Environmentalism

Republican Skeptics Among the Climate Change Believers

|

While a lot of activist groups were disappointed, to say the least, about the "non-deal" reached here at the Copenhagen climate change conference, there was at least one group whose hopes that the whole Copenhagen conference would collapse appeared to be fulfilled, a delegation of six Republicans from the U.S. House of Representatives.

"The fact that there is not an agreement coming out of the conference is not a bad outcome in my opinion," declared Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.)  presciently at a press conference before the diplomatic implosion had become official. The head of the delegation and long-time skeptic of anthropogenic global warming, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), noted "There's a lot of frustration here because the world is stuck with the Kyoto framework, but the Kyoto framework does not work." In fact, Sensenbrenner and the Obama administration are on the same page here—or at least on adjacent pages—since both favor scrapping the Kyoto Protocol. On the other hand, the developing countries, most especially including China, are fiercely refusing to give up on the Kyoto Protocol, chiefly because under it they don't have to do anything to control their emissions of greenhouse gases.

During the Republican press conference, several of the members expressed considerable skepticism about the science behind man-made global warming. Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.), referencing the recently leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, claimed that the negotiations here were based on "science that is fraudulent." He added, "We should not be basing any treaty on data that is corrupt."

A reporter from Sea Change radio, a nonprofit with a sustainability message, asked each one of the six if they believed in anthropogenic global warming. Sensenbrenner responded that he'd been more accepting of global warming before the Climate Research Unit's emails, touching off the Climategate scandal. Now he thinks that there needs to be an independent investigation to see if the data stand up. Barton said that he didn't believe that anthropogenic climate change had been proven. Sullivan asked how anyone could make a decision considering the "culture of corruption" that the Climategate emails had revealed. And Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said, "No, I don't believe that it's settled science." Fred Upton (R-Mich.) ducked the question by saying that he thought the U.S. could get to lower emissions using technologies like nuclear power. 

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) also brushed aside the question and said that the focus of discussions should be on innovation. She pointed out that 98 percent of her state's electricity is produced by burning coal and that restrictions on carbon would cause great damage to her state's economy. The congresswoman offered an example of the type of innovation she'd like to see, citing the $334 million grant that the U.S. Department of Energy awarded a week ago to the American Electric Power Company to build a new carbon capture and sequestration demonstration plant. The idea is that electric power plants will capture the carbon dioxide they emit while burning coal and keep it out of the atmosphere by injecting it underground. Whether or not the congresswoman accepts global warming as true, she clearly believes in political pork.

If the science needs investigating, a reporter from Mother Jones magazine asked, who should do it? Barton replied that he thought the science did need investigating, citing the now infamous Climategate emails that suggested possible manipulation of data, attempts to frustrate Freedom of Information Act requests, and refusal to release modeling and data sets so that others could evaluate them. Barton added that the scientists involved were not outliers, but senior scientists very closely involved with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is responsible for assembling and evaluating the science that has pointed toward man-made warming. Who conduct the independent investigation? Barton ruled out any U.N. involvement and suggested perhaps the National Academy of Sciences would be an appropriate venue. Barton added that the investigation would have to include not just climatologists but researchers schooled in other disciplines such as statistics. Of course, the National Academy of Sciences has already issued many reports on global climate change.

"Some say that the science is settled; some say it's not. But what is conclusive is the economics and Waxman-Markey is a huge exporter of jobs," said Sensenbrenner. "The economics is conclusive and terrible in terms of jobs and manufacturing." The Wisconsin congressman correctly equated the Waxman-Markey bill with a tax on energy, and concluded, "Any increase in energy taxes is a job killer." Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) agreed, asserting that the U.S. would lose 4.7 million jobs if the Waxman-Markey bill ever went into effect.

The six Republicans confidently declared that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme would never get out of Congress. Sullivan noted that the Waxman-Markey bill barely passed the House back in June by a margin of just seven votes. Sensenbrenner claimed that a lot of Democrats are now regretting being strong-armed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi into supporting the bill and predicted that many would not be re-elected. Upton made this bold prediction: "This Waxman-Markey bill would lose by 50 votes if it were up for a vote now. This bill is dead in the water as it is and that's why it's DOA in the Senate."

Prior to the collapse, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had declared at the Copenhagen conference that getting climate change legislation passed in the U.S. this spring, "can be enormously assisted by what happens here." Once the non-deal was announced, the Massachusetts senator as a team player was still gamely peddling the same line, saying, "With this in hand, we can work to pass domestic legislation early next year to bring us across the finish line." We'll all find out this spring who is the better political prognosticator, Kerry or Upton. After the diplomatic debacle here in Copenhagen, my bet is on Upton.

Advertisement

NEXT: Bogus Unemployment/Default Connection Is Bogusly Bogus

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And there was great rejoicing!

    “Yay.”

  2. ‘A reporter from Sea Change radio, a nonprofit with a sustainability message, asked each one of the six if they believed in anthropogenic global warming.’

    Yes or No. Believer? or Denier? Please circle.

    1. AGW Denier or Climategate Denier?

      “Denier” is a pejorative that can be slung at both sides at this point.

  3. ‘Social psychology finds a thread linking opposition to health care reform and climate change ? and a possible way around the problem…

    the pro-environment campaign with the best chance of overcoming internal resistance may be one that asserts preserving our natural resources is patriotic.’

