(From a recent blog posting of mine on the AverageFreethinkingAmerican blog):
"ClimateGate and What Science Is Not":
"ClimateGate" refers to the supposed hacking of the Climatic Research Unit in the UK, a primary center espousing man-made global warming claims, producing e-mails and documents from scientists showing several alarming things (see this web page for a good clearing-house of analysis points):
1. Their climate models are based on profoundly sloppy and undocumented computer code, poorly-kept guesswork-analyzed datasets, and only a rudimentary understanding of the chemistry and general workings of the Earth, the variability of the sun, and so on. For example, those dealing with the models often have no idea what assorted rows of numbers mean for historical data, and their globe modeling is exceedingly primitive and flawed on its best day. (Hurricane-oriented weather modeling is decades beyond their global warming climatology models, and yet even the newest hurricane models can have errors of hundreds of miles even over a timespan of days.) Worse, much of the data used as input is cherry-picked to suit the desired result, not to mention hard-coded fakery and input synthesized unnecessarily from other input data (e.g. not using real weather info from the 20th Century but only predicted weather for that time period based on prior years), and model output usually features enormous variances compared to the claimed tenth-of-a-degree accuracy of their predictions.
Almost pure guesswork is used when pondering effect and concentration of pollutants and particulates, often oversimplifying or ignoring the matter (as had already been noted elsewhere, such as recently in the journal Science). And, of course, the sun is usually discounted, despite its known cycles and their effects (see "Maunder Minimum", "Little Ice Age") and its current variance (see "Modern Maximum").
2. The scientific method is based on the idea that you develop a hypothesis and test it. The results of the test are supposed to be reproducible by other scientists. In the case of models, reality is the test. Man-made global warming predictions have almost invariably failed both in the short term and over the decades since the beginning of the claims (once they got past the global cooling claims of the 70s). Nevertheless, one way to at least allow other scientists -- including those skeptical of your claims -- to understand the claims would be to share the details of how you arrived at your conclusions.
Man-made global warming proponents, however, jealously guard their raw data, their model code (see #1), and their methods (see #3), so as to avoid critique by those skeptical of their view (see #4). Even when the government-funded data is requested via Freedom of Information Act requests (the UK has one as well), information was removed from the data to render it unusable and an unabashed conspiracy to delete correspondence about the research was engaged in.
3. When the model outputs do not correspond to preconceptions, the models are run again and tweaked by applying specialized numerical transformations or simply factoring in previously-unfactored bits of other datasets (see #1). The methodology is quite ad hoc. "Trick"s are used to "hide the decline" where needed, and evidence-based events like the Medieval Warm Period for which man-made global warming folks have no man-based explanation are intentionally "contain"ed . . . minimized in their models. This is done in the hopes their existence and claims regarding it by skeptics (who correctly note the lack of SUVs and coal power plants in Medieval times) can be thwarted early by making it seem small compared to what is claimed for the 20th Century.
4. A concerted effort is in play by prominent global warming scientists to keep skeptical scientists out of the peer-reviewed literature, and then promote publication in peer-review literature as being indicative of truth value and/or scientific acceptance. (Publication is the first step in acceptance, not the last!)
The effort to control peer review involves attempts at character assassination of opponents, campaigns for the firing of research journal editors who are 'soft' on skeptics, and other forms of pressure. The absence of significant skeptic presence in peer-reviewed literature is then used as 'proof' that skeptics are dealing in poor science.
****************************
None of the above is meant to suggest that global warming is an evil conspiracy. It is, however, proof that there are a bunch of like-minded idiots (plus a few plain old badguys) pushing the claims. That the claims could be politicized so long ago by the likes of new carbon-credit billionaire Al Gore ('the science is settled; the debate is over') and made to play into international anti-capitalist agendas and mixed with the modern secular religion of ignorant environmentalism is just proof of the capacity for self-deception of a gaggle of like-minded idiots operating en masse.
Nevertheless, Al Gore will continue to sleep at night in sweatshop-created, inefficiently-shipped pajamas in his extreme-carbon-footprint mansion. Global Warming alarmists will try to pretend that, yes, the sky is still falling, so we still have to sign treaties that condemn the economy of the United States and EU and require taxation to give to developing countries, because somehow that will correct the environmental injustice of our pollution (though China doesn't have to, because . . . er . . . well, because).
The fact is, humans can have an impact on the environment. But all the energy of man pales in comparison to the energy of the Earth, and all the industrial smokestacks, cattle farts, and SUV tailpipes in the world can't hope to compete with the incredible balance of this massively huge volume of atmosphere across the planet. LED lightbulbs and hydrogen cars and nuclear fusion and nanomaterials are worthwhile goals for a lot of reasons . . . there is no need to make false and bogus claims of imminent fiery death (or ocean-level-rise drowning) in order to get them.
******************************
So how best for science to respond? Well, first, get the bums out, and then have everything these lying dirtbags have touched redone to confirm or deny their claims.
What global warming people shouldn't do is try to ignore or get even more arrogant over the matter.
Note these comments from a claimed scientist in response to the controversy for an example of the worst possible response:
"Science is not a democratic process. Nor is it something akin to the french revolution. What exactly are you going to do with that data? Nothing but hurl criticism based on ignorance. Having to defend ourselves from that shit increases our already monumental stress levels.
You lack the training or intellectual capacity to see anything but a string of numbers you cannot understand and your eyes glaze over. {...} We do what we do because we are (for the most part) one of the few groups of people on this planet which has the ability and willingness to{.}"
"Scientists do not serve you directly, and the data we obtain is beyond your capacity to analyze."
The point that science is not a democratic process is actually quite true, and ironic from this person given that he's supporting the same folks who claim a consensus of scientists dictates reality. It does not. Reality exists, and would do so even if all the people of Earth failed to recognize it and instead believed the contrary.
But beyond that, all we have is elitism and undeserved arrogance.
The global warming guys were liars and scoundrels perpetrating a falsehood upon the whole world, and they suffered from the same sort of undeserved arrogance. So afraid were they to be criticized, they finally got to the point . . . no doubt bit by bit . . . where they would cross almost any line. They weren't breaking kneecaps yet, but given that one of these wannabe scientists claimed he was going to be very tempted to punch a particular opponent when next they met, it seems it was only a matter of time.
In politics, science, and so much more, we must always be diligent against those who would unleash the worst traits of humanity.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Interesting point, somewhat muddled by the fact that the blogger is incredibly right-leaning, and presents himself as stereotypical far righter, not a "free thinking" American.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I wasn't aware Freethinking suggested a leftward lean. In my case, I simply re-used an old screen name of mine from a creationism vs. evolution website forum. And I daresay the exact same reasoning that leads me to fight creationist nonsense is the same reasoning that leads me to fight this AGW nonsense, because the scientific flaws in the two strike me as awfully similar.
BTW, ignore the pansy in the link. ;-)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Al Gore is a billionaire now? I think not. I see your crazyland article and raise you a common-sense version:
quote:Sarah Palin's anti-science showdown The politics of hacked e-mails, says the former Alaskan governor, prove humans aren't causing climate change By Andrew Leonard "The president should boycott Copenhagen," declares Sarah Palin in an Op-Ed in today's Washington Post. The linchpin of her argument: The ClimateGate e-mails expose mainstream climate science as "agenda driven."
If anything could make the scientists at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University feel worse than they already do about their irresponsible and dumb e-mailing, it would have to be handing the likes of Sarah Palin a bully pulpit from which to posture. But one has to snort at Palin's characterization of these scientists as "a highly politicized scientific circle." I'm as upset as anyone at the evidence of scientists attempting to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, but let's not forget the larger context here. For decades climate researchers have been assaulted by political attacks funded by the energy industry and right-wing think tanks who care nothing at all about the science -- their sole goal has been to shield "free" markets from the consequences of their actions. If you or I faced this kind of daily barrage, we'd probably do stupid things too.
The heart of Sarah Palin's argument isn't really about the science.
But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs.
