Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Hopenhagen, My Ass!

Hopenhagen, My Ass!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It's the world turned upside down. For a child of the 60s there's something bizarre and disturbing about seeing the young neo-hippies of today with eyes full of naive dreams, carrying mass-produced signs and marching in support of the expansion of the warmongering, global, statist establishment.

It's a sign of how backwards things are in America today that the people who probably would have voted for Nixon in 1972 are now the only radicals willing to take a stand against the power elite. The young and the left-inclined are all swept up in high-dollar global media campaigns financed by some of the most reprehensible governments in the world and made happy-faced shills for political and economic interests they don't even understand.

Nowhere is this more manifest than in the excitement surrounding the Copenhagen climate conference, an event attended by a few hundred elite delegates and world leaders, but promoted heavily by every left-wing blog and organization, passing on enthusiastic support for an advertising campaign tagging the event "Hopenhagen" and surrounding it with flowers and big-eyed children and third-world mothers. The highly effective campaign is underwritten by corporate sponsors including Coca-Cola and DuPont — you know, the guys who invented CFCs and are the number one air polluters in the US. It features graphics for your blog, ready-made posters, and a website where you can post the ideas for global wealth redistribution authorized by your bosses at the Chinese shillblogging sweathouse where you work.

This is the corporatization of protest and the ultimate in astroturfed, manufactured activism, done with polish and professionalism and on a global scale which is truly impressive. Plenty of barefoot earthchildren are lending their efforts, of course. They're launching protest marches around Europe and in Copenhagen itself, taking to the streets in support of an expansion of global bureaucracy and state corporatism. Some of them are even willing to throw bricks and cobblestones to make sure that bureaucrats in gray suits with six-figure paychecks have more power and control over our lives.

Of course, it's not the protesters who will be making any decisions in Copenhagen. The real work will be done by the bureaucrats and world leaders who arrived over the weekend in 40 private jets and 150 gas-guzzling chauffeured limos. Included among them is President Obama who is looking for new ways to compound the economic disaster he has already created in the United States by signing onto a treaty designed primarily to redistribute wealth and shut down American industry in the service of a theory which has now been proven to be largely fraudulent.


Of all the cynical bullshit promulgated by the international left in their ongoing efforts to put an end to sovereign nationhood and get us all under the same big bureaucratic thumb, this sell-out of the values of the 1960s and the environmental movement is particularly perverse. They've taken the good intentions of the young and naive and turned their genuine desire to make the world a better place into the pretext for a massive expansion of the very state which was the enemy of the reformers of the 60s.

Whether this massive investment in manufactured outrage and faux populism will achieve the desired result remains to be seen. The dupes carrying signs and marching in the streets seem eager enough to be exploited and do the footwork of their corporate and governmental masters, which ironically leaves our strongest hope to stop the insanity in the hands of a bunch of embittered right-wing naysayers in Washington.

No matter how much President Obama wants to sign whatever agreement comes out of Copenhagen, the US Constitution remains in force and the treaty still has to be ratified by the Senate, and as they did when Woodrow Wilson tried to sell us out to the League of Nations, they might stand up and show some spine and say "hell no" to a treaty which will do nothing but sell out American interests and hurt our economy.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Hypocrisy in action!!! Love the YouTube clip and the EMPTY free bus for the delegates.

  • Lumpy

    I looked at thatcorporate sponsorship page and the only reason I can think they would fund this is that they all do big business in china or India.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Somebody call a plumber! First it was climategate; now it is the leaked “Danish Text,” reported to hand

    more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations.

    The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

    The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

    Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

    “It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process,” said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

    Gosh darn! How could this happen, in the age of transparency?

    Dan(Miller)

  • Neil Sturgis

    Du Pont in Bhopal? Please explain?

  • Neil Sturgis

    Or was it Coca-Cola’s environmental stewardship in Bhopal, none make sense. Do explain. December 2, 2009 was the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal disaster, and I am curious to know the role of these companies in their environmental stewardship in Bhopal.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Perhaps there was a Coca-Cola ad on the side of the tank that exploded.

  • Deano

    Not to be one of those pesky fact-checkers but it was Union Carbide at Bhopal not Du Pont….

    Don’t worry, just shoo those errant little facts away lest they mar the perfect, prinstine beauty of your worldview…

    …lousy flippant little munchkins…always clouding the issues with their “scientific proof” and “documented history” when everyone knows truthiness rules!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Yep, I confused my environmental bad guys. All fixed now.

    In the interest of full disclosure I don’t keep close track of who ruined which environment where.

    Dave

  • pablo

    By Jove Dave you have finally done it! You have written an article that I actually agree with in its totality, I never thought that I would see the day. Good Job Bubba!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dan, I think the Danish Text is likely to be a deliberate leak designed to generate outrage against the industrialized nations and thereby coerce them into going along with the original Kyoto-like plan.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/heloise Heloise

    Part of “This is It” featured MJs take on global warming with a young girl and fake rainforest surrounding her. And MJ singing the song that went with it, forgot which one, and it was so lame.

    If they are not more convincing than MJ in their argument re global warming then they are lost. I think my old article on global warming “Planet Earth: Waiting to Exhale” written back in May 2007 was prescient and I see now where it has had an affect on Gore’s rhetoric, at least.

    If the pigs were serious they would outlaw pig and cow farms, become vegan, and fly coach like everybody else. Until I see those types of changes in the media and the Gore-like elites I am NOT buying anything they are selling.

    Heloise

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    That’s a great Beatles imitator on the soundtrack. Wonder who it is? And yes, the satirical point is funny and well targeted.

    But of course that bit of mockery is not Dave’s point.

    Nalle never, ever leaves room for nuance in an argument. Anyone who disagrees with his [ever-rigid and paranoid] ideology is not simply someone with a different point of view to have a discussion with.

    They must instead be characterized as part of a massive effort by ‘the Left’ to take away ‘our liberty’ or sovereign nationhood or whatever the fuck phony, pious words he’s choosing to overuse at the moment.

    Does he really believe that all the national science foundations of all industrialized countries, as well as the top management of General Electric and Wal-Mart — not to mention John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger and other moderate Republicans — are part of this leftist cabal?

    Because they all accept the reality of global warming and the need to act.

    But acknowledging any range of valid opinion on this [or any] subject, admitting that someone he disagrees with may nonetheless have a point, is not the way he operates.

    And it’s too bad.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Dave,

    You may of course be correct. I don’t know. However, the real questions should be

    a)Is the document real? If so

    b)Which countries prepared it and

    c)Why?

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    But of course that bit of mockery is not Dave’s point.

    But I also enjoyed it.

    Nalle never, ever leaves room for nuance in an argument.

    Handy, this is a very straightforward issue and a very direct argument. Nuance is for more ambiguous issues.

    Anyone who disagrees with his [ever-rigid and paranoid] ideology is not simply someone with a different point of view to have a discussion with.

    Sure they are. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but why should that stop me from making my point. Think of it as a negotiation. I prefer to start from a position of strength.

    They must instead be characterized as part of a massive effort by ‘the Left’ to take away ‘our liberty’ or sovereign nationhood or whatever the fuck phony, pious words he’s choosing to overuse at the moment.

    Handy, that’s just the way the wind is blowing right now. I was equally vehement in my attacks on the religious right when they were still relevant.

    Does he really believe that all the national science foundations of all industrialized countries, as well as the top management of General Electric and Wal-Mart — not to mention John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger and other moderate Republicans — are part of this leftist cabal?

    Did I say anything even vaguely like that in this article? It’s the UN bureaucrats, some greedy dictators and the global corporate socialists who seem to mainly be involved here, not all the other people you list. Why is it bad to examine the motivations of the people behind these manufactured movements and question who profits from them?

    Because they all accept the reality of global warming and the need to act.

    There’s more than one way to act, and being stampeded into a self-destructive treaty like Kyoto is an idiotic response. China actually showed us the way on this. They are choosing to deal with the issue internally and set their own standards for reducing emissions. We ought to do the same and do it on a rational basis.

    But acknowledging any range of valid opinion on this [or any] subject, admitting that someone he disagrees with may nonetheless have a point, is not the way he operates.

    Bull. I may have a position, but I do understand it’s not the only one. Nonetheless, you’re right that I’m not likely to compromise with people who want to sell out the US for the benefit of international socialism.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dan, I wish the document were real, but it shows way more good sense than you’d ever see out of Obama or Gordon Brown so I know it has to be fake.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Dave,

    I don’t know. Perhaps there will be some denials. I shall continue following it, and assume that you will do so as well.

    Dan(Miller)

  • STM

    There’ll be enough hot air generated at Copenhagen to melt both polar ice caps.

    But that’ll be about all it achieves.

    If they’re fair dinkum about cutting CO2 emissions, try getting China and India and some of other stronger emerging nations to make a commitment as well.

    Then we’re all on a level playing field.

    Until that happens, it’s just a case of moving the goalposts around.

    And we in the developed nations lose.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    There is no truth to the rumor that Hopenhagendas has a new ice cream brand, which must be served melted, sold under the Polar Bear brand.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Arch Conservative

    Welcome to the New World Order. Give us all your money, go stand in the corner…..don’t say a word…. don’t even breathe and we’ll leave you alone.

    Ever notice if you go too far to the right you’re actually on the left and vice versa?

    We all know what needs to be done with Al Gore and the other NWO AGW freaks but most of us, even me, dare not say it out loud.

    Hopefully there will come a day in the not too distant future………….

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    We all know what needs to be done with Al Gore and the other NWO AGW freaks but most of us, even me, dare not say it out loud.

    Bullshit, Arch. You in particular have never been shy about speaking your mind.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Arch,

    We all know what needs to be done with Al Gore and the other NWO AGW freaks but most of us, even me, dare not say it out loud.

    Say it, damn it. It’s high time. Don’t be shy. There are too many who don’t have the guts to do so.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I believe Devil’s Island is currently unoccupied.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Not exactly what I was thinking.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I think I know. Should I say it?

    Kill them all!

    Is that about right?

    B

  • STM

    Hope-and-change-en-hagen

  • STM

    “I believe Devil’s Island is currently unoccupied”

    The old penal colony of Van Diemans Land (Tasmania).

    Or they could come to Sydney and go to the beach.

    That’d learn ‘em.

  • Cannonshop

    #24 Wrong. You kill people, you just make martyrs out of them-same for imprisonment for political (as opposed to criminal) offenses.

    No…they need to be laughed at, and mocked, and exposed for what they are so that they can’t get into those stylish, canape’ parties, their books need to be gone over, and every hypocrisy they practice be exposed, every myth imploded, every ignorant utterance brought out.

    In short, they need to be exposed for the self-righteous fools they are, exposed as the power-obsessed goblins, the scum, that they are.

    Then, they need to be forced (yes, forced) to live the lifestyle they have planned for those of us, after their power and influence has been stripped away until they’re naught but ordinary citizens.

    Uncle Al jetting around aboard an airliner-grade aircraft that’s old enough it predates most of the fuel-efficiency mods we’ve been installing for decades needs to be put on a bicycle, his carbon-footprint reduced to what he thinks, say, the AVERAGE person should generate. If he’s still enthusiastic about the idea, well, good for him-but until these folk on the left have to live the lifestyle they’re trying to impose on others, until they’re living that lifestyle…

    yeah, killing is too good for them.

  • Cannonshop

    Oh, and Dave, did you catch the announcement by the EPA head declaring CO2 to be a pollutant?

    I’d really love to see the carbon footprint of THAT agency lowered to what it’s claiming is an acceptable level for the rest of us…

  • Arch Conservative

    I didn’t say anything about killing anyone but since Btone and Cannonshop brought it up………

    I think seeing someone like yourself getting whacked for a behavior/action you are also engaging in can at times be a very effective deterrent in preventing you from continuing that specific behavior if you consider that it might happen to you in the future.

    I just don’t want this to be our future.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Cannonshop, I heard about the EPA. They apparently use the constitution as toilet paper over there. But I’m sure they have approval from the top.

    I wonder if we’ll all be issued rebreathers to reduce our CO2 output.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    stm: “Van Diemans Land (Tasmania).”

    you know, for years i’ve thought about looking up what “van diemans land” referred to but never got around to it. there’s a u2 song named after it, but i hadn’t thought about that in years, then i read “blood meridian” by cormac mccarthy, which has a character named “the vandiemanlander” or something like that, and got curious all over again, but curiosity did not get the better of me. and now my intellectual laziness pays off. another mystery solved.

    and archie: i absolutely love kids in the hall… bruce’s skits are so damn strange. makes me wonder what he’s up to these days… it appears he had a sitcom on abc a few years back that didn’t survive the writers’ strike. it was supposed to be pretty good. might have to check that out.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    It’s not where Jean Claude Van Damme comes from, then?

    Dave

  • STM

    Zing: I reckon it’s the most beautiful state in Australia. Fantastic old colonial architecture and magnificent natural settings. The capital, Hobart, is set around a bay full of little inlets, with a mountainous backdrop and is, without doubt, the most spectacularly beautiful city I’ve ever seen, anywhere.

    The only problem is it can snow down there in winter (which is during your NYC summer).

    No one who comes to Oz for a visit should miss Tassie, and especially Hobart and some of the little country towns and farming communities surrounding it.

  • STM

    Dave:

    No, that’d be that other place, Van Dammen’s Land. I think it’s in Belgium and it’s full of little muscley blokes who can’t act that well and are fawned over by people who think a great contribution to humanity is mumbling your way through half a dozen shockingly scripted z-grade movies.

  • STM

    But I wonder how much it’ll cost to live in Tassie if the government forces through its cap and trade emissions trading scheme. I suspect it’ll be paradise lost, with the cost of living going through the roof.

    Let’s hope when they get home from Hope-and-change-en-hagen they don’t try to push it through federal parliament without actually explaining to us a) who’ll pay and b) what it’s actually about.

    And I can’t work out this carbon-trading bollocks.

    I thought people traded in stuff that other people actually wanted.

    At least, that’s what they’ve been doing since the dawn of time … up until now.

