. Thank you, crayon. Through inspired sleuthing, I just found out that AIG, Goldman Sachs and Fannie Mae are also on the payroll.

                    Now that is fucking graft.

                    1. Hey, I’m just getting started! You pro-liberty douchebags are gonna feel my wrath after Henry Waxman and I get done with your sorry asses!

                    2. Henry Waxman?
                      OMG! I love Ghostbusters!

                  4. STEVE SMITH LUVS CRAYON, MUST RAPE!

              2. Well, no, I don’t think it’s a “coincidence”. Seems pretty straightforward; Reason makes no secret of who contributes, and the articles are nothing other than statements of logic.
                Want to disagree? Fine; let’s hear it. But by your supposed ‘logic’, you have to know that the scientists supporting AGW are all funded by the government which presumes to gain major control as a result, so I’d presume you’d disregard everything *they* have to say, right?
                Or, are you ignorant enough to presume that those who work for government pay only care about “the people”?

                1. Sorry but you’re only hearing crayon’s mild non-threatening accusations. The rest have been filtered by Reason. *drink*

                2. If Reason makes no secret of who contributes, then why aren’t they posting that information online?

                3. Most real science is government-funded, so you’ll be throwing out a lot of babies with that bath-water.

                  1. Real Science? Is that a show on HBO?

              3. That must be how Nick can afford those cool haircuts and his leather jacket.

                1. Nick’s getting free haircuts and free leather jackets! Expect pro-SuperCuts and pro-Burlington Coat Factory articles in Reason! Scandal! Scandal!

                2. You take that back!

                  Moe Szyslak is an honest and hardworking bartender with a soul of a poet and I will not have any of you accusing him of being a corrupt corporate stooge.

                  He is NOT the modern equivalent of the Mouth of Sauron!

          2. Since when is “follow the money” incorrect?

            Yet you fail to follow the money on your own side. If the funding sources taint the argument, then the AGW argument is the most suspect of them all.

            1. It does if you’re trying to keep your donor list a secret.

              1. Demand a Congressional investigation, then. If it’s THAT goddamned important, why aren’t you on the phone demanding action?

      2. ClimateGate Research Unit Sought Funds From Shell Oil

        http://newsbusters.org/blogs/n…..-shell-oil

        1. Did they get any money from the oil companies then?

          1. If you used gasoline this year, you contributed to the Conspiracy! You put put money in their pockets!

            Please tell me that your vehicle runs on cold fusion like mine does. Sail-cars are great but I get shitloads of traffic violations when I have to tack.

            1. Ye’re still usin’ cold fusion? How sad for you, laddie, stuck with such antiquated technology.

              I’ve got a spare matter/anti-matter engine ye can use. Plenty of power for even the biggest vehicle. But I’m short on EPS conduits, so ye’ll hae ta reverse-engineer some spares…

              1. I had one ‘cept I crashed it in the supercollider last year.

                1. I have a spare overthruster I took from those Martian bad guys…

                2. Did you put put it in the wrong place?

            2. “You put put money in their pockets!”
              And I choo choo choose you, brave little locomotive!

      3. OMG! Actual companies (like those that make things and, oh, provide jobs) contribute to a foundation that thinks that capitalism is pretty neat!
        I’m shocked!
        BTW, crayon, you might have noticed that neither the mag nor the foundation is anything like a “denier” of climate change. But that sort of nuance is lost on catastrophists.

        1. I’ve never seen an article in “Reason” mentioning man-made global warming as something possible.
          Nor have I seen an article in “Reason” mentioning that excessive soda-drinking can be bad for your health.
          Have you?

          1. I think it is pretty common knowledge that excessive soda drinking IS bad for your health. The point at Reason would not be to question that fact but to ask if government has a right to legislate every single facet of human behavior or if, just maybe, we should have some free will over our own personal choices as long as those choices do not present a clear and direct threat to the safety of others.

            As far as AGW is concerned, I do believe that I have indeed seen articles here stating that it MAY be someting that is real, but that it is still open for debate. If you just want to read that the debate on AGW is over, just go over to the Huffington Post, you will be delightedly immersed in the world of brain dead non-thinkers.

            1. The reason idiots like crayon bring up the soda-tax issue is not because of health risks – it’s about sticking it to those mean ol’ soda manufacturers, and adding yet another tax on the consumers.

              All cloaked in “it’s for the children”-style hyperbole. Propaganda never tasted so fizzy and sugary!

              1. I don’t give a shit about soda or children.

                I do give a shit about “Reason” not fully disclosing its ties to the subjects it writes about.

                I used “Whole Foods” and soda as examples, because they are fairly recent examples of “Reason” articles.

                1. Non-issue. Find another cause, crayon.

                  1. Jawohl, Mein Freiheit F?hrer!

                    1. Godwinning, crayon? That’s the refuge of cowards.

                    2. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

                2. Crayon, I am so sad to hear that you do not care about the children, but do you care about the MSM fully disclosing their ties to the subjects they write about? What about Al Gore, or climate scientist?

                  1. I do, since full disclosure is an important part of ethics and standards in media.
                    Without it, everything becomes an infomercial.

              2. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

            2. Then why not disclose that there’s a financial link between the National Soft Drink Association and “Reason?”

              The truth shall set you free, right?

              1. So? Is this some sort of earth-shattering story, crayon?

                No, it isn’t. There, I answered it for you.

                This isn’t Watergate, crayon. You’re not even close to a big scoop here.

                1. So you’d be OK with other members of media doing the same thing?

                  Praising products and services without fully disclosing the financial connection between them?

                  Let me guess: You watch Fox News a lot?

                2. HURR DURR
                  LIBERTARIAN GUY RUNS REASON TOWN
                  WHO RUNS REASON TOWN?
                  LIBERTARIAN GUY RUNS REASON TOWN
                  I TELL YOU WHAT’S BIG SCOOP
                  EMBARGO! EMBARGO!
                  DEERP HEEERRP

              2. Come on crayon, lol, show me an article here at Reason that says soft drinks are good for you and that it’s a settled debate. I’m waiting?

                1. There are tons of “Reason” articles trying to discredit research stating that soft drinks are bad for you.

                  And there’s no scientific evidence stating that organic food is good for you and yet “Reason” has never written a critical article about organic food, even though it’s antithetical to the capitalist ethos.

                  1. “There are tons of “Reason” articles trying to discredit research stating that soft drinks are bad for you.”

                    Link please.

                    1. Here’s just one of many:
                      https://reason.com/archives/200…..-principle

                    2. Umm, nope. The article is a criticism of CSPIs over zealousness in reporting on the harms of many different consumable products. There is nowhere in that article that states soda may be good for you, only that they could be exaggerating the harm, let alone that it is a settled fact that soda is good for you, lol.

                    3. None of this has anything to do with climate doom, though crayon might try the “well, there’s carbon dioxide in soda, and Reason takes money from Big Soft Drinks to write puff pieces, so I’m the next Woodward & Bernstein for pointing it out” tactic…

                    4. HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRR
                      CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT SODA
                      SODA IS NOT CLIMATE CHANGE
                      I GOT YOU NOW CRAYON CRIMINAL
                      DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRPPP

                    5. Cute. Pretending to be me. How juvenile.

                    6. Don’t listen to this impostor!

                      It is I, The Real Libertarian Guy, who will slay that Mistake of God known only by his nom de crazy: crayon.

                      He shall rue the day he provoked the Libertarian community into action.
                      Rue, I say! Rue!

                    7. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

                    8. Hyperion,
                      it’s not your fault you can’t read.
                      It’s not your fault.
                      No. Listen to me, son.
                      It’s not your fault.
                      It’s not your fault.
                      It’s not your fault.
                      It’s not your fault.

                    9. As usual, you can only engage in ad-hominems. Haven’t seen you make a substantive argument yet. Just admit it- you’ve got nothing.

                    10. Yes, crayon is quite good at that.

                    11. IND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

                    12. That’s because you’re stupid and uneducated, Jordan.
                      Don’t worry, Obama will help you, son.
                      You’ll get into community college one day.

                  2. You’re only sore about Whole Foods because its CEO wrote a brilliant piece critical of the liberal plan to take over health care.

                    Otherwise, you wouldn’t give half a shit about Whole Foods, or organics in general.

                    1. Organic food is a stupid concept with a stupid name and the only reason (hah!) you support “Whole Foods” is because the CEO happens to be a libertard douche.

                      I like my food to be not covered in shit, not filled with parasites, not rot the moment you look at it, not hideously expensive, and not supporting some vague bullshit hippie ideal about “going back to mother nature, maaaahn!”

                      But, hey, let’s just throw away all modern agriculture and fucking starve to death because that’s what will happen if the organiacs get their way and convert all farming to their shitheaded ways.

                      No wonder you like them.
                      They are as deluded as a regular libertarian with irregular bowl movements.

                      Because of the organic food, in case you were wondering.
                      And Ayn Rand.

                  3. Reason is critical of raising taxes on soda, crayon. Everyone should be critical of pointless legislation.

                    1. When why write an article about taxes on soda and not about taxes on sport fishing equipment?

                      Because “Reason” didn’t get any money from any of the sport fishing manufacturers, perhaps?

                    2. This is why I WANT HEALTH CARE REFORM NOW:

                      Easier access to abortion for fetuses like crayon.

                    3. I’m on a mission to destroy capitalism! I can’t be bothered with checking Reason’s contributions from big business! I’m just running on instinct! Reason is pro-business, therefore they take money to write fluffy articles! I have spoken!

                    4. HURR DURR DEEEERPPPP
                      CAPED CRAYSADER HATE GOOGLE
                      NO UNDERSTAND SEARCH ENGINE
                      PLUUUURP DEEEERP

              3. Uh, well, they did. So what’s your point?

                1. Big Sport Fishing paid Reason to write glossy softball pro-sport fishing articles! What a scoop! Scandal alert!

                  1. Liberturdians don’t understand full disclosure or media ethics!
                    What a scoop! Scandal alert!

                    1. Citations, please.

                    2. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                      FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

                    3. Still waiting for those citations.

          2. crayon|12.16.09 @ 9:23PM|#
            “I’ve never seen an article in “Reason” mentioning man-made global warming as something possible.”

            Uh, well, you’ve just shown yourself to be ignorant.
            No, I won’t bother to dig it up and give you a link, but there was a long discussion in the mag a year or so ago that addressed ‘what should be done about AGW…’
            How deep a hole do you wish to dig for yourself?

            1. HURR DURRP
              I’M RON L HUBBARD
              I BELIEVE IN IMAGINARY ARTICLES
              REASON IS TRUTH TRUTH IS REASON
              DEEERRPI HURPI DEEEERP

            2. Don’t bother, Ron. Nice try, though.

              1. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

            3. I love dick.
              Sucking it.
              Ram it down my throat.
              Punish me libturds. Punish Me!!

      4. You guys crack me up. Sure, oil companies will lobby against this. Just like scientists in Universities go all out to grab as much taxpayer grant money as they can. The scientists are every bit as cut throat as the “evil capitalists”. They need to say what will get them grant money, and right now stupid governments all over the world are paying big bucks to those who tow the party line and push this man made global warming hoax. And of course many of the Statists don’t even believe in this crap – they just want a way to control the population and rake in more money for “redistribution”, taking their cut of course. Check out the rise in Government employment and wages recently seen in the US.

      5. Koch Industries,
        Shell Oil
        Western States Petroleum

        you mean this Shell oil?

