Just Wondering? - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2009-11-24 07:34 PM

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 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

1 posted 2009-11-24 08:18 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

2 posted 2009-11-24 09:07 PM

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 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

3 posted 2009-11-24 09:35 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

4 posted 2009-11-24 10:51 PM

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 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

5 posted 2009-11-24 11:01 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

6 posted 2009-11-24 11:03 PM

“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 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

7 posted 2009-11-24 11:16 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

8 posted 2009-11-24 11:54 PM

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 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

9 posted 2009-11-25 03:23 AM

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 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

10 posted 2009-11-25 03:31 AM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

11 posted 2009-11-25 03:47 AM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

12 posted 2009-11-25 12:02 PM

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 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

13 posted 2009-11-25 12:18 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

14 posted 2009-11-25 12:31 PM

Tell you what's happening? Explain...

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant

since 1999-12-21

Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia

15 posted 2009-11-25 12:37 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

16 posted 2009-11-25 01:19 PM

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 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

17 posted 2009-11-25 02:05 PM

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 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

18 posted 2009-11-25 02:38 PM

.

“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 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

19 posted 2009-11-25 03:18 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

20 posted 2009-11-25 03:44 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

21 posted 2009-11-25 03:48 PM

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 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

22 posted 2009-11-25 03:55 PM

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 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

23 posted 2009-11-25 05:06 PM

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 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

24 posted 2009-11-25 05:17 PM

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

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

25 posted 2009-11-25 05:32 PM

Ah, Bob, I see you changed "you haven't read them" to "all of them" to support your argument. I don't really care. If your only interest in posting here is to pop in once in a while to insult and try to pick fights, why bother? Have a nice Thanksgiving....

Thanaks for the link, grinch. I'll check it out. I wouldn't want to be like Al Gore, who claims it's 5 million degrees at the center of the Earth!

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

26 posted 2009-11-25 06:01 PM

Should we reject everything he says because he got one thing wrong Mike?

BTW - He actually said “several million degrees”.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

27 posted 2009-11-25 06:34 PM

One thing wrong, grinch? You DO have a good sense of humor, after all

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

28 posted 2009-11-25 06:49 PM

quote:
One thing wrong, grinch? You DO have a good sense of humor, after all

I didn’t really want to mention all the things you’ve got wrong Mike – which is why I kept it to one example.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

29 posted 2009-11-25 08:14 PM

.

While nuclear which France
and earthquake ridden Japan
have embraced is off the table.
Who would have thought that
an energy source could be
politically incorrect.

.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

30 posted 2009-11-25 08:30 PM

I get many things wrong, grinch, for sure. What I get wrong is here in our little Alley. They are not in books or in movies that are shown to children, nor do they get me an Oscar or the Nobel Prize.

It takes a pro like Gore to pull that off....

and, no, in Gore's case, it is not limited to one thing, as you well know.

The amount of mistakes I make has nothing to do with Gore, of course. Nice try at a dodge, though

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

31 posted 2009-11-25 09:50 PM

     Get it straight, Mike.  I pointed out you didn't do your homework, yet acted as if you had.

     If you don't like to have that pointed out, do your homework, don't blame other people for noticing you're talking without having a grasp of the subject.  Or at least confine your comments to what you do know about.

     I stand by what I said about that.

     As for trying to pick a fight without having anything to contribute, it appears that you don't believe my contributions are worthy of reply, or didn't notice them or are discounting them.  I said, about global warming,

quote:

     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.

Having said,

quote:

. . . your only interest in posting here is to pop in once in a while to insult and try to pick fights, why bother?

it seems reasonable to conclude that you've not considered my point, not read it, or felt it not worth commenting upon.  None of these things is the same as my not having made it.

     I bother because I have things to say that I think matter.  I think that many of them are worth consideration.  And because you give me lots of practice in working on going back to the beginning of things and trying to put my feelings aside, and trying to explain things again.  That last part is hard for me, but I'm working on it.  I'm envious of LR for his ability to do that.

     And I wish you a happy thanksgiving too.  I hope you have lots of family about and that everybody has a fine time together.  You have lots to be thankful for in this painful year, and I'm glad you're around to grumble with.
Go get 'em, Mike.  Have a great time!

