How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Just Wondering?   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Just Wondering?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 11-24-2009 07:34 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Have the recently hacked e-mails of prominent scientists disclosing alleged lies, deceptions and illegal activities concerning man-made global warming changed anyone's mind concerning the subject?

Just curious...
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


1 posted 11-24-2009 08:18 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Not really.  It is just another attempt to make a "conspiracy theory".   Some one could hack into anyone's e-mails and take bits and peices out of all context and then try to make them out as some kind of plan to blindfold the world.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


2 posted 11-24-2009 09:07 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

Get your swampland here...a few choice lots still available

Thanks for your input, Essorant. If that's the way you feel. I respect it.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


3 posted 11-24-2009 09:35 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well, speaking from an Engineering standpoint -- and Engineers are scientists after all, we seldom use the word trick -- because we much prefer the word 'magic'.     -- as does a certain wizard around here.

But if you examine the 'trick' in reference Mike -- you'll see that it's a 'trick' of getting data to display the way they wanted it to inside some software.

Essoarant would, of course, point out that a 'trick' is a specific act of magic.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


4 posted 11-24-2009 10:51 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Well, you can decide for yourselves how trick was used here. Also, perhaps "hide" has a different meaning in scientific jargon....but I doubt it. WOnder what decline he's referring to? Surely not global temperature?!
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


5 posted 11-24-2009 11:01 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

You might as well talk to the man himself Mike -- rather than rely on rumor and conjecture:

quote:

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/



or jump further: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 11-24-2009 11:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.


Another interesting e-mail. There are many.

This would be nothing more than a funny "gotcha" moment if it were not so serious but we are talking about something that will impose more taxes and restrictions on millions of people....and for what? So governments can have more control? So the rich can get richer? Combine this with Gore's inaccuracies and downright blatant lies, along with his refusal to be interviewed or debated and you have a scam that would make even Madoff blush....it's sad.

Reb, your entry is an example of damage control, which is the only option they have, at this point.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


7 posted 11-24-2009 11:16 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

"Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low....

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he's making in it by not reading the article cited in his e-mail. That article, called An Imperative for Climate Change Planning, actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

"It says we don't have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures -- including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators -- that global warming is continuing," he says.

Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.

"There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax," he told Threat Level. "There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation.

"It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way."

Trenberth agrees.

"If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists," he says. "The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context." http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/



Damage control?  Nah.  More like re-assembly.

Here's your challenge Mike -- read all of the e-mails and find something that actually contradicts AGW.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


8 posted 11-24-2009 11:54 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sure thing, reb. After all, I have nothing better to do. My question was..do these hacked e-mails cause a change in anyone's mind? Apparently your answer is no...fine by me. The question is not whether or not there is global warming but whether or not it is man-made and whether man can change it. I see nothing in your examples that address that point.

It's an important point. If the scientists can claim that man is causing it, that opens the doors to higher taxes, more government controls and a whole bunch of goodies. Guilt is a wonderful weapon in one's arsenal. If they can't make that claim, though, the weapon vanishes. The scientists can go back to doing whatever they were doing before and Gore can go back to being the clown that nobody takes seriously.

First of all, they have to have global warming. If there's no global warming, then humans couldn't be causing it, right? Once their figures claim there is indeed global warming, then they need numbers to indicate man is causing it. My read on some of these e-mails is that they are indeed making sure their figures accentuate these two points. As I said, if you don't think so, fine by me.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


9 posted 11-25-2009 03:23 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

A few years ago my brother got stopped for drinking while driving. It was not his first offense and as part of his release, pending trial, he had to agree to a breathalyzer test every week. Additionally, he was told they could come to his home at any random time and demand a test. If he failed at any time to pass the breathalyzer, he would go immediately to jail and stay there until his trial. With the threat of incarceration hanging over his head, Larry managed to go three months without a drop to drink. At his trail, he was found guilty and his sentence was a fine, time served, and a suspended license. No more breathalyzer tests.

Larry got drunk that night. And pretty much every night since.

Never mind that his driving could have killed him and others. Never mind that alcohol is ruining his life and every relationship he's ever had. Never mind that the poison he craves is literally killing him. The only thing that ever mattered to Larry, the only thing that temporarily got his attention, was the threat of jail.