    -The Mental Roadblocks to Climate Change
    By: Tom Jacobs

    Evo and Hugo did good for you, Mr. Jacobs.

  4. But what is conclusive is the economics and Waxman-Markey is a huge exporter of jobs,” said Sensenbrenner. “The economics is conclusive and terrible in terms of jobs and manufacturing.” The Wisconsin congressman correctly equated the Waxman-Markey bill with a tax on energy, and concluded, “Any increase in energy taxes is a job killer.”

    Indeed, but this hasn’t prevented the Obama Administration from claiming that every hairbrained scheme hatched by one of its imbeciles will “create” jobs by the millions.

    Health care “reform”? 61,740 Bedpan Technicians!
    Afghanistan? 38,271 Archaeologists. With Guns!
    Green Energy? 89,003 Windmill Winders!

    1. Don’t forget all the Weatherizers!

    1. It’s fun until someone gets hurt.

      1. Someone is gonna get hurt anyway. The shit O’Lord of Liars and the Left is trying to push down our throats is going to hurt everyone in this country in the long run, and some in the short run, whether or not it is resisted. What’s the matter – do you have to wait and see what others do in order to know what’s right?

  5. Ron writes this as if he’s surprised there are Republican skeptics out there. Does he think calling them out will get him invited to the Mother Jones Christmas party?

  6. “With this in hand . . . ”

    Catch!

  7. Does Senator Byrd syndrome exist in every West VA politician?

    Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) also brushed aside the question and said that the focus of discussions should be on innovation. She pointed out that 98 percent of her state’s electricity is produced by burning coal and that restrictions on carbon would cause great damage to her state’s economy. The congresswoman offered an example of the type of innovation she’d like to see, citing the $334 million grant that the U.S. Department of Energy awarded a week ago to the American Electric Power Company to build a new carbon capture and sequestration demonstration plant.

    1. Suki
      This climate change thread could get mighty complex. There’s a comic book thread from yesterday you might want to check out (unfortunately it’s not Archie and Richie Rich type stuff, but you can still probably hang in there).

      1. MNG will say something even dumber at 8:36AM

        1. Whoa… psychic.

  8. “Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.), referencing the recently leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, claimed that the negotiations here were based on “science that is fraudulent.”

    If you look at the IPCC report you see entire chapters with shitloads of researchers that are not affiliated with CRU. The “logic” that because a handful of researchers may have engaged in corrupt shenanigans the results of all research by hundreds of unaffiliated researchers is now disproven or even suspect is moronic at best.

    By that “logic” all evolutionary evidence is false or suspect because of frauds like Pilt-down man.

    But the Republicans are known as “the Stupid Party” so what can you do…*

    *technically this name was given to the Conservatives in England, but the GOP is our closest party

    1. Oh jeez, Pilt down man again?

      You are like a dog with a dinosaur bone.

      Why don’t you unzip your Gaza and wave that at us too?

      1. Can you refute the logic of the analogy sage?

        1. Evolutionary proponents are not asking for half the world’s economy to be handed over because of something that may be naturally occurring over billions of years. I would say there’s a bit more riding on it, wouldn’t you?

          1. So you can’t refute the logic? It’s ok if you can’t.

            Because pointing out there is more riding on the truth of one of the two fields doesn’t address the logic at all.

            1. I’m saying the analogy is bogus.

              1. By all means point out why.

                Saying all non-CRU research is suspect because of CRU fraud is like saying all evolutionary research is suspect because of the Pilt-down fraud.

                Explain why the analogy is inapt smart guy.

                1. So sage, is it logical to assume that all non-CRU research is subject because of the CRU fraud?

                  And if so, then why can’t this principle (when fraud is discovered by scientists who advocate X then all research advocating X is suspect) be applied to other areas?

                  Come on, stop playing with your Gaza and enlighten us Master Meterologist.

                  1. why can’t this principle…be applied to other areas?

                    Actually, it probably could. Pilt down man may or may not be an example of such, but science is not exclusive to evolution and climate.

                    1. So the analogy is proper then? Thanks for playing! But look, the next time you need schooling like this I might have to charge tuition…

                    2. Uh, enjoy your victory?

                    3. Well when someone like you acts the smartass and then gets shown to not know wtf he’s talking about, then yes, I do enjoy it.

                      I just hoped you learned something from it 🙂

                    4. See you at the Creationist Society meetings skeptic!

                    5. Piltdown is somewhat relevant, but not particularly in the way you think. Scientists, desperate to believe something to be true, ignore the science that counters their personal beliefs? That’s where both entrenched sides are right now.

                      Your analogy is apples and oranges, as global economies or climates weren’t going to be affected as a result of whether Piltdown was proved true or false. No one is arguing AGW as a purely scientific and/or theologic curiosity. The context of the debate is why the two situations are not analogous.

                    6. Piltdown man wasn’t a fraud perpetrated by the members of the scientific community. In fact when Piltdown man was discovered, many scientists were immediately skeptical and did tests on the bone fragments that showed the some of the bones belonged to an ape and a modern human. The scientific community was a victim of a hoax perpetrated by an amateur archaeologist. This is completely different from researchers that are intimately connected with the science colluding to manipulate data and put pressure on journal reviewers among other things. It’s not even an apples and oranges comparison. Piltdown Man and Climategate ain’t the same ballpark, ain’t the same league, ain’t even the same fucking sport. Piltdown man don’t mean shit.