Continue Reading Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at their highest point in 15 million years. According to the World Meteorological Organization, the current decade is the warmest on record, and the current year is the fifth warmest ever -- observations that are supported by data collected by multiple climate research centers. Evidence of global warming comes from many reinforcing points -- melting polar ice, rising sea levels, changes in plant and animal ecology across the globe. Palin's assertion that we can't "say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes" is far more highly politicized than anything that comes out of the Climate Research Unit. It is fundamentally anti-science.
Sarah Palin and James Inhofe and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Exxon and all the rest can hold their breath and turn blue in the face and argue as long as they want that the hacked e-mails from East Anglia undermine and refute the work done by thousands of scientists across the world for decades. And in all likelihood, they and their allies will probably succeed in postponing and delaying any prudent action that might have a chance at ameliorating the effects of hotter temperatures in our lifetimes. The problem is hard. Coordinating the actions of governments across the globe on such a complex challenge is near impossible.
I don't think future generations will remember the Inhofes and Palins fondly, but the great thing about science is that it will continue marching on, whatever they do. If there was significant manipulation of data at the Climate Research Unit -- and the evidence of real smoking guns proving fraud is mighty thin -- hardworking scientists will correct it and move forward. That's how science works. That's how we've unlocked the mysteries of the atom and the human genome. That's how we've built computers and space ships and cancer drugs.
The great irony and tragedy of ClimateGate is that decades of anti-science pressure from special interests pushed some scientists over the edge and made them act in ways that are not very scientific. But whether or not that imbroglio scuppers an agreement at Copenhagen or prevents a climate change bill from passing during the current administration, we will continue to accumulate more data and understand better what is happening to our planet as time goes on. And Sarah Palin's malign and conscious stupidity will only grow more historically transcendent.
UPDATE: Mark Ambinder blasts away at Palin's Op-Ed in the Atlantic.
More Andrew Leonard
Did some small number of scientists behave unethicly? Quite possibly- which is a hilarious accuzation from people that stole their e-mails- but it's hardly some smoking gun that the THOUSANDS of scientists WORLDWIDE that study climate are somehow complicit.
[ December 10, 2009, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Fabrux ]
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Gore denies he's en route to becoming a carbon billionaire, but he has a company that already sells its indulgences to all of us original carbon sinners and he is otherwise positioned to profit immensely.
I have no problem with Gore being a capitalist who strategically invests . . . more power to him in that regard . . . but considering he's trying to create the market he's primed for by, for instance, going off the same discredited hockey stick which we now know was the result of a concerted effort to "contain the putative MWP" (e.g. hide the ever so unhelpful Medieval Warm Period that outshone recent temperatures tremendously, per some ice core data) and using all sorts of other dubious claims in his quest to politicize the science, I do call him out for being a dishonest twat. (Even if he doesn't care because he's already laughing his way to the bank.) Hell, he didn't even trouble himself to become familiar with ClimateGate before trying to dismiss it.
As to the main point and your peculiar strawman regarding a worldwide conspiracy, I already made the point that it was not so. What it is, however, is very bad science.
And the problem is compounded by the way CRU and their buddies handled things. For instance, global temperature records could have meaning for a wide variety of researchers. Michael (hockey stick) Mann's efforts to hide the MWP could throw off actual researchers in a wide variety of fields. Underhanded tactics like getting editors sacked and otherwise bullying the peer review process could cause others to misdirect themselves rather than go against prevailing wisdom on the temperature record. AGW alarmist selections of specific helpful tree ring cores over others can misdirect locally. And, of course, it was all done with a wink and a nod as they held their data and methods close to their chest. As Jones told one guy who wanted to review the data, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Compare AGW theories with Darwinism. The latter elegantly tied together existing observations from geology and biology, continuing evidence supported it, and later it became highly refined thanks to genetic research and such. There were predictions that panned out. Folks show data freely.
AGW, on the other hand, has made no functional predictions that have panned out, and it's really shocking just how much of their data is fantasy-based. Instead of tying together existing knowledge, it requires that one ignore vast amounts of it (e.g. the MWP). Instead of free flow of data, you just get conclusions and name-calling or worse if you question them. The proof is not how it corresponds to reality, but whether or not "consensus" can be claimed, as if the atmosphere gives a damn what we think. And so on.
AGW reminds me a lot more of creationism than science, and that's sad. Worse is that they both rely on religion ... creationism is driven by its adherents' belief in a creator, and global warming by believers in the new secular religion of environmentalism. In both cases the resulting flaws are the same.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Forgetv "CRU and their buddies" and Al Gore and Cap & trade and all that political shit and look at all the thousands of research papers and investigations into global warming -not the least of which was conducted in secret by the Bush administration and only released after Obama became President.
If the Bush administration, which fought so hard against there being any connection between man's activities and global warming came to the same conclusion as all those outher- independant- reasearchers, that should tell you it's not just a few people fudging data or trying to capitalize on public beliefs.
This was funny:
quote: A congressional hearing that was supposed to be a routine recap of global-warming science Wednesday turned into a fracas involving e-mails stolen from some prominent climate scientists. The e-mails were stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain, from one of the three labs in the world that constructs global temperature records. The private exchanges have become a goldmine for skeptics who argue that global warming is a plot rather than a real man-made problem. At Wednesday's hearing before a House select committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) called for an investigation of the e-mails. He said at best, official reports about global warming will now need to be reviewed. "At worst, it's junk science and it's part of a massive international scientific fraud," he said. And not just fraud: "There's increasing evidence of scientific fascism that's going on. And I think, as policymakers who are making decisions about the state of the American economy for the next several generations, we ought to have accurate science." President Obama's top science adviser, John Holdren, agreed that the e-mails should be thoroughly investigated. At issue is whether they provide evidence of scientific malfeasance, or just bad manners. "Scientists are human, and from time to time they display defensiveness and bias and even misbehavior of some kinds," Holdren said. "They're like any other group of human beings. They're subject to human frailties. I think the facts are not in on this particular case." Holdren agreed that if the e-mails reveal inappropriate data manipulation, and that ended up in official reports, obviously those reports would need to be corrected. "However this particular controversy comes out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding of how the climate works or how humans are affecting it," he added. Evidence from many different sources shows that the air and oceans are warming as a result of greenhouse gases humans are putting into the atmosphere. Jane Lubchenco, a scientist who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, gave a tabletop demonstration at the hearing to show how increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also making the oceans more acidic. Those explanations didn't reassure some Republican members of the committee. In response, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) said he was stunned by their skepticism. He said if global warming is a fraud, it must be perpetrated by a conspiracy of scientists from all around the world. "I just wanted to ask you if you're part of that massive international conspiracy," he said to the witnesses, adding with a note of sarcasm, "Are either one of your members of the Trilateral Commission, SPECTRE or KAOS? I just need an answer." Holdren replied: "Congressman Inslee, I am not a member of any of those organizations, and I don't believe there's an international conspiracy. That would be an amazing thing indeed." Holdren pointed out that national academies of science from all around the world accept the reality of human-induced global warming, as do other leading science organizations and the United Nations. Inslee then noted that nobody else in the room had any other plausible way to explain why carbon dioxide is building up in the air and in the oceans. "And yet people are trying to gin up this controversy. You know why? It's not that they aren't intelligent. It's that they are afraid that we can't solve this problem." He argued that we can solve the problem, but the challenge is that most of the public — including members of Congress — struggle to understand even the basic science. And now, the leaked e-mails raise doubts about some of the climate scientists, too.
According to Wikipedia:
quote: The Sunlight Foundation pointed out that among the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Sensenbrenner has the fourth-highest amount of investment in oil stocks.
But wait! Prior to this so-caled "Climategate", Sensenbrenner's position was that the US should do nothing to forciblylimit carbon emissions because China has not guarenteed to match those limits. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/sensenbrenner.html
So, it went from being a real problem, that we should do nothing about, to being all a vast conspiracy of "scientific fascism". A new low in newspeak.
Keep cashing those oil dividends, Jim.