Yours, Bob K.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

32 posted 2009-11-26 07:51 AM

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will commit the United States to substantial cuts in greenhouse gas pollution over the next decade — despite resistance in Congress over higher costs — when he travels to a major climate conference in Copenhagen next month.

Obama will attend the start of the conference Dec. 9 before heading to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. He will "put on the table" a U.S. commitment to cut emissions by 17 percent over the next decade, on the way to reducing heat-trapping pollution by 80 percent by mid-century, the White House said.

Cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by one-sixth in just a decade would increase the cost of energy as electric utilities pay for capturing carbon dioxide at coal-burning power plants or switch to more expensive alternatives. The price of gasoline probably would increase, and more fuel-efficient automobiles — or hybrids that run on gasoline and electricity — probably would be more expensive.

Carol Browner, Obama's assistant for energy and climate change, on Wednesday cited a Congressional Budget Office study that said there would be $173-a-year estimated cost to the average household by 2020 if greenhouse gases were cut by 17 percent from 2005 levels. But the CBO analysis also said that if cost-blunting measures in the legislation were not taken into account, the cost to households could jump to $890 per household.

Other studies conducted by pro-industry groups have put the average household costs between $900 to more than $3,000 a year, although many of those studies do not take into account new energy conservation efforts and assume a more pessimistic view of new technology development that could bring actual consumer costs down. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_copenhagen

Happy Thanksgiving to all who celebrate it!

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

33 posted 2009-11-26 04:05 PM

Mike,

Gore got one thing wrong while discussing geothermal energy as a viable alternative energy source but managed to get the basic fact regarding geothermal energy’s feasibility correct.

You got one thing wrong trying to ridicule what Gore said – unfortunately it just happened to be what Gore actually said. I thought that was a little ironic in a pot, kettle and black sort of way.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

34 posted 2009-11-26 08:27 PM

Oh, you mean because I said 5 million instead of several million??? Well, I guess that makes it ok, then. After all, he was only off by a few million minus 5000 so that must be close enough for the expert in the field he claims to be

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

35 posted 2009-11-28 01:42 PM

I am glad he is not a doctor or a surgeon!

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

36 posted 2009-11-28 07:54 PM

After the last operation I had Ess the surgeon told me I’d be off work for at least 3 weeks – I was back at my desk after 3 days – I guess he was wrong.

If he got something wrong during the operation I’d have been a tad more concerned but I don’t really mind all that much when experts get the relatively unimportant things wrong.

Gore was explaining that electricity produced from geothermal sources was a viable alternative to conventional generating sources that used unsustainable fuels – that was the important thing and he got that about right. What the temperature 2 kilometres under the surface of the earth is isn’t that crucial when it comes to getting the point across about alternative energy sources.

quote:
After all, he was only off by a few million minus 5000 so that must be close enough for the expert in the field he claims to be

As far as I know Gore isn’t an expert in geothermal temperatures Mike, nor does he claim to be, if he was I’d be a little more worried about the minor gaffe. Gore however is simply a proponent of the theory of anthropogenic global warming who just happens to have access to the public thanks to his previous position. If he’s an expert in anything it’s probably getting the message heard – the fact that you’re trying to pick holes in what he says tends to suggest that he’s doing quite a good job in that regard.

I wonder Mike:

If a neighbour offers you a free beer because he’s got “about a gazillion” in his trunk going spare do you turn him down when you find out there’s only 342? Would you ridicule his stock taking expertise?

I wouldn’t either, the important thing is that there’s beer and it’s free!

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

37 posted 2009-11-28 10:14 PM

f a neighbour offers you a free beer because he’s got “about a gazillion” in his trunk going spare do you turn him down when you find out there’s only 342? Would you ridicule his stock taking expertise?

LOL! Thanks for showing how far you can go to try to make excuses for AlGore...that comparison isn't even in the ballpark

Now, if my neighbor told me we had to conserve beer because it was in danger of extinction and I found out there was actually more beer being produced than ever, THEN I would be a little irritated.

Substitute polar bears for beer and guess who you've got....yep, Gore again.

We agree on one thing. Gore is no expert, with the exception of scamming the public for his own benefit. I will concede that he is very good at that....possibly because there are so many suckers willing to believe him. His believers are dwindling, though, and people are actually questioning him. That's encouraging.....