I'm not one hundred percent convinced global warming is real. And, if it is, I don't think anyone can ever unequivocally prove mankind is responsible. But here's the thing. Everything we're being told we need to do to reverse global warning are things we need to do anyway. Our addiction to fossil fuels cannot continue unabated without devastating consequences down the line. We need to change, and that change is not going to be without cost. It's going to hurt. But we need to do it anyway and the sooner we do it the less it's going to hurt.

Global warming. The threat of jail. I honestly don't know if there's any correlation there. I do know it was really nice having my brother back for a few months. Even if it was for all the wrong reasons.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


10 posted 11-25-2009 03:31 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

Sure thing, reb. After all, I have nothing better to do. My question was..do these hacked e-mails cause a change in anyone's mind? Apparently your answer is no...fine by me.




     Actually, you act as if drawing conclusions as though you'd read the whole thing seems to be a better thing to do.  Then acting as if somebody, in this case, LR, who calls you on it, is making untoward demands on your time.

     How would you be able to tell if there was or wasn't anything in his examples that might address your concerns unless you had some idea what he was talking about in terms of the whole release, which you haven't by your admission bothered to read?  

     The hacked e-mails certainly haven't caused you to change your mind because you haven't read them.  Therefore you must have read or heard some sort of account of them that is telling you what is the right way to look at them.  If a government agency were doing this, you'd howl your head off.  I would too.  Why are you willing to let some other yahoo do it for you?

quote:


The question is not whether or not there is global warming but whether or not it is man-made and whether man can change it.



     If you're going to be strictly practical, I'd go a bit further.  I'd say that pragmatically it doesn't matter if it's man-made or not in purely practical terms.  In terms of an interesting discussion, perhaps it does, but in purely pragmatic terms, probably not.  The question of whether we can change it is important to me because I'd like to have the species survive on this planet, and it's possible that those are the stakes that we're playing for.  It's certainly very possible that that we'll fail.

     I'd rather work at surviving as a species than either pretending there's nothing wrong or accepting there's nothing that can be done.  Pragmatically that offers the best chance for a decent outcome even if there's nothing wrong or if there's nothing that can be done.  It seems the option that offers the highest chance for the longest survivability for the most people.  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


11 posted 11-25-2009 03:47 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The hacked e-mails certainly haven't caused you to change your mind because you haven't read them.

Ah, friend Bob. Your accusations and conclusions continue to be as inaccurate as always because you state things as being factual without having any idea if they are or not. I have read a couple of dozen of them, actually. You can find them here.. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warminggate-what-does-it-mean/2/

I'm not sure why you would jump into a reply of mine to LR and decide that it would be an appropriate time to criticize or make invalid assumptions. You must be having a slow evening perhaps?

No, my view of global warming has not changed because of the e-mails. In fact, it has been strengthened. I simply asked for others to express their opinions on the e-mails and I have accepted every opinion.

Have a nice evening.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


12 posted 11-25-2009 12:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Certainly a touching story, Ron, and I mean that sincerely. There are small comparisons to global warming but very few, I'm afraid.

Everything we're being told we need to do to reverse global warning are things we need to do anyway

Ok, if you say that continued depletion of fossil fuels will be devastating, I won't disagree. How far into the future will that be? Does it matter how far it will be? I happen to think yes. SHould we be looking for alternatives for fossil fuels? Sure. Is there so much urgency that we need to accept higher taxes and more government controls while we are looking because powers that be demand that factors that they claim affect climate  control must be done by  the next decade? I say no. When I say "why right now?" the standard reply is, "Well, you have to start sometime." OK, but I'll continue to ask "why now?".

Take a look at the state of the country and the world right now. Unemployment is rampant. The country is in an incredible amount of debt one would have thought unimaginable, an amount it will take several generations to pay off, if they ever can. The recession is real. People are hurting badly, not only here but all over the world. Is this the right time to add taxes and restrictions to people due to a claim by governments that may not even be real?  I don't understand how people can't see that this is a governmental power play on it's citizens and a way to have more people pay more into government coffers by using guilt as the main weapon.

In some ways it's similar to the health care situation we have going on now. The government claims that millions will be saved by eliminating waste in the system. SO why don't they eliminate it? They don't need a government takeover of the health care industry to do that. They say we need to come up with alternatives to fossil fuels. OK, look for them. They don't need ro saddle the public with more restrictions and taxes to look for them.