  • Cannonshop

    #35 Ever heard of ‘Snake Oil’, STM? Carbon-Trading is basically like Snake-Oil salesmen, but on an international level. The mechanics imply that you tax the living shit out of average blokes who can’t find a way to hide their income, while putting as many of them in the West out of work as physically possible. The work transfers to hell-pit countries with neither Environmental laws, nor Labour laws, and the guys who set up the scheme pocket the difference after paying the vig to the third-world hellpits using your money.

    The only people who’re going to benefit, are the same ones that run the Enrons and Greenpeaces of the world, and they’re selling it with an apocalyptic fairy-tale called Anthropogenic Global Warming.

  • Arch Conservative

    Yes Cannon, it’s the conjob of the millenia but it’s refreshing to see that with each passing day more and more people are refusing to buy what Al Gore and his cronies are selling.

    Have you heard of the group WEARECHANGE?

    It seems they’ve been following Mr. Gore around, giving him the business. You know, disturbing his little book signings at Borders and Barnes and Nobles where the hordes of weak minded fools have lined up like lemmings for the chance to shake the inventor of the internet’s hand and fork over 29.95 for the lies he has put to paper.

    Mr Gore doesn’t liek it though when the Wearechange folks point out what an evil traitorous cunning bastard spawn of the NWO that old Al is. The things they point out such as the hypocrisy of Gore telling everyone else to be green while flying around the world in a private jet and living in a huge mansion, or his hypocrisy in claiming his AGW is completely an altruistic crusade while making nearly billions from the cause are just trivial minutia to Al not to be paid attention to by anyone.

    If Al Gore thinks things are getting warm here on earth then he’s really not going to like his final destination, a place much much warmer than earth could ever be.

    Here’s a little tribute to Mr. Gore.

  • pablo

    Arch,

    You might be interested in knowing about the beginnings of loosechange.org, a group that I like very much. It was started by Luke Rudowski a 23 year old activist. His first public confrontation was at a speech that Zbigniew Brzezinski was giving, where Luke asked Brzezinski point blank, about the possibility of the CFR being involved with 9/11. The video is available on youtube.

    Luke is also very much allied with Alex Jones and has been on his site numerous times. Loosechange started up soon after Luke confronted Brzezenski. Soon after Luke also confronted David Rockefeller as well, which is a great video, also available on youtube.

    As you must realize I am a huge fan of Alex Jones, and have been one for about 8 years. the libs call him a right wing extremist, and the right calls him a lib! The fact is that he cuts through the bullshit left/right paradigm, showing in very clear concise and oftentimes angry ways how the ruling elite, ie the Rothschilds, the CFR, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, Bohemian Grove are all one big country club of criminal elites who are at this very moment trying to create a one world fascist government using Chicken Little as their mascot.

    I have the tube on at the moment as I am writing this, and am seeing President Osama getting the Peace Prize in Norway! What a phony piece of work he is indeed, as well as his prize as he slaughters more human beings.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Ah pablo, thanks for conjuring visions of all those little Jehovah Witnesses who used to come knocking on my door.

    Sweet, sweet memories.

  • pablo

    My pleasure Jordan.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The only people who’re going to benefit, are the same ones that run the Enrons and Greenpeaces of the world, and they’re selling it with an apocalyptic fairy-tale called Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Not true. Plenty of that money will find its way into the hands of third-world dictators as they exploit their people and sell them into economic slavery to the international corporations. That’s why they’re the main ones advocating for a treaty with cap and trade at hoaxenhagen.

    I was somewhat reassured to see the press conference with our representatives to the talks who basically said “no way” to any of the proposals or any treaty coming out of Copenhagen. They even said that if it involved Kyoto or anything like Kyoto the US would not participate.

    I think it has made a big difference that the far left has become so outspoken against cap and trade. They may be moonbats, but they’re not entirely stupid and they can see how utterly exploitative and bad for the common people these draconian environmental schemes are.

    They’re Obama’s peeps and he may be listening to them.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Well Dave I guess the harder you get screwed the more obvious it becomes that you’re getting screwed and who’s screwing you.

    Does the nobel prize really have nay value anymore? Arafat, Gore, Obama…..who’s next……Miley Cyrus?

  • pablo

    New Zealand’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

    My oh my what a tangled web they weave, the scam of the century continues!

  • STM

    My country puts out about 1.4 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions. It’s high per capita, but it’s still tiny.

    So what does this government (which ruiles over a population of 22 million) do?

    It sends 120m people to Hope-and-change-en-hagen … including baggages handlers.

    What, can’t our pollies and bureaucrats carry their own frigging bags and run their owen errands, or have their senior staffers do so?

    Fair dinkum. It’s madness.

    Seriously, that’s out of all proportion and is way above what the UK is sending, with a population of more than 60 million.

    And the Poms only have to travel across the north sea, not two oceans and four continents.

    The moonbats have taken over the argument Down Under, and they are intent on pushing this tax through without any discuission.

    Luckily, they’ve been foiled so far by the Opposition and a groundswell of public fury.

    There might – might – be something in the science, but until the polluting developing nations also commit (at their own expense, not ours) to doing the same as us, I’m not prepared to wear a new, giant tax based on flimsy science that is now looking increasingly wonky.

    I want details, truth, fact, and as much of it as I can get.

    And I certainly don’t want the traders on Wall Street and the City of London to get their grubby fingers in the pie when it comes to selling and trading in carbon credits as “investments”

    Geez, haven’t we learned our lesson with this stuff?

    Make sure you ask the same questions, America, as we are asking down here.

    And don’t let them do a snow job on you.

  • Cannonshop

    Gotta remember, STM, it’s not just that it’s snake-oil, it’s also a “Moral Crusade”. The tenor of the debate from AGW supporters is a lot like the tenor from the Temperance Movement of the early 20th Century-and there’s a reason for that.

    It’s not about the Science-it’s about fighting the Sin-in this case, the “Sin” is everything we in the west have because of industrialization in our past-automobiles, central heat, cheap food, all of it-the sin in question is ‘excess’ and the prescription is Carbon Trading to Save The Earth.

    The way this works, is similar to the Sin Tax. The way a Sin Tax works, is you take something everyone for the most part agrees with (say, “Drinking to excess is bad”, or “Smoking is unhealthy”, or “Pollution is bad”).

    You use this to frame the debate so that opposition is lumped in with “The Sinners”, and massage the numbers to create an Apocalyptic Scenario (“Demon Rum will Destroy Civil Society”, “Smoking in the yard kills kids”, “Pollution will destroy the earth-soon.”)

    Then you offer a “Remedy” in the form of a Tax. (Alcohol taxes, Cigarette Taxes, Cap and Trade). This remedy doesn’t ACTUALLY address the root of the problem (Problem Drinkers have emotional or medical issues that weaken their self-discipline, Smokers are addicts, industrializing the third world has resulted in deforestation and unmuffled dumping into the atmosphere), instead, it turns the problem into a slush-fund for those positioned to take advantage of administering the revenue-scheme. (Al Gore, Third World Dictators, the U.N., the EPA).

    The reap in this case isn’t just money, though-it’s POWER. By declaring CO2 a Pollutant, EVERY aspect of your life is now open to be controlled by the environmental agency of your choice-including how long you have to live. It’s litereally an open door to a “Breathing Tax”.

  • Arch Conservative
  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    There are Norwegian Ron Paul supporters?!?! How on earth did you manage to dig that one up, Arch? :-)

    More proof of J.B.S. Haldane’s famous quote: “The universe is not only stranger than we imagine – it is stranger than we can imagine.”

    LOL.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I want details, truth, fact, and as much of it as I can get.

    There’s plenty of it out there, Stan, despite all the noisy naysayers who keep insisting that there isn’t.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Doc, re Comment #48 — Of course there is stuff supportive of the climate alarmists’ claims. However, when a clock chimes thirteen, we justifiably wonder about its other claims. Here, the crazy clock appears to have chimed thirteen, fourteen and twenty seven, and those skeptical of its accuracy have been told “move along, nothing worth seeing here.” Isn’t it time to find out why, rather than rely on it as a reliable timepiece?

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Doc,

    If and while you get around to pondering my #49, you might want to take a peek at this.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Doc — But wait! There’s more! We will also thrown in, absolutely free, this.

    No checks, carbon credits or money orders, please.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dan,

    This is not so much a case of the clock chiming thirteen as it is the clockmaker trying to wind it with the wrong key.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Doc,

    Gotta go now. It’s 27 o:clock and past my bedtime.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dan (@ #50, 51):

    Do either of those links provide scientific evidence to refute global warming?

    As long as we’re trading links, try this one.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Doc, the article seems rather defensive and contrived to me, but I don’t know whether there is man made global warming. I certainly don’t believe in it; as an Agnostic in many things beyond religion, I certainly can’t “believe” in something like MMGW without more than had been presented even before Climategate. At the risk of irritating el Bicho, here is what I wrote well before Climategate.

    Reading some of the “stolen” e-mails, it seems to me that some of the crucial data have been fudged and some who have tried to say so have been banned from “peer review” journals. That is not good science. I don’t even think it is good religion, although that may well be an oxymoron.

    Before the United States and other nations get fully committed to destroying their economies based on what strikes me as “scientific” dogma, it seems sensible to figure out what’s actually happening and what are likely to be the economic and other results of doing so.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Doc,

    Further to my Comments# 49 et seq., you might consider whether this is really the best path for the United States to follow.

    Dan (Miller)

  • Arch Conservative

    Where are all the brits here?

    I was just got my first taste of Nigel Farrage and I want more!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dan, while I do confess to being somewhat bewildered by the logic of carbon trading, I’m at a somewhat greater loss to explain your “I see no ships” attitude:

    I certainly can’t “believe” in something like MMGW without more than had been presented even before Climategate.

    I’m not sure whether you saw that my comment #48 contained not one link, but five – BC’s formatting makes that not obvious unless you wave your mouse in that direction. The point being that there are millions of pages of data out there. I don’t expect you to read all of them, of course, but just what ‘more’ do you need?

    Reading some of the “stolen” e-mails, it seems to me that some of the crucial data have been fudged

    That crucial data being…?

    it seems sensible to figure out what’s actually happening and what are likely to be the economic and other results of doing so

    It’s true that little work on the environmental consequences of corrective action has been done. But I can’t really see that humans ceasing to pump vast quantities of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere is going to cause massive damage.

    As far as the economic consequences go, well, it’s true they’re not going to be pretty. Lord Stern’s review, though, makes a good case that appropriate action may very well be less painful economically in the long term than continued inaction.

    I don’t necessarily attribute this motive to you – your attitude seems more like that of the lawyer who is not necessarily invested personally in his argument – but it does seem rather illogical to side with a lobby that would rather nitpick than consider that unfettered capitalism and its prodigal child, the Industrial Revolution, may end up being responsible for the biggest man-made disaster ever to befall the planet.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It’d seem to me that Dan suffers from a kind of solitude and disengagement of late, disengagement from BC and the rest of humanity, I should add, a state of being he’d rather imposed on his self, a self-inflicted exile rather than an actual one.

    Being a lawyer, as the good Doc charitably puts it is a bad enough sin. However, “being more like . . . a lawyer who is not necessarily invested personally in his argument” is a thousandfold worse. Touche!

    So why don’t you wake up, Dan Miller, and rejoin the human race. As intolerable as you were back then, we had no doubts you were a human. But your present state of mind and being does put you a mile apart.

    So which shall it be, Dan, oh Dan! – a mere mortal or a demigod?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Demigod seems like a good job. Where do I apply? Does the stimulus jobs stuff provide any help?

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Stay where you is, Dan Miller. You’re doing a splendid job, or need I say.

    I just wish you were more human once in a while. It certainly would be easier to take you.

  • Cannonshop

    Doc, there’s a problem in your position, (oh, how do I explain this in a way nobody’s explained it before…crap. Can’t.)

    Look, would you trust a doctor who’s invested heavily in skull-bump-measuring equipment? (I wouldn’t.)

    The Global Climate is a fluid, and chaotic system. (Ask the Mammoths…wait, you can’t, they’re extinct because the climate changed, ending the ice-age).

    Here’s the problem: The Data has been manipulated-it’s not good data, the hypothesis is unsound. It’s well advertised, and it may or may not contain some element of the truth, but when your scientist manipulates data to get a pre-desired, pre-determined outcome, that’s scientifically the equivalent of fraud.

    Would you accept stock tips from an Enron Executive? would you accept investment advice from a known fraudster? NO, you wouldn’t.

    Why would you endorse policy based on the work of what appears to be a group of “Scientists” (term used loosely to acknowledge their numerous degrees and published papers) who alter data and findings, whose mathematical models have failed to yeild accurate results over known periods of time, and whose techniques are, frankly, doubtful? “Scientists” who toss out the whole experiment if it doesn’t produce the result they need to keep pumping the bandwagon?

    Seriously. You don’t take investment advice from an Enron exec, you shouldn’t take climate/public policy advice from a guy who cooks his scientific books-no matter HOW awe inspiring his credentials might look.

    In Prof. Mann’s case, he’s been caught doing this before-which is how he decided to NOT put his methodology and mathematical bases in a publicly accessable forum.

    The Climate is going to change-nobody with any serious science in their education can argue it won’t. The argument is, and continues to be, whether, how much, and in what way human activity can impact it, and whether, how much, and in what way human beings can either adapt to the change, or deal with it.

    The task the AGW crowd wants to put on everyone is similar to trying to alter the direction of continental drift by digging holes in the ground. The assumption they’re making is about on the level of saying people cause earthquakes by digging holes in the ground. It IS an extraordinary claim, and it turns out, there’s no extra-ordinarily strong evidence out there-just cooked books and fraud.

    The fact that the whole narrative fits nicely as a replacement for god smiting the sinful, and therefore appeals mightily to the ingrained need to be in some way not only virtuous, but important, does not add to the veracity of the underlying claims-it just feeds the ego of the believer in thinking he’s got something to do with it, and something he CAN do about it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    In all seriousness, then, Cannon, why did you invest in derivatives?