Grinch
Member Elite

since 2005-12-31

Posts 2929
Whoville

38 posted 2009-11-29 12:12 PM

quote:
LOL! Thanks for showing how far you can go to try to make excuses for AlGore...that comparison isn't even in the ballpark

You’re welcome Mike.

As to whether the beer analogy is accurate, you’ll excuse me if I don’t accept your judgement straight off the bat – by your own admission you tend to get things wrong in the alley. Besides, applying the logic that you applied to Gore earlier I have to believe you’re wrong about everything given the evidence that you were wrong about one thing earlier.

I don’t mind running through it though, just in case:
Gore said we could get clean and virtually free electricity by using geothermal processes.

Your neighbour said you could get beer totally free from the trunk of his car.

Gore incorrectly said that the temperature beneath the earths crust was millions of degrees.

Your neighbour incorrectly said that he had gazillions of bottles in his trunk.

Hmm.. The two scenarios look analogous to me Mike – maybe your logic works after all.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

39 posted 2009-11-29 02:43 AM

Your example needs to assume that my neighbor, I and Gore are all on the same level. I can assure you my neighbor and I aren't...nor would we want to be.

You're right. I am wrong a lot in the Alley....for instance like thinking intelligent conversation can happen here. Obviously it doesn't

goodnight..

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

40 posted 2009-11-29 09:56 AM

Good morning!

Here's a little inconvenience the Inconvenient Truth ran into...

Before allowing it to be shown in schools Britain-wide, the British government has officially tried AL Gore’s global warming propa-scam-da film, An Inconvenient Truth, in court… And have reached the following conclusions (bolding is mine):

——————————

…the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

    * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
    * The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

    * The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
    * The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
    * The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
    * The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
    * The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
    * The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
    * The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

    * The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
    * The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/official-british-court-finds-11-inaccuracies-in-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth-labels-it-as-political-propaganda/

(Gore, by the way, will not respond to any of these points. Nobel Prize? He should have gotten the NoWay prize.

Tim
Senior Member

since 1999-06-08

Posts 1794

41 posted 2009-11-29 01:39 PM

As to the original question:

If you view climate warming/climate change as a political issue, then I suspect few minds are changed.

If you are a "denier" then you feel your views are vindicated.

If you are in the "Inconvenient Truth" camp, then you will ignore the emails using whatever excuse you wish to conjure up to explain away the obvious.

If you are a scientist, you have to be appalled and shocked at the politicization of your honored profession.

If you are a dumb schmuck from the middle of nowhere, you just shake your head and marvel at the ignorance of the supposed intellectual.

[This message has been edited by Tim (11-29-2009 02:15 PM).]

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

42 posted 2009-11-29 03:57 PM

Tim, I always suspected I was a dumb schmuck, and now you have verified it!

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

43 posted 2009-11-29 04:39 PM

You know, I can understand that people try to scam other people. They always have and always will and there will always be people to scam, like P.T. Barnum said. The sad thing for me is that Gore is not even good at it. He has been a habitual liar which can be easily factually provable, he yhas committed actions which have gone directly against global warming and climate change and no one calls him on it. He hasn't really tried to hide anything. He makes outrageous statements almost as if he knows no one will call him on it and those who do will be shouted down. There can be no other reason than (1) it is all political and (2) he knows he has the press behind him.....and that's sad that people will allow his deceptions to continue (and even reward him for it) all due to politics, even though it can hurt every American in the long run in terms of higher taxes and more government control.

Here's one of very many examples of Gorespeak, i.e., lying..

Al Gore, the Des Moines Register, March 16, 1999.

"I’ll tell you something else my father taught me. He taught me how to clean out hog waste with a shovel and a hose. He taught me how to clear land with a double-bladed ax. He taught me how to plow a steep hillside with a team of mules. He taught me how to take up hay all day long in the hot sun and then, after a dinner break, go over and help the neighbors take up hay before the rain came and spoiled it on the ground."

"Gore was a son of politics, a child of Washington, where his father served for 32 years as a congressman and a senator. The family residence was an apartment in the elegant Fairfax Hotel, which was owned by a Gore cousin; young Al walked across the street every morning to the Cosmos Club, where a bus picked him up for the ride to Washington’s most elite prep school, St. Alban’s, on the grounds of the Washington Cathedral." The New Yorker, November 28, 1994.

Here's an example of his disregard for environmental control if it interferes with him personally..

WASHINGTON (July 23) - What's it take to float Vice President Al Gore's boat? 4 billion gallons of water, that's what - at a cost of more than $7.1 million. All for a good cause, however (at least according to the "environmentalist" Vice President), since it provided Gore a photo-opportunity to highlight a $100,000 grant to the Connecticut River Joint Commission.

According to The Washington Times and The Associated Press, the Secret Service and the Connecticut River Joint Commission directed Pacific Gas & Electric to unleash approximately 4 billion gallons of water yesterday into the Connecticut River so Gore's rowboat wouldn't get stuck during a 4-mile photo opportunity. The release of the 4 billion gallons from a dam upstream raised the level of the river by 8 to 10 inches, and has drawn the ire of environmental officials in the region.

"They won't release the water for the fish when we ask them to, but somehow they find themselves able to release it for a politician," said Vermont Department of Natural Resources Director John Kassel in The Times. Kassel, who accompanied Gore on the trip, said that "the only reason they did this was to make sure the Vice President's canoe didn't get stuck."

"It was a bit artificial, to be honest with you," Kassel told The Times. "But the river was pretty dry and no one wanted the canoes to be dragging on the bottom. Vice President Gore's people were concerned that we not raise the level too high, either, because they didn't want it to be dangerous."

"So much for the environmentalist Vice President," remarked Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson. Citing Gore's book, "Earth in the Balance," Nicholson recalled that Gore "once lectured us that 'increasing per capita use' of fresh water, combined with 'global climate change,' could lead to 'poverty, hunger, and disease,' 'revolutionary political disorder,' and 'wars fought over natural resources like fresh water.'" ("Earth in the Balance," pp. 111, 113, 279)

According to revised federal standards contained in the 1992 National Energy Policy Act and supported by the Clinton-Gore administration, toilets manufactured after 1994 must have a maximum capacity of 1.6 gallons. Under those standards, Nicholson jokingly noted, Gore's 4 billion gallon photo-opportunity wasted the equivalent of 2.5 billion toilet flushes, or 2,110 flushes for each of New Hampshire's 1,185,000 residents.

According to water usage rates published by the Pennichuck Water Works, Inc., which serves the region the value of the 4 billion gallons wasted was approximately $7.1 million, Nicholson said.
http://hench.net/GoreGoof.htm

Add that to the power usage in his house, which rivals the amount small towns use, and do you really think he cares about the environment and carbon emmisions, except for a way to make millions?

It's sad that this kind of person can have so many supporters when he should be laughed at,and wuld be except for politics.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

44 posted 2009-11-29 05:03 PM

.

“The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"

"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 fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

You get the idea. The most charitable plausible explanation I have seen comes from the Atlantic's Megan McArdle. "The CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish."

Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, is more blunt. The e-mails "show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded date for independent examination."

Global warming alarmist George Monbiot of the Guardian concedes that the e-mails "could scarcely be more damaging," adding, "I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them." He has called for the resignation of the CRU director.

All of which brings to mind the old computer geek's phrase: Garbage in, garbage out.

The Copenhagen climate summit was convened to get the leaders of nations to commit to sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions -- and thus sharp reductions in almost all energy usage, at huge economic cost -- in order to prevent disasters that supposedly were predicted with absolute certainty by a scientific consensus.

But that consensus was based in large part on CRU data that was, to take the charitable explanation, "complete rubbish" or, to take the more dire view, the product of deliberate fraud.

Quite possibly the CRU e-mailers were sincere in their belief that they were saving the planet. Like Al Gore, they wanted to convince the world's elites that the time for argument is over, the scientific consensus is clear and those who disagree can be dismissed as cranks (and should be disqualified from receiving research grants). If they had to cut a few corners, well, you have to break eggs to make an omelette.

For those of us who have long suspected that constructing scientific models of climate and weather is an enormously complex undertaking quite possibly beyond the capacity of current computer technology, the CRU e-mails are not so surprising.

Do we really suppose that anyone can construct a database of weather observations for the entire planet and its atmosphere adequate to make confident predictions of weather and climate 60 years from now? Predictions in which we have enough confidence to impose enormous costs on the American and world economies?