                    7. Don’t like Pilt-down analogy? Fine, use this buddy.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

                      Fail for your side either way.

                    8. Let me know when papers published by CRU researchers are redacted by the journals that published them. The difference is that when fraud was found in Hwang Woo-Suk’s research, the proper steps were taken by other scientists in the field to distance their research from his finding. In the case of Climategate, climate change researchers are rallying around their CRU colleagues which suggests they find nothing objectionable about their methods. Again, analogy fail.

                    9. So is all cloning research now suspect Slugger?

                    10. All claims of this sort should be met with at least a modicum of skepticism until verified by others.

                      Much of the IPCC report relied upon the CRU research.

                      The CRU investigators have not been so open with their data and methods so as to satisfy the requirements of independent verification.

                      In fact, it appears that they have been actively resisting such verification.

                      At least a modicum of skepticism.

                    11. Tedious, as usual.

                  2. Piltdown man was a hoax on scientists by a mischievous (though educated) Arthur Conan Doyle. The scientists manned up to the hoax when they realized they had been had.

                    The CRU is the opposite: The misrepresentations (I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a hoax) were perpetuated by the scientists themselves…no one fooled them, they were trying to fool me.

                    Big difference MNG. Next.

                2. MNG, do you believe there was CRU fraud?

            2. Piltdown worked at first because scientists ‘knew’ there had to be a missing link. So Charles Dawson simply ‘provided’ the missing link.

              Remember, the consensus of scientists of his day were quite impressed by his uncanny abilities of making major finds in palaeontology. He was elected fellow of the prestigious Geological Society as a result.

              When the fraud was exposed, scientists came out against it. Doing so did not destroy their belief in a missing link, rather they realized that no missing link was better than a fake one, on surety a real one would inevitably be found.

              Fair enough, MNG. You have expressed before that you think there has been a robust takedown of the CRU miscreants, and many posters here believe there has not been anything robust.

              And the degree of takedown demonstrates to a skeptic how much faith AGW advocates have in that body of science.

              But I don’t think you have ever advocated any of the ‘wrong-doing’ as anything other than bullying deniers disguised as scientists who therefore deserve the bullying.

              So…while Piltdown seems or could be a logical comparison, it really isn’t the way you have been arguing your points. Unless you are saying the CRU results were a fabrication. You aren’t saying that?

    2. “Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.), referencing the recently leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, claimed that the negotiations here were based on “science that is fraudulent.”

      If you look at the IPCC report you see entire chapters with shitloads of researchers that are not affiliated with CRU. The “logic” that because a handful of researchers may have engaged in corrupt shenanigans the results of all research by hundreds of unaffiliated researchers is now disproven or even suspect is moronic at best.

      By that “logic” all evolutionary evidence is false or suspect because of frauds like Pilt-down man.

      What’s important is not whether they are affiliated with the CRU, but where they get their funding and whether they have to cowtow to an expected set of conclusions and views to keep getting it. If they get their funding from government and leftist academia, I would say they are just as suspect.

    3. But the Republicans are known as “the Stupid Party” so what can you do…*

      You know, Mongo.. When even Uncle Fidel is taking cheap shots at Hopey McChange, this might not be the best time to be parading your contempt towards those who disagree with you. You may believe that it makes you look sophisticated, but that’s a symptom of your stunted, sophomoric outlook.

      -jcr

    4. I thought the Republican party was known as the “evil party” and the Democrats were the “stupid party”.

      I have trouble keeping that straight though.

    5. Remember this, MNG?

      http://www.ibsgwatch.imagedjin…..newick.htm

      Your man in charge at the time. Think of all the knowledge we could have gleaned, but he played asshat politics and now we can’t.

    6. What about Kennewick Man, MNG? Your guy in charge at the time, and he blew a huge chance for a piece of the puzzle.

  9. Would it be too much to ask that one of those hundreds of unaffiliated researchers demonstrate a sound climate model before we hand over trillions to the world’s governments.

    1. It is too complicated for minds like ours to ask questions like that. See MNG’s insightful comment above, lol.

    2. Sigh. And other than all the peer reviewed research on the subject what would convince you James?

      1. A predictive model. That’s all.

        1. You want them to send it to you personally? At your house or workplace?

          1. Or would it be ok for them to present it at conferences and in scientific journals as they’ve been doing?

          2. They would put it on prime time on all four networks if they had one.

            1. They would put “the predictive model” on the four networks? I’ve never seen a predictive model in full on any network show. They cover the results and refer to the scientific literature, at best.

              1. I’ve never seen a predictive model in full on any network show.
                See what I mean? If the world really were coming to an end don’t you think a show like that would get great ratings?

                1. That tag should have closed, damnit.

          3. Publishing it for review by people that they can’t hand-pick would be a good start.

            -jcr

          4. Publishing it for review by people that they can’t hand-pick would be a good start.

            -jcr

            1. The research has been published in dozens of journals with literally hundreds of reviewers. You really think the CRU crew handpicked every one?