Certainly not everyone that doubts global warming's cause (or even it's existance, despite the evidence) is some oil company investor or lackey- but a lot of the most vocal people chiming in on this certainly are.
Personally, I think any elected official with a financial investment in a topic should recuse themselves from depate on that topic- be it global warming or healthcare or whatever- if they have a personal, financial gain in the failure or passage of legslation, their opinion is suspect, at best.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
You just asked me to forget all the political shit like Al Gore standing to profit via his sales of carbon credits and investments in green junk, then you attacked this Sensenbrenner fellow ("Keep cashing those oil dividends, Jim.") on the grounds of his investments in oil stock.
And then you use the tired old crap about opponents all being oil investors or lackeys. Of course, CRU also went for your Evil Big Oil Money(tm), so I hardly find that a convincing line of character assassination . . . would it were so that ad hominem attacks even had any standing to start with in determining truth value.
Besides which, of all the people you might want to personally attack, you chose some random US Representative? Seriously? Do you have any idea how lame your argument sounds? Not only did you go straight to ad hominems, but you attacked the frickin' janitor with them.
Anyway, if you review the real data and real claims you'll find that even a modicum of scientific scrutiny pays big dividends in cutting through the crap. But since I'm not seeing much evidence of you having any interest in the science itself or the devastating effect ClimateGate has on the credibility of that science, I'll just leave you to your opinion.
Thanks!
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Mommy and Daddy, stop fighting!
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Everybody at the Copenhagen shindig who is not a researcher or protester is not interested in looking at any of the data or analysis unless it is in a very simlpified fashion. They are politicially minded and are a)wanting to do something about a percived problem and b)trying to win votes.
"ClimateGate" as the Sun has no doubt dubed it is a nonsense. It is a case of scientists dumbing down to get their point across. Data manipulation, as it has been refered to, was because trends did not follow in one piece of research where they do in others. OK, this is poor science, and it reflects badly on the researchers and their department heads. Nobody else.
To suggest that "ClimateGate" is a reflection of all scientists involved in climate research, or even the scientific community as a whole is simply wrong and offensive. To suggest that because of one groups irresponsible behaviour (and let's make it clear that the goal was not to mislead, but to simplify for a non scientific audience) all climate research is a missleading lie is silly, and frankly irresponsible. It allows years of good research and good scientific conclusions to be rejected by those who do not care to do the research for themselves.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
1. No one is suggesting that the behavior seen in ClimateGate is normal for the scientific community, except of course for AGW researcher apologist site RealClimate and a few other similar pro-AGW locales. While that's funny, I certainly don't presume that any climate researcher or real scientist behaves in such unethical ways as a matter of course, and neither should you.
2. Their goal was to mislead, and their publications in journals were not exactly for a non-scientific audience.
If the concern was with their political allies and they wanted to make sure the UN's IPCC people understood something, they could've simply called them, since they were in such close communication as seen in the ClimateGate e-mails.
3. Given that this was a major source of AGW data, and that the papers of those involved are considered some of the better bits of data in the science (both for modern and paleo needs), yes there is a lot of science that has been damaged. I don't know where your idea of someone saying "all climate research is a misleading lie" is coming from, but it should be needless to say that a great deal of research should now be reviewed, most especially what emerged from CRU but also that which used AGW-alarmist researcher publications as reference sources.
To put it in a localized perspective, Starships and Technology posts at Flare might feature links to points raised in other S&T threads, and arguments about some bit of minutiae might turn on the claims from those older threads.
We have the advantage of being able to just pop in a DVD to confirm or deny someone's claim if for some reason they didn't provide the evidence via screenshot, but climate research doesn't have a readily accessible canon. They have tree ring proxies and error-ridden surface station logs that they won't share and other crap.
The net result is that a new thread might reference other threads, with no capacity to re-analyze the older thread sources or confirm or deny the findings. And yet an argument in that new thread might turn on what was said before . . . could even be based on it.
And then another thread might come up that references the one that referenced the other one, and so on and so forth. It may be that the original error is filtered out by distance, or it may be that there are whole threads based on the original hoax . . . can't be sure without looking.
If what was said before was shown to be full of it, a review is not evidence of some evil denialist conspiracy . . . it is demanded by scientific ethics. The CRU guys had none. The rest of climate science must now pick up their slack, especially when they know good and well that trillions of dollars and human lives are riding on it.
And y'know, frankly, it seems to me that anyone who denies that simple premise is in danger of being a kool-aid drinker. I'm not poisoning the well here . . . feel free to disagree for a good reason . . . but I'll be damned if we should simply ignore ClimateGate because of its inconvenient truths.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: You just asked me to forget all the political shit like Al Gore standing to profit via his sales of carbon credits and investments in green junk, then you attacked this Sensenbrenner fellow ("Keep cashing those oil dividends, Jim.") on the grounds of his investments in oil stock.
And then you use the tired old crap about opponents all being oil investors or lackeys. Of course, CRU also went for your Evil Big Oil Money(tm), so I hardly find that a convincing line of character assassination . . . would it were so that ad hominem attacks even had any standing to start with in determining truth value.
Besides which, of all the people you might want to personally attack, you chose some random US Representative? Seriously? Do you have any idea how lame your argument sounds? Not only did you go straight to ad hominems, but you attacked the frickin' janitor with them.
Anyway, if you review the real data and real claims you'll find that even a modicum of scientific scrutiny pays big dividends in cutting through the crap. But since I'm not seeing much evidence of you having any interest in the science itself or the devastating effect ClimateGate has on the credibility of that science, I'll just leave you to your opinion.
Thanks!
You're hysterical- I did not "choose some random US Representative" as you put it- sensenbrenner has blocked or held up every effort at carbon regulation all the while taking campaign contributions from the oil insustry- if you're upset at Al Gore, then surely you're just as upset at Sensenbrenner- as you acuse Gore of profiteering from the science, so too is Sensenbrenner profiting from opposing it.
You're obviously unaware of all those on the Right that are making untold milions selling their services in this manufactured climate debate- you're so focused on Al Gore (which is laughable as he's just a mouhpiece at most)and these supposedly damning e-mails taht you're willing to discount thousands of independent research projects and the judgment of scientific bodies in every major country in the world. In. the. world.
Seriously, you think that it's all a sham or that all these scientists around the planet are linked to this small collection of scientists who's e-mails were supposely stolen?
Not to mention that you're taking the word of anonymous theives that these e-mails have not been tampered with or altered. certainly they have been selectivly edited to present only what the hackers want them to depict, if nothing else. So much for the right's "moral majority".
At a state level, Florida certainly believes the evidence of global warming- as most of the state would suffer dramatic land-loss from even a one foot rise in sealevels (and the loss of Everglades national park as salt water gets in). http://www.environmentflorida.org/issues/global-warming
quote:This summer, Governor Crist signed an executive order that sets a goal of reducing Florida's global warming emissions by 80% by 2050, which is what scientists say we must do to prevent the worst effects of global warming
Good to see some republican take the science seriously at least. Or am i "picking on him"?
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Mommy and Daddy, stop fighting!
GO TO YOUR ROOM!
[ December 11, 2009, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
The correct response to my post would've been to focus on the science, the e-mails and model data and notes, and so on.
Instead you continue complaining about Sensenbrenner (I'd never heard of him before), accuse me of bias, continue your "follow the money" ad hominem BS, and appeal to the authority of the so-called consensus, which (a) doesn't exist, (b) is logically invalid as a truth value determination anyway, and (c) is significantly based on major research which you've already learned to be tainted.
You then suggest I am immoral, based on your claim that I'm taking the word of anonymous data thieves. You ignore the fact that UEA has already confirmed the authenticity of the data.
Oh yes, and what the hell is this idea that I'm "so focused on Al Gore"? I brought him up in passing in the original post, but you're the one who keeps bringing him up. See, I'm trying to talk about ideas. You're the one who keeps talking about people.