Copenhagen, despite Barack Obama's presence, seems sure to be a bust; there will be no agreement on mandatory limits on carbon emissions. Even if there were, it would probably turn out to be no more effective than the limits others agreed to in Kyoto in 1997. In any case, China and India are not going to choke off their dazzling economic growth to please Western global warming alarmists. “

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Global-warming-co nsensus_-garbage-in_-garbage-out-8595100-76438787.html

And let’s remember that not everyone including the Russians and Canadians
are part of this “consensus that obviates debate:

http://www.energyendgame.com/Cooling.htm

Their short answer would be: “It’s the sun stupid!”
Let’s make very sure the sky is really falling only and retrievably
because of the West, (not the Chinese or Indians who aren’t
going to keep the overwhelming majority of their billion
plus populations at plows behind cows just to please us), before
we do things that make ordinary Americans and Brits wish it was.
Or is that too much to ask.

.

Bob K
Member Elite

since 2007-11-03

Posts 4208

45 posted 2009-11-30 08:22 PM

     hench.net is a highly partisan web site which makes no particular effort to be objective.  It is biased enough to feature an animated elephant letting off hot air every few seconds.  The elephant, for some reason, is colored red, white and blue, with stars.  It's difficult to tell which are half-truths and which are outright lies in this mishmash, and separation of either of those from the distortions and smears  seems almost impossible.  Added to the statements that are fabricated or are taken out of context, the whole site is dubious to say the least.

     When you quote propaganda sites, of course, that's the sort of thing you get.

     Why not simply go for conservative sites that actually employ fact checkers, such as The Economist, or more of less neutral sites, or sites which have a commitment to telling the truth, such as The Christian Science Monitor.  There are so many places out there where you won't run into this sort of problem.

     But then, you won't find most of them saying the sort of things you have put into your postings over and over again.

     They won't be things that I would necessarily agree with, mind you, but I'd have to admit that there was some piece of good solid well crafted reportage to them, that the facts were at least well researched and that the story emerged out of the research, rather than the research emerging out of some attempt to support a rumor of dubious reality in the first place.

     If I were going to nominate folks for lying, Al Gore wouldn't be very high on my list.  I wouldn't have to go back that far.  The names Cheney and Bush would come to mind much more quickly, who got the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water raised as an example of their environmental policy, and refused to even talk seriously about environmental issues for their tenure in office, and who refused to get power plants to install more scrubbing on their smoke stacks.  They support "The New Clean Coal" when it's that same dirty old coal it always was with a nifty new name.  Those of us who grew up in Steel towns can tell you how great those coal fumes were for everybody's lung health.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

46 posted 2009-11-30 08:39 PM

If I were going to nominate folks for lying, Al Gore wouldn't be very high on my list. I wouldn't have to go back that far. The names Cheney and Bush would come to mind much more quickly

Now why doesn't that shock me???

Believe me, Bob, if Gore would not be high on your list, with all of the lies he has told (well documented) then you are simply showing how your political bias overcomes everything else, which is actually sad.

I can honestly say (and you are free to disbelieve) that if Gore were a republican, with his record and actions, I would feel exactly the same way about him. It's too bad you can't see the man for what he is, besides being a democrat, which seems to be the only criteria that matters to you.

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

47 posted 2009-11-30 09:04 PM

Here's a small example of the man who would not  be high on your list, Bob. There are plenty of other examples....

# August 28, 1996: The Democratic National Convention in Chicago.  Gore makes a moving speech about his sister's death in 1984 from cancer which, he claims, spurred him to wage war on the tobacco industry.  However, while running for president in 1988, Gore told an audience of tobacco farmers, "I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."  He also received thousands of dollars in PAC money from tobacco companies after the death of his sister in 1984 and accepted federal subsidies for the tobacco grown on his farm.

# January 24, 1997:  On NBC's Today Show Gore said, "I did not know that it was a fundraiser." When referring to the Buddhist Temple fundraiser in California.  In fact, a DNC memo prepared for Gore made plain that the event at Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, Calif., was a fundraiser. A Secret Service document called it a fundraiser, Gore¹s staff described the event as a fundraiser to reporters, and DNC chairman Don Fowler testified to the Senate that he knew "there was a fundraising aspect to this event."  Six weeks before attending the event, Gore met with temple master Hsing Yun at the White House with fundraisers Maria Hsia and John Huang. Later that day, Gore sent an e-mail saying that he couldn't be in New York on April 28, 1996: "If we have already booked the fundraisers [in California], then we have to decline."