              1. The Hockey Team isn’t just at the CRU. There are a lot of people on this gravy train.

                -jcr

              2. This list of journals was quite short, as was the list of peer reviewers. They reviewed each others’ work for publication. The peer review process was tainted. Yes, there is a small group that effectively controlled the publication of studies, particularly in the most high profile journals.
                As one example Roy Spencer submitted a paper for publication that had been reviewed by peers, including one whom he knew to disagree with his position. His paper was refused publication. Ironically, the reviewer whom Spencer knew disagreed with his position prior to reading the paper, actually made changes to his own work based on the evidence in Spencer’s paper.
                This is but one of many examples of what has gone on. The mere fact that researchers attempt to ostracize researchers by using ad hominem attacks and labeling them with a pejorative, i.e. “deniers,” says volumes about their intentions.

        2. A predictive model that predicts accurately.

          FTFY

          1. They don’t have such a model, but retarded fetuses like MNG just think if they scream loud enough and often enough it magically becomes true.

  10. In particular, someone needs to demonstrate the positive feedback loop. The evidence doesn’t confirm that, and it may even point to negative feedback.

    1. I just put “James Ard” and “climate change” into google scholar and got this:

      http://scholar.google.com/scho…..as_sdtp=on

      James, I didn’t see any of your pubs there. Is this because of Phil Jones’ bullying?

      Or because you don’t know much about this stuff?

    2. James
      I just went to google scholar and put in “James Ard” and “climate change” and came up with nothing. Is that because of Phil Jones’ bullying, or do you not have any accomplishments in this field?

      If the later why should anyone give a hang that you are convinced AGW proponents have’nt worked out the “feedback loop” problem? Might we conclude you probably don’t have the requisite education, training and experience to know wtf you are talking about?

      1. Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Does this qualify as “the requisite educatinon”, etc?

        Now watch as MNG counters w/ “here is an organization of ‘scientists’, which may or may not have anything to do w/ climate, and whose members may or may not agree w/ the leadership, that said I am right, pre-climategate, so STFU”

        1. Yes, he has more education than me or you and I would say is an expert on the subject.

          But he’s vastly outnumbered by other experts that disagree.

          Now what’s rational, to suppose he is right or the larger number of experts is correct?

          1. But he’s vastly outnumbered by other experts that disagree.

            You can find online listings of scientists who agree with you; I can find online listings of scientists who don’t. You can find ‘experts’ who agree with you; I can find those who don’t. Your experts, BTW, have been found to be playing fast and loose with the truth. What would be anti-intellectual would be for us to obey your command to shut up, sit down, and mindlessly obey the IPCC.

            1. My experts include every major scientific professional association in the relevant fields. Long before there was any politicization or even mention of climate change these organizations were recognized as the top organizations recognizing their fields.

              And on your side of the argument?

              “Your experts, BTW, have been found to be playing fast and loose with the truth.”

              No, a half dozen out of hundreds, if not thousands have.

              1. My experts include every major scientific professional association in the relevant fields.

                That immediately calls for a skeptical response.

                Professional organizations are never affected by political interest, are they?

        2. MNG is not worth engaging. I almost entirely stopped when he said it’s fair to smash his fucking face in.

          He thinks some magic piece of paper gives the shaman magic powers because he licked lots of assholes to get his magic piece of paper.

          1. JB’s petty envy-inspired hate at my educational attainment is matched only by his utter stupidity. I’m currently working on a research report, he’s currently still working on breaking the multi-sentence paragraph barrier…

            JB, this is America, if you had some smarts and some effort you could attain too, and then you would not have to be consumed by petty jealousy.

            I cannot however help you with your tiny dick problem…Maybe if you follow my other advice you can afford a Corvette?

            1. I hear a voice talking. Sounds like the guy who can’t actually do anything productive in his life so he decides to get a PhD in political science.

              Those who can’t do, get useless degrees.

      2. MNG, I don’t have to be a scientist to know that if someone claims that cloud cover will be a positive feedback, they need to be able to include cloud cover in their models. They can’t do that yet.

        1. James, here is MNG’s response:

          EXPERTS!!!!
          EXPERTS!!!!
          EXPERTS!!!!

          STFU!!!
          STFU!!!
          STFU!!!

          1. Oh John-boy, talk all you want. I don’t want you to be silenced, I’m just pointing out that as you can provide no reason for anyone to think what you say on this subject has any credibility your rantings are safely and properly ignored…Folks are too busy listening to people who have demonstrated ability and accomplishments in the relevant fields…

        2. And you know that is the case because…? And you know that hasn’t been addressed as non-fatal or problematic because…?

          See, the proper answer here would be “because I work in the field and analyze this data a lot” or “as a member of this discipline I read the scientific literature quite a bit and it’s been recognized as a problem”

          1. Or “very important people pushing for this have been found to be dishonest, and people w/ perfectly good credentials doubt the claim”.

            If you get to quote others, so do we. If you get to rely on others, so do we. MNG, where is YOUR original research?

            1. Er, and many more people with perfectly good credentials agree with the claim.

              Again, I don’t need any original research when I’m relying on the majority of experts. You’ve got the burden: why should anyone believe you and a small minority over them? I know why people should believe me: because most experts do.

              1. My list is longer than your list.

          2. If it has been addressed as non-fatal and problematic by your experts than they are more crooked than I thought.

            1. See, you don’t know if or how it’s been addressed, because, be honest, you are not current on the expert literature in the relevant field. Yet you insist on pontificating on the subject!