    It would seem that your past investment decision have come to bite you in the ass.

    Is that why, perchance, that you’re so adamant about the idea of man-made global warming.

    Just asking.

  • Cannonshop

    Roger, I didn’t invest in ‘em (hell, I didn’t have the money to even think about it), but the point still sits-with what you know about Enron, would you trust Ken Lay with your investment portfolio?

    It’s the same bloody thing-Science is about analyzing FACTS, even when the facts don’t support your hypothesis. When you start altering your data to fit the hypothesis, it ceases to be science. If you’re relying on science to guide your policies (and environmental policy is all about relying on the science), you don’t use science that’s compromised, even if doing so encourages behaviours you want encouraged (like, say, clean energy or conservationist behaviours. Both are highly laudable ideals in and of themselves, but using fraud to achieve them doesn’t achieve them, and cripples the chance of REAL science to be treated as credible.)

    Scientific Fraud damages the Scientific community, because the basic, underlying principle of scientific inquiry, is rooted in Integrity, including accepting the possibility that your hypothesis is dead-wrong. This is why Chemistry is better than Alchemy, why Paleontology is better than Creationism, and why you don’t sign onto agreements like Kyoto without making god-DAMN sure the basis of your science isn’t compromised-that the books aren’t cooked, and that the people promoting it aren’t playing games with their data to get a predetermined, desired outcome.

    In the case of the AGW hypothesis, the books have been cooked, the outcomes can’t be trusted, and no matter how laudable the political and cultural objectives may be, the use of a fraud to achieve them is a very real danger, and must not be rewarded.

  • Cannonshop

    Short form: In Science (esp. mixed with politics), the ENDS do NOT justify the Means.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The Data has been manipulated-it’s not good data, the hypothesis is unsound.

    Citation?

    It’s well advertised, and it may or may not contain some element of the truth, but when your scientist manipulates data to get a pre-desired, pre-determined outcome, that’s scientifically the equivalent of fraud.

    It seems to me that that’s exactly what the global warming deniers are doing.

    Would you accept stock tips from an Enron Executive? would you accept investment advice from a known fraudster? NO, you wouldn’t.

    Would you avoid all investments because of the occasional Ken Lay or Bernie Madoff? I doubt it.

    Why would you endorse policy based on the work of what appears to be a group of “Scientists” (term used loosely to acknowledge their numerous degrees and published papers) who alter data and findings, whose mathematical models have failed to yeild accurate results over known periods of time, and whose techniques are, frankly, doubtful? “Scientists” who toss out the whole experiment if it doesn’t produce the result they need to keep pumping the bandwagon?

    You’re projecting political motives onto scientists. Knowing what you do of the scientific community, frankly, what is more likely here? Collusion or consensus?

    If anything, the strongest motivation for a climatologist would be to disprove AGW. The scientist who could come up with robust evidence that there was no anthropogenic global warming would be a superstar. Yet I have seen not one solid, scientific argument presented as to why the consensus on global warming is wrong – just a plethora of ad hominems, cherry-picking, well-poisoning, hole-picking and quote-mining. And believe me, I’ve looked: I want the scientists to be wrong on this just as badly as you do. Tragically, it appears that they are very, very right.

    …and why you don’t sign onto agreements like Kyoto without making god-DAMN sure the basis of your science isn’t compromised-that the books aren’t cooked, and that the people promoting it aren’t playing games with their data to get a predetermined, desired outcome.

    Oh, give me a break, Cannon. Just who do you think the US delegations to Kyoto and Copenhagen were/are listening to the hardest? Scientists? Or industrialists and politicians?

  • Cannonshop

    Politicians, Doc, that’s who gives them their grant money.

    Just like Y2K, there’s a lot of money to be had in crying “Apocalypse”, not to mention the power involved.

    As for coming up with “proof” of a negative, Doc? You’re talking about a system that even the most hard-core specialists in the field can’t accurately model (that’d be the Climate, Doc, just in case you were fuzzy on that aspect.) Definitive proof of AGW isn’t possible without that little ‘ability to model normal behaviour’ thing, having to Disprove it falls on the scientific process that was sabotaged by Mann and company.

    Further, you assume a profit-motive from normal sources here-don’t do that, it short-changes basic human behaviours and mistakes one form of malfeasance for another.

    Until the AGW scare started in the eighties, climate-science was focused mainly on meteorology, there were no ‘superstars’ or Nobel Prizes, it wasn’t ‘sexy’ for bright grad-students to go into.

    Like other forms of Apocalyptic Prediction, the Prediction gets front-page coverage, the “oops, we weren’t right” is covered on page nine to seventeen (note an entire industry got a shot in the arm from Y2K? even though many computer experts were laughing at it? same gig here, Doc.)

    The university dept. that comes out and says “well, it isn’t what our colleagues said it was” is going to lose funding fast-because without the crisis, there’s no fear-driven money coming in, no prominence for department heads, no sunday-talk-show coverage, no fame, and no Nobel Prizes.

    Get it yet? without the crisis, there’s no new “Global Warming” industry with lecture circuits, chauffered limos, or hobnobbing with the glitterati.

    WITH it, there’s lecture circuits, fame, politicians listening to people with degrees, and the ability to effect social changes-and THAT is one HELL of a motivator for someone whose personality, field of study, and social base wouldn’t normally afford them access to power in the political field.

  • pablo

    I hope the above comment 67 makes sense to you Dread, it is uhhhh rather obvious.

  • Cannonshop

    Pablo, anyone can be encouraged to do very nearly ANYTHING if you can first convince them that they’re saving the world, or making a truly better place. That’s how Imams got nineteen young men to get aboard four airliners and ram the planes with passengers into buildings, it’s how good, moral catholic boys were turned into concentration-camp guards in Europe, it’s how John Chivington convinced a battalion of volunteers to slaughter Sioux Civilians at Sand Creek, and it’s why a young man named William Ayers planned to set off a fragmentation bomb in the middle of a dance for returning servicemen.

    Tying fame and influence to the act and you’ll not just convince someone, you’ll get eager volunteers, not only to perpetrate the act, but to promote it, protect it, and justify it.

    When it follows an existing Mantra (“Mankind is Destroying the EARTH!!”), it’s even easier-because opposing the act is seen as opposing a clean environment, as being party to…

    Destroying the EArth!!.

    It’s the same thinking that goes on with Sin Taxes. Is taxing sin fighting sin? Not really, but it’s a good way to sell a Tax or Tax Increase. In both cases, the stated ‘problem’ is not the thing the chosen methods are actually designed to address-it’s just smoke to cover the REAL objective-which in both cases is increasing or achieving power and/or wealth.

    DuPont declared Freon-12 an “ozone Eating CFC” one day before their patent expired on it-and released 134 shortly afterward-which their patents still apply to. This is not a coincidental event, however it WAS useful to get Freon 12 banned from sale in the United STates to give 134 a boost in sales.

    It helped that there was an “Ozone hole” detected only a few weeks prior.

    Does the “AGW” panic serve corporate interests? HELLS YES it does. Maybe not the SAME corporations, but guaranteed someone’s positioned to make money off of it, besides Al Gore (who’s already making bank off of it.)

    Like Tax laws, the Bigger your Corporate entity is, the more likely that any new “Restrictions” or “Regulations” simply serve their existing directorships-often at the peril to the consumers and lower-echelon employees, and always to the detriment of smaller firms trying to compete in similar markets. All the good intentions in teh world aren’t going to stop that simple fact of modern business.

  • pablo

    Cannon

    Yes I do know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    I came across an interesting website the other day, which unfortunately I lost, that was from webarchive that clearly showed that the CRU center was funded by both Shell Oil and BP, hardly surprising to me, but I do get a kick out of those fanatics that always cry foul and say your with the oil companies whenever you question GW.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    It doesn’t really matter that much if there are some flawed scientists or even flawed science.

    Obviously, the climate is always changing, but it is equally obvious to anybody who actually has an open mind and looks around the planet that currently the climate is changing a bit more rapidly than it has in the recent past, and that the broad trend of that change is an increase in global temperatures.

    It doesn’t take a great deal of brain power to figure out that human activity is adding to that warming process and the end result is going to be a hotter planet.

    That said, it is equally pretty obvious that the promises of governments to reduce carbon emissions are just empty words and that some serious planning on a global level needs to be done.

    As we are approaching the end of the hydrocarbon energy era anyway, it seems more useful to me if a lot more work was done on other forms of generating energy more economically.

    This means finding ways to make solar, wind and wave power generation more efficient and economical and that a major effort to develop nuclear fusion ought to be put into place.

    These technologies all offer the potential to generate more power than we need. Once they become cheaper to use than current means, it does away with the need for complicated carbon trading schemes, which only address part of the problem anyway, and people will adopt them simply because it is cheaper.

    My favourite schemes are nuclear fission, which is long overdue, and the idea of covering large areas of the Sahara and other deserts with efficent, low cost solar panels.

    Cheap efficient power can transform the economics of both industrial and domestic economics and heat signatures.

    It would also make water desalination technology more viable, which could help to alleviate the twin threats of fresh water shortages and rising sea levels.

    The worst thing about Copenhagen and its predecessors is that it seems to give the illusion of a plan without actually being a plan.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    The science is settled and the deniers are fools seeking to destroy the Earth. They should repent and buy indulgences from the Church of Global Warming. Therefore, don’t bother to read this article. It’s far too complicated for mere mortals to understand, and we just have to trust our betters.

    Dan(Miller)

    Sulks off, repeating endless Hail Als, full of grace . . .

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    As for coming up with “proof” of a negative, Doc?

    I didn’t ask for proof of a negative, Cannon. I asked for a convincing scientific argument that dissented with the consensus. Still waiting.

    Further, you assume a profit-motive from normal sources here-don’t do that, it short-changes basic human behaviours and mistakes one form of malfeasance for another.

    Yet you go on to assume a profit motive on the other side.

    Until the AGW scare started in the eighties, climate-science was focused mainly on meteorology

    How’s that? They’re two separate disciplines.

    there were no ‘superstars’ or Nobel Prizes, it wasn’t ‘sexy’ for bright grad-students to go into.

    Cannon, nobody goes into science to make bucketloads of money or for the glamour of it.

    Like other forms of Apocalyptic Prediction, the Prediction gets front-page coverage

    Most other forms of ‘apocalyptic prediction’ – with the possible exception of the nuclear winter we were all worried about in the 70s and 80s – have zero science to back them up.

    (note an entire industry got a shot in the arm from Y2K? even though many computer experts were laughing at it? same gig here, Doc.)

    Except that many climate scientists are not laughing at this, Cannon.

    WITH it, there’s lecture circuits, fame, politicians listening to people with degrees, and the ability to effect social changes-and THAT is one HELL of a motivator for someone whose personality, field of study, and social base wouldn’t normally afford them access to power in the political field.

    And where does peer review, replication of results, and the scientific method in general fit into your dastardly scenario, Cannon? Doesn’t it seem the slightest bit odd, not to mention unprecedented, to you that the scientific community at large is being so vehemently accused of malpractice, deceit and greed on this one issue? That it is suddenly supposed to be capable of such a massive global conspiracy and fool 90% of the world’s politicians and people? …When your average scientist has trouble putting on matching socks in the morning? ;-)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    When your average scientist has trouble putting on matching socks in the morning? ;-)

    So do I, because I am partially color blind. But then, that does not cause nations to waste trillions of dollars. I hope.

    Peer review is great. However, when it is slanted due to ideological biases, as seems rather clearly to have happened here, it forfeits some of its value.

    Years ago, peer review was the province of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, it seems to be the province of a different church, the dogmas of which are no less noxious and no less harmful.

    If we accept what the Church of Global Warming says, and apostates are to be damned to perdition because they disagree, it ceases to be science.

    Then, we get this sort of garbage.

    Sorry, but we Agnostics simply can’t go along with religions, old or new, secular or spiritual.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Peer review is great. However, when it is slanted due to ideological biases, as seems rather clearly to have happened here

    Why does it seem rather clearly to have happened here?

    Now, it seems to be the province of a different church

    I do remember your article on the subject, Dan. But your objections seem to say absolutely nothing about the science.

    If we accept what the Church of Global Warming says, and apostates are to be damned to perdition because they disagree, it ceases to be science.

    You’re begging the question, Dan. You assume that the entirety of global warming is faith-based, without providing any evidence for your conclusion.

    Then, we get this sort of garbage.

    Again, why is it garbage?

    Like most other ‘skeptical’ arguments on this subject, you once again offer nothing of substance.

  • Cannonshop

    WEll, Doc, where’s the replication of results (minus cooking the books)? that’s part of the PROBLEM, Doc-the models only ‘match up’ when you ‘trick’ the numbers, and violate the scientific method. That’s the ‘big news’ out of the E-mail leak, and it’s the been the big problem with the AGW stance the entire frikking time-the only people whose numbers line up were already believers to begin with.

    It puts it in the same classification of scientific work as “Intelligent Design”/Creationism, but with people who hold legitimate degrees doing it on the public dime.

    The E-mails show Collusion, Doc.

    And, again-nobody with half a brain expects the Climate to be static (unchanging), the argument is about causes, and Whether anyone can do anything about it, other than finding a means to adapt to a conditional change you have no control over.

    People don’t LIKE not having control, they’re unused to it, it’s easy to sell them on a ‘remedy’ and promise it’ll give them control over a situation they have no control over. That does NOT make the Remedy a good one, or effective, or non-harmful/non-destructive, and it doesn’t make it any less fraudulent.

  • STM

    Here’s my two-bob’s worth (for what that’s worth):

    There might well be something to the science.

    But if there is, I’d like it presented in an honest way, without the associated hysteria that seems to accompany any statement by those pushing the barrow.

    I’d also like to see an end to use of terms like “climate-change denier” to dismissively lump together all those among the great unwashed who subscribe to the idea that they’d like to see ALL the facts and figures and the ramifications of any legislation presented honestly and truthfully.

