Global warming crowd takes a break

[alexamenos]

CRU: "The dog ate my raw data."

That's pretty good stuff. The timing of this admission right on the heels of the whistle blower's emails is notable, isn't it?

[dude1394]

Heh..

[92bDad]

I wonder if all the tax dollars wasted on global warming could help with the healt care revisions, without costing citizens more tax dollars?

Start making the Global Warming Conspiracy folks pony up and pay with their own private money...instead of stealing tax dollars, and ultimately the hard earned money of other citizens.

Isn't it amazing, that so many from Global Warming to ACORN can create organizations to simply milk and steal money from tax payers...with NO RECOURSE.

Yet, citizens who mind their own business, pay their own taxes and then tithe or contribute to the organizations of their choice are demonized by these criminals?

If Al Capone were alive today, I wonder what CZar position Obama would appoint him to?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

...so many from Global Warming to ACORN can create organizations to simply milk and steal money from tax payers...

That's what governments do. See the Social Security Fund or TARP for examples on the scale of trillions of dollars.

[dude1394]

The global warming crowd has always been about having more government control of EVERYTHING. Hopefully we dodged this bullet and will dodge the other marxist policies or our left-wing inexperienced community organizer.

[dude1394]

The Obama White House is quickly becoming Baghdad Bob's house.

The White House on Monday made exceptionally clear that it wants nothing to do with the furor over documents that global warming skeptics say prove the phenomenon is not a threat.

Despite the incident, which rocked international headlines last week, climate science is sound, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed this afternoon, and the White House nonetheless believes "climate change is happening."

"I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," he said during Monday's press briefing.

Climate change skeptics have asserted over the past week that the publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails and documents once housed in the University of East Anglia's computer system refutes most modern global warming evidence.

[mcsluggo]

Holy crap this thread is idiotic.

First of all, I am not particularly green. I don't study the issues much, nor do I contribute time/money/effort/whatever to green issues. Without much foundation for my beliefs, I think that going nuclear could go along way to solving many of the purported long term carbon problems. But who knows... this isn't my issue. Furthermore, I am not going to stake a position one way or another on how corrupt the gotcha emails are. I just don't have the inclination to sort through them.

That said... Jeez this thread is idiotic.

People here jump from the conclusion that some academics tilted data to support their research (that NEVAH happens... I am SHOCKED I tell you, SHOCKED!!!!) to:

... it certainly isn't unexpected, scientists have crapped all over themselves the last 10 years or so.

and all the other bs in this thread



really?

no really..... i mean: Really?

WTF? Look at this debate and ask yourself WHICH SIDE looks like the crazed "religious fanatics" on the issue.

The side that eagerly gobbles up individual reports that overstate the case for global warming? Perhaps true. I am sure there is alot of that going on. No question....

But how about the other side? the side that thinks the entire world's scientific community is involved in some vast monolithic conspiracy to promote the evil spectre of a global warming hoax? How does THAT work for you as a bunch of moonbat fanatics?

you all.... just... sound.... stupid.

Scientific progress, under the scientific method, progresses in fits and spurts. It sometimes has pendulum swings in one direction, that swing back in another direction (probably too far as well) as analytical findings are reported and then subjected to the scrutiny of further analysis. Its the way it works. it stumbles its way to discovery through the bold overstatements of individual scientists that are out to promote their own work, but that are then attacked by other scientists out to promote THEIR own work.

Also, it is true, there is always some tendency to bandwagoning --- primarily because MOST scientists, as with any crowd, don't actually have anything original to say or really much to add to whatever is the item of discussion, so they have to be sycophants of the truly big minds. But you know what?.... the truly beloved in the academic community are the skeptics. To get ahead, you tear down the position somebody else has established, show it to be wrong, and then replace it. You can get tenured by a bunch of small "yup yup yup" papers that just support what everybody else is saying... but you get famous (and an endowed chair, or whatever) by knocking down a key pillar that everyone else had been working from, or by building a new key pillar. THAT is the way it works.

being skeptical is fine. I love skepticism. but i am hearing way too many tinges of: them thar scientists with that thar book larning is gonna cause troubel. Burn it. Understand that this is a relatively new field. AND we are dealing with statistical probabilities forecasting well into the future. There is going to be overselling on all sides. So take everything with a grain of salt. Just don't be stupid about it, and act as if every instance of a scientist over-tooting his own analysis is evidence of a vast conspiracy.