For the life of me, I can't believe people can't see this for what it is. Al Gore makes a movie filled with misinformation and blatant lies, which can be proven, and he's admired as a hero. He will  not discuss them, not debate them, not defend them and avoids all questions related to them. In the meantime, he has set up companies designed to get rich from related global warming issues and has made millions from them.....and still the public can't see the scam. Governments get into the act, seeing a great opportunity. They get scientists together and say, "This is our claim. Give us something to verify it". Viola! We wind up with scientists working with governments supporting it and scientists not associated with governments claiming that man-made global warming is a sham, that any human cutbacks would be so negligible not to matter at all. That is one reason why I find a few of these hacked e-mails so interesting. They raise the question....are the scientists looking for the truth or looking for conclusions to support governmental claims, and ignoring what doesn't?

Cap and trade would be devastating to the country. Copenhagen could be detrimental to the world. There is a difference between "Something needs to be done" and "anything needs to be done".

Even if it was for all the wrong reasons.

Ron, you make it sound like the end justifies the means. It seems to me that your views on other topics have been just the opposite. "Get me to do what I need to do anyway, even if you have to lie to me to make me do it"....quite a thought.

I hope people set aside their partisan shackles and see this thing for what it really is, otherwise we are all going to pay dearly.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


13 posted 11-25-2009 12:18 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

It's okay Mike.  We have plenty of time.  This thread can go on for as long as anyone wants to participate.  Lets just start with this one --

quote:

Thanks Phil,
(Tom: Congrats again!)
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De
Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html
In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed
this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told Mike that
I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they
wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but
the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the
community on the whole...
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the
presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My
guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm
not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their
side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that
couldn't get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board...
What do others think?
mike
At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

Dear All,
Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning
in
response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up Tom's
old
address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling - worst word I can
think of today
without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to read more at the
weekend
as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and
Keith A.
onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have so
much else on at
the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider what
to do there.
The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they
get. They
have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn't
the
warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere. With their LIA being
1300-
1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of
synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and
late
20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid
boxes.
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something - even if this is
just
to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will
use
this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes
unchallenged.
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it
until they
rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but
papers
get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
Cheers
Phil
Dear all,
Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don't let it
spoil your
day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of
editors. The
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers
through by
Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got
nowhere.
Another thing to discuss in Nice !
Cheers
Phil http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt



Tell me what's happening in this story so far.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


14 posted 11-25-2009 12:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Tell you what's happening? Explain...
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


15 posted 11-25-2009 12:37 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

What is the story being told in that [alleged]e-mail?  What's happening in it?  Your take?  What do you read?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


16 posted 11-25-2009 01:19 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Aha, I see. Sorry, I'm not heading down that road, LR. If you have something to say about that e-mail, go ahead. I don't recall bringing it up.

I'll repeat...I asked if the e-mails changed anyone's mind. You say no. Fine by me.

My thoughts on man-made global warming are in my above comment. If you have a different view, that's fine by me, too. My regards to Al.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


17 posted 11-25-2009 02:05 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
SHould we be looking for alternatives for fossil fuels? Sure. Is there so much urgency that we need to accept higher taxes and more government controls while we are looking because powers that be demand that factors that they claim affect climate control must be done by the next decade?

Hidden within your question, Mike, is the assumption that alternative energy source can be found without higher taxes and more government controls. I know you better than to think you expect people to invest heavily into alternative energy out of the goodness of their hearts? You can't possibly be making a call to people's altruistic nature?

Alternatives to fossil fuel are only going to become practical (and profitable) when they cost less than the fossil fuels they are meant to replace. Supply and demand and an obviously unreplenishable source guarantees with absolute certainty that will eventually happen. But if we wait for it to happen naturally, it's going to tear this country apart. I honestly don't know if we can survive it, but I certainly don't have any doubt it will make unemployment the least of our problems. The smartest thing our enemies can do is continue to sell us cheap oil.

Right now, it costs me $2.59 to drive 17 miles. What do you think I would do if you invested a couple years of your life and a few billion dollars to come up with a way for me to drive those 17 miles for, say, five bucks? I'd go right on burning fossil fuel for as long as I could. You'd be broke (and no doubt adding to the unemployment numbers).

I have a lot of faith in human ingenuity, Mike. I have even more faith in human greed. We can make the transition to a society that doesn't depend on something we know won't last, but we won't make it if we continue to depend on people to do the right thing for the right reason. The role of government has to include getting everyone to do the right thing even if it's for the wrong reason. When it starts costing me $20 to drive those 17 miles, your $5 solution is going to look pretty good. And I think that's all the incentive human ingenuity needs to go out and find that $5 solution.