    “Denier”, as we know, is an unbelievably emotive term … especially when it has the ring of events that happened sixty-odd years ago attached to it.

    No one should feel any guilt whatsoever about not wanting to subscribe to a theory that has been presented for public consumption in half-baked fashion – and in which a contemptuous wave of the hand and a throw-away insult from those “in the know” is thought sufficient to silence the concerns of those who want more facts and info.

    The thing that really worries me, however, is not that there might be some truth to climate-change but that the governments of the developed nations – and mine in Australia currently seems to be the main offender among the developed nations on this issue – are intent on forcing through a new, giant tax on their respective citizenry that will impact not on the big polluters (who are likely to be compensated) but on ordinary wage earners – especially those like me who are earning a fair bit above the ante but not enough to be considered rich or in a position not to have, say, an extra $4000 a year in higher fuel, grocery and energy costs, hurt them.

    Down here, the federal Opposition had a change of leader and has refused to back the government’s Emissions Trading Scheme (read: giant tax) which the Prime Minister seemed intent on rushing through parliament so he could take it to Copenhagen and say, “Hey guys, look at us, not only did we not go into recession during the GFC, but we now have the first Emissions Trading Scheme as well!”

    Only a groundswell of public fury in Australia prompted the Opposition to change its stance and – as it’s meant to do in the interests of this country – OPPOSE a piece of shockingly thought-out legislation that nearly got foisted on a public that largely feels now it’s been conned in regard to certain aspects of how this will be paid for and just who will pay.

    The Opposition opposed it in the Senate and it will continue to do so.

    They are not opposed to enacting climate-change legislation per se, but want the public of this country to understand the ramifications of it – and in its entirety.

    Our PM can waffle on all he likes about having a “mandate” at the last federal election to introduce this legislation, but the problem is, no bastard understood what it was all about because the suits in Canberra never really told us what it was about in the first place and how it would impact us (and I suspect most of them they didn’t know either).

    I also believe the PM’s push to get this through BEFORE Copenhagen (how does that make sense??) had something to do with ego. His.

    Americans querying all this are right to ask all the same questions, because once cap-and-trade legislation is introduced, it will be near impossible to undo.

    And the problem is, with only us developed nations propping this up, we are going to be forking out an absolute fortune.

    China and India must come onboard too and make the same commitments as the west (and these must be legally enforceable), as must the former Soviet republics, otherwise the whole thing’s a sham that will equate to a tax that will kill some industries in the west and force the burden on to the ordinary worker through higher costs.

    The playing field has to be level.

    And we shouldn’t feel guilty about wanting it so.

    We already carry too much guilt that we needn’t be carrying … in other areas, for instance in the black armband view of modern history that paints the west and the anglo-celtic nations in particular as the bad guys. It’s rubbish. Half the rest of the world wouldn’t exist now if it hadn’t been for those “bad guys”, and those that woukld exist wouldn’t be enjoying the same standard of living or living in democratic societies that enable us, incidentally, to question this rubbish as much as we like.

    I for one don’t want to be made to feel guilty about this too.

    And trust me, I won’t be feeling any guilt about it.

    All I want is the truth.

  • STM

    Or, let’s bring some sanity back to this debate.

    Seriously …

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    WEll, Doc, where’s the replication of results (minus cooking the books)?

    If you’re going to insist on poisoning the well and taking a few out-of-context e-mail snippets as proof that the books have been widely and consistently cooked, then there’s not much point in continuing this discussion.

    the models only ‘match up’ when you ‘trick’ the numbers, and violate the scientific method.

    You’re kidding, right? Scientific results are tweaked all the time so as to remove noise and other irrelevancies. It’s a fallacy to say that all data must be taken into consideration in order to guarantee integrity. Ask any statistician.

    People don’t LIKE not having control, they’re unused to it, it’s easy to sell them on a ‘remedy’ and promise it’ll give them control over a situation they have no control over.

    But that’s not what’s being promised. The message is that it’s going to be bad – it’s already too late for it not to be – but that it can be less bad with appropriate action now.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    STM –

    I recommend a different paradigm in your decision of which set of scientists to believe. On one side you have the climate-change deniers, most of whom are financed in whole or part by Big Oil or other industries that might lose money with environmental engineering regulations.

    On the other side, you have the VAST majority of scientists worldwide – from America to the EU to China to Russia to India – who know that climate change is very real…and who have built a staggering amount of evidence to support it. Most of these scientists are financed in whole or part by universities…who will make neither more nor less money with said environmental engineering regulations.

    Who do you believe? Big Oil, that has a financial stake in denying climate change? Or the universities, who do NOT have such a financial stake in supporting such?

    And while you’re at it, try Googling the following: “bush administration censored climate scientists” (without the quotes, of course) and see what you find.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Congratulations to Christopher Rose and Doc D for remaining calm, reasonable and persuasive in the face of all the ideologically warmed air blowing their way. [Implied pun intended.]

  • STM

    Sorry Glenn, but I’m of the belief that while some of it is likely true, and needs addressing, much of it too is just a whole lot of hot air …

  • Cannonshop

    I was around for the “Bush Climate Crisis”, Doc, and there’s a couple things to think about:

    1. He cut their funding. There’s no constitutional requirement to fund scientists who’re cooking their books.

    2. Carter did the same thing to the guys at Livermore and Roswell.

    Cooking the books is more than tricking the numbers, Doc-it’s throwing out an experiment because it doesn’t conform to your narrative (as occurred two years ago with the Ocean Temperature Measurements-which failed to show the predicted oceanic temperature increases, instead showing decreases. It was supposed to show the ‘smoking gun’ of AGW, but since it didn’t show warming, they tossed the entire experiment as ‘flawed’, rather than dealing with the data and adjusting the hypothesis.)

  • Cannonshop

    Here’s something to think about that we’re dancing around.

    Don’t pretend you’re saving the earth. The Earth was here before people, it’ll be here long after we’re gone. Earth doesn’t NEED saving. If you’re going to write environmental policy-great, write environmental policy-control pollution because you want a clean place to live, but don’t make-believe it’s some kind of holy crusade-it’s not.

    The Climate and the Environment are GOING to CHANGE-you can’t stop it, and you can’t cause it on a global scale-quit pretending people as a whole are gods-they aren’t. Even Gods aren’t Gods, they’re abstractions come up with to make People feel better about themselves. This includes Gaia.

    If you’re going to write environmental policies that impact the economy, you should maybe probably visit the idea that laissez faire free-trade agreements with people who don’t share your values are a bad idea. This goes for Labour laws as well. If someone isn’t going to be cleaning up their environmental act, maybe you shouldn’t be importing the shit they produce.

    Dogma is a bad basis for treaties and Laws, this is doubly true for Dogmas that require dishonest methods to be implemented. If you make it sound plausible, you can get the vast majority of ANY group to sign off on ANYTHING-especially if they’re not inclined to examine your methods or results because they trust you to have integrity. This is what’s wrong with polling as evidence in a field like Science where the Ethics of researchers are largely accepted at face value (this is also how the Church maintained its hold on information for so long-everyone TRUSTED THEM to be honest- right up until Martin Luther nailed up his theses.)

    like any process or tool, science can be mis-used. We see this all the time with Creationists, I suspect we’re seeing this with the AGW movement, (there’s evidence of this already out in the news over the last few weeks, and more the further back you go.) The “Noise” is also important. quite a few of the things we don’t allow industries to do in this country were discovered as part of the “Noise” that would be screened out by ‘tricking the numbers’. Emphysema numbers and cancer from smoking being one of many examples of someone ‘looking at the noise’.

    Reliability and Repicability of experimental data, and the ability to re-run experiments is critical. Being able to verify results independently, is critical. If the experiment doesn’t give you a result that fits the Hypothesis, you examine the experimental data and see where you’re wrong-you don’t write off the experiment because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

    If your Model doesn’t model reality, it’s useless. If I can drop random numbers in place of your measurements, and get the same result, your model’s useless. Get it? If you have to massage your data to get the result you want, you should be examining the results you GOT, and figure out where your hypothesis is off/wrong/full of bollocks.

    Science is a process of Elimination-you eliminate or change your hypothesis and predictions based on experimental data, you don’t change the experimental data to fit the Hypothesis. (Some Economists-on both sides of the Aisle, still haven’t figured this one out.)

    When the model doesn’t match the reality, the model, not the reality, is what’s flawed. Even if the Model gets you dinner at the White House and phat grants.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Cooking the books is more than tricking the numbers, Doc-it’s throwing out an experiment because it doesn’t conform to your narrative (as occurred two years ago with the Ocean Temperature Measurements-which failed to show the predicted oceanic temperature increases, instead showing decreases. It was supposed to show the ‘smoking gun’ of AGW, but since it didn’t show warming, they tossed the entire experiment as ‘flawed’, rather than dealing with the data and adjusting the hypothesis.)

    Not sure which set of measurements you’re referring to that were ‘thrown out’, Cannon – the Sea Surface Temperature study, perhaps? – but since when does one abandon an entire scientific theory because of one outlier?

    Has it occurred to you that the more likely reason those results were discarded is because they were flawed?

    It’s rather ironic that you brought up the Creationist movement, since seizing on isolated perceived ‘flaws’ in the data and claiming that they disprove or cast doubt on the entirety of the theory is one of their favourite tactics.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Dogma is a bad basis for treaties and Laws

    Indeed it is.

    Dogma is also a very poor substitute for scientific knowledge when commenting, loudly and ignorantly, about science, as Cannonshop has done here.

    The right is just as dogmatic as the left on this issue. A little open-mindedness on both sides would be a welcome change.

  • Cannonshop

    Handy, have you actually bothered to READ the IPCC reports? (there’s more than one, you know-they do them regularly), have you ever actually looked at Mike Mann’s papers (the published ones)?

    I’ve done this. I’ve been following the issue since it cropped up while I was in High School. I didn’t come to my positions by listening to some fat-ass on the radio who probably can’t Spell Tropopause, much less define it.

    NOT having a Doctorate isn’t the same as being ignorant. (Working in a technology-reliant heavy industry, I’ve also met more than my share of educated imbeciles, many of whom have squandered formal educations I’d give my balls to get the chance at. Doing field work and analyzing Data is FUN-but it doesn’t pay what driving rivets pays, and I have people who rely on me.)

    What I know is that the credibility of your work in science relies on the integrity of your process-violate that, and it’s been violated, and your body of work is of zero, or even negative value, no matter HOW many degrees you have, or how long you’ve held Tenure. IF the science is shoddy, it’s not advisable to go making policy on it, no matter WHAT the polls of experts say.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Someone pee in your coffee this morning, bud? You are roaring at everybody today.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Again, leaving the global warming debate out of it, what is so bad about wanting to leave this Earth a bit cleaner than it was when we inherited it? For the love of God, where is the common sense in the debate? Or is our addiction to oil, carbon emissions and Chinese goods so severe that we can’t recognize common sense when it spits in our faces?

  • Cannonshop

    88 my yearly experience with being home and sick while the job falls behind. It makes me cranky.

    89: There’s NOTHING wrong with wanting to leave things cleaner, environmentally, than we found them (at birth). I’d suspect MOST “Conservatives” (’cause the term’s been so damn abused, quotes) would say that rampant pollution is bad and cleaning up industries (which also makes them more efficient, when it’s done right) is good.

    I’d even suspect that most folks don’t want to live in a toxic sewer…it’s just a guess, mind you. It’s one of those things that are likely true of just about anyone with half a brain and even a stunted ethical base.

    I think a lot of the differences come from the argument about how to get there-how to fix, improve, or correct problems. HOW to make things cleaner, and leave things in better shape than we found them, not arguments about the end-result, but on the methods-what works, what doesn’t, what means are ethical and responsible to achieve the desired outcome, and whether those means WILL achieve the desired outcome.

    That’s, at least, the argument between people with decent levels of integrity and functioning ethical standards.

    The PROBLEM is radicals (who are willing to use unethical means to achieve the ends) and Opportunists (who exploit the Radicals’ ruthless ‘by any means’ mentality to derive profit, and more often than not, contribute to the problem.)

    Ethical Standards are a SURVIVAL MECHANISM. They are also of great use in ensuring the desirable outcome (Clean up the Environment) actually is the Outcome that occurs. Expedience, carelessness, fanaticism, these don’t help get that outcome-they help perpetuate the problem, making it worse by shutting out real efforts at solutions on the one hand, and making real efforts at solutions impossible to sell after the duplicity is exposed and the Fraud known, on the other.

    It’s counter-productive to base your policies on a lie, or a half-truth. And that’s where we’re at now thanks in large part to scientists-playing-politician and politicians playing scientist.

    Stan’s post above puts it into a pretty good example of context, but I’ll add one thing…

    Once the integrity of the study is compromised, it’s right and proper to be highly skeptical of any other study conducted from similar assumptions or by the same source.

    Skepticism insures and protects the integrity of information, whether in market trading, or science, or intellectual property disputes. If you’re SKEPTICAL you can uncover the truth, if you aren’t, you’ll be suckered every time, and usually not to either the greater social benefit (in this case, a cleaner environment), or the personal level.

    Extreme Claims require Extreme Proofs-that means the proofs have to be EXTREMELY strong when examined, there can’t be a question about the integrity of how the finding was achieved, whether the researcher was, in fact, doing honest work, and whether relevant evidence was omitted or altered.

    Because cleaning things up is an activity that demands the highest standards or it isn’t going to work.

    You would not be wrong to refuse to board an aircraft whose mechanics torqued the engine mounts to ‘good enough’ rather than ‘to specification torque’. Why would you put your future into the hands of someone whose work is ‘good ‘nough’ instead of ‘to the highest standard and beyond’ is beyond my understanding.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Except that there are different and competing ethical standards, cannon. Liberty and freedom, the concepts you’re trying to resurrect, have outlived their usefulness in our times. They will be reinstated again, but under different geopolitical configuration, with nation-states out of the bloody picture.

    So yes, I see universal justice and fairness and sense of commonality uniting all peoples in the far-distant future and after an arduous road.

