As a guess, because the television and perhaps other sources have deceptively shown him OTHER parts of Alaska and represented them as being the part of the ANWR in question; because he is unaware of the excellent safety and environmental records of drilling in Alaska or has been on the receiving end of deception on this point; and/or because he believes that the area in question represents a large part of Alaska.
Whereas in fact the area that would be allowed to have drilling rigs, etc, comprises less than 2000 acres. Out of a total of ANWR’s total size of 19 million acres (therefore, it is approximately 1/10,000th of ANWR’s area) or out of Alaska’s total of 375 million acres (thus, it is well under 1/100,000th of the total area of Alaska.)
I fully expect that his picture of this is entirely different than the reality due to systematic deception on this matter.
Random Oil Company #1 has invested millions of dollars in “green” tech. Their scientists find a way to increase the storage capacity of batteries by 100%. They market this and start putting it on the store shelves. As soon as it hits stores, they find a way to increase capacity by 300%.
They are not going to release that info until they have to. They would most likely wait until competition starts catching up and then release a 200% version a year later. [/quote]
Just think of the technological advances computers and cell phones could have made if only we would have cut out the profit motiuve and wasteful competition!
They could run as smooth and efficient as the DMV or the post office!
Scientists broke the law by hiding climate change data: But legal loophole means they won’t be prosecuted
[i]Scientist at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.
The Information Commissioner’s office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.
…
The Climategate row broke in November when hundreds of stolen emails from the world-renowned Climate Research Unit in Norwich were posted online.
[b]The emails appeared to show researchers discussing how to manipulate historical temperature data and dodge requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
…
Earlier this week, Britain’s chief scientific advisor, Professor John Beddington, called on climate scientists to be more honest about the uncertainties of global warming.
[/b][/i]
Yep, scientists: Purely objective, non-agenda driven, transparent, non-dogmatic, purely honest. We should trust EVERYTHING we read by scientists. At least, that’s what the “It’s real, just deal with it ™” crowd does.
I believe I have explained already that what these AGW’ers do is by definition not science.
Thus, as their career is not science, they really should not be viewed as scientists.
That is not to say that no one who does actually practice science as his career ever spins things so as to get grants, but this kind of lying and fraud is in fact not at all ordinary in science.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
That is not to say that no one who does actually practice science as his career ever spins things so as to get grants, but this kind of lying and fraud is in fact not at all ordinary in science.[/quote]
Agreed. But, few things have the size, scope, and impact on people’s lives as the proposed legislation, taxes, and controls based on the ‘findings’ of “climate scientists” supporting AGW as “truth”.
And despite that there is a sound argument that what they do is not science at all, and while I personally would have no problem informing any given one of them, or them collectively, that for that reason I don’t consider them to be scientists, it is true that the public in general does consider them to be scientists.