[mcsluggo]

As an aside (a related aside)

.... lets say you are the chair of "the department of <<<whatever the hell they call the environmental studies programs>>>" at some strong, but not great academic school. Say Virgina Tech, or Texas A&M, or University of Maryland, or ... whatever.... Question: what would be the way to catapult your program into truly elite status? Perhaps being THE skeptic school. No?

The university of Chicago was an elite school for economics in the 50s and 60s, but it became one of the most dominant schools in the world by being the site of the "chicago school of thought" when the EVERYONE was 1960s style "Keynesian". THey were the skeptics. They won (through the 80s and 90s at least) as skeptics.

You would think that there would be a top, or near-top school that would position itself as THE skeptic school in the current debate.. and perhaps there is--as I have said, i don't follows these issues very closely. BUT most of the sheer crap that gets blogged and then dutifully posted on forums like this comes from "Professor" (emeritus) Skeezits at east-north-dakota-state-community-college-of-animal-husbandry.

Why is that?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Holy crap this thread is idiotic....

Holy crap, what a strawman.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

really?

no really..... i mean: Really?

WTF? Look at this debate and ask yourself WHICH SIDE looks like the crazed "religious fanatics" on the issue.

The side with more alarmism than knowledge. That's probably correlated with who uses more useless punctuation and with how many times the phrase "I haven't read much into this but . . . " is used.
edit: to remove some useless punctuation.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Holy crap, what a strawman.

Perhaps. But I can't help but noticing that the politicization of this issue goes both ways. And actually the politicization seems HARDER in the "skeptical" direction.... Specificlly, Republican's in the US are recently becoming much more skeptical of global warming. Is THAT because of recent scientific discoveries in the field? I don't know.. but an awful lot of it (at least the stuff that is posted on site's like this) seems to be based on hack blog reports. Perhaps that is BECAUSE the warming devotees have cornered the established traditional centers of research... but if that is the case then surely this hold is temporary, and more serious academic research will be forthcoming. Personally, I recognize that I am not enough of an expert in this field to sort the wheat from the chaff. And while I will grant that it is possible for groupthink to suppress correct analysis that goes against the prevailing view... I think that effect is going to be temporary. I think the scientific method wins out in the end.

but going back to skepticism amongst conservatives about global warming.... I bet if you performed a chow test (on the data of conservative support for the basic premise of man-made global warming) from the time period around Al Gore's big dog and pony show (and nobel prize) you could identify a statistical shift in opinions. Or stated otherwise, once gore became the spokesperson for global warming, republicans stopped believing in it.

If true....does that speak to the politicization of the global warming crowd? or the skeptics crowd? or both?

[alexamenos]

WTF? Look at this debate and ask yourself WHICH SIDE looks like the crazed "religious fanatics" on the issue.

Yeah, definitely the side which believes the gods will destroy us if we don't stop our enviro-sinning is the group that looks like religious fanatics to me.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

If true....does that speak to the politicization of the global warming crowd? or the skeptics crowd? or both?

I've said from day one that politics trumps science, politics drive science.

....big surprise.

A very big difference between the True Believers and the Skeptics is the Skeptics don't have any intention (as far as I can tell) of taxing me for exhaling. So it's a no-brainer if we are to judge this on the political merits-- skeptics win, skeptics win.

As for the science....

The CRU doesn't have the raw data upon which they base their conclusion that I'm destroying the planet by exhaling.....which is to say, it's not that they're bad scientists but they're not even scientists.

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. -- Phil Jones, CRU

The reason a scientist would make the data available to someone who's aim is to find something wrong with it is because that's science IS and that's what scientists DO. Phil Jones is obviously not a scientist (even though he plays one on tv), hence it's not reasonable to expect a scientific rather than political attack upon his work.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

The side with more alarmism than knowledge. That's probably correlated with who uses more useless punctuation and with how many times the phrase "I haven't read much into this but . . . " is used.
edit: to remove some useless punctuation.

from the standpoint of posters on THIS forum: I would admit that I don't provide much illumination on the basic issue of whether there is global warming or not. I am not expert. Neither are any of the rest of you, and the illumination you provide is also commensurate with that fact. The only difference is that i don't claim any particular insight into the basic science. I have none.

furthermore... I don't really have a "side", per se.

but since YOU have divided it into tow groups, and declared the loser as "The side with more alarmism than knowledge." I will agree with you. I will listen to the side that provides a more reasoned scientific approach. FOr now at least, the only way I have to judge this is to accept "the side" that manages to convince more experts in this particular field... while accepting that it is a fairly new field that is still in its discovery phase, which leaves it vulnerable to a higher ratio of "noise to information", and potentially greater swings in what is commonly believed.