    Your problems seem to be, you want to turn the clock back. No man or woman can.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    No man or woman can turn back the clock. But you know what, Roger? A few nuclear bombs could.

  • Cannonshop

    91 Quality of work, Roger, never goes out of style. Higher standards MATTER, they’re the difference (in my job) between the plane lasting thirty years, with thousands of happy (or unhappy, but alive) customers, and the wings falling off and people dying.

    It is NOT unreasonable to demand high standards from those whose vocation is the advancement of EITHER society, or Science. It is my contention that ‘good ‘nough’ isn’t good enough, that skepticism is a virtue when you trust someone to do work for you, and that Universal Justice can only be achieved through strict standards of honesty,integrity, and ethics.

    First Ethical Standard: You don’t manipulate your data to show a result that will make you famous. You don’t cook the books, you don’t play games.

    Second Ethical Standard: if people are relying on your honesty, you don’t fucking lie to them, you don’t tell half-truths, you don’t massage your message to get a reaction, and you don’t hide your work.

    third: When you say you’re going to do something, when you make an agreement to do something, when you sign a contract, or you are making laws, you DO the thing you say you’re going to do, or you die trying. IF you’re making laws, you OBEY those laws, this includes tax-laws. There is no excuse for a lawmaker whose committee assignment is writing the tax-laws, to be not paying his taxes.
    EVER. If you’re a scientist, you model your experiment based on the information you have, not what will be convenient to get the result you’ve decided you want.
    If you’re a mechanic, you torque the bolts to the specified torque…all of them, even if it means you’re late for dinner, even if it throws your back out. If you’re a salesman, you don’t hide defects or lie to the customer, and NEVER promise something you know you can’t deliver. EVER.

    Fourth: You never ask someone to accept a condition you, yourself, are unwilling to abide. You don’t spend thirty grand on electricity for your house,then tell a single-parent she’s got to cut back on driving her car and accept higher heat and light bills.

    You don’t restrict a shopowner or farmer from handing down what they’ve made, while your own inheritance is protected by blind trusts to avoid the inheritance tax.

    in short, you dont’ tell others to live in austerity while you’re rolling in luxuries.

    These are basic standards not only of ethics, but of that mysterious and ephemeral thing we call ‘justice’.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m counting on the survival instinct, Silas. It is a best case scenario. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m all for justice, Cannon, but somehow it’s been an elusive idea of late. And when I think of it, I am thinking of all peoples, not just the Americans.

    So let’s all hope for a better future. It’s about time.

  • Cannonshop

    #95, Roger, you start where you stand, not over the horizon. “Justice” doesn’t come from a book, (or many books, no matter what the lawyers say), it comes from what you do, and what you encourage others to do, and it comes from not accepting less, or giving a pass because someone SAID their motives are pure.

    After all, the Motives of the Inquisition were claimed to be Pure, the Nazis claimed THEIR motives were pure, Stalin’s starvation of the Kulaks and his purges were ‘Ideologically pure’, and the Cultural Revolution was claimed to be pure (not to mention Pol Pot and others down the row of history’s thieves, murderers, and assorted scoundrels.)

    It’s what you do, not why you said you did it, that matters.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Yes, it is a matter of practice in the final analysis. But I haven’t spoken of motives. It’s more the intended results that count.

    Perhaps we’re talking about “state of mind.”

  • Cannonshop

    #97 Might be. The Christians say that the road to hell is paved in good intentions, but what they often forget, is that the cart that carries you there is expedient measures and the sacrifice of integrity (ostensibly) to achieve those good intentions. Manipulating your data because the experiment didn’t yeild the answer you wanted, inflating or trimming your results to influence decision-makers, lying, these are expedient. They’re a trap, and from such traps do injustices rise-the more someone does it, the easier it becomes TO do it, and to go further, and do even worse things.

    Accepting expedient measures you wind up accepting them in ever worse and more destructive ways. On a cultural level, this has already long ago begun, at some point, you either call ‘stop’ and mean it, or you are consumed by it.

    I’m afraid our nation’s getting a lot closer to consumed by it, than stopping it. If it isn’t stopped soon, Justice as you or I understand it, will be more than ephemeral-it will be entirely absent.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    In the absence of parochial, religious, ethnic or nation-state interests, it’s possible that humanity might become transformed – if only out of the realization that our future is common and that there is no evading the fact.

    I can only hope.

  • Cannonshop

    99 I suspect in the absence of those things, they’d just revert to language (or, barring that) hair colour/shoe-size or some other meaningless and arbitrary delineator-after which, they’ll get back to the business of abusing one another.

    ’cause that’s what people DO. We’re Apex Predators, pack predators. Minus an outside threat of some kind, we don’t unite for shit.

  • STM

    This morning we have been told in Australia to expect a 62 per cent increase in the price of electricity by 2013 if this country introduces an ETS (cap and trade scheme on emissions).

    That’s $900 a year for the average householder.

    Considering I got a $1900 bill for the winter quarter because I ran three small heaters overnight in our house, which is up in one of the highest points in the city and therefore colder than much of Sydney over the winter months, that’s fantastic bloody news.

    I need higher electricity bills like I need a hole in the head.

    Every time I get an envelope with a see-through window in it in the mailbox (and that’s about the only mail we get these days) I nearly have a heart attack.

    There’s already drama at Copenhagen, with some of the developing African nations walking out because they can’t agreement from the developing nations to absorb their costs.

    Why should we?

    If there are countries that are having a fair dinkum go and have some transparency in this process, I don’t mind, but I have concerns about some of the countries it might go to.

    Why should my tax dollar go to supporting emissions trading and caps in places where corruption is rife and there’d be a reasonable expectation that it’d only be lining the pockets of people who only care about their own wellbeing, not that of their people?

    We are getting railroaded here – not necessarily on climate change but on the cost of implementing this ill-thought-out madness – and it’s a joke.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Just curious, STM. Are your opinions on this typical of a lot of Australians? Or are most folks supportive of the cap and trade even though it will cost money?

  • Clavos

    I fervently hope that Stan’s eminently sensible opinions are representative, not only of all in Oz, but here as well.

    Cap-and-trade is an abortion of an idea which will further impoverish the nations which adopt it (if any ever actually do), without reducing GW.

    Cap-and-trade will continue to enrich algore, however — unless we kill it.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    …what is so bad about wanting to leave this Earth a bit cleaner than it was when we inherited it? For the love of God, where is the common sense in the debate?

    uh…mmm…huh??? what does THAT have to do with competition? *shakes head* “tsk, tsk, tsk…” Look Silas, there is nothing BAD about those ideas, but they don’t pay…you know moola, dough rey mi…
    Don’t you get it?

    …it’s possible that humanity might become transformed…

    Place is chock full of starry-eyed dreamers tonight.

    Look this is the real world, not the good ship lollipop. Just look at Dave’s picture. That is what Capitalism eventually makes you look like if you take it seriously. Looks like he’s having a ball doesn’t it? Ah to be so carefree and full of joy…

  • STM

    No Handy, it’s the same as everywhere.

    There are people who are religiously wanting it because they are convinced that capping Australia’s 1.4 per cent of the world’s CO2 emissions might somehow make a difference.

    There are those like me who think there might be something to the science but want to know more – facts, not woolly, hare-brained opinions – but who are angryb with the government for trying to rush through an ETS without explaining it to us and how much it will cost the average Joe (the absurdity is that they won’t stop the big polluters, who are to be compensated by the government for the cost of carbon credits. Work that one out – I thought the biggest polluters should pay, rather than little old me sitting at home worried about my next $1900 quarterly electricity bill).

    Then there are those who think the science is bollocks, but who also know that once carbon trading begins, some people will get very rich.

    And some of those are doubtless hoping to get on the queue.

    I have no problem with leaving the Earth cleaner.

    I just don’t think that me and millions of other poor bastards like me should have to bear the brunt of the higher costs in fuel, energy and groceries that will come with it when we’re not the ones doing the polluting.

    Thanks for your support Clav.

    My only wish here is for some sanity in the debate and for some recognition that as a citizen of this country, I have every right to oppose one of the most shockingly designed pieces of legislation ever punted up by a government in the history of this nation.

    It’s a con job and me and millions of others are sick of being conned.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I finally decided to read this article, as the news around here gets repetitively depressing.

    When the suits get behind something, no matter what it is, I get suspicious. And the suits have been behind “climate change” for a long time, sucking up billion$ that could be used on better things – like growing wheat for hungry people – or even throwing a few thousand dollars (make that pounds or euros – ferget the Monopoly money)) to poor immigrants like me trying to get by in a not so rich country.

    There probably is something to pouring trillions of metric tons of pollutants into the air changing climate. It certainly has reduced the sunlight over the planet, which has cooled temperatures, thus preventing models of overheating from other pollutants from manifesting themselves.

    But the cooking of books by allegedly respectable scientists throws too many questions on the whole thing for me.

    Now, of course our very own Chief Murderer and president, Shim’on Peres, will be at Köbnhavn enjoying a stay among civilized Europeans who idolize him, instead of having to stay with us uncivilized Jews – who don’t. And he’ll pontificate on peace and all sorts of other bullshit, being sure to pat his Israeli protogés on the back in the process. And, since he is getting on in years, he probably brought a few Viagra with him so he could at least try to get it up for some young Danish Heidi desperate enough for a Jewish wiener….

    But that fuck does NOT represent me.

    Basically, I follow Stan Denham in his point of view. Quoting for truth:

    I have no problem with leaving the Earth cleaner.

    I just don’t think that me and millions of other poor bastards like me should have to bear the brunt of the higher costs in fuel, energy and groceries that will come with it when we’re not the ones doing the polluting.

    My only wish here is for some sanity in the debate and for some recognition that as a citizen of this country, I have every right to oppose one of the most shockingly designed pieces of legislation ever punted up by a government in the history of this nation.

    It’s a con job and me and millions of others are sick of being conned.

    There are a few things I disagree with Mr. Denham on, but on this we agree 100%.

    By the way, Dave – not that you give a damn – but you’ve been putting out better articles lately.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    And Cannonshop:

    my yearly experience with being home and sick while the job falls behind. It makes me cranky.

    Hope you are feeling better – refuá shlemá….

  • pablo

    Another nail in the coffin for fraudster Al Gore.
    Caught lying twice in one week. The first one was when he said on the MSM news that the Climategate emails were 10 years old, and the second one referenced below. I can’t help but wonder how long it will take the naive libs to start bailing ship on him. Since most libs naivete is fathomless, it might be a long time coming. Even to this day with all of the Climategate revelations and scores, yes I said scores of scientists openly questioning man-made global warming, I have yet to see one lib on this site start to come to their naive senses. It is all one giant eugenics scam run out of The Club of Rome and the Bilderberg Group, with the World Bank, and IMF as the implementors of this genocidal plan.

    Al Gore caught lying through his teeth once again

  • pablo

    I use the word libs to describe a particular type of those that identify themselves as liberals or progressive. I am referring to the libs that endorse world government, believe in the myth that 19 Sauds attacked the USA without complicity at the highest levels of the US government, the libs that love such left gatekeepers such as Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman. Ms Goodman is funded by both the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Fund, both New World Order fascist organizations. The libs that refuse to disavow themselves from Obama and his lying on each and everyone of his platforms. You know, the libs that no longer protest an illegal war in Iraq and Afghanistan because Obama is in office. The same libs who talk about freedom out of one side of their mouth, as they have no compunction about throwing someone in jail and/or fining them thousands of dollars for failing to buy health insurance.

    I use my own father as a yardstick about what a true liberal is. He is 94 years old and a current member of Mensa. He knew within 3 months of 9/11 that it was an inside job. He does not like Obama nor his health care extortion plan. He is not a fan of the Rockefellers, nor their minions such as Henry Kiss ASS INGER, Vernon Bilderberg Jordan, or Madeline Bilderberg CFR Albright.

    He is wise enough to know that his party and ideals have been compromised by globalist multi-national fascists. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of many libs today, hence my distaste for them, and this site certainly has its share.

    On another note, hey Nalle did you per chance see the new Jess Ventura Conspiracy Theory TV show on 9/11 last week pal? It is a must see for any conspiracy buff such as yourself. I know now your one of the club and have for some time, since you believe that 19 Sauds conspired to carry out 9/11, and pseudo science is alive and well in Chicken Little’s world. You gotta see it bro!

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Yup, Gore is getting gored in his own backyard. I voted for this fraud in 2000! I’d say shame on me, but considering the stupid monkey that took office in his place, I don’t regret my choice then.

    I’m predicting a major breakthrough in this “hopenhagen” circus on Thursday or Friday. That is rosh Hódesh tévet – when G-d begins to judge the goyim (the nations other than the Children of Israel), executing His Will regarding them. And from the looks of it – they are going down the tubes – by their own hand.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I don’t know if it’s hilarious or sad that you guys keep linking Al Gore to climate change as though it’s somehow his invention. He’s a spokesperson for a cause, nothing more and nothing less. He is not a scientist.

    It’s really unfortunate that some sensible people are letting the politics of this matter cloud their otherwise good vision, too. It’s unfortunate to see party lines drawn and to see rational people take sides on what is a scientific fact.

    But such is the nature of humanity, I suppose, and we’re pretty much all set to bicker while we wait for the planet to become unlivable. Trust me, it’s not Earth that needs saving. It’s us.

    And I’d like to echo Silas’ point: at the end of the day, do you really need climate change to tell you that taking care of the planet is a good idea? Do you really need a scientific report to tell you that blowing black, toxic gas into the air is probably not doing a whole lot of good? And do you need Al Gore to tell you that our planet has limited resources and that using them all up is probably not a good idea?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Don’t pretend you’re saving the earth. The Earth was here before people, it’ll be here long after we’re gone. Earth doesn’t NEED saving. If you’re going to write environmental policy-great, write environmental policy-control pollution because you want a clean place to live, but don’t make-believe it’s some kind of holy crusade-it’s not.

    Absolutely correct. But if we intend to exist on this planet and if we intend for future generations to be able to breathe the air and drink the water, we need to smarten the fuck up and do something about it.