        From: “Mick Kelly”
        To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
        Subject: Shell
        Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
        Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
        Cc: t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.o’riordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

        Mike
        Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
        agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
        partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
        conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
        after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
        asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
        etc. By email? In person?
        I hear that Shell’s name came up at the TC meeting. I’m ccing this to Tim
        who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
        make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
        I’m talking to Shell International’s climate change team but this approach
        will do equally for the new foundation as it’s only one step or so off
        Shell’s equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
        what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
        new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it’s
        within the remit.
        Regards
        Mick
        ______________________________________________

        Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
        University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
        United Kingdom
        Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784
        Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
        Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/

        ARCO Foundation,
        BP Amoco
        Chevron Corporation,

        you mean this BP?

        From: Mike Hulme
        To: Simon.Shackley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
        Subject: Re: industrial and commercial contacts
        Date: Mon Jan 10 17:01:32 2000

        Simon,

        I have talked with Tim O’Riordan and others here today and Tim has a wealth of contacts he is prepared to help with. Four specific ones from Tim are:

        – Charlotte Grezo, BP Fuel Options (possibly on the Assessment Panel. She is also on the ESRC Research Priorities Board), but someone Tim can easily talk with. There are others in BP Tim knows too.
        – Richard Sykes, Head of Environment Division at Shell International
        – Chris Laing, Managing Director, Laing Construction (also maybe someone at Bovis)
        – ??, someone high-up in Unilever whose name escapes me.

        And then Simon Gerrard here in our Risk Unit suggested the following personal contacts:

        – ??, someone senior at AMEC Engineering in Yarmouth (involved with North Sea industry and wind energy)
        – Richard Powell, Director of the East of England Development Board

        You can add these to your list and I can ensure that Tim and Simon feed the right material through once finalised.

        I will phone tomorrow re. the texts.

        Cheers,

        Mike

        At 20:30 07/01/00 BST, you wrote:
        >dear colleagues
        >
        >re: List of Industrial and Commercial Contacts to Elicit Support
        >from for the Tyndall Centre
        >
        >This is the list so far. Our contact person is given in brackets
        >afterwards. There is some discussion on whether we
        >should restict ourselves to board level contacts – hence Dlugolecki
        >is not board level but highly knowledgeable about climate change.
        >I think people such as that, who are well known for their climate
        >change interests, are worth writing to for support. There may be
        >less value in writing to lesser known personnel at a non-board level.
        >
        >SPRU has offered to elicit support from their energy programme
        >sponsors which will help beef things up. (Frans: is the Alsthom
        >contact the same as Nick Jenkin’s below? Also, do you have a BP
        >Amoco contact? The name I’ve come up with is Paul Rutter, chief
        >engineer, but he is not a personal contact]
        >
        >We could probably do with some more names from the financial sector.
        >Does anyone know any investment bankers?
        >
        >Please send additional names as quickly as possible so we can
        >finalise the list.
        >
        >I am sending a draft of the generic version of the letter eliciting
        >support and the 2 page summary to Mike to look over. Then this can be
        >used as a basis for letter writing by the Tyndall contact (the person
        >in brackets).
        >
        >Mr Alan Wood CEO Siemens plc [Nick Jenkins]
        >Mr Mike Hughes CE Midlands Electricity (Visiting Prof at UMIST) [Nick
        >Jenkins]
        >Mr Keith Taylor, Chairman and CEO of Esso UK (John
        >Shepherd]
        >Mr Brian Duckworth, Managing Director, Severn-Trent Water
        >[Mike Hulme]
        >Dr Jeremy Leggett, Director, Solar Century [Mike Hulme]
        >Mr Brian Ford, Director of Quality, United Utilities plc [Simon
        >Shackley]
        >Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, CGU [Jean Palutikof]
        >Dr Ted Ellis, VP Building Products, Pilkington plc [Simon Shackley]
        >Mr Mervyn Pedalty, CEO, Cooperative Bank plc [Simon Shackley]
        >
        >
        >Possibles:
        >Mr John Loughhead, Technology Director ALSTOM [Nick Jenkins]
        >Mr Edward Hyams, Managing Director Eastern Generation [Nick
        >Jenkins]
        >Dr David Parry, Director Power Technology Centre, Powergen
        >[Nick Jenkins]
        >Mike Townsend, Director, The Woodland Trust [Melvin
        >Cannell]
        >Mr Paul Rutter, BP Amoco [via Terry Lazenby, UMIST]
        >
        >With kind regards
        >
        >Simon Shackley

        1. So did the climate scientists get any money from Shell or BP?

          1. You get money from the government.

            Therefore you suck government dick all day.

            Now, STFU, you little bitch. I just followed the money.

            1. He gets paid to suck dick? Now it’s starting to make sense…

              1. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

      6. Dun-dun-dun…Ron Bailey’s check must’ve bounced…those cheapskate oil companies.

  2. Wtf, Ron? You can’t snap a shot of Chavez? Kerry? The Gorecle? Chad? Tony? Fucking USA obstructionists mf’s. I better at least have some goddamn free health care if you bastards can’t save the world from burning up! Assholes. This is all Bush’s fault. FUCK!

  3. “Wtf, Ron? You can’t snap a shot of Chavez? Kerry? The Gorecle? Chad? Tony?”

    It’s not Ron’s fault, all the people you mentioned were busy having a gay orgy, free for all AGW whores, courtesy of the Dopenhagen gay prostitute union.

    1. Yeah, yeah. I saw everyone headed down to the Fingercockgen Summit. Still? First, Al uses me as a prop to frighten school children, and now Ron.

    2. yer right about the homo-hate, crayon

  4. Wouldn’t it be the ultimate irony if a herd of free roaming polar bears just happened to make their way down from the arctic to Copenhagen right now and wound up mauling or eating about half of the people there for the summit?

    1. Polar bears won’t eat animals that are more than 90% fecal matter.

      1. Ok, you have a point. Then my vote is for just mauling all of them to death.

        1. Polar bears don’t run for office or take votes. The just eat, sleep, and beat the shit out of things when there’s nothing else to do.

          1. But, if they were to just randomly beat the shit out of a herd of ass clowns gathered in Copenhagen, then that would be a perfectly natural thing.