(and of course "the side" is pure poppycock. Just like in almost every other issue, the truth will end up being in some degree of shades of grey... as to HOW MUCH effect there is, and HOW MUCH damage it causes, and what is the appropriate level of mitigation... which is surely less than than what many of the looneys on the true green side call for)

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I've said from day one that politics trumps science, politics drive science.

....big surprise.

A very big difference between the True Believers and the Skeptics is the Skeptics don't have any intention (as far as I can tell) of taxing me for exhaling. So it's a no-brainer if we are to judge this on the political merits-- skeptics win, skeptics win.

As for the science....

The CRU doesn't have the raw data upon which they base their conclusion that I'm destroying the planet by exhaling.....which is to say, it's not that they're bad scientists but they're not even scientists.

The reason a scientist would make the data available to someone who's aim is to find something wrong with it is because that's science IS and that's what scientists DO. Phil Jones is obviously not a scientist (even though he plays one on tv), hence it's not reasonable to expect a scientific rather than political attack upon his work.

yep... no doubt... that is a stupid ass statement, and you will be hard pressed to find anybody to defend it.
<edit.. just in case there was any doubt... I was referring to PHIL JONES' quote!>>

but back to your basic point (in THIS post): do you honestly think there is less of a political agenda behind the skeptical side?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

do you honestly think there is less of a political agenda behind the skeptical side?

No I don't. My point was that the political agenda driving the Skeptics is far more digestable than the agenda driving the True Believers.

[kg_veteran]

The Climate Science Isn't Settled
Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.
By RICHARD S. LINDZEN - link

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let's refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called "climate forcing."

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

The IPCC's Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000 pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages. It is, of course, impossible to accurately summarize the 1,000-page assessment in just 20 pages; at the very least, nuances and caveats have to be omitted. However, it has been my experience that even the summary is hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim.

The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.
The Climate Emails

Of course, none of the articles stressed this. Rather they emphasized that according to models modified to account for the natural internal variability, warming would resume—in 2009, 2013 and 2030, respectively.

But even if the IPCC's iconic statement were correct, it still would not be cause for alarm. After all we are still talking about tenths of a degree for over 75% of the climate forcing associated with a doubling of CO2. The potential (and only the potential) for alarm enters with the issue of climate sensitivity—which refers to the change that a doubling of CO2 will produce in GATA. It is generally accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only produce a change of about two degrees Fahrenheit if all else is held constant. This is unlikely to be much to worry about.

Yet current climate models predict much higher sensitivities. They do so because in these models, the main greenhouse substances (water vapor and clouds) act to amplify anything that CO2 does. This is referred to as positive feedback. But as the IPCC notes, clouds continue to be a source of major uncertainty in current models. Since clouds and water vapor are intimately related, the IPCC claim that they are more confident about water vapor is quite implausible.

There is some evidence of a positive feedback effect for water vapor in cloud-free regions, but a major part of any water-vapor feedback would have to acknowledge that cloud-free areas are always changing, and this remains an unknown. At this point, few scientists would argue that the science is settled. In particular, the question remains as to whether water vapor and clouds have positive or negative feedbacks.

The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth's climate offers some guidance on this matter. About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today's. Carl Sagan in the 1970s referred to this as the "Early Faint Sun Paradox."

For more than 30 years there have been attempts to resolve the paradox with greenhouse gases. Some have suggested CO2—but the amount needed was thousands of times greater than present levels and incompatible with geological evidence. Methane also proved unlikely. It turns out that increased thin cirrus cloud coverage in the tropics readily resolves the paradox—but only if the clouds constitute a negative feedback. In present terms this means that they would diminish rather than enhance the impact of CO2.

There are quite a few papers in the literature that also point to the absence of positive feedbacks. The implied low sensitivity is entirely compatible with the small warming that has been observed. So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.

What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.

The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.

Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.

Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.

Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

but since YOU have divided it into tow groups, and declared the loser as "The side with more alarmism than knowledge."

How can you ask someone a "which side?" question, then accuse them of dividing people into sides when they answer? Especially when their (my) answer was someone who claims not to be on either side (you).

FOr now at least, the only way I have to judge this is to accept "the side" that manages to convince more experts in this particular field...

You could read up on it.
Much of the convincing in this case was done with lies and bullying (more so than is normal in science!). Now, when someone starts demanding your money before the almighty and benevolent science can sort out fact from fiction, are you going to be skeptical?