    Stan,

    I just don’t think that me and millions of other poor bastards like me should have to bear the brunt of the higher costs in fuel, energy and groceries that will come with it when we’re not the ones doing the polluting.

    Isn’t that the nature of living in a society governed by fools, though? We all bear the brunt of the choices of the corporate world and of our governments. With this issue, we have an opportunity to do some things in our individual lives that matter. Change, any change, comes from us not from them.

    Let’s not let their bickering and their waste be an example to us. Let’s be the example, let’s use less resources, drive less, spend less on wasteful things, use less energy, and so on. It doesn’t have to be more expensive to live responsibly and sustainably.

    And should there be extra taxes, because there will be anyway, let’s make sure that we pressure our governments to meet all the pollution targets and help facilitate a cleaner, BETTER world. We both know our governments are absolutely incompetent and that they will fuck this all up.

    That doesn’t mean we have to join them.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Oh, and “denier” is an absolutely apt term to anyone who refuses to deny basic scientific fact. I’d like to tag that term on people who deny evolution, too, and other science about our world.

    These people are roadblocks to our survival and should be outed as such. Personally I’m tired of having the future of this planet threatened by corporations, religions and individuals who can’t see past their own agendas. It’s time to start calling these people what they are.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Blah, that first line in #113 should read “who denies basic scientific fact.” :(

  • Jordan Richardson

    Thinking about it, I actually should back away from reasserting Cannonshop’s point about the Earth not needing “saving.”

    The fact of the matter is that our wasteful existence and our ignorance and inaction in regards to climate change and other environmental issues of our creation have and will continue to impact the ecosystems that other animals and creatures count on to survive. When we wipe ourselves out as a species, we will inevitably wipe out countless other species. And we are, at this very moment, continuing to wipe out countless other species too.

    So it isn’t just us here on this rock. It isn’t just our living conditions that we should be concerned with and it isn’t just our world that will become unlivable.

    I was raised not to make a mess. When I visited people as a child or a young man, I was told to behave myself and not to leave my trash lying around on someone’s coffee table or behind someone’s sofa cushions. I was told to flush the toilet after taking a big steamy shit and was told to wash my hands. I wasn’t to break things, either, and if I did I was to apologize (even if I felt guilty). I was to act as though I respected the place I was visiting, in other words.

    As a man, with the possibility of children in the not too distant future, I’m going to impart the same values to my kids. I’m going to tell them to be respectful when you’re in someone else’s space, even if it was a lesson I didn’t always practice perfectly, and I’m going to tell them that they aren’t the only people in existence, even if they are the centre of my universe.

    And I’m going to tell them to treat the planet with respect, too, because other people live here too. And, as my mother said to me, “not everyone wants to put up with your shit.”

    In the end, it doesn’t matter what the governments say. It doesn’t matter what Al Gore says or what the celebrities say. It matters what we, as individuals, do. Are we going to just leave a mess and forget about it because, after all, it won’t be our problem forever? Or are we going to be respectful of this space and of this world we’ve been somehow granted?

    Some might say it’s more complicated than that. Guess what? It isn’t.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #100:

    “We’re Apex Predators, pack predators. Minus an outside threat of some kind, we don’t unite for shit.”

    That may be so, Cannon.

    But if that’s your view of self and all others, why should I regard your claims to freedom and liberty any more so than I’d regard their author? And in light of that, I’d say they’re hollow – nothing more than the ape’s ethics.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Good points, Jordan. But you’re expecting the people to treat their space with respect while they have no sense of human dignity.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    #116

    Cannon spits out the real problem. He has lost part of his humanity. Not because of what he actually is, but because of what he believes.

    That is the fundamental problem with the world. We all begin innocent and then someone teaches us to believe what Cannon believes. We could have been a contender instead of just a bunch of bums, which is what we are.

    It is not what we are that stands in the way. Just what we believe we are. Because we are not apex pack animals. We are extraordinary. We have the facility of language. We can adapt to all manner of ways of living. Some people, like Cannon, never question the bullshit they are fed. Thus, they have us adapt to living in shit.

    He’s can’t think for himself.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    hrmmmmphhhh…typo

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You almost sound, Cindy, like a person of faith, and I’m not denying the possibility of evolution.

    Good for you. For if we can’t believe in ourselves, what else is there?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Jordan, could you please stop acting like you aren’t some apex predator…you are making the rest of the brutes look silly. I’ve got it…why don’t you name yourself after some sort of weapon…something nuclear and contemporary maybe.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    How about “Jordan the Avenger”?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Or perhaps, “Jordan, the Barbarian,” as some here must regard him so.

    “Jordan the Ignoramus” sounds even better.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I don’t have to have faith, Roger. I have a brain and it tries to think for itself. Maybe it is because my mother was rebellious. She didn’t like authority.

    Here is what I think. We can not think for ourselves (and therefore we cannot think, but we only act on indoctrinated ideas), to the extent we do not question every last thing we were told to believe by someone else.

    If we look around, we can see plenty of evidence that what Cannon is saying is plainly wrong. Wolves do not sometimes act like wolves and sometimes not. To believe what he believes, you must discount parts of reality.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Brain ain’t enough, in my opinion, because the history of the race is pathetic indeed – less dignified than that of “the brutes” – and there is no indication that things will change. So Cannon’s view of “reality” is not that far off. Except that we’ve got to pull ourselves by our own bootstraps.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Capitalism promotes Cannon’s reality. It promotes competitive and non-cooperative lifestyles.

    We are not given huge brains to only be capable of squandering them in violence like species which do not have language and reasoning faculties. That doesn’t even make sense, when you give it a cursory thought.

    It doesn’t make sense to have some of the apex predators talking like you and me and Jordan and Silas–not to mention Gandhi, Jesus, and MLK. Instinct is not working in some? That is not how animals which are aggressive predators work.

    It suggests that we are much more flexible. It suggests we see shit around us because we grow up in shit and are taught shit. What we see is not human nature–it’s human nurture.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But humans, for the most part, were like that before the advent of capitalism which, true, awakens in some the worst of their “instincts.” But precisely there were also notable exception, it suggests a different possibility and a different road. It’s at this point where belief comes in – belief in the possibility and actualization of the potential.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    because there were . . .

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    125- Cannon’s view of reality is wrong, because it’s focus is wrong. It attributes the cause to the effect. Believing in it is what holds us back. And even you are taking part in that? Why don’t you want to be free?

    We have been raised in a dysfunctional family, Roger–most people on the planet have been raised as the progeny of dominators. It does not mean we are dysfunctional in our nature or incapable of anything else. It means that we have a very strong tendency to adapt. Don’t let the sheer numbers overwhelm you, we’ve been impressed into ‘normalization’–that is all it is. We could change with the next community that teaches its children something different.

    If you take 100 children and raise them in an army–you get 100 warriors. If you take 100 children and create a cooperative community–you will get 100 cooperative humans.

    Now all we have to do is create a better sort of community to adapt to.

    Time to go. Have a good day, Roger.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    OK.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    humans, for the most part, were like that before the advent of capitalism

    Yes, capitalism isn’t the ‘original’ form of domination. It’s just a recent one.

  • STM

    Jordan writes: “Let’s be the example, let’s use less resources, drive less, spend less on wasteful things, use less energy, and so on. It doesn’t have to be more expensive to live responsibly and sustainably.”

    What makes you think I don’t already.

    My wife replaced her old car with a very small, zippy 4-cylinder that uses $30 worth of petrol a week.

    I have a green Euro-diesel that puts out near clean air and uses $60 worth of fuel per fortnight.

    Catching public tramsport is not an option because of the hours we work.

    We are extremely frugal in our use of electricity and gas.

    We are getting our roof insulated under a government-paid program.

    But the big polluters aren’t changing anything. They’re going to be compensated under the government’s plan and will be putting out as much as they were before.

    So it’s a giant tax.

    Denier is also not the word that should be used for sceptics wanting more info on the science or those who don’t want their arses taxed off them through big-spending emissions trading legislation that will do little – or nothing, actually, especially in a country like Australia that contributes so little CO2 – to stop global warming.

    It’s against democratic principles to lump anyone who doesn’t hold the hard and fast pro line on global warming to be decsribed as a denier … lumping anyone who doesn’t agree to the letter under the same heading.

    If the “warmenists” want to make allies of the unsure, they’re sure fucken going about the right way by beating us over the head over it.

    Not.

  • Jordan Richardson

    One can fight the tax without denying the obvious science behind global warming, though. What I’m seeing here is a whole lot of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And that’s honestly disappointing.

  • Cannonshop

    133 Jordan, the problem is, the Science IS NOT OBVIOUS-it’s been monkeyed with, exaggerated, altered, and manipulated. There’s no REAL way to tell what is, and isn’t “Science” vs. “Politically motivated manipulation”. (and I’m speaking as one of the few around here to have READ the entire IPCC report.)

    The minimum standard at THIS point, is to have someone who’s Neutral on the ISSUE go back through, and re-do the science and see for certain which parts are real, honest scientific claims, and which are ‘extrapolations’ manipulated to generate a reaction among PEOPLE.

    ONce it’s been nailed down without altering the data or cherrypicking results for the most emotional impact, THEN start examining policy options that carry force-of-law and serious consequences.

    Integrity on the science is breached, making policy on it is a BAD IDEA until it’s been fully restored. This isn’t some theoretical gods-and-monkeys argument that doesn’t impact daily life, this is one where the science MUST BE SOLID, with zero questions as to whether it’s been altered, cooked, manipulated or screwed with.

    After that, the Policies have to be EFFECTIVE in remedying whatever problems are discovered after review. Carbon-trading schemes don’t do that-as Stan has repeatedly said, and even the backers both here (the head of the EPA) and overseas have already been cornered into confessing that it won’t significantly alter the carbon-emissions it’s supposed to effect.

    “Doing anything” isn’t an option when the science is SOUND, much less when it’s increasingly revealed as shaky. When the “Doing anything” involves making insulated rich people richer at the expense of everyone else, enriching unethical, amoral dictatorships who won’t comply anyway, and enriching the politically connected as well…well, that’s DEFINITELY not acceptable. Adding to the already bloated powers of government Bureaucracies when the addition isn’t going to fix the problem is ALSO unacceptable.

    We do not NEED to add a “master Class” to our society. This is not Plato’s Republic with Philosopher Kings and rigid caste systems. That’s the Third World, that’s the Soviets before the fall of the Wall.

    it isn’t us, and it should NOT be us. Such ‘enlightened’ leaders are the reason that Lake Baikal is the world’s ugliest superfund site.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Cannonshop, I’ll try to avoid the random capitalization you’ve infused in your post as I address it.

    The basic science, that pollution contributes to a change in our planet’s atmosphere and that pumping toxic elements into the air and into the water is bad for our air and water, is obvious. This is not a “belief,” nor is there a political slant to it. There is a consensus among climate scientists that this is the case.

    Parlaying the basic idea of environmental stewardship into political philosophy is another matter altogether and has always been a matter I have no interest in. It is offensive and destructive to politicize this discussion and treat it as though there’s some sort of debate about the impact harmful chemicals and pollutants have on our natural environment.

    The minimum standard at THIS point, is to have someone who’s Neutral on the ISSUE go back through, and re-do the science and see for certain which parts are real, honest scientific claims, and which are ‘extrapolations’ manipulated to generate a reaction among PEOPLE.

    The scientists are neutral, though, and the research has been neutral despite efforts to colour it differently. Again, there is a consensus among climate scientists that this is the case.

    Moreover, how do you “re-do the science?” Science is always being “re-done” by its very nature, with new information and components constantly added to the research. Even with these constant shifts, the basic science behind climate change and other environmental issues has essentially continued to abide by the basic principles of cause and effect. In other words, put bad stuff into the environment and bad things happen to it. It’s simple and, again, obvious.

    ONce it’s been nailed down without altering the data or cherrypicking results for the most emotional impact, THEN start examining policy options that carry force-of-law and serious consequences.

    This is hardly the fault of the scientific community and, further to that, does not in the least denigrate the reality behind climate change research nor does it realistically undermine the content of the science.

    The media’s decision to cherrypick data, Al Gore’s decision to highlight certain scientific components, FOX News’ decision to cherrypick other stories as though they cast doubt on the whole process, etc. are not part of the science of climate change. They are part of the distraction and part of the problem. They are the elements that politicize this and turn it into a debate when there is no real debate among climate scientists as to the basics.

    You, along with many other people, are continually extrapolating the political side to global warming and imagining that it colours the whole debate. It does not. It is offensive to me, as a Canadian, to watch Glenn Beck or other subhuman commentators act like they understand the issue by colouring it with political lingo. Everything becomes about this party or that party or about this tax or that tax. It’s bullshit.

    Integrity on the science is breached, making policy on it is a BAD IDEA until it’s been fully restored.

    Integrity on the basic science has not been breached, though. Again, you’re listening to the media voices and political angles while ignoring the basic science and the consensus among climate scientists.

    It’s as though there’s a massive effort to imagine that this stuff is somehow not true, as though if we close our eyes hard enough and wish long enough our impact on the environment will just vanish and we’ll be able to dump our shit in the oceans and rape the planet until we’re good and fat.

    It doesn’t work that way. We live in an environment with limited resources and with fragile controls. When we put things into the earth, we have to be mindful of the effects. We have to have realized by now that we can’t simply pump gas into the air and expect it to rain chocolate. This is basic, obvious stuff.

    “Policy” to preserve the integrity and health of our planet should be a given if we intend to survive as a species.

    this is one where the science MUST BE SOLID, with zero questions as to whether it’s been altered, cooked, manipulated or screwed with.

    Impossible because science will always be altered and manipulated in some fashion. This comes down to the public’s misunderstanding of how scientific process works and how research is actually done. Data is constantly shifted and moved about, “tricks” are constantly rendered to explore all avenues, and so forth. The public’s refusal to understand the language of science is just the beginning of the problem of understanding science as a whole. When those emails leaked and those scientists were speaking in that way, it’s no wonder that so many yokels took it as their opportunity to dump global warming over the side of the yacht and get on with life. Problem solved, right? No.