            1. I would pay good money to see that!

            2. Polar bears eat Harp seals. Humanity is now firmly in the camp of the bears; they’re fuzzier.
              I predict the next conference will feature pitched battles between “protesters” in bear suits and ditto in seal costumes.
              I’m selling tickets and taking bets.

              1. Cool. Can I get a concession-stand spot?

                1. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                  FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

  5. We knew how this was going to end in the first place. No way will China or India get on board unless somebody promises to give them ba-tril-gazillions of dollars.

    Wait a minute, I thought that’s what uncle Sam was up to these days. I must retract that prediction.

    We can only wonder why the US and China could not come to a full accord between them sooner.

    It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the only thing China has lots of to burn is coal and night soil.

    1. And it might have a bit to do with the fact that China also have approaching 2 billion people who want fiercely to achieve a life style approximately what the U.S. had in 1950. And they’ve had a taste and they’re not going to stop. The people – not government, people – of China have a message for everyone who wants them to stop producing CO2: “You burn dog shit to cook your meals. We’re not doing that any more. You eat 1500 calories a day and work 2500 calories a day. We’re not doing that any more, either. You live 16 to a room. We’re not doing that anymore too. You wanna make us? Pack a lotta lunches, foreign devils, and bring a lotta friends, if you got any. We ain’t gonna do that no more, either.” Not too hard to figure. They see what the US, Europe, Australia-New Zealand, Japan – hell, South Korea! – and the other developed countries have via the Internet and they want it and they’re not going to stop to save the polar bears or the sheep or the Amazon rain forest or any of that other crap the Greenies wet themselves over.

      That’s what it’s about.

      1. Dude, once again, I am only a polar bear. But, I am going to let you in on a little secret: Cap and Trade doesn’t have anything to do with climate change. The word I am thinking of starts with social. That’s all I am saying. If you want some insight though, just look at the horseshit going on in your Congress with regards to healthcare, for lack of a better word. You get control of the people and you turn insurance into heavily regulated utilities and BOOM (not trying to scare you – for dramatic effect). I think you get the picture though. Uh? You keep your hope and change out of my habitat, assholes.

    2. So let me get this straight: you dumbass Americans are going to borrow a shit pile of money from China, more money that is, and then give it back to them for carbon emissions. I may be a polar bear, but that sounds fucking idiotic. Honestly, I don’t know many Chinamens, but I don’t really see how in the fuck they are supposed to reduce their carbon emissions and continue at their current rate of growth. Btw, we’ve been enlarging our population. We’re gonna outbreed all of you sombitches. Al may be able to get a billion Chinamen to go back to riding bicycles, but once we get snow mobiles – it’s on bitches.

  6. Fun fact: The synthetic fur in those polar bear costumes is petroleum-based.

    1. Whatever. Fun fact: probably 90% of everything in your current field of vision was made with some petroleum derivative. Don’t tell those denier sobs though. They’ll spin it as some horseshit about how much hydrocarbons are used in society, blah, blah, blah. Wind and solar, baby.

      1. Synthetic fibers are destroying the environment. If they truly wanted to go green, they’d make those polar bear suits out of real pelts.

        Windmill farms disrupt bird migratory patterns and solar cell manufacture involves dreadful chemicals. What’s next? Hydroelectricity, you fish-hating bastard?

        1. Hahahahahahahaha

          That was great!

        2. I’m thinking of eco-friendly plutonium and other green actinides myself. No carbon involved whatsoever.

  7. “Fun fact: The synthetic fur in those polar bear costumes is petroleum-based.”

    I knew it! Fuck green energy! Polar bears, the new white energy!

    1. “white energy”

      Racist!

      1. Well, why don’t you just tell us why you don’t support black energy Jesse, you know coal and oil? You closet fucking racist!

        1. Look, honky, we got away with intimidating some cracker-assed voters just last year. Keep that racist shit coming, because we can find your ass and we’ll beat the hell out of you. Just for kicks, not because you’re white… that’s just gravy.

    2. Yeah man, we’re gonna make them pull polar bear sleds (wheels in the summer, skis in the winter). And then when they get too old to pull sleds we’ll club them over the head and take the fur off their backs.

      White Power! God I love it.

      There’s gotta be 101 uses for a fucking polar bear.

      1. I can kill one for ya…

        1. Nah, I’m a greedy capitalist pig. I’m gonna work its ass to death.

  8. Hopenhagen

    President Hope’nchangin didn’t change much, did he?

    1. Yes he did. He just got us into White Power. We’re gonna have polar bears EVERYWHERE!!!

  9. “There is a ghost running through the streets of Copenhagen…a terrible ghost. Capitalism is that ghost.”

    No he diunt. Oh no he diunt… did he actually butcher that “A specter is haunting Europe” thing?

    1. This is the sort of shit a lot of environmentalists believe, Paul. Not surprising, unfortunately.

    2. Hmmm. That’s a good question? Did he say “fantasma” or “espectro”?

  10. It will be interesting to see how the warming wankers try to spin this as being the fault of the “deniers” when it’s obviously the fault of their precious politicians.

  11. There is a volcano getting ready to blow in the Philippines (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091215/ap_on_re_as/as_philippines_volcano). Last time this happened (Pinatubo) the volcano spewed the equivalent of 3 years of human-produced CO2 in a couple of months. When the carbon ban-hammer comes down, are we going to have to clean up after Mother Gaia, too?

    … Hobbit

    1. Kiluaua has been erupting for 25 years. I wonder if that has had any effect?

      1. I hadn’t thought about that one. I wonder if those emissions have been taken into account.

        Probably not.

        … Hobbit

        1. It also is interesting that Krakatoa blew in a huge way in 1883. The immediate result was a global cooling which corrected itself by 1888. I have to wonder if that was followed by a warming trend from all the greenhouse gasses present after the sulfuric acid clouds dissipated. If so, it would coincide with the warming trend attributed to industry. It is also important to take into account the huge eruption in Iceland in the 1700’s that went on for 9 months and caused the famine resulting in the French revolution.

          1. “It is also important to take into account the huge eruption in Iceland in the 1700’s that went on for 9 months and caused the famine resulting in the French revolution.”

            Not arguing, just interested. Any cite for this, even like those old things “books”?

            1. A wiki article on the Iceland volcano. Let me know if wiki isn’t acceptable. I’ll run down another source.

              1. Wiki’s sorta OK.
                In this case the un-attributed claim is the eruption ‘contributed to’ the French revolution of *that* year (there have been more than a couple).
                If you have other sources, I’d love to see them.

                1. I should have said “contributed to.” not “resulted in.”

                  No problem. Give me a few minutes for more sources.

          2. Wasn’t there also a huge eruption by Karatoa in 1811 or 1812? It produced the “year without a summer” – some places in the US had snow in July.

            1. 1883, and Simon Winchester’s (“Krakatoa”) book is, well, pretty good. Until he starts attributing Muslim activism to the eruption.
              Too many ‘just so’ stories.

              1. Thanks, didn’t realize my memory was so bad. (Although I knew how to spell Krakatoa, I have no excuse for that).

              2. The geology papers I’m finding all leave it at Laki maybe being a contributor to the French revolution of 1789. No definitive statements of causation.

              3. ‘Until he starts attributing Muslim activism to the eruption.’

                Funny I felt the same way. I like Indonesia because it is so far away from Mecca.

                Ironically, the tsunamis hit the Muslim activist areas and just about did what the heavy-handed military couldn’t: achieve peace in Aceh.

                1. Mankind is causing anthropogenic tectonic plate-shifting! I have spoken!

            2. That would be Tambora. The biggest volcano eruption in human history (not written history) was Lake Toba about 70,000 years ago. That was a Yellowstone-sized boom, which makes things like Krakatoa and Tambora look like little league.

              1. Good job Zeitgeist. I knew someone would come up with it. Yes humans are vain.

      2. Do aa / pahoehoe lava flows result in significant gas expulsion? IIRC, the more highly viscous lavas (like those in Hawaii) trap gas.

        1. From what little I know, they put lots of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. A link to an in depth paper on Laki in Iceland and the eruption of 1783 here

    2. Actually, this is really a worrisome threat, unlike AGW. But, hard to tax it I guess, so pols don’t care. Volcanic eruptions have caused some pretty bad scenarios in past times, likely from the global cooling that ensued from all the debris in the atmosphere. Even worse than Krakatoa was Tambora in 1815 which caused the ‘year without a summer’. But going on back, what is even scarier are the so called super volcanoes or calderas. The last known of these eruptions was, I think, Toba around 75,000 years ago.
      Yellowstone is another of these calderas which could blow again, alhtough I am not sure how likely that is.

      1. Yellowstone blew 2 million, 1.3 million an 600,000 yers ago. Geologists have measured a significant groundswell in the caldera in recent years. Yellowstone is one huge volcano.

    3. I don’t know which bothers me more:

      1: That someone comes on here and repeats an out and out lie

      Human emissions per year: 27,000 megatons in 2004.

      Volcanic emissions per year: 145-255 megatons

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..e_in_Earth‘s_atmosphere

      Pinatubo? 42-234 megatons

      http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Proj…..atubo.html

      How you go from less than one percent of one year to three years is beyond me.

      2: That three people responded in general agreement, without doing one damned minute of fact checking.

      You guys really are ditto-heads.

      1. Chad, you have no standing in your argument above, as you only believe what Gore and his ilk tell you.

        1. Unlike you, LG, I am capable of actually understanding technical journals….the Gore does give decent summaries most of the time.

          1. Behold the elitist “I’m smarter than you because I can read technical journals” attitude.

            Yup, you really got me there, Chad.

            1. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

            2. It is a simple fact that I AM smarter than you, AM more productive than you, and AM a better person than you.

              It must drive you insane (see below for proof).

              1. But you’re not an elitist.

                1. Everyone’s an elitist when compared to you.

      2. Personally, I like volcanos because they aren’t government mandated. Rather they put government in a panic and expose how poorly prepared public servants are.

        1. Wasn’t that one tsunami supposedly Bush’s fault?

          Next threat: Mankind is causing premature plate tectonic shifts. SUVs to blame. Watch MSNBC for the details.

          1. Yes everything was Bush’s fault. Rightfully so, although through seven degrees you could pin it all on Kevin Bacon.

            1. Well, Bush was a dick, but I have a hard time believing he had the power to create a tsunami…

              I’ll bet Chad can believe it, though.

      3. Mankind is contributing a whopping 3% of carbon dioxide:
        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss….._data.html

        Are you going to get on your high-horse and tell Nature to stop being such a nasty and evil polluter?

  12. It was pleasant to hear a vigorous defense of free trade from a representative of Communist China.

    Communist China? What is this, 1980? The Chinese are as communist as the store at the mall that sells Che shirts and asks you to finance it with a store-branded credit card.

    1. They do still call themselves communists.

      Commi In Name Only?

      CINO?

      1. I believe the locals in the PRC prefer “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

        But yeah, its capitalism. But its not pure laissez-faire; you’ve got go to the right school, have the right connections, grease the right skids…oh shit…I’m talking about the USA now. Oops.

        1. That’s how I wound up becoming your lord and master…

  13. I agree with Americans borrowing money from China, Its not the american peoples fault, it is our lying socialist/communist leaders! Yes we are stupid for putting them in power, but at least maybe starting next year we can start removing them from office!
    And in 2012 we can get the rest of them out of office. As of right now if our president doesn’t start listening to the people WE CAN IMPEACH HIM FOR NOT PROTECTING OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!! AND IM JUST ONE OF THE IDIOT THAT SUPPORTED HIM!!!!! YES THATS RIGHT!!!! IMMA BIG HUGE FOOL!!!!