[92bDad]

Global Warming is a similar theory to Evolution.

If they say it and preach long and hard enough, then the Theory is believed, even if it is not a proven fact.

What has happened is that money gets thrown at the perceived problem...money that is taken from you and my tax donations, without our approval.

What is being forced is to live life based on beliefs that are not 100% agreed on by people.

Basically, if you don't believe in Global Warming, or you believe in Creationism...you still have to abide by the laws of this land and go along with Global Warming as truth and Evolution as Truth...your beliefs have no value.

Essentially we are seeing a crowd that wants to shut down another crowd.

To be fair this happens on both sides of the Liberal/Conservative belief system.

For example Gay marriage...Conservatives want to shut down any thought of Gay Marriage. I personally am against Gay Marriage, but then again, I'm against any government involvment in marriage. All unions, as far as legal issues are concerned should be "Civil Unions"...marriages are an issue of ones respective faith and the Government should stay out of marriage all together.

Then as far as benefits from Insurance, Retirement, Companies, etc...should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Nobody should be forced to recognize a Same-Sex Union, but they can have the choice to.

That being said, there is no doubt that the opposition voice would rather drown out the Gay voice and force them to live under Straight Lifestyle beliefs.

So, how do we discern ones beliefs and have a society that allows people to live peacefully, yet with competing value structures?

One thing is to stop spending tax dollars on issues that have no full-proof merit, such as Global Warming. Actually believe in the people to make good choices on their own, especially when they make better choices than the government...

[dude1394]

Do NOT mess with my religion!!! Wonder if Barbara felt the same about other whistleblowers, probably not.

Boxer: Hackers should face criminal probe over 'Climategate'


By Michael O'Brien - 12/02/09 03:26 PM ET
Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" she said during a committee meeting. "Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I'm looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public."

[dude1394]

Chicken in more ways than one I guess.

Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday abruptly canceled a Dec. 16 personal appearance that was to be staged during the United Nation's Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins next week.
As described in The Washington TImes' Inside the Beltway column Tuesday, the multi-media public event to promote Mr. Gore's new book "Our Choice" included $1,209 VIP tickets that granted the holder a photo opportunity with Mr. Gore and a "light snack."
Berlingkse Media, a Danish group coordinating ticket sales and publicity for the event, said that "great annoyance" was a factor in the cancellation, along with unforeseen changes in Gore's program for the climate summit. The decision affected 3,000 ticket holders.
"We have had a clear-cut agreement, and it is unusual with great disappointment that we have to announce that Al Gore cancels. We had a huge expectation for the event. … We do not yet know the detailed reasons for the cancellation," said Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media, in a statement posted by the company.

[dude1394]

“Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children . . . this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”—Barack Obama, president of the United States.

[dude1394]

Global warming religionists just do not do math well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...532217650.html

When President Obama goes to the Copenhagen climate change summit next week, he is expected to once again declare that the U.S. will reduce its carbon emissions 83% by 2050. Even though no legally binding agreement is expected, what Mr. Obama says in Denmark will define the U.S. position in subsequent international negotiations. He will not say how the cuts will be accomplished. For Americans, the details are worth knowing.
Annual U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions currently average about 5.5 tons of carbon per person. Achieving Mr. Obama's goal would mean reducing this to 0.63 tons per person by midcentury, taking expected population growth of just under 1% per year into account. If the rest of the world were to do likewise, global carbon dioxide emissions would be 25% lower than today.
....
Here is a recipe that would work: Add 30,000 megawatts of new wind turbines every year between now and 2050 (this is nearly four times what was added in 2008, a record year). Add another 35,000 megawatts of solar photovoltaic capacity annually (more than 100 times what was added last year—a record year for solar, too).
That's just the beginning. Now multiply the nuclear reactor fleet fivefold by midcentury. Retrofit all existing coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and storage technology. And build twice as many new plants, also with carbon capture. Natural gas could substitute for coal, but only with carbon capture too. By 2050, the electric power system would be four times bigger than today. Two-thirds of the car and truck fleet would be powered by electricity, and the rest would run on advanced biofuels.
All of this would indeed reduce carbon emissions by 83%. It would also practically eliminate America's dependence on oil imports. But could it be done?
Perhaps, though not without enormous effort. Operating a power grid reliably and economically with intermittent solar and wind resources generating 40% of the electricity cannot be done today. Carbon capture and storage has yet to be demonstrated on a large scale. Meanwhile, a still vocal group of environmentalists remains adamantly opposed to nuclear energy—even though it is the only low-carbon energy source that is both scaleable and already generating large amounts of electricity.
.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

yep... no doubt... that is a stupid ass statement, and you will be hard pressed to find anybody to defend it.
<edit.. just in case there was any doubt... I was referring to PHIL JONES' quote!>>

but back to your basic point (in THIS post): do you honestly think there is less of a political agenda behind the skeptical side?

I know one "side" was advocating making huge, expensive changes of extremely dubious value and keeping the discussion under constant pressure by using rhetoric like " if immediate and aggressive action isn't taken, the ability to reverse the current process certain to make human life unsustainable will be lost forever."

I'm geezer enough to have witnessed all manner of dire predictions, from looming ice ages to the Earth becoming unable to support human life at half the population it currently has. I attended a lecture by Timothy Leary who predicted we would be settled on asteroids with various groups like the hippies and the Hell's Angels and the Panthers all having their own planetoid and bringing about an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity.

The irony is Dr. Leary was going around campuses doing this rap to drum up support to continue pouring resources into the space program post Lunar Landing. It was a period of high unemployment, a quickly falling dollar and double digit inflation and interest rates. But we were stoned and having a good time, and all of us, including Leary, were quite aware of the object of the exercise. No one was going to use his spiel to pass laws and treaties and extract money from everyone in the country.

I think you are missing the point, which isn't really about which of our fat girls sweats the least or has the best atmosphere hanging around them for keeping the flies off the watermelon. This amount of blatant coordination between highly respected people who have spent decades of their lives presumably serving the Gods of Rational Thought is utterly unprecedented in my lifetime. We aren't dickering about the interpretation of facts and measurements gathered by people who took all the knowledge and skill they possessed to gather information that was as free of bias as possible.

We'd have an extremely pricey Cap and Trade bill based on those projections. This is the Priest diddling the altar boys or the cop taking protection swag. You expect industries to bankroll papers and studies and trot out tame experts to lobby and influence.This is way more disappointing because the scope is way larger and scientists don't do this as a collective. This is Dan Rather saying that although the story he ran could have very likely influenced who was elected President, he wasn't worried about validating the facts since it was true Bush was AWOL.

This particular movement has always pointed to the number of scientists in agreement and the utter improbability they could all arrive at this conclusion if it wasn't true. I have several friends who trot out this query with boring and utterly predictable monotony :

"What do the scientists get out of risking their integrity and reputation over this? We know what the companies and industries have realized and what they stand to lose, it's just like [insert tobacco or drug company example]."

This is truly the age of the shrug.

[12 Tone Melodies]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...ar-wedges.html

Copenhagen Climate Summit: 1,200 Limos, 140 Private Planes And Caviar Wedges
Copenhagen Is Preparing For The Climate Change Summit That Will Produce As Much Carbon Dioxide As A Town The Size Of Middlesbrough.
By Andrew Gilligan
Published: 10:55PM GMT 05 Dec 2009
On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.
"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."
Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.
As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.
At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen's clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth".
The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.
And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.
At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.
The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.
Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.
Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.
And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.
In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. "Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys."
As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.
In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.
Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from Copenhagen itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.
And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.
The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.
The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.

[dude1394]

Energy for me but not for thee.

[dude1394]

Dilbert gets it.

Posted by John at 9:25 AM

[alexamenos]

"We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden." ...

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator. ... The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

...Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass.

The Useless (albeit powerful) and the Clueless (albeit famous) descend for a weekend of gluttonous consumption and free sex while the police boast of their prison facilities and water cannons, all part of a greater centralization of power under the pretense of non-sense emanating from bad pseudo-science.

This is so decadant it hurts. The world would be a better place if a bomb exploded in downtown Copenhagen. It's like Soddom and Gomorrah decadent....caligula-esque 'make my horse a senator' decadent...

Here's my plan to save the world: If anyone says to you that they're trying to save the world, kill that person immediately. That person is either evil or hopelessly foolish (or both).

[Underdog]

scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges

Saving the world is a tasty racket...

[alexamenos]

I feel a bit hypocritcal for that last post...I'm actually quite a practioner of decadence in my personal life. I just really hate the Dutch.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Here's my plan to save the world: If anyone says to you that they're trying to save the world, kill that person immediately. That person is either evil or hopelessly foolish (or both).

So there you have it...I have my defense planned out...

Alexamenos told me to do it, thus I must be released and found innocent of all charges

Or is that ... "The Devil Made Me Do It"

[Tokey41]

Isn't the golden rule in all religions to treat others as you would like to be treated? Seems a bit contradictory to have so many religious fanatics ranting about these issues with such hostile criticism when they expect complete understanding of their side.

In all seriousness, you need to wake the hell up. I know your all probably fifty year old conservatives who don't give a damn about the planet (either because your going to die soon or your banking on Jesus coming to save you from your own negligence), but shouldn't you at least stop and consider the alternative: what if your wrong? That is, what if everything you put blind faith into turns out to be false? Not only have you screwed your friends and family, your children and their children, but you've also screwed billions of other people you don't even know.

And that my friends is the problem with religion, when it becomes harmful to others. I look at issues like this and its clear that it's lost its way. Its not about upholding the teachings of Jesus anymore, or whatever faith you may hold, the golden rule applies to all faiths. And if your not following this rule I couldn't give a damn about your opinion on religious matters because your not even following your own code of conduct. If your stopping to think about all of this you will eventually realize that not being open to the possibility of creating a more eco-friendly planet is pretentious, foolish, and selfish. Where are your core religious values? I can't seem to find any, and without them, is there really any point to having religion at all?

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Tokey41

Isn't the golden rule in all religions to treat others as you would like to be treated? Seems a bit contradictory to have so many religious fanatics ranting about these issues with such hostile criticism when they expect complete understanding of their side.

In all seriousness, you need to wake the hell up. I know your all probably fifty year old conservatives who don't give a damn about the planet (either because your going to die soon or your banking on Jesus coming to save you from your own negligence), but shouldn't you at least stop and consider the alternative: what if your wrong? That is, what if everything you put blind faith into turns out to be false? Not only have you screwed your friends and family, your children and their children, but you've also screwed billions of other people you don't even know.

And that my friends is the problem with religion, when it becomes harmful to others. I look at issues like this and its clear that it's lost its way. Its not about upholding the teachings of Jesus anymore, or whatever faith you may hold, the golden rule applies to all faiths. And if your not following this rule I couldn't give a damn about your opinion on religious matters because your not even following your own code of conduct. If your stopping to think about all of this you will eventually realize that not being open to the possibility of creating a more eco-friendly planet is pretentious, foolish, and selfish. Where are your core religious values? I can't seem to find any, and without them, is there really any point to having religion at all?

Wow, I actually agree with a portion of your statement..."What if YOUR WRONG?"

Think of how many billions of people will and are being effected by the constant waste of money put to a false theory. Think of all the government manipulation that has ultimately become a variable in the current economic climate/depression.

Imagine all the resources wasted on GCC and how it could be put to better use.

Look, just because someone disagrees with the premise of GCC does not mean that they can not be a better steward of their own portion of this world. But to mandate and apply resources to it is where the waste and corruption takes place.

As for your point on faith, I suppose that this also applies to your Faith in Science...which has clearly been proven to be filled with opposing theories...so which theory do you choose?

It's clear the climate will change, it will get hotter and colder and as in all things living, at some point...the cycle of life on this planet will come to an end. As much as we as humans like to believe we are all powerful, the reality is that we are simply enjoying the ride while we are here.

This push for "Environmentalism" for the sake of saving the planet is a croc and at best a passive aggressive form of manipulation.

Conservatives believe in taking care of the environment as a personal responsibility to pass something along to the next generation and so on.

We actually believe that each of us has the ability and the knowledge to do the right thing and that given the choice we will actually do the right thing...however when government and others decide to push and force mandates, then our will to live in freedom takes over and rebel against the establishments.

Go figure, the "Green" community has become the establishment and they are living a life based on a lie that only fuels the bottom line pocket books of "The Man"

In order to support a better environment, then influence private individuals and organizations to lead by example, but keep the Government out of the business of "Regulations" - they only do what's so-called popular so that they can attract votes and gain or remain in power, so that they can ultimately gain more wealth.

Again, GCC is occuring, allways has and allways will...that is the evolution of our planet. There a multitude of variables that effect GCC and sure each variable can be changed to ultimately change the direction of the GCC...but in the end, it will continue and there is nothing we can do to stop the demise of this planet.

So, let's stop wasting time, money and whatever resources to this issue that can't be stopped, and start putting our efforts to restoring our economy based on sound capatilism fundamentals. Let's create wealth, through hard work and let's apply this wealth to areas less fortunate, throughout the world.

Perhaps help the people in Africa learn how to tap into their own environment and end famine in their area through development and growth of economic resources.

As you can see, it's not necessarily about who's right or who's wrong, but rather how can we as a people find ways to work together to create a better world for both ourselves and others. How do we influence the harmony to work together, simply because we desire too, rather than being commanded to do this or that.

At the end of the day, we have one issue that destroys all efforts from either side...we have to deal with each other as people, as individuals and we have to find ways to sort through conflicts of ideology.

My friends, dare I say, that these conflicts have not be resolved in nearly 10,000 years and I doubt that they will be resolved over the next 24 hours. Perhaps each one of us, including me, can go home tonight and think about one thing that each of us can do of our own desire to make this a better place.

If that fails, then I always have some weeds in my yard that need to be removed...I'm sure that would help the environment, so you "Green-Czars", your welcome to come over and clean up my own residential environment...oh, and I have 3 dogs who leave some nasty stuff in the backyard...could you remove those while your at it...it sure would make for a cleaner environment :-)

[dude1394]

You are right tokey41...that IS the problem with religion. The religious zealots want to control any and everything on the planet, telling you what you can/cannot purchase, what it will/will not cost and what you can/cannot use to make a living.

They want control of every lever of commerce so they can dole out favors to their zealots and punish those who do not believe in them.

If they wanted to cut carbon then RAISE TAXES ON CARBON!!! But then they wouldn't be able to give out favors and cutouts for their brethren and they would actually have to be accountable for reduced livlihood that will be manifested once they make everything on the planet more expensive.

But don't question their faulty data or you will be labeled a heretic.

You have the religious part correct, but you are looking at the wrong side.

[alexamenos]

^^^Somebody (Tokey) is begging for a face palm response.

[u2sarajevo]

Honestly I think the whole global warming thing is being pushed (loudly) by a bunch of opportunists, some to make a quick buck. But I also can see that we as a whole should be more responsible with this world that God has given us.

Worst case scenarios on both sides would be: if it's not true and we have needlessly spent alot of money, if it is true and we don't do anything about it we have harmed our home (possibly beyond repair). Taken both sides, at least if it's not true but we did do something we have a cleaner planet... right? But I think what we are doing now is sufficient. I recycle. I turn off lights when not needed. I unplug appliances that aren't being used.

Don't tax me into a poorer state because you are convinced about something you can't prove 100%. And don't ignore the fact that we should be responsible with the world that we have been given. Honestly I think that most people do that already.

[Tokey41]

QUOTE]Think of how many billions of people will and are being effected by the constant waste of money put to a false theory.[/QUOTE]

The best thing a scientist can do is be wrong, especially when it comes to global catastrophe. I think proving global warming wrong would be a victory for both sides.

Look, just because someone disagrees with the premise of GCC does not mean that they can not be a better steward of their own portion of this world. But to mandate and apply resources to it is where the waste and corruption takes place.

Well said, except your last sentence. People need a reality check because it's obvious that collectively we aren't doing enough. America as the world's biggest polluter, along with China, in particular need to be more receptive to these ideas. It's important to note I'm not just talking about this in relation to global warming, if you truly want to help the economy there are in fact environmental endeavors you can pursue.

As for your point on faith, I suppose that this also applies to your Faith in Science...which has clearly been proven to be filled with opposing theories...so which theory do you choose?

I am curious as to where you can see 'faith in science' in my argument? I am a Christian, but of course I see the merits in science. The difference is my faith in science is in good hands, that is, I know they have a code of ethics to follow. My question to you is, where have the religious ethics gone?

It's clear the climate will change, it will get hotter and colder and as in all things living, at some point...the cycle of life on this planet will come to an end. As much as we as humans like to believe we are all powerful, the reality is that we are simply enjoying the ride while we are here.

The thing is you don't believe we are affecting this process and I do, but let's forget that for a second. Will it come to an end? Of course. Are we exponentially increasing the rate in which we come to this end? If there is any indication that this might be possible, don't we as Christians have a moral obligation to try and slow it back down? At least until proven otherwise, that is of course, the argument that creationists use, isn't it?

This push for "Environmentalism" for the sake of saving the planet is a croc and at best a passive aggressive form of manipulation.

Why is that a croc? Isn't environmentalism for the sake of environmentalism a noble cause in itself? Even if your as stubborn as dude here, recycle your cans, why not? What does it hurt? Freedom of choice? If you want to go that route then your eventually going to find yourself questioning the laws that are already in tact and wondering why they are hindering that freedom of choice as well. American ideology can be so stubborn sometimes.