Finally . . . and, strangely, most annoyingly . . . you attempt to create a straw man of what I've said here yet again, working to suggest that I think climate change research is either all wrong or all lies.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the false dilemma fallacy . . . or perhaps you're quite aware of it, and intentionally using it to try to create your ridiculous straw man version of me.
Either way, I'm very disappointed in you. Care to discuss ClimateGate itself or would you like to go on attacking me and other people in your next post? Up to you . . . my guess is the latter, since this will best serve your apparent interest in distracting from the issues.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You're taking this all personally- no one ever called you immoral- but relying on the word of anonymous hackers is hardly a rock from which to build an unbiased viewpoint.
Awww. you're disapointed in me (chuckles) while falling for this false, and very conviently-timed "scandal". YOu can not discuss your "Climategate" fallacy without talking about the players pushing their own agendas- it's only a scandal (or a media story at all) because people with a financial interest have made it one. Thus I brought up Sensenbrenner- as he's been and remains the most vocal of opponents to any regulation/leglislation of carbon release- and that is what the science is all about, you know.
It's no distraction of the issues to point to the motives behind those issues- be them scientists tweaking data to those that would use said alledged fixing to claim all global warming science is falsified.
So let me ask you a question: Do you believe that, based on the science, the world is getting warmer, causing environmental consequences? Do you believe that it is getting warmer but humans are not involved or not aggrivating the situation? Is it your assertation that "The global warming guys were liars and scoundrels perpetrating a falsehood upon the whole world, and they suffered from the same sort of undeserved arrogance" as in your first post?
Because if you believe that, then you reject all science and the evidence of the global scientific community, as well as every nation in the UN, as well as the National Science Advisors and EPA of both the current and prior administrations. If you believe it's all a "falsehood" you might as well stick your head in the sand and not read any more on the topic.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: [QB] You're taking this all personally- no one ever called you immoral- but relying on the word of anonymous hackers is hardly a rock from which to build an unbiased viewpoint.
The university admits the data is real. What part of that don't you understand?
Your response is the equivalent of someone stealing your driver's license after you've been lying about your age. When said license is publicly shown and you are called out on said lies, you admit that it's your driver's license but then say "why would you believe a thief?"
Do you not comprehend how retarded a response that is?
Skipping your silly defense of the ad hominem, we now move on to your effort to turn this toward me and still away from the science. What the hell, I'll bite:
quote:So let me ask you a question: Do you believe that, based on the science, the world is getting warmer, causing environmental consequences?
Over the past thousands of years and more, temperatures on the planet have been subject to swings all the time, swings that are massive (e.g. glacial/interglacial), tiny, and all points in between. Any temperature change . . . or even a lack thereof . . . can have "environmental consequences".
Is the average temperature of the planet presently on the increase when the data is figured on a monthly basis? Oh, I think there's some warming in some places, and cooling elsewhere. The net effect is probably of warming. But frankly, I don't know beyond a reasonable doubt that we can even say that with certainty at this point. The claims of warming have been wildly overstated by some scientists (CRU's data-fixing, New Zealand, Antarctica, surface station culling, failure to account for UHI and other bad surface station siting(*), et cetera), which muddies the water greatly.
(*)In the US, for instance, only about 10% of surface monitoring stations meet the specs for a good station (i.e. errors of less than a degree Celsius). And worldwide, about half the stations got decommissioned circa 1988-1991, and the remainder showed a much higher average, by weight. Note also the points above about Antarctica and New Zealand.
On the good side, we have satellite data, but these are calibrated and corrected off of ground sites and radiosondes, which themselves are subject to error and calibration by ground station. So they're really severely weighting things toward the ground stations, of which there are fewer and of which many are of poor quality (i.e. errors of one or more degrees Celsius).
quote:Do you believe that it is getting warmer but humans are not involved or not aggrivating the situation?
This is two questions. The first is answered above, but I presume you mean to ask "if warmer = yes, then is human involvement aggravating the situation?"
Of all the greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere, mankind's contribution is about one quarter of one percent. We are claimed to be making 3% extra CO2, which is just 3.6% of the gases.
So yes, we could be said to be aggravating the situation, to the tune of a single-digit handful of percentage points, on the basis of gases alone. I also think that we are aggravating it locally due to our massive concrete jungles and their urban heat islands, which are probably screwing with a bunch of the results in a way that is known to be poorly accounted for.
quote:Is it your assertation that "The global warming guys were liars and scoundrels perpetrating a falsehood upon the whole world, and they suffered from the same sort of undeserved arrogance" as in your first post?
Yes, though I am presuming you're taking that out of the context of it being these CRU and CRU-related guys and their AGW BS.
quote:Because if you believe that, then you reject all science
You're dead wrong. These guys were scientists in name only . . . their methodology and behavior does not reflect either the ideals of science or the behavior of scientists in other disciplines.
There's a good reason so many scientists from other disciplines point and laugh . . . because climate researchers seem to be of the opinion that they can divorce themselves from reality. To borrow from this excellent essay's quote of Feynman:
”In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is---if it disagrees with experiment (observation) it is wrong." - Dr. Richard Feynman, “The Character of Natural Law”, the MIT Press, 1965, p. 156.
Similarly, it doesn't make any difference what the consequences of your guess are. If it fails against reality it's dead wrong.
quote:and the evidence of the global scientific community, as well as every nation in the UN, as well as the National Science Advisors and EPA of both the current and prior administrations.
I'm cool with that. There are a lot of people in the world who are wrong. Feel free to list more.
The concept you're falling victim to is truth by consensus. That's not how reality operates. Reality is truth, whether it is recognized or not.
Many of the 'origin stories' of science are based on Galileo, Bruno, and other bold individuals who stood up against religious orthodoxy. Man-made global warming is the latest version of the religion of enviromentalism, and even gives its own Original Sin to the mythos (you dirty CO2-exhalers, you).
Sorry, chief, but I'm not buying into your religious mumbo-jumbo. I don't like religion in my science, whether it's AGW or creationism, so you can take that home and flush it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You're deciding that global warming is a hoax based on what? twelve (maybe) scientists that might have been fixing data? Consider how badly the polluters of greenhouse gases want that to be rue, much less mega-polluters like the United states and China and yet, literally thiousands of independant studies show that man IS a contributing factor.
Even if you were to go with the standby argument that global warminng deniers of animals offgassing as much as cars, that still is man's responsibility because most of those animals are bred by us for food.
you know, the first sign of a weak case is when the debater starts callling names and yuou're down to that- both with regards to the scientists and myself- sad really.
If you have some scientific data showing that the very real, accepted, measured warming of the planet is NOT happening, please present it- Otherwise you'll remain in the frnge minority hopng that one day they'll be proven right. No one has any "religion" in the science- the facts point to the reality of the issue- any belief is from those hoping it's all some massive conspiracy.
The desperate need to equate enviromentalism with religion is an old ploy first used by the coal industry- our nation's (and China's for that matter) biggest polluter- I'm sorta suprised to see you parroting it here.
So, from what I gather from your posts- you think that not only are thousands of scientists wrong, but their governments and the firsthand witnesses to tempature increases as well.
Your solution would be to do nothing and hope for the best?
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Your solution would be to do nothing and hope for the best?
it worked for The Challenger Disaster, the 2nd Gulf War, ENRON, Katrina-proof Levies in NO and other simularly preventable incidents in human history... hasn't it? o.O [end sarcasm]
So what if some crack pots 'scientists' fucked away the entire professional section of Climate Science. All that did was potentionally fuck away all other interests related to that (Oh say, meteorolgy, climate info on other planets in our system, geologists... am i missing anyone?).
Do i believe that humanity is a major cause of how our eviroment is being adjusted? Sure? Was there BMW's tooling around 5 centuries ago?
Nope.
but starting 150-200 years ago? yes. slowly and expansively. think people gave a fuck about emissions a hundred years ago?
Nope. (There's money to made!)
think people gave a fuck about emissions, 50-60 years ago?
Nope. (There's a war on! Fuck the fasists/Commies)
Think people care now?
yes & no. (Sure, but not at the expense of [insert excuse])
my point is, yes, the climate guys, the real ones who care, who really want to see teh big picture and make changes, not because they want $ or fame, but because they want to know 'will the world' as they understand it, 'be around in 2 centuries?', took a huge hit to their creditablity.
Having this bullshit come out and then have it humped vigorously by the politic fuck-twats (who are more than happy to have this spin, since it's something to shove into thier fellow political fuck-twat's faces, all for their own gain [certainly NOT for thier constituant's gain]) doesn't help the one's who are not full of bullshit.
Calm down, both you. Please?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: you know, the first sign of a weak case is when the debater starts callling names and yuou're down to that- both with regards to the scientists and myself- sad really.
Man, we need a "LOL" emoticon!
Your entire argument strategy has been one big ad hominem campaign against those you disagree with and myself, personally, and now you're saying I'm name-calling?
Why, because in a post where I tried to draw you back to the science I said you delivered a retarded response and silly defense of your ad hominem campaign? Or because I noted that environmentalism was a religion?
That's just rich, dude. Especially when you're the one referring to "global warminng deniers", a classic association with "Holocaust denier".
quote:You're deciding that global warming is a hoax based on what? twelve (maybe) scientists that might have been fixing data?
Not a hoax. A hoax is a deliberate perpetration of a falsehood that the hoaxer knows to be false. While arguments could be made regarding some of the CRU and New Zealand guys, the evidence suggests that even when they were fudging data or turning cooling stations into warming stations they were doing so because they believed it was supposed to be warming.
I think that the majority of climate scientists think global warming is true, (though again I note that numbers of adherents are irrelevant in determining truth value). However, I also think many of them have been misled into that belief by false evidence and the well-fostered groupthink produced by CRU guys exerting control over the climate science establishment.
quote:Consider how badly the polluters of greenhouse gases want that to be rue
When are you going to admit that things like that don't matter?
By that reasoning you should be pro-Israel, because neo-Nazis want Israel to be viewed negatively, therefore we must reject as true whatever they want us to believe. Except what you're doing is actually worse, because whereas one's view of Israel is a question of moral and political judgement, one's view of objective reality is not (or at least shouldn't be).
quote:If you have some scientific data showing that the very real, accepted, measured warming of the planet is NOT happening, please present it-
I've already pointed you in those directions, but you were more interested in character attacks. You still are, too.
But nonetheless, here are a few things for you to ponder, just some quickies:
quote:The desperate need to equate enviromentalism with religion is an old ploy first used by the coal industry-
There you go again. Don't consider the statement on its own merit (e.g. "do environmentalism and environmentalist beliefs share traits with religion and religious beliefs?"). Just try to associate it with someone or some group that has or can be made a villain.
Also call it a desperate move, and imply that your opponent is mindlessly using it:
quote:I'm sorta suprised to see you parroting it here.
There is no logical basis to your argumentation strategy at all. It is pure emotionalism. I realize logical, rational argumentation can be quite a bore at times, but seriously, would you at least try?
quote:Your solution would be to do nothing and hope for the best? [/QB]
Better that than to blow trillions of real dollars and avoid making trillions of additional dollars due to an overreaction to largely natural phenomena. We would do just as well (and have as much effect) blowing trillions on a space mission to try to 'fix' the sun's current low output.
As for me, if I had trillions of planetary dollars to spend and global-government control of all nations to plan to exercise as is being discussed at Copenhagen, I'd sooner be working to install a monitoring system for potential space object impacts and such. That's a more realistic threat.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
None of your amusing linked articles are written by, you know, scientists. People with science degrees. Qualified skeptics, in other words. But here's one for you to read: The Copenhagen Diagnosis It stipulates that: -Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea-level rise at an increasing rate. -The area of summer sea ice remaining during 2007-2009 was about 40% less than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. -Global sea-level rise may exceed 1 meter by 2100. Without significant mitigation, sea-level rise of several meters is to be expected over the next few centuries. -If long-term global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°Celsius above preindustrial values, average annual per-capita emissions in industrialized nations will have to be reduced by around 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050.
But dont take my word for it- take these guy's word: -Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans and a Department Head at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. -Professor Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, USA. -Professor Corinne Le Quéré, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia, and researcher at the British Antarctic Survey, UK. These scientists wrote that report and have noting to do with any suspect e-mails. Maybe you could link in a counter-argument made by someone with credintials?
If nothing else should make you reconsider your position it's that sarah palin agrees with you:
quote: (CNN)– In a late night posting on her Twitter feed, Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin continued to blast climate change believers Friday, calling the talks in Copenhagen, Denmark a representation of man's "arrogance," for believing people have an impact on nature.
"Arrogant&Naive2say man overpwers nature," Palin tweeted.
"Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng," the former Republican vice presidential nominee wrote.
Palin's latest comments come after weeks of tangling over climate change with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former vice president Al Gore, and President Obama.
In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Palin urged the president to boycott the climate talks, calling his presence at the conference a "political move."
"The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs – particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science," Palin wrote. "Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen."
When Schwarzenegger questioned Palin's stance on climate change, Palin quickly hit back saying the actor-turned-governor was acting "greener than thou."
And when former vice president Al Gore dubbed her a climate change "denier," Palin hit back at him too, accusing him of promoting "doomsday scenarios."
"Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it," Palin wrote on her Facebook page.
During the vice presidential debate last year, Palin said she was for capping carbon emissions but did not elaborate on how she would do that.
She's a fucking idiot.
Huffington Post has a nice article on the dubious claims of "hoax" regarding climate change.
Not that I expect you to actually read it- your mind was made up for you already it seems.
Here is an excellent article debunking some of the climate-related deception that special intrest groups are useing.
Now compare that with the cherrypicked e-mails making up your so-called Climategate and you'll see who's really looking to decieve public opinion on the matter.
[ December 19, 2009, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Saying that "the idea of man overpowering nature is arrogant" is to deify nature, thinking it absolute and larger-than-life, practically freeing you from responsibility. These people once again use God to rationalize their agenda, in this case inaction and maintained or increased carbon emissions, in favor of their "sponsors".
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: None of your amusing linked articles are written by, you know, scientists. People with science degrees.
So I give you a quickie-list and you once again attack people and ignore ideas. Is this your normal thinking process or are you being incessantly fallacious and illogical just to annoy me?
So you then quote a few ideas, but once again you focus on people, and then you just lie about them.
quote:These scientists wrote that report and have noting to do with any suspect e-mails.
WRONG. Let's just take your selected list first, and use your usual tactics:
Stefan Rahmstorf is part of RealClimate, the well-funded AGW mouthpiece. Richard Somerville is within the ClimateGate e-mails crying about contrary opinions being published and what to do about them. Corinne Le Quéré, along with the two above, is one of the recipients of an e-mail from the IPCC leadership demanding "a higher level of policy relevance in the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for action", and similar related pleas for better coordination so that the "billions and trillions" can fly. This is one of those smoking gun kind of things.
Also on the authorship list are people you conveniently forgot to mention, like "Mr. Hockey Stick" Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver, who with Tim Osborn refused to release basic data to other researchers who they felt were skeptical "moron"s.
So screw your people game.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis itself is an authored with policy-makers in mind, and thus is not an article about the science so much as a list of AGW claims, some of which are demonstrably false:
quote:Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea-level rise at an increasing rate
Antarctic snow melt indexes are nearly flat over the past decades of data, and "the ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history."
And so on.
quote:Maybe you could link in a counter-argument made by someone with credintials?
Maybe you could learn to spell? I mean, how can anyone listen to your claims when you can't even spell? The answer is they shouldn't, because you can't spell.
(Psst! That's the same kind of shit you've been pulling this whole thread. Obnoxious, isn't it?)
quote:If nothing else should make you reconsider your position it's that sarah palin agrees with you:
Adolf Hitler could agree with me and it would change nothing, you ignorant twit. Stop talking about people, stop attacking character, and stop attacking me personally.