# December 1997: Gore tells Time's Karen Tumulty that he and Tipper were the inspiration for Erich Segal's novel 'Love Story.'  Erich Segal has disputed that claim.

June 16, 1999:  "Halfway through this century,'' Gore said, in declaring his candidacy, ''when my father saw that thousands of his fellow Tennesseans were forced to obey Jim Crow laws, he knew America could do better. He saw a horizon in which his black and white constituents shared the same hopes in the same world.''  It was a moving tribute, but with a notable omission: The elder Gore voted against the landmark civil rights legislation of his time, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which repudiated the Jim Crow laws.  Boston Globe, 4/11/00

    * October 21, 1999:  The Nashville Scene compiled a list of quotes from Spotted Al on his tour of duty in Vietnam.  Keep in mind that he was a newspaper reporter and never saw any action.

* "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later."
--Gore to Vanity Fair magazine

* "I was shot at. I spent most of my time in the field."
--Gore to the Washington Post

* "I carried an M-16. I pulled my turn on the perimeter at night and walked through the elephant grass and I was fired upon."
--Gore to the Baltimore Sun

* "I used to fly these things with the doors open, sitting on the ledge with our feet
hanging down. If you flew low and fast, they wouldn't have as much time to shoot you."
--Gore, to the Weekly Standard magazine, describing flights aboard combat helicopters

#
November, 1999:  In a Time Magazine interview, Spotted Al commented on opponent Bill Bradley's idea to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.  "I was the author of that proposal. I wrote that, so I say, welcome aboard. That is something for which I have been the principal proponent for a long time."  The problem is, the EITC became law in 1975, a year before Al was even elected to Congress.
#
November 24, 1999: According to the New York Times, Al Gore claimed he had sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill. "Unlike Senator Bradley, I was a co-sponsor of it."  The fact is, Gore and Russell Feingold never served together in the Senate. Gore later admitted to the Times that his comment "was a mistake . . . [W]hat I meant to say was that I supported that."

February 20, 2000: New York Times reported that Gore said he has 'always, always, always' supported Roe v. Wade.  In 1977, Rep. Gore voted for the Hyde Amendment, which says that abortion 'takes the life of an unborn child who is a living human being,' and that there is no constitutional right to abortion.  He cast many other
votes favorable to the pro-life cause and earned an 84 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee.  He also sent a letter to his constituents insisting that he was pro-life.

September 19, 2000: Addressing a Teamsters meeting, Gore spoke of lullabies from his youth and sang, "Look for the union label."  The song was written in 1975, when Gore was 27. (USA Today) http://www.philvalentine.com/spottedal.htm

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

48 posted 2009-12-01 07:20 PM

LONDON – Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.

The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091201/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_climate_hacked_e_mails

Good....

Balladeer

Administrator

Member Empyrean

since 1999-06-05

Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

49 posted 2009-12-01 07:28 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Two senators on Tuesday gave a boost to next week's global environmental summit in Copenhagen, with a senior Democrat advocating more U.S. funding of climate change efforts by poor nations and a key Republican calling for quick action on a U.S. climate bill.

Democratic Senator John Kerry, a leading advocate of climate control legislation in Congress, recommended that the Obama administration include $3 billion in next year's budget to help fund efforts to address global warming. This year's funding is about one third that amount.

Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the few Republicans willing to negotiate with Democrats on a climate change bill, told Reuters, "I think we need to act by next spring" to pass a bill limiting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.

Graham also said it is time for the U.S. business community to get behind such an effort. "Business has to weigh in here," Graham said in an interview.

"The environmental community is becoming very reasonable," Graham added, by signaling its openness to more offshore oil and gas drilling and expanded nuclear power.

"The business community has to tell the Congress we need certainty, we need a system that gives us markers to work toward," Graham said, referring to climate change legislation. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091201/pl_nm/us_climate_usa_finance_4

Another 3 billion? Well, why not? Let the spending continue....even on fantasies.

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.