              1. I know that it has been addressed and that it has been sidestepped because I read an article on it yesterday you damn fool.
                http://www.americanthinker.com….._data.html

                1. American Thinker? Yeah, that’s a leading scientifict journal!

                  This is what kills me about you “skeptics.” Major scientific organizations and hundreds of peer reviewed articles you doubt, but American Thinker magazine says something and that you accept uncritically.

                  Jesus H. Christ…

                  1. MIT and Princeton physicists that haven’t been busted falsifying data yet.

          3. MNG, why don’t you just say what you really mean with all of this:

            Al Gore says so!

      3. I just went to google scholar and put in “James Ard” and “climate change” and came up with nothing.

        Oddly enough, Mongo isn’t in there, either.

        -jcr

  11. The true believers do not want you to know, “It is not the heat; it is the humidity?
    What the geocentric believers always miss is a subtle study from Denmark. Two geophysicists (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991) found a 95% correlation with sunspot peak frequency and cooling and heating. When the peaks are farther apart, all the planets cool and when the peaks are closer, all the planets warm. It is such a great correlation that the editor of Science magazine said, “now the ball on anthropogenic global warming is in the other court”. This was published in Science in 1991. It is such a strong correlation that AGW was held at bay for four or five years and came back with “Correlation is Not Causation”. George Monbiot of the Guardian debunked the study by reversing the effect, and citing the conclusion as false. He could be just plain stupid or intellectually fraudulent. That column has been deleted from the Manchester Guardian archives. Variation in heat output, however, is a red herring, only varying in the fourth significant figure and probably has nothing to do with it.

    Solar causation, however, is supported by experiment. The cause of cyclical climate change has since been subject to experimentation by the successor scientists at the Danish National Space Centre. The sunspots are simply a proxy for the sun’s magnetic shield that shields earth too. In a sunspot minimum, the shields are down and cosmic radiation (iron ions mostly) bombard the earth and seed the clouds.

    Toronto, where I live, is particularly sensitive to the magnetic (sunspot) cycle because the Great Lakes Basin is a huge cloud chamber. The rainiest summers on record were in 2008-9. The previous rainfall record was during the sunspot minimum of 1986, a 22 year cycle low. 22 year cycles are more pronounced than the 11 year cycle for some unknown reason.
    Every 22 years the magnetic poles of the sun shift. Right now is mysterious because they are horizontal instead of parallel to the rotational pole.

    The Danes now have international support and an experiment scheduled for the Hadron Collider soon. I cannot wait to see if there is more support for the sun in global warming. It is a variable star. It is not the heat, it is the humidity?The precipitation in the form of ice and snow and changes in reflectivity are huge as is the cooling effect of evaporation. I have just exceeded my safe zone of knowledge on the subject. Speculation for me is that the centre of gravity of the solar system (Sun-Jupiter centre of mass) has a pronounced wobble and controls the magnet behaviour of the sun.

    The church squashed the Galilean proposal for the earth orbiting the sun; now it is the church of Gore.

    1. And don’t you forget it, you pitiful heretics. Soon will come the day when I can have you all thrown in dungeons for your crimes against Gaia.

  12. If the science needs investigating, a reporter from Mother Jones magazine asked, who should do it?

    With a theory this politicized, there is no one above reproach with regard to bias. No scientist can claim to have no set opinion going into the research. The alarmists’ tactics have seen to that.

    The best are going to do is a panel of avowed alarmists and avowed skeptics, each side putting up theories with the opposing side knocking them down. They can do this until either or both sides have exhausted all credibility or we enter the next little ice age, whichever comes first.

    1. The best are going to do is a panel of avowed alarmists and avowed skeptics, each side putting up theories with the opposing side knocking them down.

      Shouldn’t this have been done all along? Present theory, challenge theory, repeat.

      1. Its been done moron, in hundreds of conferences and peer review submissions across the disciplines and the world. You might have missed it seeing as how you know jack about this area.

        1. Here’s the problem you have. Right or wrong, many of the people you need to believe the AGW theory currently distrust the science behind it. This is, of course, thanks to the actions of people like Jones and Mann. Among other things, they’ve thrown the idea of “peer review” (with regard to climate science) out the window.

          Either you don’t care if the skeptics come around to your way of thinking, which is great for everyone, or you need to convince them. Unfortunately for you, if you do want to prove your case, that means going back to square one.

    2. This is EXACTLY what anti-evolutionists are saying. I linked to it two weeks ago.

      1. “Anti-evolutionists say science is wrong, therefore anyone who disagrees w/ a scientist may as well believe the world is 6000 years old”.

        That’s not an analogy, that’s slander based on nothing more than your assertion.

        MNG, do you believe AGW is just as ‘settled’ as evolution? Every bit as settled and proven? The evidence for both is equally strong?

        And when answering the above, please list the scientific credentials YOU have, since that’s the only thing that gives assertions about ‘science’ any believability.

        1. I don’t think the consensus for AGW is as strong as for evolution.

          However, the logic in: because the CRU crew did fraud therefore all AGW research is wrong is the exact same as because Pilt-down is a fraud all evolution is wrong.