It won't, however, happen if we depend on altruism. And you, I think, know that better than most.

Again, I really don't know if climate change is a legitimate problem. Reb clearly seems to think it is. You, on the other hand, seem convinced it's all a vast conspiracy. I haven't spent much time on it because I don't think it matters. We need to act as if it's real even if Reb is wrong and you are right.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


18 posted 11-25-2009 02:38 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“I have a lot of faith in human ingenuity, Mike. I have even more faith in human greed.”

“The second problem with the global-warming movement is the age-old problem of human greed. If the billions of people on planet earth can be convinced that they are doomed without new paradigms of energy use, then those who are ready to provide us with green elixirs can become fabulously wealthy.

Such a one is Al Gore, who left the vice presidency in 2001 worth under $5 million and is now said to be a magnate with a net fortune of over $100 million.

Gore, the green populist, has mastered a scam worthy of Bernie Madoff — based on a brilliant three-step business strategy:

1) Write, speak, and produce movies as a disinterested public intellectual to bring “research” to the public’s attention. Demonize skeptics through suggestions that they are either stupid, cold-hearted, or greedy.

2) Meanwhile, create all sorts of green companies designed to offer wind and solar technologies — and even stranger services like “carbon offsets.” The latter is a medieval concept in which rich carbon sinners can continue to satisfy their lust for cars, big homes, and airplanes. The trick is to hire out green priests who take carbon confession, and then offer the sinner a way back into earth-first heaven — through the commensurate penance of planting trees or building windmills somewhere else as divine compensation.

3) When the rationally minded complain of this scam, Gore’s lieutenants proclaim that he is not a hypocrite, much less a scheming businessman, because he invests in “what he believes in.”

Ponder that twisted logic: You circle the globe proselytizing that Earth will soon resemble the planet Mercury. But that’s okay, because you make your millions by offering products to alleviate the subsequent induced fears. The rationalization is akin to the financial manipulator who claims that he has done nothing wrong, because he reinvests his insider profits back into the Wall Street he helped to panic.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmY1MThiMWYzMjBkOTJmZWYwZWQyYWFjOGFiZWZhYjE=&w=MQ==

In other words follow the money
.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


19 posted 11-25-2009 03:18 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Mike, to answer the question – No the emails  didn’t change my mind –  for some reason the climate is getting warmer, that’s pretty clear. Whether it’s caused by fossil fuel or not is, as Ron suggested, hard to say with 100% certainty.

Ron,

I agree oil costs have to rise, the good news is they will whether we like it or not as soon as peak oil production is reached, which if you look at some of the figures should happen in the next few years if we haven’t already reached that point.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


20 posted 11-25-2009 03:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hidden within your question, Mike, is the assumption that alternative energy source can be found without higher taxes and more government controls.

Yep, that's right, Ron. Stop punishing the companies capable of doing that by constant increased taxes, have the government release the controls and get out of bed with the oil companies, and see what they can do. Right now they can't do anything,,,,the government has them bottled up.

No, I don't count on people's altruistic nature. You definitely know better than that about me! I, too, have faith in human greed. I count on it. I count on businesses wanting my money so badly they are going to give me the best product to keep my business. Do I care that they are doing it for their own greed? Not at all....as long as I get their best. Those who don't give their best don't stay in business too long. Greed and ingenuity are a wonderful combination.

I'm sure you remember Henry Reardon and his miracle metal. When he said, "I intend to skin the public for millions with my metal", one reporter said, "but won't the country benefit greatly from your invention?", to which Reardon replied, "Oh, have you noticed that??"
,
The role of government has to include getting everyone to do the right thing even if it's for the wrong reason.

Well, I could say then that, since tens of thousands of Iraqis were not killed that would have been under Hussein, that thousands of children who would have died of starvation didn't, that many were released from secret torture prisons, that Kurds did not continue to be massacred, that a possible safe haven for AlQaida was taken away  then you must have agreed with Bush using the excuse of WMD's. Seems to me you didn't see it that way at the time.

But that's off-topic. In my view, the role of government is not getting everyone to do the right thing, it'a allowing them to do the right thing. Putting hands around their necks and squeezing is not allowing.