    1. WE CAN IMPEACH HIM FOR NOT PROTECTING OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!!

      Good luck with that…

    2. Good for you for fessing up. I have been wondering how many freedom-fighter-commenters did vote for Obama. I am new to Reason, being a polar bear and all and have been guessing. I figure most of the staff did, save maybe Nick. Matt definitely did. Chapman absolutely. Shika said she did in a column (really like her – disappointed). Let’s hear it Reasonoids. Confession time. What, you just hated Bush? He wasn’t running you know. Palin gotcha all scared. Scared like the drug warrior Biden. The black thing. C’mon man. Powell would have won easily. Now, Republicans suck without a doubt, but holy shit – how irresponsible to put Obama in the White House with the loons in Congress. My favorite was Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw having a conversation about just “who is Obama” after he was elected. 3 more years of this nightmare. Probably 7 once the die hard Republicans nominate Palin or Huckabee. I use to say McCain wouldn’t have been much better, but wow. How much worse could it get?

      1. Ok, damnit, I confess Bear! I didn’t like Bush at all after he invaded Iraq and let the patriot act get passed, and didn’t seem to care much about the economy. Palin and McCain(AKA The Pale Rider of the Apocalypse) scared the hell out of me. I voted for the POS. But only because I didn’t want the Pale Rider invading Iran. Sure, you can act all smug and shit just because bears can’t vote. Huckabee and Palin? OMG, the horror! This is finally going to be the year that I vote for the Libertarian candidate for President. But not for congressional or senate seats, we need to vote Republican there until we achieve stalemate and make the President totally powerless. Then it’s time for the next move…

        1. “This is finally going to be the year that I vote for the Libertarian candidate for President.”

          I mean 2012, not this year.

      2. There was a column where they stated how they were going to vote. There were more votes for Obama than I thought there’d be, but many of them came not from regulars. Several didn’t vote. The plurality of votes went to Bob Barr, IIRC.

        Most commenters here voted for Barr (if they voted), with a few admitting voting for Obama, and a few admitting voting for McCain. Several others wrote in Ron Paul.

      3. Right now, nothing would make me happier than seeing Palin in the Oval Office. We’d be way ahead of where we are today.

        If the R’s can find anything half-reasonable to run next time, they’ll take it. McCain (of all things) was running neck to neck with Hope’N’Change Inc., until he stopped the campaign for POTUS to campaign for Bailouts — after which he promptly came out for socialized mortgages.

        Upon which there was no difference between them and McCain’s campaign died.

        1. btw, I refused to vote last time around.

          1. And you can see that it did me soooooo much good. My therapist says it was good for me to get that right out of my fucking system. She says I should also have gone out and clubbed some baby seals to death too, but I don’t listen to everything she tells me.

      4. I confess I voted for Obama. To be honest, I can’t say I’d change it even now for McCain.

        If McCain was Prez, we’d have all the same shit…TARP, bail-out this and bail-out that. Prolly some crazy health-care shit (bi-partisan of course, Lieberman would be all over it).

        Oh, and we’d a war with Russia over Georgia by now and deploying a battle group off the coast of Iran.

        In a way, voting for Obama was a knock on him, I voted for the guy who would fail more at fucking things up than McCain. Only time will tell though…

        Hell will freeze over before I vote Bob Barr, even as a dog-catcher. I can’t believe the libertarians ran that dude. Can they be that desperate for name recognition on the ticket?

        1. Voting 3rd party is a vote against the machine. Only seriously deluded think their vote will decide…Give me a break.

      5. I once again voted for myself. I had bumper stickers and a running mate this time, I got 2 votes. Played very well with the “people on the ticket” demographic.

        If faced with a choice of death or voting for either Obama or McCain, I probably would have voted for Obama due to the sheer terror of putting Palin an old man’s heartbeat away from the Oval Office. It seems like it would have been the right choice since the Democrats exceeded my expectations in showing how inept they are at passing legislation (their greatest quality.)

        Had it gone the other way, the “Stimulus” still would have passed about 90% the same as what we got. There’d be no risk of some epic fail of a health care bill being passed, but that’s looking like it will take care of itself, too.

  14. Can the Climate Conference Avoid Economic Doom?

    FIFY, Bailey.

  15. “It appears that a lot people assumed going into COP-15 that the replacement of the widely loathed George W. Bush with Barack Obama as U.S. president would change everything.”

    As we used to say as kids…SNAG!!!!

  16. this is rediculous….the climate change conference is like the ultimate white board thing between fed ex and ups…instead of fighting bullsh*t regulations to fix their own countries economies lets just f*ck up everyone elses economy to “level the playing field” christ

  17. It was pleasant to hear a vigorous defense of free trade from a representative of Communist China.

    This is an interesting statement, Ron.

    How is allowing some of one’s citizens to pollute other peoples’ property “free trade”? And wouldn’t US tariffs be a legitimate response to the force “initiated” by Chinese polluters? I thought the libertarian idea of “free trade” included strong property rights.

    I have never really seen a libertarian come up with a real solution to the foreign subsidy problem: If Country A subsidizes its Industry X, what should Country B do with respect to its industry? Let it sink? Counter-subsidize? Tariffs? Note that NONE of these are “free trade” by any stretch of the imagination.

    1. “I have never really seen a libertarian come up with a real solution to the foreign subsidy problem: If Country A subsidizes its Industry X, what should Country B do with respect to its industry? Let it sink? Counter-subsidize? Tariffs? Note that NONE of these are “free trade” by any stretch of the imagination.”

      OK, so you present the strawmen that *don’t* support free trade and admit you haven’t looked at opposing arguments?
      How………………….
      oh, something.
      Hint: It’s an almost archetypal defense of free trade, and it’s been shown to be true in *every* case that’s been examined.
      Admitting you haven’t a clue *isn’t* a good way to argue.
      Further hint: Free trade wins.

  18. What “free trade”? Free trade is predicated on property rights, which in this case, are being violated. The market would not be choosing the “best” competitor, but rather the one who can dump the highest fraction of his costs on third parties.

    Actually, “he who gets the biggest subsidies, wins” is incredibly common. The subsidies often do not take the form of cash.

    1. Corporatism perverts free trade. No one here ever said it didn’t. Subsidies are perversions.

      The problem occurs when you propound to care about and occupy yourself with say, Panda Bears.

      You in turn subsidize Panda Bears to counteract the exported externalities that are freely factored into the Chinese economy.

      But hey there is a save the Panda Bear market too. Love Pandas, participate. I’m sure some of ours participate. Willingly. Key word: willingly.

    2. Chad,

      If France wants to tax french people so that I can fly more cheaply, it’s no skin off my nose.

      I get cheaper air travel, and the people who would be employed building airplanes are freed to work on less pressing issues.

  19. You mean lots of idiots blowing hot air?

    These fools at this conference don’t even believe in the garbage they are spouting. If they did, they would use phones and video-conferences instead of creating as much carbon dioxide as Morocco does in a year.

    How can they even talk about the topic with such hypocrisy rank in the air?

  20. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY

    I love Peter Sinclair. Particularly I suggest you look at the segment between 7 and 8 minutes, where Spencer, Michaels and Christie all unambiguously say the globe is clearly warming for the cameras (Singer’s quote is not so interesting).

    Hell, what do you guys have nowadays?

    1. What a revelation! Earth’s temperature has never changed before!

    2. Are you truly that dense?

      The Earth was warming (and cooling) long before humans ever existed.

      Will you admit that fact?

    3. Are you a fucking idiot Chad?

      No one says global climate has not gotten warmer over the past 30 years.

      The question is as it has always been “what evidence is there that humans are causing it?”

      It is like Chad pointed at the sunrise and said flying kites caused that….and sure enough people flew kites and the next day the sun came up again.

      1. Josh: The evidence is obvious.

        1: The warming is consistent with AGW, right down to details like the cooling stratosphere.

        2: No other theory comes even close to explaining the magnitude of the warming, and none can explain the details like the aforemented cooling.

        Scientifically, there is nothing more one can provide to show “cause” in a science where reproduction is not an option, other than correlation, consistency with theory, and inconsistency with other theories.

        And if you don’t think anyone is arguing that it isn’t getting warmer, you need to cut back on the weed.

        1. Chad,

          Few people are claiming the Earth has not seen warming in the past 70 years.

          As for “explaining the magnitude of the warming”, that’s bullshit. The Earth in the past has seen much larger warming and cooling.

  21. I think Crayon is just using the drink rules to try to get me drunk and take advantage of me.

    Well, I protest. That is Warty’s job god damn it.

    1. And now he’s pretending to be other people when he posts. What a childish little schmuck he is.

      Mildly entertaining, though, kind of like watching a brain-damaged kitten play with a catnip mouse.

      1. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

  22. ‘I love Peter Sinclair.’

    Why dontcha marry him?

    1. He is married (and yes, I have met him).

  23. ‘the globe is clearly warming’ due unequivocably to anthropogenic warming which can be controlled through a peacefully enforced regime.

    You forgot the rest. The easy part.

    1. It’s not going to be a peaceful regime if I have any say in the matter…

  24. Chad has got to be a stealth Reason employee, here for the sole purpose of running up the comment count.

    1. Chad is here to keep ourselves honest which is inherently impossible because we are self-professed libertarians. Chad is a demi-god who through his munificence attempts to show us the beauty of acquiescience to the beautiful way of scientific government. ‘Where your mind fails, the best minds won’t fail you’.

      Feel very safe.

      1. AND he can read technical manuals, which automatically makes him better and smarter than anyone else.

        1. Did technical manuals tell him that Greenland will melt and rise sea levels 20 meters?

          Cuz the IPCC doesn’t even get close to making those claims.

          In fact I am pretty sure only hyperventilating zealots have made those claim and done so with no scientific backing.

          1. Gore says it, Chad believes it, that settles it.

            To paraphrase the Christian saying…

            1. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
              FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

              1. I don’t remember Christians saying this.

                Oh wait.

                1. Wasn’t me, Eb. crayon’s running around pretending to be me. Typical liberal behavior.

                  1. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

          2. Where have I made that claim? Indeed, I think you confusing statements along the lines of “If Greenland melts…” with “Greenland will melt…”.

        2. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
          FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

  25. During last election, the liberal media,(you know the ones that don’t really report news) made Palin sound like more of a moron than she really is. I guess that is what you call spin, not realizing just how much they are in the liberal pockets! Now I see how there handling the biggest scandle of all time and now I know! They think because they ignore it, it will just go away. They must think people are stupid, and I admit I was till know! Maybe I will make wiser decisions in the future, maybe most people will! Maybe not but I’m hopeful!

    1. Ummm,

      considering that Palin was basically a pretty talking head hired by local businessmen to raise taxes on the residents of her home town to build some facilites they wanted, I would hardly consider her “smart”. I believe the word is “malleable”

      Moreover, her inability to string together a coherent political doctrine, especially in a book that was much longer than Goldwater’s conscience of a conservative implies that she is very clueless.

      She’s stupid but pretty.

      1. Yes, but I think my dog could be a better political figure than the ones that are in there now!

        1. At least he is honest and loyal!

        2. only in the sense that your dog would be a non-voting entity. Certainly a proper remedy for some constituency…such as mine. But ain’t gonna happen.

          Why would you wish that on your dog anyway?

          1. That is true, Ireally like my dog! Pisses me of that my own Senator is a strong AGW believer! Just stinks we are even a coal state!!! Here is a good article!

            http://newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom155.htm

    2. Imust be tired my grammer really stinks! LOL

  26. About AGW, I do realize man does hurt this enviroment, and I only believed in AGW because I didn’t pay attension to all the facts. But CHRIST SAKES, I am a science major, I should have known better! Until recently, even before climategate I started wondering about all the domes day stories thinking they have to be full of crap!

  27. crayon: You really should do more research. Just in my bailiwick may I direct your attention to some of my columns on accepting the science behind AGW and criticizing the scientific myths of organic foods (see below). In re organic foods, you may want to catch the Penn & Teller July “Bullshit” episode in which I figured as a major critic of organic myths.