    When the “Doing anything” involves making insulated rich people richer at the expense of everyone else, enriching unethical, amoral dictatorships who won’t comply anyway, and enriching the politically connected as well…well, that’s DEFINITELY not acceptable.

    Absolutely agree 100%, but this is symptomatic of any issue presented before global governments. They are, by nature, corrupt and we cannot and should not count on them to write effective policy as long as we continue to simultaneously prop them up electorally and pump their corporate interests full of cash.

    Rejecting corporate greed means rejecting corporate culture. It means understanding that the blessed “private sector” doesn’t care about you and it doesn’t care about your children. It means understanding that the companies dumping shit in the river will continue to do so as long as we remain impotent in telling our governments what we want. And as long as what we want is to be left alone, free of scientific responsibility and reality, we’re likely to get it.

    As long as our role as humans continues to be to consume until our fat asses get put in the ground, nothing will change. You will not have sound policy because you don’t want sound policy. You want to maintain the government’s inefficacy because that ensures you’ll be left alone, free of responsibility, to do what you want when you want to. And that’s why nothing changes. That’s why corporations get away with (literally) murder, rape, genocide, and the theft of natural resources on a regular basis. We allow it. We are to blame because we line their pockets.

    We do not NEED to add a “master Class” to our society.

    We already have one and we kowtow to it every chance we get. Filling your cart with cheap shit from China at a non-unionized Wal-Mart ensures that governments continue to write policy that reflects those bad choices. And filling up on McDonald’s on the way home ensures that the environmental issues of our day, the desperately real science of our time, will never be addressed properly and effectively.

    it isn’t us, and it should NOT be us.

    It is us. It can only be us. We can’t rely on them to do it because they will not until we force them to. And we force them to by hitting them in the only place that counts: $$$.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Here’s an article from New Scientist pertaining to “Climategate” and some of the skepticism that has surrounded climate change science.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “. . . Glenn Beck or other subhuman commentators . . .” (135)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    …Wal-Mart… McDonald’s…

    Enough of your filthy language, Jordan!

  • Cannonshop

    Jordan, that’s a very nice stack of straw-man arguments. (I especially liked the references to Monkton and Bellamy, and Svensgard…)

    The goofy “Cosmic Rays cooling the earth” idea, for instance, is the kind of patently ridiculous crap that requires LOTS of substantiating material before it deserves any more credibility than a nice example of pranking.

    NONE of the arguments presented in the article, however, address my concerns-Mann’s shoddy work with his Hockeystick (and other Hockeystick graphs created since in its image, for instance, or the lack of supporting evidence that carbon-tax-trading is going to do anything about the problem it’s supposed to address…)

    Someone Else’s dishonesty and shoddy work doesn’t justify shoddy work on the part of the AGW folks. (well, it might for you, you’re a “Progressive” and any means to accomplish your goal, right?)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Cannon, I think the point of the New Scientist article is that the credibility of those alleging scientific skulduggery with regard to the infmaous e-mails is somewhat undermined by the fact that they’ve been caught doing the exact same thing themselves.

    It’s just payback.

  • STM

    Ah, I see the Warmenists have taken over at New Scientist.

    The clue is in the use of the world “denier” in their Deniergate story, a rebuttal of Climategate.

    The rest of the site is pretty interesting on that score too. Still, it’s harmless, isn’t it?

    No polar bears have died as a result of their views.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Ah, I see the Warmenists have taken over at New Scientist.

    I see. New Scientist stands by the scientific consensus, therefore it must be part of the conspiracy. Nice logic there, Stan.

    I think hanging upside down all day must have scrambled your critical thinking circuits a bit. Or perhaps all those 200mph rugby league tackles are finally taking their toll… ;-)

  • pablo

    Hey Dave,

    Did you see Jesse Ventura’s new show Conspiracy Theory on Global Warming pal? It was on a couple of nights ago. You really got to see it as your a conspiracy buff too man.

    Jesse lays it all on the line man. From Maurice Strong to the Rothchilds! The scam of the ages continues. Just like I have been saying for several years on this site man. I have had my eyes on Maurice Strong for about 5 years now. Currently he is hiding out with the Red Chinese, but anyone who knows about Maurice Strong knows he is one of Lord Rothschild’s boys, and has been for decades.

    You really gotta see this TV show Nalle, it is right up your proverbial alley.

  • Cannonshop

    Forget Conspiracy theories for a moment, kids. There’s a fundamental element of “Intellectualism” that you’re all ignoring.

    QUESTION AUTHORITY.

    Are the E-mails genuine? Yes, even the people impacted by them say they are.

    Do they show questionable practices and a break in integrity? Yes. They do.

    It’s on the strength of the EVIDENCE, not on the word of the jackass that’s publicizing it.

    People…ALWAYS…LIE in politics. When it goes from science to politics, the first casualty (as in war) is honesty.

    Therefore the only defense against being manipulated as a tool and a fool, is to examine the Evidence in its own context-that goes as much for claims by skeptics, as claims by AGW folks. Articles like the one linked, are just distractions and deflections-read the damn science, read the data, check the math. Check the Work.

    The neat thing about science that isn’t true of economics, or religion, or fashion, is that if it looks manipulated, it probably is. Science has to be replicable, the data has to line up, and if it doesn’t, or it requires alteration to line up, the conclusion’s probably wrong.

    The rocks don’t care if they’re being looked at by a fascist, communist, libertarian or statist, see? If there’s conditions for forming oil, they’ll be oil formation conditions even if the guy examining them is a radical Green adherent to ‘Peak Oil’.

    The fault line will still be moving even if the guy looking at it is a creationist, the cloud will still be made of water-vapor even if the guy looking at it believes in Ymir’s Brains, and lightning is still static discharge even if the meteorologist is a fan of Zeus, the earth will still be roughly spherical even if the guy looking at it wants it to be flat.

    Get it? The politics means nothing, if the data’s cooked, it doesn’t matter that the guy who found the fingerprints that cooked it is a total headcase whackjob.

    The ONLY thing that matters, is the evidence, and how it may have been mis-handled by the original presenter. That’s it. That’s all that matters scientifically.

    POLITICALLY, what matters, is whether the proposed remedy to the hypothetical problem will, in fact, remedy the problem. If not, then uncovering ulterior motives actually starts mattering-because once it’s “LAW” it’s law for EVERYONE, including people who stand to be harmed, the standard of ‘do no harm’ supposedly matters as much to the Left as the right-supposedly.

    Stan and I aren’t that far apart on this-in fact, we’re damn close. IF there’s a problem (and wiht cooked books,that’s a serious IF), then the solution or remedy must address the PROBLEM. Not be a funnel of cash to people who’re already getting a funnel of cash from the last fifty some odd years of misgovernment, and a means to punish ordinary citizens for living their lives as presented to them. It’s bad enough contending with corporations trying to make us serfs, having the government jump in with both feet to hasten the process?

    No thanks. If you really believe in the problem, offer REAL solutions. If you can’t, maybe that’s a place to start work, instead of jumping to non-solutions involving high taxes and transfer of that money to the most corrupt parts of the world on a half-assed promise that will NOT affect the problem you’re claiming is present.

    Short form: if it isn’t going to solve the problem, and it isn’t going to reduce the problem to soluble levels, then it’s not a good idea, and you shouldn’t be trying to do it.

    SOLVE THE PROBLEM, then present the solution.

  • Cannonshop

    Doing “Anything” in response doesn’t show you’re serious, it shows you’re NOT serious.

    Identify the Phenomena
    Identify the Causes
    Formulate a response.
    Test the Response
    Did it work? Y/N
    Y-present the solution to the world at large.
    N-Get back to work, identify a solution, test it.

    Multiple different approaches works better at finding a real solution, than a single, pre-masticated political transfer of money to the people who’re the biggest causes does.

    Sending money to the Amazon basin doesn’t stop deforestation, sending money to Zimbabwe won’t stop the famine, or the mismanagement of their agriculture, or even feed the people starving THERE. Taxing people who DIDN’T destroy their environment and infrastructure to pay people who routinely DO isn’t going to fix those problems either.

    If you’re worried about carbon, maybe you should figure a way to stop people from burning the frikking rainforests down, dumping chemicals from “Free Trade zone” factories into water supplies, or running unmuffled, unscrubbed smelters in places like North Korea, India, China, pakistan, etc (not to mention the Mariolitos in Mexico. visit Brownsville sometime, and just choke the air…)

    Carbon trading won’t do that. Demanding reciprocal regulations MIGHT-but it won’t make the big Corps who’ve moved to these places happy, and it won’t make the dirty bastards running those places happy (nobody likes being told to trade their solid gold mercedes for carbon-scrubbing equipment or updated power-plant infrastructure.)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Do they show questionable practices and a break in integrity? Yes. They do.

    Yes, I agree, they do. Just not in the way you claim they do. They show scientists complaining, cussing and celebrating the death of a GW skeptic. Which is in terrible taste and probably shouldn’t have been committed to e-mail, but so what? It’s just
    bitching at work, as most of us do. Saying that these e-mails show the science is wrong is like saying that the entire IT industry has no integrity because the tech support guy you talked to on the phone just now was an arsehole.

    The ONLY thing that matters, is the evidence, and how it may have been mis-handled by the original presenter.

    Again, looking at those e-mails out of context and concluding that they represent mishandling of data is a willfully wrong interpretation, in my view.

    There are masses of e-mails and most of them are exceedingly dull to outsiders – mostly housekeeping items, discussions of upcoming field trips and the like. But let’s take the two quotes which have caused the most kerfuffle.

    First, there’s Mann’s e-mail which says, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series […] to hide the decline.”

    In context, this refers to a way of handling the data to account for a known anomaly with tree ring data which was skewing the overall results. The tree ring results had been shown to be anomalous – see this paper. So the ‘trick’ is not a reference to an intentional deceit – it’s like the ‘trick’ I use when my car remote doesn’t work of tapping it on the side of my coffee mug a couple of times.

    The second one is Trenberth’s “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.” Sounds quite incriminating when looked at on its own, sure. But when you look at what he’s actually talking about – a set of measurements which showed that temperatures at the ocean surface were not rising in line with other observations – and he’s demanding to know why they are not rising. There are plenty of other measurements showing that the planet is heating – there’s no doubt about that – so where is the heat in the oceans going?

    An analogy: an astronomer observes an unexplained wobble in the orbit of a planet. Should he conclude that because of this single observation the theory of gravitation is wrong, or that there is an as yet undetected reason for the wobble?

    It’s this willful taking things out of context, this focussing on little niggles rather than the big picture which IMHO makes the AGW skeptics no better than creationists.

  • Cannonshop

    It’s the break in the process (Conclusion, alter the evidence to then support it) that makes the AGW crowd no better than Creationists, Doc.

    When you see the Wobble (in your example), scientifically, it’s on your hypothetical astronomer to say “Damn, why’s that happening? Is there something I’m MISSING??”

    And then investigate further.

    The problem with AGW, is that it’s been a “process” of adjusting the observations to fit the “Big Picture” conclusion, including tossing contrary data, cherry-picking weather-station info (ask the russians about that), and making claims that aren’t substantiated by the experimental data when you aren’t altering the data.

    Snake-Oil, Doc. Measuring head-bumps, doc.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    When you see the Wobble (in your example), scientifically, it’s on your hypothetical astronomer to say “Damn, why’s that happening? Is there something I’m MISSING??”

    And then investigate further.

    Cannon, Cannon, CANNON. That’s exactly what Trenberth was asking for!

    The problem with AGW, is that it’s been a “process” of adjusting the observations to fit the “Big Picture” conclusion, including tossing contrary data, cherry-picking weather-station info (ask the russians about that), and making claims that aren’t substantiated by the experimental data when you aren’t altering the data.

    You keep saying that, but haven’t provided a single concrete, convincing example which shows that any of these things are in fact going on.

    Once again: with the tree-ring data it was demonstrated that local environmental factors were affecting ring growth, thereby skewing the overall data. This was known. So, knowing that, why would you include what was effectively noise? Now that’s unsound science, my friend.

    It would be a bit like looking at the one game the Detroit Lions have won over the last two seasons and concluding from it that they don’t suck.

  • Cannonshop

    Doc, I’m still stuck on how they tossed the ocean-current probe data because it didn’t fit the narrative, also how they cherrypicked weather stations in urban areas and ignored rural ones. Urban areas tend to be warmer (all those bodies, machinery, shelter, etc. etc.).

    Plus you build a global picture from local data-if the majority of the local data is contrary to your presupposed global picture, the presupposition is what’s wrong, not the local data (From multiple locations, no less!)

    The problem with the tree-ring data IS that what was included IS like watching your Detroit Lions on a lucky day, instead of looking at their over-all record for the season, including away games “because of local conditions”.

    When the data doesn’t match the hypothesis, you change the hypothesis, you don’t toss the data as ‘irrelevant’.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It all depend on the preponderance of data.

    In short, it’s a judgment call, even in hard science.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Looks like China, India and U.S. are about to broker a climate change deal. Ah, the wonder of it all.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Welcome to the NWO, Silas.

    Look for similar scenarios in the near if not immediate future.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Meanwhile, on the home front, “GOPers Hold ‘Prayercast’ to Ask God to Stop Health Reform,” or so I’m told.

    Happy Times Are Here Again.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I’m still stuck on how they tossed the ocean-current probe data because it didn’t fit the narrative

    Who says they tossed it? How would we know about it if they had?

    also how they cherrypicked weather stations in urban areas and ignored rural ones

    Completely false. The urban heat island effect has long been known and corrected for, and in fact NASA now uses only rural stations.

    The problem with the tree-ring data IS that what was included IS like watching your Detroit Lions on a lucky day

    The only evidence you’ve offered that this is the case is that you keep saying so.

    From what I’ve read, the preponderance of evidence (as Roger notes) is that warming is occurring, that there are bound to be some data that diverge from the norm, that this is recognized by climate scientists and that they endeavour to account for such discrepancies.