Supply and demand and an obviously unreplenishable source guarantees with absolute certainty that will eventually happen. But if we wait for it to happen naturally, it's going to tear this country apart. I honestly don't know if we can survive it, but I certainly don't have any doubt it will make unemployment the least of our problems

Eventually happen? Yes, but that takes me back to my question....why right now, at a time the world is in a recession without adding more taxes to it?  Since we still have centuries worth of oil reserves, I doubt it will have much influence on our current unemployment, don't you? In this country we still have an incredible supply untapped. Remember the Obama campaign promises of tapping our own oil to get away from foreign dependence? Seen any of that happening lately?

This grand plan of Obama's has nothing to do with lessening our dependence on oil or finding alternatives. It is a plan to add more controls, bring in more taxes, all dressed up in the disguise of "saving the planet". It is a continuation of the grand plan of "redistribution of wealth".  It is a carnival sideshow and we are ooohing and ahhhing at the shrunken head in the jar, even though we know it's rubber.

The government wants an alternative to oil? No problem. Tell it to get out of the way....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


21 posted 11-25-2009 03:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As far as Copenhagen is concerned..

Yvo de Boer, U.N. climate treaty chief, told reporters in Bonn Wednesday, "I think it's critical that President Obama attend the climate change summit in Copenhagen. The world is very much looking to the United States to come forward with an emission reduction target and contribute to financial support to help developing countries."

THERE'S the real reason...
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


22 posted 11-25-2009 03:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Climate change help for the poor 'has not materialised'

Large sums promised to developing countries to help them tackle climate change cannot be accounted for, a BBC investigation has found.
Rich countries pledged $410m (£247m) a year in a 2001 declaration - but it is now unclear whether the money was paid. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has accused industrialised countries of failing to keep their promise. The EU says the money was paid out in bilateral deals, but admits it cannot provide data to prove it.

The money was pledged in the 2001 Bonn Declaration, signed by 20 industrialised nations - the 15 countries that then made up the European Union, plus Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland.
They said they would pay $410m per year until 2008. The date the payments were meant to start is unclear, but the total should be between $1.6bn and $2.87bn.

The declaration said: "We are prepared to contribute $410m, which is 450 million euro, per year by 2005 with this level to be reviewed in 2008." But only $260m has ever been paid into two UN funds earmarked for the purpose, the BBC World Service investigation has found.
"There have been promises which have not been fully materialised. There is an issue of trust," says Ban Ki-moon. The question of finance for developing countries to tackle climate change is one of the keys to a deal at the Copenhagen summit next month. Poor countries may not sign up to a new agreement unless they trust rich countries to keep their promises, and are satisfied with the mechanisms put in place to handle the flow of funds.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8376009.stm
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


23 posted 11-25-2009 05:06 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




quote:


Local Rebel says:

Here's your challenge Mike -- read all of the e-mails and find something that actually contradicts AGW.

And Mike Replies:

Sure thing, reb. After all, I have nothing better to do.





Bob then quotes Mike's reply to LR, above, and comments as follows —

quote:


    How would you be able to tell if there was or wasn't anything in his examples that might address your concerns unless you had some idea what he was talking about in terms of the whole release, which you haven't by your admission bothered to read?  





Mike then issues this convoluted response,
quote:


Ah, friend Bob. Your accusations and conclusions continue to be as inaccurate as always because you state things as being factual without having any idea if they are or not. I have read a couple of dozen of them, actually.



     Mike says that Bob is inaccurate, and is always inaccurate.  The reasons for Bob's inaccuracy is that he states things as being accurate without having any idea of their accuracy.

     The statement that Bob has made is that Mike has not read all the letters.  He has based this on the statement quoted from Mike himself, in Mike's own words, in context.  After smearing Bob here, Mike them goes ahead and admits that he hasn't read them all once again, "I have read a couple of dozen of them, actually."

     Mike's powers of observation and reason are increasing by leaps and bounds.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


24 posted 11-25-2009 05:17 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Since we still have centuries worth of oil reserves,

Even the oil companies aren’t trying to sell that particular pig in a poke Mike. Oil production can’t keep up with current demand which is currently growing at a rate of 2-3% per year and is likely to continue to grow exponentially. Some bloke called Dick Cheney predicted it in 1999, echoing an earlier prediction by Hubbert in 1974, and the US Department of Energy commissioned a report in 2005 written by Hirsch that confirmed the inevitable.
http://www.acus.org/docs/051007-Hirsch_World_Oil_Production.pdf

.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Just Wondering?   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors