Climategate!

[justintempler]

So what is the goal of all of this money and research. That somehow via legislation from our enlightened politicians we will somehow stop all change on the planet? No species will ever go extinct and the ice will never melt, continents will never move? The temperature will remain constant? ...

See that's what this is really about.

You've already decided that you don't like the consequences, so instead of dealing with it, you'll talk yourself into believing it isn't happening.

From the University of California Television

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2T4UF_Rmlio&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[sgreger1]

So what is the goal of all of this money and research. That somehow via legislation from our enlightened politicians we will somehow stop all change on the planet? No species will ever go extinct and the ice will never melt, continents will never move? The temperature will remain constant? ...

See that's what this is really about.

You've already decided that you don't like the consequences, so instead of dealing with it, you'll talk yourself into believing it isn't happening.

What consequences Justin? Really. Lets say I completely subscribe to the current AGW theory and we agree that we will see higher sea levels, more extremes in hot and cold, some species going extinc etc. The question is... is this really a bad thing as far as the earth or long term trends are concerned?

Think about it this way, changes in climate have made the earth we have come to love today. It was these extreme climate changes, coupled with geological changes (which are affected by climate) that changed this planet into the bustling life force that exists today. The dinosaurs lived in a certain climate, and then things heated up because an asteroid (or somehting else) changed the environment, which lead to the extinction of lots of species and worldwide changes. Volcanoes have erupted and lead to mass extinctions. But that's only looking at the downside. Through all of these processes our current world exists. It is these changes that created intelligent life and lead us to this conversation.

While a dinosaur measuring climate change may say "this is a bad thing", that is only one perspective, because what the dinosaur did not know is what would come of the earth long after he was gone. An even richer ecosystem with ever more inteligent life.


The earth could change dramatically at any given time, be it from a meteor, a volcanoe, continental drift, or AGW. Should our time and resources really be poured endlessly into a black hole all in the name of keeping things static? Is this what is REALLY best for the earth?

Even if we all came together in a big group hug and worked together as a species to do everything we could, would it make that much of a difference? If humans did not even exist, would things really change that much? Even in the worst case scenario, the biproduct of AGW continuing un-checked are still minor when viewed alongside the many other factors that change the planet all the time.

Even if we all lived together in hippie communes, ate nothing but arugula and never farted, the earth would continue to change dramatically untill that enevitable day comes when our sun finnaly fizzles out and expands untill we are destroyed.


Is the goal here to keep things static and make sure no species ever go extinct, that not a single human dies of starvation, that we populate ourselves into oblivion?
Is that what is really best for the earth, and do we even have the authority or the means to accomplish this end?

[Roo]

SNOOZER!

[truthwolf1]

This was on google news today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7026317.ece

I still think we are walking into a tax trap we will never get out of without discussing what exactly is the outcome of all this.

[sgreger1]

This was on google news today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7026317.ece

I still think we are walking into a tax trap we will never get out of without discussing what exactly is the outcome of all this.

Even though two ex IPCC officials come out saying that the current IPCC's data is wack won't change anything. Sure the weather stations are compromised and are placed next to sources of heat and constantly moved around, but if you point this out it is just "voodoo science".

This all goes back to the 30's when the Technocrats were advocating that we get rid of fiat currency and replace it with an energy currency, and prices be based on energy consumption as opposed to their paper value. Ever since the 70's when we got away from backing our paper money with gold, the world paper currencies that rely on our paper currency have devalued. The club of rome is a big promoter of this as well as several other organizations. It's just a plan to get control of the money and regulate production and distribution by trading in energy as opposed to traditional currency.

Same shit different day, HG Wells, George Orwell and Huxley all wrote their books based on this proposed Technocracy where a scieentific dictatorship is imposed. It looks like they may have been right.

[justintempler]

This all goes back to the 30's when the Technocrats were advocating that we get rid of fiat currency and replace it with an energy currency, and prices be based on energy consumption as opposed to their paper value. Ever since the 70's when we got away from backing our paper money with gold, the world paper currencies that rely on our paper currency have devalued. The club of rome is a big promoter of this as well as several other organizations. It's just a plan to get control of the money and regulate production and distribution by trading in energy as opposed to traditional currency. .

see....

You're not interested about the science...

It's all about the boogeyman and taxes trying to keep down the price of energy, you've already lost that fight. The days of cheap energy are gone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu.../15renoil.html

I'm going back to sleep now.

[RedMacGregor]

this is all a natural cycle as the poles start to flip...

soon, antartica will be north and the arctic will be south...

*shrug*

[sgreger1]

This all goes back to the 30's when the Technocrats were advocating that we get rid of fiat currency and replace it with an energy currency, and prices be based on energy consumption as opposed to their paper value. Ever since the 70's when we got away from backing our paper money with gold, the world paper currencies that rely on our paper currency have devalued. The club of rome is a big promoter of this as well as several other organizations. It's just a plan to get control of the money and regulate production and distribution by trading in energy as opposed to traditional currency. .

see....

You're not interested about the science...

It's all about the boogeyman and taxes trying to keep down the price of energy, you've already lost that fight. The days of cheap energy are gone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu.../15renoil.html

I'm going back to sleep now.

The days of cheap energy are gone. And i'm fine with that. High energy costs will spur innovation and research into alternative fuels. The global warming boogeyman however is a useless attempt with no clear or defined goals. Reduce emissions by 5% by 30 years for now or whatever todays goal is will not save the planet or do anything but cost money,

[Mordred]

You've already decided that you don't like the consequences, so instead of dealing with it, you'll talk yourself into believing it isn't happening.

Oh yes, please guilt-trip us some more.

Again:

1) Global warming is not proven. Data is insufficient.

2) Even were it proven, human influence is likely very minor.

3) Even if human influence were major and we could reverse it, would we want to?

Seriously, why is global warming such a bad thing? Nobody has ever been able to tell me this conclusively. People spend huge amounts of money on traveling to warmer climates, and now spend money on cooling down the planet. Logic?

Meanwhile, political parties ride the hysteria to gain power, governments impose taxes and global conferences attempt to screw developing countries because they're not "green".

I find it especially discouraging to see that you Justin are blinded by concensus-science in this matter. Why do you believe Greenpeace and their "science" on this matter, but refuse to believe ASH et al. when they tell you that an overwhelming majority of scientists believe smokeless tobacco to be as bad, if not worse, than smoking?

It's a similar kind of smokescreen. The difference, I guess, is that AGW appeals to your willingness to help others and the world, whereas tobacco is a purely personal matter.

[Roo]

...

Liechtenstein? Damn that's some kick-ass English, Mordred.

As for the rest of the discussion, I'll be out in the barn trying to pound a dead horse into a pint glass with this baseball bat.

[Mordred]

...

Liechtenstein? Damn that's some kick-ass English, Mordred.

As for the rest of the discussion, I'll be out in the barn trying to pound a dead horse into a pint glass with this baseball bat.

Nope, Luxembourg, different fiscal paradise. :=)

[sgreger1]

Morden brought up an excelent point: The scientific concensus is that smokeless tobaco is worse than smoking. We know it's just the tobacco industry and activists all working together on junk science but it gets mainstream coverage anyways. Just like global warming. Whenever this much money is involved, you can make a study show anything you want it to.

And Roo: Lololollolo

[justintempler]

...The scientific concensus is that smokeless tobaco is worse than smoking. ...

It's pointless to have a discussion with people that make up crap as they go along and use that as the basis of their arguments.

I'm going back to sleep.

[Mordred]

...The scientific concensus is that smokeless tobaco is worse than smoking. ...

It's pointless to have a discussion with people that make up crap as they go along and use that as the basis of their arguments.

I'm going back to sleep.

Case in point. ASH, Tobacco Free Kids et al. say things like "the debate is over" and "thousands of studies have shown" etc. and you recognize it as bullshit immediately. Point out people like Michael Siegel (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/) and the anti-tobacco lobby will be quick to call him a "big-tobacco" puppet.

AGW supporter say the same things, yet you accept it. There are quite a few dissenting voices in that debate too, but they are quickly labeled "deniers" and claimed to be paid off by "big-oil". Such similar tactics.

And it's not even that scientists are corrupt or anything (except when they "lose" raw data, like Mr Jones). No, most of them do their jobs admirably. It's just that the jobs they're hired to do lead almost inevitably to biased results. ASH will hire scientists to measure, say the level of carcinogens in snuff. The scientists do this to the best of their knowledge and will, most likely, considering the ubiquity of carcinogens in our environment, find some. And voilà, another study ASH can roll out in favour of banning snuff. The fact is that the lobbyists and politicians are the ones to inflate or misrepresent the numbers that the scientists correctly determined.

Same with AGW. The IPCC was created in 1988 and "tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity". It's very important to keep this goal in mind with everything the IPCC does. It can help acquire large funds for research, but it can only do that in accordance to it's stated goal. And that goal pretty much presupposes that there is a man-made climate change. Were there not, the IPCC would have to be dismantled. So naturally, all studies it commissions are biased towards that goal. Its readings of those studies are biased. It's distribution of funds is biased.

Think of the IPCC like a state prosecutor. It's the prosecutor's job to get convictions. If the prosecutor thinks that an analysis of finger prints will help them get a conviction, they'll ask for one to be done. If they believe that it won't help their case, it won't happen. And this kind of works if you have a good defense lawyer on the other side of the debate. But if you're a poor shmuck with no money and end up with some state-provided quack, you'll be convicted for sure.

And really, that's what we have in the AGW debate. We have a very well-funded prosecution and only amateurs like Stephen McIntyre on the defense team. It's no wonder the debate is extremely lopsided.

Again, I have come to the conclusion that I there is insufficient data for me to be convinced of AGW. You may be of a different opinion, heck, you may well know more about the underlying science, and that's fine by me. But don't accuse me of making stuff up.

[justintempler]

And really, that's what we have in the AGW debate. We have a very well-funded prosecution and only amateurs like Stephen McIntyre on the defense team. It's no wonder the debate is extremely lopsided.
.