    If you’ve got a preponderance of evidence that shows no warming, I’d love to see it. As I’ve said many times, I really hope the AGW sceptics are right. So far, though, they’re just doing highly commendable impressions of large flightless birds.

  • Deano

    You really see a New World Order in all this Roger? All I see is SSDD (same shit, different day)….

    This is just politics as usual, nothing new about it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I definitely do, Deano, no less so when NAFTA was first drafted. It’s but another dimension.

    Of course, ten years back I was dead-set against it. Now I see it as a move toward resolution – from the present impasse.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    I was amazed at the prayer-cast, Roger. Those tongues of fire appearing above each head was awe inspiring. And when Representative Bachman invoked Jesus and she transfigured to the wall with Him and Moses, well, it was spine tingling. But the greatest shot of all was Senator Sam bare, I mean, Brownback. He’s such a humble man with such good intentions. One would never know that he supports the execution of homerseckshuls in Uganda. In the meantime, did you check out the billboard in New Zealand? I’d love to see that erected the heartland!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    To tell the truth, Silas, nothing about US would surprise me anymore.

    We might as well resume the Salem witchcraft trials.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    On Wednesday evening, a group of friends got together to ask God to enter the bodies of our United States Senators in order to make them vote against health care reform.
    Included among the many luminaries participating in a webcast, cleverly dubbed “prayercast,” were GOP senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Sam Brownback of Kansas along with Congressional stars Michele Bachmann and Randy Forbes. Also joining in to beg the help of the Almighty in squashing reform were a number of the better-known members of the God-Squad, including super-conservative preacher Lou Engle of ‘The Call to Conscious’, James Dobson of ‘Focus on the Family’ and Tony Perkins, the infamous leader of the ‘Family Research Council’ who pulled the whole shindig together.
    The event was billed as a prayer session during which they would seek “God’s intervention to prevent the passage of healthcare reform.” The pitch went on to say-
    During the webcast, you will hear the latest on the threats to the God-given right to human life through government funding of abortions, our health from rationing, our family finances from higher taxes, and our general freedom posed by the government plan to take over healthcare.
    We will enter into a time of prayer for the nation, and our leaders. Your engagement and urgent prayer is more critical than ever as Congress will very soon vote on a final health care bill.
    Via RightWingWatch.org
    As I viewed the video tape of this auspicious gathering, I began to wonder how it is that so many people I so profoundly dislike and disagree with could be gathered together in the name of God? I mean, if they’ve got God on their side, where does that leave me?
    I like God. And while I assure you that I’m no saint, I do a reasonably decent job with the whole Ten Commandments thing. I wish nobody ill (well, maybe one or two people) and I give money to folks on the street who ask for it and never inquire as to whether they’re going to spend it on booze or drugs. I figure that once I give it to them, it’s their right to do what they wish with it. Isn’t that what God would want?
    So, why do I always seem to find myself on the other side of the people who claim to have God’s vote and support and want to put the future of American health care system in God’s hands?
    Didn’t God already devise his health care plan? We live and then we die. That’s pretty much it. And while you have to admire the simplicity of it all, it must be said that God’s health care plan is not quite as satisfying on the whole ‘living’ side of the equation as the one we came up with involving doctors, nurses, medical researchers, etc.
    So, unless the prayercast people begging for divine intervention in the health care debate have never personally seen a doctor or checked into a hospital, it seems to me that they are being rather spotty on those elements of God’s health care plan they subscribe to and those they do not.
    Having worked that out, I felt a bit better. Still, concerned that my soul could be in trouble if I disagreed with God’s directions to the Senate, I figured it might not hurt to find out if maybe, just maybe, God loves the liberals as much as he, apparently, loves conservatives.
    It turns out that it’s not entirely clear. There are liberals, including Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez of California, who believe that God is with them. Rep. Sanchez held a prayer vigil asking God’s help in getting the health care legislation passed before the House version of health care reform successfully made it through that branch of Congress. So there is that.
    But then there was that prayer vigil held last month inside Sen. Joe Lieberman’s office by a group of clergy who prayed that Lieberman would support health care reform. We all know how that turned out, so maybe God’s not quite so down with the liberals after all.
    It would be nice if we could just cut off the debate, tell the senators to bow their heads in prayer and come up with the answer fed to them by God. However, I can’t help but believe that God’s advice might not be sufficiently clear to either break a filibuster or smite the liberal Democrats.
    And so, in the spirit of the season, why don’t we give God a break and just try to do our best with that thing God gave us and expected us to actually use. It’s called free will…you know, where we make our own decision based on what we truly believe is the right thing to do- and when I say ‘our own decision’ I mean without the help of lobbyists.
    While we may never know God’s intent for the American health care system, there is one thing of which we can be reasonably certain. If God is interested in the utter foolishness of our governmental process (beyond pure entertainment value, of course), it’s a pretty good bet he, she or it would prefer that we help the people who actually need help rather than the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations who are the real voices the prayercast people turn to for their divine guidance.
    Here is Michele Bachmann leading the prayer.
    And on that note, let us all say…
    Amen.

  • http://delibernation.com Silas Kain

    Well, Roger, watch Rachel Maddow tonight on MSNBC. Reliable sources indicate that Ms. Maddow has a bombshell she is dropping on her show at the close. It involves politicians and alcohol among other things. In the meantime I will keep praying that Michelle Bachman sees the darkness in the souls of DeMint and Bareback.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I wish they were all drunkards and boozers, Silas. That would be the least of my concerns. But these people strike me as the relics from the Inquisition era.

    God save America from their kind. But then again, we all deserve it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    The link to #159.

  • Cannonshop

    #150, which is why I’ve said, over and over again, that It MIGHT be real, as opposed to claiming it isn’t, but the evidence presented doesn’t convince me because of the way it has been mishandled, and how it’s been mis-used.

    Here’s the thing for this: I’m not convinced, but if I WERE, I still wouldn’t be inclined to support “Carbon trading” or other punitive measures without strong evidence that they’ll actually WORK.

    Further, I’ve been following this for a bit now (okay, since high school-when I WAS a greenie little neo-marxist.) One of the bits that I find compelling in favour, is the claim that humans have ALWAYS been impacting the climate-at least, on a local level. Upshot being, unless you’ve got a way to actively sequester CO2 from the atmosphere in large scale processes, you’re deficit-spending even WITH carbon-trading, and even if you shut down every car, plant, smelter, etc. in the western world.

    Here’s what we actually need-

    1. a low/zero emissions source of power with roughly equal energy density per kilogramme both storage and release, to fossil fuels.

    We’ve got a couple that work pretty well for fixed locations and public transit, but they both get nailed by the greenies as soon as they are proposed, or (in the case of Hydro) until they’re torn down. Hydroelectric and 3rd generation nuclear-these aren’t reliant on unpredictable (thanks to climate change? not sure) weather patterns like Solar or Wind are, and in the case of Nuclear, we’ve got another problem-thanks to Jimmeh Carter, you can’t reprocess the spent fuel into more fuel-instead, it goes into a geologically unstable hole on top of an aquifer in Nevada (that’d be “Yucca Mountain” in case you were foggy on that score…)

    But, hydroelectric doesn’t make poisons, it just pisses off the people who speak for the fishes.

    (Tidal, like they’re experimenting with in Britain, pisses off the people who speak for hte fish too…)

    Okay, so first, we gotta replace all those oil and coal plants with something that doesn’t dump megatons of toxic shit into the atmosphere every single bloody day-that’s what I would call a “First Step to SOLVING the problem”.

    If replacing those emitters isn’t your first priority, then you’re not serious about the threat, ergo, the threat must not be as serious as you’re claiming, see?

    Second, the excess is still going to be there-why? why, because we’re importing shit from places that have NO environmental regulations what-so-fucking-ever (or labour laws, or workers safety laws…)and we’re doing it as “Free Trade”. If the AGW threat is as serious as it’s sold to be, this is priority number TWO: stop buying shit made that way, stop importing it with MFN status, stop importing it without Tariffs and Taxes, stop paying companies to take the work to places that don’t have an EPA or OSHA that meets even the USA’s lax standards. Again, if you’re serious about the threat, this is a high-priority.

    item the third…

    Individuals. Yeah, cars. Houses. I can drive a car that burns diesel or gasoline in my state, and pay a base 30 bucks plus county levies (about forty-five to sixty), or I can buy an alternative fuel vehicle, and the base is $175 not including local levies. The permitting process to get solar panels on a house here is…punitive is a nice word-it fits the situation perfectly. Cut back on the grief people get for even trying, and you’ll get more local action-which in turn has a bigger cumulative impact than top-down punitive ‘solutions’ that abuse ratepayers and taxpayers. It’s already been characterized as “The right thing to do”, people will do it to look “moral and good”, if they aren’t ass-fucked by the state and local governments with no lube for trying.

    The other thing about THAT, is that if you push to make alternative, non-polluting or low-pollution energy sources accessable to the average person, the price goes down and efficiency goes up-look at computers or cell-phones or GPS units-more sophistication, less cost, more compact and more efficient as soon as they were within grasp of people who work middle-income jobs.

    I’ve said it repeatedly here and elswhere-NOBODY likes Pollution. The “Moral” sell has already been done, People will do it to lower their electricity bills, they’ll do it to look good to their neighbours or to keep up with the joneses.

    GM made a HUGE mistake with the Escalade hybrid-they should’ve put the tech on a pickup truck from Chevy instead-with a multifuel engine instead of gas-that would have generated individual AND fleet sales because of both the cache of being ‘efficient’ (going further on a tank of gas-or whatever you’re feeding it).

    Zero Emissions cars need a cheap electricity source that’s also zero emissions, or they’re just transferring the pollution around.

    If you see cheap electricity, that’s a driver for all those folks who don’t want to pay through the nose for fuel. Cheap building permits with revised codes and more access to insulation made using low-carbon-impact methods increases household efficiency, these are simple to propose, but hard to carry out because they remove power from those that crave power and will use Apocalyptic Scenarios to gather it.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    @ # 163:

    Cannon, I actually agree with most of what you say here. The logic of carbon trading escapes me, unless it’s supposed to encourage polluters to switch to cleaner activities.

    The problem with hydroelectric, though, is not just that it affects a few fish, but whole ecosystems and even whole regions. For example, the Chinese are building a series of huge dams on the Mekong River, which may be great for China but is going to affect the wildlife and livelihood of millions of people in about six countries situated downstream – with whom the Chinese, of course, didn’t bother to consult first.

    Nuclear is the perfect solution, being safe, efficient, relatively cheap and – barring accidents – virtually non-polluting. It got a bad rap because of the Cold War, but there are promising signs that it’s making a comeback.

    And as far as vehicles go, we’ve wasted about fifty years NOT researching ways of getting small nuclear reactors into cars, planes, boats and what have you. That needs to start happening. (It’s not going to, of course, but it needs to!)

    All the other options do have some environmental impact, of course, even wind, with people worried about millions of acres of unsightly turbines spoiling views (I actually think they look rather cool) and interfering with bird migration patterns.

  • pablo

    Dread,

    Your view of Climategate is myopic at best. I offer the following url should you have an open mind. Climategate is a clear example of fraud and conspiracy.

    Climagegate the real story

    Also Jesse Venturas new TV show “Conspiracy Theory did an excellent job of exposing this fraud on nationwide TV last week, the clip is available on youtube.
    a
    Jesse
    Venturas’ Conspiracy Theory on Global Warming

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Pablo,

    Thanks for the link. It’s an interesting read, although probably not for the same reasons you find it interesting…!

    Why do you assume that I’m the myopic one? Rather like the other ideas you cling to, Climategate is only a clear example of fraud and conspiracy if what you’re looking for is evidence of fraud and conspiracy. Producing a disciplined and impartial analysis of such a large body of communications is tricky. This is not such an analysis.

    Have you actually read and understood the contentious e-mails in context, rather than just selective ‘analyses’ by folks trying to prove something?

    Among the more contentious items in those e-mails, I see:
    1. Irritation and anger at one’s integrity being constantly questioned, and at – in effect – being called a liar, which is very understandable, if not something you would want to put out in inappropriate forums.
    2. (Sometimes vigorous) disagreements over, and questioning of, research, which is an integral part of the scientific process.
    3. Caution over whether certain information should be made public. What the guy who wrote the analysis seems to be implying is that confidentiality is NEVER appropriate, which we all know is nonsense.

    I can’t get on YouTube from this computer, but I rarely see on nationwide TV anything I haven’t already gleaned from other sources, so I doubt Mr Ventura could help me much there.

  • STM

    Cannon: “SOLVE THE PROBLEM, then present the solution.”

    I’m with you Cannon … everything arse-over-tit with this.

    Like our Prime Minister, who wanted to go to the hot-air fest in Copenhagen with a plan for a giant tax on working people (disguised as an emissions trading scheme) before anyone else had made a decision about anything.

    I’m not a denier of the science, although I need to be convinced.

    But I won’t stand idly by while my government tries to ram a tax through parliament before anyone’s got the chance to work out exactly what the ramifications are for us.

    In case anyone’s forgotten aboyt that on the warmenists’ side, it’s know as democracy.

    You know, that little thing we treasure.

  • STM

    Merry Christmas all you Septics, Poms and Canucks, BTW. It’s already Christmas lunchtime Down Under, and it’s as humid as buggery although not as hot as yesterday.

    I hope you get as many nice presents from Santa as I did :)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Same to you, mate.

  • STM

    Thanks Rog. Have a good one mate.

    And just in case anyone’s wondering, or might inadvertently get offended, Septic ISN’T pejorative.

    It’s simply rhyming slang for Yanks, based on a shortening of the name of a piece of vital equipment possessed by most households in Australia in the decades gone by :)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I know that, Stan; besides, the context makes that clear. I do envy you, however, your warm weather. I realize though it’s the warmest year on record. Met a a number of Aussie engineers in KY of all god-forsaken places a few months ago, and they surely vouched for that.