You want to debate ideas, fine. You want to debate people, then kiss off.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
You know what? I'm not a climatologist.
I have however read a number of very dull and dry scientific papers from a number of sources that have suggested to me that there is a measureable change in the climate both localy and globaly.
I have also seen papers showing an increase in "greenhouse" gas in the atmosphere, as well as a number of other ways human activity has left its mark on the ecosystem in a huge number of ways.
I have also seen evidence of human activity (and by this I DO NOT just mean driving, burning stuff, not switching off lights in empty rooms) has dramatically increased the level of these gases.
And I have seen a number of sources showing good evidence linking these three points.
The biggest problem is that last one - you can't do it in a lab. You can't even model it because you need to know not just all the peramiters and interactions in the system but you neeed to know how they work too.
So in order to model the climate you need to be able to aproximate every organic and inorganic reaction and all the energy changes and everything that happens on earth. You think that might be a challenge?
I don't know that climate change is man made. I do think that we contribute to it, and not in a small way, but thats just my interpretation.
I also think that it is naive to say that just because there is nothing to PROVE IT 100% that it is therefore 100% UNTRUE for anything.
I don't think I want to participate any further in this frankly petty assult on the other members posting in this tread. It's not a debate or even a heated discussion. It's simply mudslinging. So I don't care jwhat anyone else has to say on the matter here any more.
Also, just because you can't spell it does not follow that you are a dickhead with no brain or valid point.
On top of that, I'm quite tired right now so I don't care if that comes off as un readable or I contradict myself anywhere.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
*sings the Lock dah Thread song*
Please, oh Please?
Oh Please? (Lock dah tHread?)
Oh Pretty Please?
Oh Please (lock dah tHread?)
God, fucking Please?
Fucker, Please?
Becausethisthreadisfuckinghateful,fullofpeopleindahNile (the river)
and if it doesn't...
Guardian, Is your possition on this, that you support goverment's views in opposing taking acting to limit man's industrial actions upon the planet? i mean, from your passionate posts you're hell bent to prove the eco-freaks are wrong but does that mean that you agree with the premise that man is impacting the planet in a adverse way? (I know jason probably does because we both seem to share the same views of goverment [usually corrupt, either by evil or 'good intentions fucked away'])
i mean, are you angry because of this black eye that some of the climate community has taken [-have they?-]
Who do YOU support on the subject of Climate change? What do YOU believe in?
o.O
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Ginger Beacon: You know what? I'm not a climatologist.
I have however read a number of very dull and dry scientific papers from a number of sources that have suggested to me that there is a measureable change in the climate both localy and globaly.
I have also seen papers showing an increase in "greenhouse" gas in the atmosphere, as well as a number of other ways human activity has left its mark on the ecosystem in a huge number of ways.
I have also seen evidence of human activity (and by this I DO NOT just mean driving, burning stuff, not switching off lights in empty rooms) has dramatically increased the level of these gases.
And I have seen a number of sources showing good evidence linking these three points.
And that's the crux of the issue, right there.
Let's note/recap some logic and science:
1. Correlation does not imply causation. Two things rising together doesn't mean that one caused the other.
2. CO2 invariably lags behind temperature increases. It is claimed to be an amplifier or reinforcer of increases, even when the temp increases stop (turning to declines) long before the CO2 maxes out. Rising CO2 and dropping temperature . . . funny, that.
2a. CO2 and temperature have varied tremendously over the history of the planet, sometimes together and sometimes seperately. CO2 is at a low point in the atmosphere right now compared to the past.
3. CO2 is 3.6% of the total supply of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor is 95%, but climate modelers are unable to deal with water vapor or water's cycle very well and so they commonly ignore it. Mankind is said to contribute about 3% extra CO2 over 'normal', whatever precisely that is, meaning that our CO2 output represents 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) in the atmosphere for any given year.
With all greenhouse gases taken together, mankind is said to contribute about 0.25% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over and above natural emissions yearly. That's one quarter of one percent.
4. The period 1940-1980 saw no significant warming trend according to the more reliable sources, with similar results for the past decade. However, AGW folks commonly point to the last century or the last 30-40 years as proof of warming.
5. Earth is currently in an interglacial stage, and those commonly feature temperature variations. The Medieval Warm Period was one, and the Little Ice Age that came after was another. Depending on where you look, the MWP was either warmer or as warm as today. The LIA (circa 1500-1750, though some date it from 1300-1850) was notably cooler, and even featured glacial advance. That, mind you, was a mere 250 years ago (or 150 depending on who you ask).
Now, consider the thesis of AGW, which is that mankind's increasing release of the *primary climate forcing agent* of CO2 is causing temperatures to rise, and that this unnatural forcing of the last century is a unique event in history that overwhelms natural cycles and natural atmospheric controls.
CO2 hasn't been a climate forcing agent the past, hasn't always correlated with temperature increase in the last century even, and only represents 3.6% of greenhouse gas . . . the AGW climate models don't even deal with *clouds*, the big puffy high-albedo ice/water/vapor objects that can cover the whole sky.
Meanwhile, Earth has enjoyed natural climate variations (many cyclical) over millions of years.
Given the two concepts, what conclusion would you draw?
Note that at no point in that did I bring up the anti-scientific behavior of the main proponents of AGW like Hansen, Jones, Mann, et cetera. I'm just telling you what it is.
And hey, you don't have to take it from me . . . I've linked to a whole lot of stuff in this thread. It's a good starting point for your own research, if for whatever reason Jason's attacks and my deigning to reply have poisoned the well of discourse for you.
(For instance, it looks like someone has reacted poorly to my intentional use of a ridiculous ad hominem attack against Jason's spelling to point out to him that ridiculous ad hominem attacks are ridiculous and obnoxious. I though I was being pretty clear in what I was doing, but oh well.)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Pensive,
I am a little unclear on your post. For one thing, government is not opposed to AGW legislation . . . if anything, the Western governments are stridently in favor of it, both within their borders (hence our coming light bulb ban already made law) and without (hence Copenhagen).
As for me, I wish to again point out that it isn't a question of who is supported. Facts are facts, and it doesn't matter who believes in them, argues for them, or ignores them. Even if the whole world said 2+2=6, it would be irrelevant because it wouldn't be true, and just because the Great Satan Sarah Palin says the sky is blue doesn't make it false.
As far as I'm concerned, climatology is far too young a science to base "billions and trillions" on, especially considering that thirty years ago they were claiming the very opposite thing as now. Add that the leading proponents are lying scoundrels trying to hide well-known facts like the MWP, and frankly I think we should just take a decade or two and see how things settle out, with the government staying the hell out of it for the time being. After all, publication in peer review journals is the beginning of science, not the end, no matter what the AGW guys think.
And in any case, environmentalists already have corporations, the media, and so on, so people would happily buy "green" crap now. I think most of it is more dangerous than helpful, but oh well.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
I think you're very wrong, Guardian, but even if you're right? Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
If only those things were the only possible results, and were guaranteed, I wouldn't care.
I like the concept of LED light bulbs for energy efficiency and nuclear power enabling plug-in electrics and so on. I think that sort of thing is where we'll be headed next, and soon.
But the reality of what they're doing right now involves certain potential for real environmental harm, economic harm (to the first world in the form of siphon and the third in the form of future collapse of false markets), higher taxes, lost jobs, and so on and so forth. In short, it's waste, lost opportunities, and lost freedom.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
I fail to see how making the transition to a clean economy - one that is inevitably necessary - could be a waste if undertaken now as opposed to later.
In fact, when you consider these moves as investments in future profitability, the earlier they're done the better, since - as with any good investment - the earlier you invest, the greater your eventual return will be.
In short, I don't see how reducing waste can be seen as wasteful.
Posted by becky (Member # 2187) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: (From a recent blog posting of mine on the AverageFreethinkingAmerican blog):
"ClimateGate and What Science Is Not":
"ClimateGate" refers to the supposed hacking of t
Thank goodness they have been found out.I always thought they were lying as it always cold where i stay and the piles of snow are witness to this lie.