          This is empirical as well as logical. I linked to the Creation Institute two weeks ago and they made all the same points you make: there is a confirmation bias and corruption in the scientific community that leads to the evolution consensus. Want to see the articles again John-boy?

          1. If you wanted $145T in new govt based solely on Piltdown Man just as the hoax was discovered, then you’d have an analogy.

            1. We COULD have learned things from the Kennewick Man find, but MNG’s idol Bill Clinton dropped the ball on that.

              On purpose.

    3. No.

      The scientific method is well prepared to deal with bias though its dependence on:
      1) Transparency
      2) Reproducability
      3) Lack of finality

      Tomorrow, I could come up with a paper describing observations that overturn a well established theory like the conservation of momentum. If, other people could reproduce my observations, then eventually a principle that has been accepted as true for centuries would be falsified (although it would persist in being used in engineering since it is applicable to many engineering problems).

      The CRU fiasco demonstrates that much of the IPCC process was actively trying to violate all three principles, in an attempt to give rock solid credibility to theories that would be open to deconstructing should their inner-workings be exposed, leading to attempts to sabotage skeptical would-be reproducers, so that the matter would be held as being effectively finalized.

      It is the lack of finality that is the most critical component of science. A bad theory can be preserved in place only for the lifetime of the people emotionally attached to it. An institution or a panel that performs a review that is intended to be the end-all be all would destroy this principle.

      The CRU emails demonstrate that the entire IPCC process was geared to producing a predetermined outcome – AGW. The data that was released, most critically the meta-data that shows how they decided to include and exclude observations from their analyses, allows more knowledgeable examination of the initial IPCC claims. In time, out of crisis, will come truth.

      And who knows, the AGW alarmists may turn out to have been right. Although, from my experience doing computer modeling of plasmas as a undergrad, I see so many flaws in the way the CRU models are constructed that I consider them to be slightly more reliable than the insane homeless guy prophesying outside the Harvard stop of the Redline some summer afternoon.

      1. tarran
        The IPCC report included the work of literally hundreds of researchers not affiliated or implicated in the CRU mess. Additionally, the work of many researchers published in outlets other than the IPCC report come to similar conclusions. How can you conclude anything about their work based on what some folks in the CRU were doing?

        1. Researchers not affiliated w/ CRU, not citing CRU papers, not using any CRU data, not being refereed by CRU members, not impacted by the groupthing CRU was trying to generate by making an example of any wayward publication, no personal relationship w/ any CRU personnel?

          You have all of that, and it all absolutely proves we need to spend $145T?

        2. Because the CRU guys were working closely with the guys deciding what got into the IPCC report.

          Imagine a UN panel on torture is being convened. Imagine that email came to light shoing John Yoo asking someone if he wanted to be on the panel and if so what post they’d want to have, would you be very suprised when the independent panel came up with reports who agreed with Yu?

          Moreover many of those researchers are using one of three temperature datasets that were compiled with simmilar processes from the same raw data series. Thus, it is not surprising that they could all be led astray, if the common sources of data they were using were flawed.

          In the end I think that 2 additional decades of satellite observations will be required before the issues of raw data become a non-issue.

          1. This doesn’t address all the research not in the IPCC, correct?

            Secondly, you have some proof of how much control the CRU guys in question had over all the chapters of the IPCC report and the research they reference? From what I saw Phil Jones was one of two people in charge of ONE chapter of the report, and even then the draft was vetted by about a dozen people (editors) who AFAIK have no demonstrated link to the CRU affair.

            1. They had a far more pervasive influence; they also were ghostwriting submissions made by soem of the otehr IPCC chapters.

              The bishop hill blog had all the gory details, and I don’t have time to look it up since we’re about to hve my daughter’s birthday party.

              Please note, much of the research is you are describing consists of adding little details to the framework. There are lots of John Smiths and very few Newtons…

              The major framework is provided by a few papers and studies critical of those papers were definitely kept out of consideration from the IPCC process not because of their validity but because of their conclusions.

              Again, the Bishop hill blog is a pretty good summary of the mess.

              1. You’ll have to prove that because I for one don’t like to accept such things on faith. Prove the extent the CRU crew had in the IPCC, to that extent the IPCC reports are questionable.

                Then you can address all the non-IPCC peer reviewed stuff finding similar conclusions.

                1. Ron B already links to an independent review of the evidence.

                  http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/collection.html

                  Really, the IPCC process was pretty robust and came out with a convservative document with appropriate caveats.

                  It was run very much within the bounds of acceptable procedures for a systematic review and includes open documentation of its process. IPCC authors have, actually, asked the UN to open up their documentation even more fully and have suggested that all session notes be published on-line so that the entire process can be examined by anyone who has concerns over issues of bias.

                2. You’ll have to prove that because I for one don’t like to accept such things on faith.

                  [snicker, snicker]

  13. So, Ron, what’s the deal? Where do you stand now?

    I’m sorry if I’m being a dick (not really), but I want to hear where you stand now with the CRU revelations.

  14. If the science needs investigating, a reporter from Mother Jones magazine asked, who should do it?

    Apparently not a reporter from Mother Jones.

  15. I just searched for James Ard and climate change on google scholar.

    http://scholar.google.com/scho…..as_sdtp=on

    James, I didn’t see any of your pubs there. What gives?