    But I know all too well how this game is played. crayon’s new tack: “But wait if a Reason writer is critical of organic foods, then he must be in the corporate pockets biotech giant Monsanto!”

    I would link to all, but our software only allows 2 per post.

    “We’re All Global Warmers Now” (2005)
    “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006)
    Global Warming ? Not Worse Than We Thought, But Bad Enough” (2007)
    Organic Alchemy” (2002)
    “Organic Law” (2002)
    “Barbara Kingsolver’s Latest Fiction” (2007)

    1. Thanks for the links, I’ll take a look at them.

      However, the links for:
      “Organic Alchemy” (2002)
      “Organic Law” (2002)
      are not working.

      Also, I’ve been looking for that donor list on the various Reason web sites.

      Would you kindly post me a link to that donor list?

      P.S. I prefer Monsanto and GM food over hippie fucktard farmers longing for the halcyon days of sustenance farming and starvation.

      1. crayon: I’m sorry I didn’t make easier for you, but you can simply google the titles with my name and they’ll come right up for you.

        As for the donor list, I said we publish it every year, not put online. But since Reason institutionally, at least to the extent they haven’t fired me yet, doesn’t “deny” AGW or favor organic foods (as you erroneously claimed), I’m not sure what mining our donor list would prove to you.

        1. In the interest of full disclosure.

          I just don’t see why you’re not posting the donor list on the web.

          After all, media transparency is a good thing, right?

          1. Must have information online! Can’t fork over hard-earned money for paper copy! Mommy’s anal ointment cost too much! Hurp! Durp!

    2. gee, Ron, I guess that was a proper gesture. Except any audit would throw sunlight on an incoherent argument (your point although hardly needed). But you are unanonymous for a living and I’m infinitely less so.

      Good on you for keeping things honest.

      1. Not so fast, sparky.

        Only one link is actually working and he could’ve easily worked around the two link limit per comment by posting 3 or, in worst case, 6 separate comments.

        And I still haven’t seen a link to that fabled donor list he keeps mentioning.

        1. Dun-dun-dun! No donor list linked! Ron Bailey is obviously on the (bottom tier) payroll of Exxon, Sarah Palin, and Evil Health LLC (all divisions of the Heartless Corporation).

          Maybe we should line-up some cold-ass stoic Russian hackers to take Reason’s mail server to town and blow the whole lid off this thing before Reasonhagen!

          1. No, it will be ReasonGate.

            1. “Ron Bailey|12.17.09 @ 1:12AM|#
              crayon: Hide? We publish our donor list. How do you think the intrepid investigators you rely upon found out? Just saying.”

              The “Reason” donor list is published and on display.

              All you have to do is to find the office building being used by “Reason”,
              go down to the cellar with a flashlight, ignore the lack of stairs, and then you’ll find the donor list on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”

              1. crayon (if it’s really you being so dense or lame):

                We publish it something called Reason magazine, available by subscription or at fine newstands.

                1. Good thing you cleared that up, Ron. He is this close to filing a FOIA on you guys.

                  Because, obviously, Reason is a criminal organization… right?

                  1. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
                    FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

                2. So why not publish it on the web site?
                  What’s the harm?
                  You have nothing to lose but your chains.

    3. Thanks, Ron very good reading!

  28. Ron, “Disclosure: As I have disclosed ad nauseam I still own 50 shares of ExxonMobil (which just reported record profits) and my family owns some pretty poor land in McDowell County West Virginia that might have some coal under it.” I live in Randolph County WV

  29. I like money, gasoline, and organic food.

  30. Ron,

    Why is Climategate ugly? Is it the action and motives of those involved in data manipulation or the actions and motives of those involved in exposing those manipulations that makes it ugly? Is it something else?

    1. Forget Climategate… our very own crayon is on a vendetta to prove that Reason takes money from Big Corporations in exchange for fluffy, sugary-sweet softball articles! This is BIG news!

      Except it isn’t, but don’t tell crayon. He’s too busy pleasuring himself over his big “conspiracy” find.

      1. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

  31. Sorry was there a question about whether establishment libertarian outfits are little more than shills for their corporate donors? Nothing to be ashamed of if you’re getting paid. After all, being paid to do something is the most noble form of validation for the libertarian, right? What I don’t understand is why your average citizen would parrot industry-originated talking points for free.

    1. If you’re referring to crayon’s recent jihad against Reason… relax. It’s all bullshit.

      1. FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!
        FIND ANOTHER CAUSE, CRAYON!

        1. Good advice. You should take it.

  32. Crayon,

    http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Reason_Foundation

    Took me 2 minutes to find. Now go away forever.

    1. Obsolete information from 2000 does not equal full disclosure.

      1. Of course, the wrong year. If you believe that they are obviously influenced by their donors, well, I’ve given you a list from 2000. Now your job is to prove your hypothesis by pointing out clear examples of this conflict of interest from 2000. It shouldn’t be hard to prove based on your apparent level of belief. Of course, that would mean doing work and thinking, which you’d prefer the government to do for you.

        By the by, where do you go for your completely unfettered, unbiased, unopinionated, purely factual, absolutely truthful, hyperbole-free information about current issues? Just wondering what source could possibly satisfy your rigorous vetting process.

      2. Even more…this is was from a link located within the last link I sent you, you lazy bastard!

        http://mediamattersaction.org/…..on/funders

  33. Once again Ron gives us a useless article, with not the slightest hint that he realizes that the conference ‘failing’ or being ‘doomed’ just might be a *good* thing.

    Even if one things AGW is a bigger deal than I do (with degrees in engineering *and* computer science) I cannot possibly see how a ‘libertarian’ could see the policies discussed in Copenhagen as anything but highly flawed at best.

    Perhaps Ron is distracted by too much indulging in the Copenhagen Climate Change half’n’half special by the city’s sex workers (on Reason’s dime)?

  34. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.