I think this a conspiracy too by taping extra rugulations to free enterprise.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
Ah, rugulations. The bane of carpet makers and bald men everywhere.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by OnToMars: I fail to see how making the transition to a clean economy - one that is inevitably necessary - could be a waste if undertaken now as opposed to later.
In fact, when you consider these moves as investments in future profitability, the earlier they're done the better, since - as with any good investment - the earlier you invest, the greater your eventual return will be.
In short, I don't see how reducing waste can be seen as wasteful.
By that logic, government should mandate the teardown all of our coal power plants right now and rebuild them as nuclear fission reactors, right? And immediately replace all incandescent, flourescent, and CFL bulbs with LED? And perhaps all automobiles and lawnmowers running off of internal combustion should be banned by, say, June 2011.
No, sir. Moving too fast in such directions can itself be wasteful, as countless examples throughout history make plain. Economics has inertia as much as physics does. This is why new technology is generally more expensive. It is not the role of government to force it or centrally plan the fight against it.
(For instance, there was the story recently of cities in the Northern US that converted their red lights to LED technology. But since LED doesn't put out heat, they're now having to have a truck drive around so they can remove the snow from the lights manually, and at least one car accident was noted in the story (centered in some town I forget the name of) as being blamed on that. So whatever the city invested hoping to save, they're now eating in manpower and other costs.
Or, imagine if we'd all been mandated to drive the General Motors EV1 from the 1990's. Then we'd have expended all that time and energy moving to nickel metal hydride batteries, when it seems now that far superior lithium ion batteries are going to be the rule of the day. That would've wasted an extraordinary amount of resources.)
So it's not always best to be the earliest-adopter and economic sense be damned. And sometimes waiting is the best policy. China, for instance, is in a nice spot since whereas the US telecomm market started out with copper and over the past century has brought copper wire to every home, the Chinese and other nations that didn't trouble themselves as much (if at all) with copper have gone straight to cell towers. This saves tremendously with that "last mile" problem that eats up so much of our time and copper and effort.
The market will take people to LED and such eventually as the price comes down and quality goes up and it becomes cost-effective to get them. I have two cheap LED bulbs from Wal-Mart right now. They are weak and bluish and not what most people would want, but I use them for specific spots where they accent nicely. There are better ones made, but even at Wal-Mart they are $40 a bulb.
Over time and as the technology and manufacturing cost develops, though, they might come down and be bright and white.
But not today.
And what of tomorrow? Organic LED screens for battery life, high-efficiency bulbs for lower power bills, fusion energy production not only becoming cost effective but eventually cheaper as fossil fuel plants and fission cleanup costs are too high . . .
We'll get to where we need to be eventually. But the market will get us there at about the right pace, provided the government stays the hell out of it.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote: By that logic, government should mandate the teardown all of our coal power plants right now and rebuild them as nuclear fission reactors, right? And immediately replace all incandescent, flourescent, and CFL bulbs with LED? And perhaps all automobiles and lawnmowers running off of internal combustion should be banned by, say, June 2011.
That is correct.
We went to the moon in nine years through a government mandate, returning more money to the economy than the government spent, to say nothing of the softer returns of prestige, morale, and inspiration.
Or the G.I. Bill, which, in addition to being a worthy reward for the service provided and providing an education to a generation of people, returned $7 to the economy for every $1 the government spent.
Sometimes, government spending is more efficient and more effective than the free market.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Sometimes, but not terribly often. Certainly not often enough to support socialist nonsense like what you're proposing.
In 2006, Americans spent a billion dollars to buy two billion light bulbs, and only a small percentage of those were CFLs.
Let's assume that those two billion light bulbs constitute the entire photonic arsenal of the United States, and are to be replaced by government action. Thus, they must purchase and distribute two billion LED light bulbs.
Clamoring for votes, the lawmakers cave and actually distribute LED bulbs which put out the correct amount of light for a 40w bulb. That means the cheap 10-buck LED bulbs I have, which claim 40W equivalence but actually only put out the equivalent of 10W, are too cheap. The awesome ones are about $50.
There's also the question of manufacturing capability and such, so the whole argument about economies of scale for a crash Apollo LED program are in doubt.
All things considered, let's say that they'll still end up at 10-30 bucks each. And, since not all of those 40w-equiv light bulbs will be able to work alone, let's say that they actually end up having to make, oh, 2.5 billion of them, conservatively.
So, you've basically committed the US government to spending 25-70 billion just on the light bulbs alone, not to mention the extra money required to convert/build factories, distribute the bulbs, solve all the various logistical challenges, and so on. Given normal governmental procedures, earmarks, and so on, this would probably end up as a multi-hundred-billion-dollar program ... we'll call it 200 billion for ease. In other words, it might be equal to NASA's entire budget during 1962-1972, which in 2007 dollars was $262 billion.
And then what? When they're done, nobody's gonna need bulbs for awhile, so all of the sudden those jobs are gone and the manufacturing capacity goes back down to crap, until the day comes when the bulbs start going out again and demand outstrips supply.
Sounds wasteful to me. And for what? Residential electricity consumption for lighting purposes is estimated at 215 billion kWh for 2007. That's 24.5 gigawatts. The United States produces about a terawatt, or 1000 gigawatts.
So let's say we cut those lighting gigawatts by 90 percent, so it's 2.5 gigawatts for residential lighting. What of it? You've saved 22 gigawatts, or two percent of our total electrical capacity. At a billion dollars each, we could have simply built 70 or so 300MW power plants for that, reducing electricity prices, and not only saved $100 billion in direct cost but also allowed the LED technology to mature and slowly, properly get adopted.
Further, in 2004, the price per kWh was 7.57 cents. So for residential lighting, that's 16 billion dollars, or 53 dollars per person in the United States (at 300 million). Dropping it to 1.6 billion dollars assuming the 90 percent LED power reduction, that's saving 48 dollars per person per year.
Even if we multiply that by ten for all the lightbulbs outside of residential contexts, that's 480 bucks per person. Guess what that comes out to? 144 billion. Or, in other words, not enough to justify what you've proposed.
Not to mention the fact that you're proposing the discarding of two billion perfectly good light bulbs. How wasteful.
(Oh, and then there's the cost of revolution when Americans get fed up with this socialist horsecrap, but I don't know how to calculate that.)
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: socialist nonsense like what you're proposing.
Hey now, no need to get disparaging.
I should make a correction, or at least a distinction I failed to make the first time around:
We shouldn't replace everything with LED's; we should replace incandescents with more efficient alternatives, which include not only LEDs, but also CFLs and probably other alternatives that I'm not aware of.
But you are correct that replacing light bulbs would be a comparatively smaller effect for the effort undertaken, which I imagine is why you picked that example in the first place.
Funding a national initiative to replace coal firing plants with cleaner alternatives, building clean and efficient regional and inter-regional railways, and upgrading our electrical infrastructure would all produce far more bang for the buck, in addition to already being necessary undertakings.
quote:(Oh, and then there's the cost of revolution when Americans get fed up with this socialist horsecrap, but I don't know how to calculate that.)
If you truly believe that's a possibility, please go prepare for it and remove yourself from a political process you see as doomed anyway. And let the rest of us get on with actually solving the massive problems facing us.
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
I guess we're done here, then.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
We have not yet begun. But I'm taking your advice and not wasting time talking politics to someone who believes the political absurdities you believe.
Centrally planned economies and societies are the natural enemy of freedom and individual liberty. Though, on paper, they have the potential to be more efficient than capitalism, the truth on the ground is that they never are.
It takes a combination of ignorance of the history of death and misery in centrally planned economies and a good bit of arrogance about one's preferred political leaders to believe that our central planning could succeed when all others failed, and this time without any citizens shoeless or starving to death as usually occurs under centrally planned economies.
Give a capitalist a dumb idea and he can make himself poor and starved. Give a government a dumb idea and it can make everyone poor and starved.