  16. If the evidence confirms AGW then please explain what would compell the CRU people to behave the way they did.

    1. Your doubts forced them to lie. As the Vanguard of the Proletariat, your betters sometimes have to lie to you for your own good. Just accept they know best and turn your life over to them.

      1. I lied for Your Own Good, for I have Special Dispensation from my God, Mother Earth, to be deceitful in Her Holy Cause.

        Plus, I get to fly and ride in limos, which shall soon be denied to you peasants. Chinese-made bicycles and matching clothing for the lot of you.

  17. Do you remember the guy in Korea who fraudently claimed to do successful cloning research? I’m not sure why he did that. I am sure it doesn’t matter as to the veracity of the claims of cloning research he was not involved in.

    Does that mean that all cloning research is now suspect?

    1. Not the research, the claims.
      The research data needs to be made available to others for verification.

      As with Cold Fusion.

  18. If the major group of researchers into cloning had been found to be dishonest and their fellow travelers were demanding $145T, then yes, it would all be suspect.

    MNG, if you want a proper analogy, find us ‘science’ with the equivalent of climategate, that’s the basis for a $145T power grab. If you can’t, then STFU.

  19. I know this is sorta off topic. The more I read MNG, the more I see Joe. The sarcastic gloating and childishly snide superiority are incredibly similar. Were these two contemporaries?

    1. Liberalism is about feeding the massive ego of liberals; you exist to tell them that they are your betters and you need them to protect you from your own stupidity. That’s why liberals like MNG and Joe are interchangeable.

    2. That, and “sarcastic gloating and childishly snide superiority” is really just a bluff to shut down opposition.

  20. bb
    I only try gloating when the arguments on the other side are so amazingly poor and childish, like this: “when fraud is discovered by scientists who advocate X then all research advocating X is suspect”

    What more charitable terms would you use to describe such reasoning and people who would loudly and proudly scream it?

    1. The massaging of the data brings me to a few questions. Admittedly, I know very little about the situation. Was data shared with other scientists arguing for man-caused warming? If so, was it the original data or the altered data? Is the original intact? How can we be certain it is unaltered? How many reliable sources are there for such data? Is the data verifiable through alternate and reliable sources?

      I understand your frustration with some commentors here but when your tone becomes petty end childish, you argument is lost. IMHO

      1. Like this one any better?

        Russian analysts accuse Britain’s Meteorological Office of cherry-picking Russian temperature data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. Is Copenhagen rooted in a single tree in Siberia?

        1. This is a great example. The “Russian analysts” who make the accusation are a pro-market ideological think tank which does economic analysis. And they make an accusation that the analysis was wrong. And this is news or…what exactly? If they have proof of cherry-picking then put it to the scientific community, present that evidence at conferences and submit it to top journals and convince the mass of scientists out there. But what kind of fool would think something has been proven by the group’s mere assertion, especially when they wear their ideological opposition to AGW on their sleeves and are not connected to a relevant field? And you guys call yourselves “skeptics?” This is the credulity of children…

          1. “Pro-market” = “evil”, of course…

          2. They made the accusation that your team cherry picked data instead of using the whole set.

            You call yourself a scientist? I call you a fraud and your hate of females is something else all together.

          3. MNG, if you have an ounce of integrity, look into the questions raised by the “homogenisation” process. If that doesn’t pique your curiousity, then you have no interest in the science and are only playing politics.

      2. bb
        Sorry but your selective concern for tone is a little suspect. Here’s a sample of people on the other side on this thread alone, all of which you do not call out for having a “petty tone”

        sage|12.19.09 @ 9:21AM|#
        Oh jeez, Pilt down man again?

        You are like a dog with a dinosaur bone.

        Why don’t you unzip your Gaza and wave that at us too?

        Johnny Longtorso|12.19.09 @ 10:24AM|#
        Liberalism is about feeding the massive ego of liberals; you exist to tell them that they are your betters and you need them to protect you from your own stupidity. That’s why liberals like MNG and Joe are interchangeable.

        Suki|12.19.09 @ 10:34AM|#
        MNG’s mom, please send her out to play? She is polluting the room with all of her poop flinging.

        In other words bb, you’re full of shit IMHO.

        1. Maybe bb noticed a change in your tone, MNG. So maybe you shouldn’t assume he’s “full of shit”.

        2. Yes I am full of shit and cherrypicking the comments to attack and belittle you and only you. My apologies. I will try very hard not to make such callous comparsons of you in the future. Carry on with your discussions with others.

          1. But MNG is fine with cherry picking Russian temperature data as long as it is his team doing it. Any objection is rejected as being from the wrong think tank.

    2. If scientist X was some nobody out in some East nowhere research facility, then I could see your point MNG. However, you have to admit that these people weren’t bit players in the AGW theory.

      If I found documents from Einstein talking about doctoring his theories, I would then have some doubt about how settled relativity is. Since Quantum physicists are not demanding the shut down of huge portions of the economy as a result of their research, I would probably not give a damn about that doubt, but yes the doubt would exist.

      Since the doubt is about a science that IS asking that we do immense damage to our economy to counteract the damage that their theories predict, they have a HUGE responsibility to be WAY ABOVE REPROACH. Since some members of that science have shown they are not, and since they are key players in the circle that proposes this science, I would ask that they go back to the drawing board, and EVERY move be documented and public. In triplicate if necessary. Due to the nature of what they are asking, they should be required to deliver nothing less.