Mordred,

Are you talking conspiracy here? You're trying to say the science in favour of saying climate change is corrupt but the deniers are as clean as the driven snow?

Exxon Mobil and their friends in the coal and gas lobbies have no shortage of money and what money they do invest seems to be going into political think tanks like :

http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9
http://www.heartland.org/

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...s-1891747.html

Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers

ExxonMobil cash supported concerted campaign to undermine case for man-made warming

By Jonathan Owen and Paul Bignell

Sunday, 7 February 2010


Stephen McIntyre, who runs climateaudit.org, part of a network of climate change sceptics

An orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate change science to undermine public acceptance of man-made global warming, environment experts claimed last night.


The attack against scientists supportive of the idea of man-made climate change has grown in ferocity since the leak of thousands of documents on the subject from the University of East Anglia (UEA) on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit last December.

Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.

Many of these critics have broadcast material from the leaked UEA emails to undermine climate change predictions and to highlight errors in claims that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Professor Phil Jones, who has temporarily stood down as director of UEA's climactic research unit, is reported in today's Sunday Times to have "several times" considered suicide. He also drew parallels between his case and that of Dr David Kelly, found dead in the wake of the row over the alleged "sexing up" of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Professor Jones said he was taking sleeping pills and beta-blockers and had received two death threats in the past week alone.

Climate sceptic bloggers broadcast stories last week casting doubts on scientific data predicting dramatic loss of the Amazon rainforest. All three stories, picked up by mainstream media, questioned the credibility of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the way it does its work. A new attack on climate science, already dubbed "Seagate" by sceptics, relating to claims that more than half the Netherlands is in danger of being submerged under rising sea levels, is likely to be at the centre of the newest skirmish in coming weeks.

The controversies have shaken the IPCC, whose chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was subjected to a series of personal attacks on his reputation and lifestyle last week. A poll this weekend confirmed that public confidence in the climate change consensus has been shaken: one in four Britons – 25 per cent – now say they do not believe in global warming; previously this figure stood at 15 per cent.

Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and former chairman of the IPCC, said yesterday that the backlash is the result of a campaign: "It does appear that there's a concerted effort by a number of sceptics to undermine the credibility of the evidence behind human-induced climate change." He added: "I am sure there are some sceptics who may well be funded by the private sector to try to cast uncertainty."

A complicated web of relationships revolves around a number of right-wing think-tanks around the world that dispute the threats of climate change. ExxonMobil is a key player behind the scenes, having donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past few years to climate change sceptics. The Atlas Foundation, created by the late Sir Anthony Fisher (founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs), received more than $100,000 in 2008 from ExxonMobil, according to the oil company's reports.

Atlas has supported more than 30 other foreign think-tanks that espouse climate change scepticism, and co-sponsored a meeting of the world's leading climate sceptics in New York last March. Called "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?", it was organised by the Heartland Institute – a group that described the event as "the world's largest-ever gathering of global warming sceptics". The organisation is another right-wing think-tank to have benefited from funding given by ExxonMobil in recent years.

A large British contingent was present at the event, with speakers including Dr Benny Peiser, from Lord Lawson's climate sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF); the botanist David Bellamy; Julian Morris and Kendra Okonski from the London-based International Policy Network; the weather forecaster Piers Corbyn; Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher; and Professor David Henderson, a member of GWPF's advisory council. Speakers at the event also included two prominent climate bloggers who associate with Paul Dennis, a 54-year-old climate researcher at the University of East Anglia who has been questioned by police investigating the theft of climate data.

In a posting on the blog of the climate sceptic Andrew Montford on Friday, Mr Dennis insisted: "I did not leak any files, data, emails or any other material. I have no idea how the files were released or who was behind it."

But he confirmed that he had been in email contact with Stephen McIntyre, who runs climateaudit.org – a site that was one of the first to receive an anonymous link to the original leaked data from UEA.

Mr Dennis said he emailed Mr McIntyre to alert him to a "departmental email saying that emails and files were hacked" and that "police had copies of my email correspondence with Steve McIntyre and Jeff Id [a pseudonym for the climate sceptic Patrick Condon]. They said it was because I had sent the emails that they were interviewing me."

The UEA researcher also has connections with another prominent sceptic, Anthony Watts, with whom he has posted and who spoke beside Mr McIntyre. Mr Dennis was not available for comment.

Bob Ward, the policy director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said: "A lot of the climate sceptic arguments are being made by people with demonstrable right-wing ideology which is based on opposition to any environmental regulation of the market, and they are clearly being given money that allows them to disseminate their views more widely than would be the case if they didn't have oil company funding."

But Dr Richard North, a climate change sceptic and blogger, rejected claims of a conspiracy as "laughable" and denied having any links to vested interests. "Anybody who knows me knows I'm a loner. Nobody tells me what to do or dictates my agenda."

ExxonMobil said in a statement: "We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

Stop pretending deniers are some small underfunded persecuted minority.

"In times like these, when their fat little comforts are threatened, you may be sure that science is the first thing men will sacrifice."...from Atlas Shrugged