So while you go vote for hopey-changey stuff and doom everyone to failure while "actually solving the massive problems facing us" (because your philosophy does that oh so well, which is why all the problems you guys campaigned on in the 60's are still here), I hope that reason will again rise in the Republic and we'll at least slow this 'progressive' train enough to avoid the real crash.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
You know I find it interesting how the right, for it's criticism of "progressives" and "socialists", doesn't offer an alternative to the policies of the left. They don't even push for tax cuts as aggressively as they used to, it's just opposition for the sake of opposition. Sure it may win them votes in the short run, and sure they might derail the train of failure that is liberalism, but it seems like they're all for maintaining the status quo, when it's obvious the status quo isn't cutting it anymore (well unless your part of that lucky 1%).
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: But I'm taking your advice and not wasting time talking politics to someone who believes the political absurdities you believe.
Again, political absurdities that won World War II, sent a generation of GI's to college, and men to the moon.
quote:Centrally planned economies and societies are the natural enemy of freedom and individual liberty. Though, on paper, they have the potential to be more efficient than capitalism, the truth on the ground is that they never are.
Tyranny is the natural enemy of freedom. That tyranny can come from unchecked corporate interests as much as it can from unchecked government ones.
quote:It takes a combination of ignorance of the history of death and misery in centrally planned economies and a good bit of arrogance about one's preferred political leaders to believe that our central planning could succeed when all others failed, and this time without any citizens shoeless or starving to death as usually occurs under centrally planned economies.
This presumes that I'm proposing the same as what has come before, which I'm not. This also presumes that we don't have citizens shoeless or starving to death right now, which is incorrect.
quote:So while you go vote for hopey-changey stuff and doom everyone to failure while "actually solving the massive problems facing us" (because your philosophy does that oh so well, which is why all the problems you guys campaigned on in the 60's are still here), I hope that reason will again rise in the Republic and we'll at least slow this 'progressive' train enough to avoid the real crash.
You should thank me for working so hard to elect Obama president, since the market seems to like his hopey-changey stuff quite a bit.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
There is nothing that the government can give you that it has not first taken away from you.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
quote:So while you go vote for hopey-changey stuff and doom everyone to failure
I never thought I would see someone on Flare actively choosing to quote Sarah Palin. Don't stop. Don't ever stop! It's like the pre-war sound bites of the Falloutverse; "Vote for me, and together we will make the world go faster!"
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: There is nothing that the government can give you that it has not first taken away from you.
This statement makes no sense. The government gave us the Apollo program. It did not take the Apollo program from me (or my parents) prior to that.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
1. Leftism did not win World War II. It was the cause.
2. Centrally planned economies are tyranny. The difference between corporate tyranny and government tyranny is that in the first case, you have someone to turn to for help.
3. You are proposing exactly what has come before. Policy nuances do not alter the inherent arrogant stupidity of central planning and 'investment' by government.
It's a gamble with the money of all, obtained at threat of the barrel of a gun, and the people pulling the lever are not in a position of risk, especially since they can also pull the trigger.
4. Your claim Obama is a success on the grounds of Wall Street is self-contradictory, since you guys also blame Wall Street for all the nation's ills. Please make up your mind.
From my perspective, the market is half-broken anyway. Markets function only as well as the information known to and the rationality of the members of the market. You'll recall, of course, that the market was doing splendidly while the left blocked those who would regulate Fannie and Freddie after the left interfered in the housing market with all the hopey-changey stuff in the first place, and while a separate gambling market between banks took shape so they could still try to make money.
See what central planning does?
And right now, despite the US rushing headlong into unprecedented debt, you point to the market in its current state and say all must be well. Seriously?
5. The government took Apollo because it took the money to fund it from you . . . you can't possibly be so obtuse as to not see that.
Americans largely supported that on a national pride and Cold War defense level, since in the 20th Century spaceflight (especially manned) was such a costly endeavor that only deep pockets like governments and militaries could hope to afford the startup costs, and we had to make sure the communists did not get unchallenged access to space.
Apollo was not a pattern to follow, in other words, but a required compromise action in regards to capitalist principles versus national defense and international diplomacy. And in that regard, it really kicked ass.*
As we see now, it would've required many more years for fully private space access that truly pays off. And when an American lands on the moon from an American corporation, that's really when to cheer.
(*This is why Obama's cancellation of the return to the moon is evidence of weakness, because it's just another example of him caving and bowing to China at every turn. China is now what the US once was, and in my opinion if American supremacy is to be maintained it is unwise for us to let them go unchallenged into a Chinese Century.
All that having been said, though, I'd love it if it was a space race between China and a private American corporation. That would be best.
For similar historical references to Apollo, look to the construction of railways and interstates (both with national defense implications) in the United States and similar. Specifically, private railways were being built that were financially feasible, but the US government intervened and created a boondoggle of corruption and waste not seen in the James J. Hill private transcontinental line.)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: I never thought I would see someone on Flare actively choosing to quote Sarah Palin.
She's not always the quickest CFL bulb to come on when you flip the switch, but she shines more brightly than many . . . including most of those who would mandate CFLs in the first place.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: 1. Leftism did not win World War II. It was the cause.
Well that's just wrong. If you're going to bring up unrelated subjects, make sure you get them right. World War II occurred for a variety of reasons. There was bitterness and resentment among Germans over the Treaty of Versailles, which forced the country to take responsibility for the war and pay reparations to the allies, weakening Germany's economy. They also had to effectively dismantle their armed forces. The Nazi Party was to play on this resentment and rise to power and BTW, they didn't identify themselves as leftist and in fact actively took part in the removal of leftist groups like socialists, communists, and progressives. The Nazis believed that in order to ensure the survival of their nation, they would have acquire more land and resources to maintain a growing economy, so they began invading and seizing land from neighboring countries. Most of Europe and the U.S. was unwilling to halt Germany's aggressive expansion, since they too felt resentment over the First World War and wanted to avoid another conflict. Eventually the Nazis invasion of Poland forced Britain and France to declare war of Germany, the Soviet Union later joining the fray when Hitler reneged on his non-aggression pact with Russia. In the east, Imperial Japan also felt the need for aggressive expansion in order to obtain natural resources to supply its economy, and found the U.S. to be a threat to its expansion. So the Japanese went on the offensive and attacked the naval base at Pearl Harbor, bringing America into the war.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
1. OntoMars claimed leftist political philosophy won World War II. I responded.
2. National socialists fighting socialists and communists (who also dispute one another) is just a case of family squabbling, nothing more.
3. All wars have many causes, but if you don't think the assorted progressivist political philosophies of the day were primary, then I don't know what to tell you.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
After much loud condemnation....a quiet retraction. . 21st century muckracking to sell papers right before a summit on global warming- William Randolph Hearst would be so proud. Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Between this and the BP oil spill, I'm about to say England can kiss my big fat hairy ass.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
As long as they dont try to dril there.... Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
More official vindication for those "Climategate" scientists.
quote:According to Lord Ernest Oxburgh, who led the investigation, the probe uncovered "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever." He added that "whatever was said in the e-mails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly." Then last week, a blue ribbon panel of science faculty at Penn State University unanimously exonerated professor Michael Mann himself. Investigators found "no substance" to charges made against the climatologist by his media detractors. Exactly as the embattled climatologist had said, his e-mail communications had been "misrepresented ... (and) completely twisted to imply the opposite of what was actually being said."
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: Between this and the BP oil spill, I'm about to say England can kiss my big fat hairy ass.
I'd be blaming Murdoch rather than England for anything the Times does, personally.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Too be honest, even if "Climategate" hadn't occurred, I still think the deniers would find something else to hang on too to prove their right. I mean, there are no blinder people than those who deliberately choose not to see.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The entire hack thing now smells of a scam itself- very curious that the e-mail hack (which was never itself really investigated) should happen just in time for that big Climate summit.
But you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for the press to change course now taht it's set- all subsequent discussions on global warming will have some reference to this manufactured bullshit.
In it's execution it's very much like what the Tobacco industry has done to discredit medical data on smoking.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)