Again, GCC is occuring, allways has and allways will...that is the evolution of our planet. There a multitude of variables that effect GCC and sure each variable can be changed to ultimately change the direction of the GCC...but in the end, it will continue and there is nothing we can do to stop the demise of this planet.

I just don't know what to tell you if you truly believe that. It's such a defeatist attitude.

So, let's stop wasting time, money and whatever resources to this issue that can't be stopped, and start putting our efforts to restoring our economy based on sound capatilism fundamentals. Let's create wealth, through hard work and let's apply this wealth to areas less fortunate, throughout the world.

Capitalism is part of the problem (and here come the tomatoes). It's an unrealistic ideology that relies on infinite resources to a finite planet. For example, surely even the most hard nosed conservative would agree that fossil fuels aren't infinite. How will this effect the economy? In this sense, shouldn't limiting fossil fuels until we find alternative sources be a priority not just for environmental purposes but the economy as well?

Furthermore, if you want to talk about wasted money let's talk about the amount America (and granted every other country, but the U.S is the best example here) spends on its military per year. Now, you have used the example of feeding the starving people of Africa, but let's take into account that even 1/8 of that budget would be enough to feed the entire world's starving population.

As you can see, it's not necessarily about who's right or who's wrong, but rather how can we as a people find ways to work together to create a better world for both ourselves and others. How do we influence the harmony to work together, simply because we desire too, rather than being commanded to do this or that.

I agree with what you are saying here but if you go back to the quotes I've listed you can see that you've already given up. And why? Because now someone is "commanding" you to make the world a better place? I guess you may not agree with how they are going about it, but I never said I do either. Now my question to you is, environmentally (and not just from a capitalist view), how would you make the world a better place?

[Tokey41]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

^^^Somebody (Tokey) is begging for a face palm response.

I don't know what that means... I'm just stating my views on the matter in a far less hostile manner than the previous position has been stated. If I'm one of those people who you think is saying, "I can save the world", I'm ready to be shot. At least it will be quicker than watching this process.

[DirkFTW]

Isn't the golden rule in all science to keep all hypotheses on the table until they have been proven wrong? Seems a bit contradictory to have so many fanatics ranting about skeptics with such hostile criticism when they expect complete understanding of their scientific theories.

In all seriousness, you need to wake ... up. I know you're all probably fifteen year old narcissists (you're not?) who don't give a damn about the unforeseen consequences of changing the energy use of 6 billion people (either because your adolescent brain can't extrapolate beyond the now or because you're banking on the genius of mankind which has never ever created a flawed solution to a previous problem. ever.), but shouldn't you at least stop and consider the alternative: what if your wrong? That is, what if your tiny project with tiny consequences/byproducts gets multiplied to create 6 billion people's worth of consequences and byproducts? Not only have you screwed your friends and family, your children and their children, but you've also screwed billions of other people you don't even know.

The heart is a nice touch, but I don't think it's enough.

For instance, the automobile and its use of carbon energy came at an age when...:

“In New York City alone at the turn of the century [ed.- 1900 not 2000], horses deposited on the streets every day an estimated 2.5 million pounds of manure [ed.- SHI*T!]and 60,000 gallons of urine, accounting for about two-thirds of the filth that littered the city’s streets. Excreta from horses in the form of dried dust irritated nasal passages and lungs, then became a syrupy mass to wade through and track into the home whenever it rained. New York insurance actuaries had established by the turn of the century that infections diseases, including typhoid fever, we much more frequently contracted by livery stable keepers and employees than by other occupational groups, and an appeal to the Brooklyn Board of Health to investigate resulted in the institution of new municipal regulations on stables, compelling more frequent removal excreta and disinfecting of premises. Medical authorities stated that tetanus was introduced into cities in horse fodder and that an important cause of diarrhea, a serious health problem among children at the time, was ‘street dust’ consisting in the main of germ-laden dried horse dung. The flies that bred on the ever present manure heaps carried more than thirty communicable diseases... About 15,000 dead horses were removed from the streets of New York each year.”

- James Flink, The Automobile Age (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1993), p. 136.

This is a scene from an old movie, but the gist of it is "I hate manure!"

Well now, that savior of old is the new harbinger of doom. So, don't blame me for being less enthusiastic about man's ability to create a completely clean, by-product-free, consequence-free solution for the entire planet Earth. But, I don't know, maybe we're smarter now than we've ever been before?

Hi, remember me? I invented the helicopter, the tank, and solar power... in the 1490's.

Oh snap.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Let's just invent super-powerful yet clean rockets that can move the earth closer to or farther away from the sun as needed.