  21. This just in: Ben Nelson signs on and dems have 60 in sente for health reform.

    1. Progressive moral superiority at work:

      Democratic leaders also offered Nelson a deal similar to the $300 million in Medicaid assistance Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got for her support, numerous sources told Fox News.

      When asked about this, Sen. Kent Conrad, a key Democratic leader involved in the negotiations with Nelson, said, “Oh, it’ll be much more.”

    2. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., another participant in the talks, sounded pleased. “I’ve been in Harry Reid’s office for 13 hours and I’m glad to get out of there,” he said. “But I’m particularly glad with what has happened in that office.”

      That’s for that visual, Chuckles.

      1. Did he call Harry Reid a bitch?

        1. Right after they blew each other. But emotions run high after sexual activity.

    3. The way I see it is the longer this goes on the more Democrats get sacrificed at the alter of Healthcare reform.

      1. The ‘conservative’ GOP will circle the wagons around any existing program the minute it is passed. The goal of govt health care is to make us dependent enough, for our own good, that we have no choice to give the libs what they want. The worse the bill is, the more pain, the better, because that will motivate us to do what MNG thinks is best.

        For our own good.

        1. The “bond” to the people from this bill won’t be near as binding as the bipartisan entitlement expansions of the past.

          1. You’ll need 60 Senators to repeal it, assuming a Republican president w/ the stones to sign off on repeal. It will never happen. Govt programs never die, never get repealed, never expire. Govt is the largest special interest group there is, and it will always get what it wants thru our “democratic” system. We exist to vote occasionally and give our masters a cover of fake legitimacy, not to have any impact on the ever increasing growth of the state. The govt is big enough, and has enough $$, to bully or buy any vote it needs to get what it wants no matter what the peons want. It can’t be stopped, it can’t be controlled, it can’t be held accountable to anyone or anything. We exist for them. They own you. They are everything and you are nothing. I have seen the future, and it is the boot of the likes of MNG on the face of humanity, forever.

            1. I wonder if it can squeeze blood out of a stone?

  22. And bb, you’ve seen no “sarcastic gloating and childishly snide superiority” from the side you happen to agree with? Don’t feel the need to intervene there, eh?

    1. Like the perfect example below from Suki?? Some people , I just consider the source and disregard the post.

      You, on the other hand, are trying to take a real position on a difficult topic. I don’t consider myself a so-called denier. I believe that the planet is warming. I even suspect that man has some role in the causation of warming. Where I really run into trouble is when I try to discern the truth, it comes out that some scientists were being free and loose with accepted procedures to achieve a political and social goal. That makes me suspicious and paranoid of the whole process. I haven’t closed my mind on the subject. It is good to hear your arguments and follow your links but when you replace good discourse with name-calling and finger-pointing, that’s where you lose me.

      1. This should be here.

        Russian analysts accuse Britain’s Meteorological Office of cherry-picking Russian temperature data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. Is Copenhagen rooted in a single tree in Siberia?

        Big Thread strikes again.

  23. MNG’s mom, please send her out to play? She is polluting the room with all of her poop flinging.

  24. It’s over, folks.

    WASHINGTON ? A holdout no more, Sen. Ben Nelson agreed Saturday to provide the 60th and deciding vote for Senate passage of sweeping health care legislation, capping a year of struggle and a final burst of deadline bargaining.

    Nelson, D-Neb., said he made his decision after winning fresh concessions to limit the availability of abortions in insurance sold in newly created exchanges, as well as tens of million in federal Medicaid funds for his home state.

    1. Damn you and your scooping ways, brotherben!

      1. Mrs. brotherben complains about my quickness as well.

        1. You didn’t read the tantra books she keeps buying you for your birthday?

        2. BenGay – rub a little dab on the end of your tool and you’ll be numb for half an hour or more. Long enough to keep her from complaining.

          1. If he was gay, she’d have a lot more to complain about.

            1. Oh, wait. Nevermind.

              1. I was similarly disappointed.

    2. It’s hardly over…
      Not until the House votes and passes it and the half-black man signs it.

      1. Past this point, they only need bare majorities.

        1. Without the public option, the house vote is in doubt. I expect , though, that Lazerus will rise again and nine democrat senators will vote against the final bill. So not only will it pass, it will pass with the public option.

          1. …and they will tell the voters they voted against the public option, knowing they cast the vote that made the public option possible. Like I said, they will always game the system to get what they want (more govt) while avoiding any blame or accountability.

          2. They need 60 votes to pass the conference committee bill too.

        2. It is extremely unusual to have a conference committee report filibustered, but if the Dems try to sneak the public option back in it’s guaranteed to happen. Definitely wouldn’t be a good idea for them to do that.

  25. Obama said that healthcare reform would cut costs and shield patients from corporate abuse.

    “The protections currently included in both the health insurance reform bill passed by the House and the version currently on the Senate floor would represent the toughest measures we’ve ever taken to hold the insurance industry accountable,” Obama said.

    “The insurance industry knows all this. That’s why they’re at it again, using their muscle in Washington to try to block a vote they know they will lose,” he said.

    All praise the Demonizer-in-chief!

    ( Meanwhile, notorious tool of the Corporatist Evildoers Simon Bar Sinister has trained his Snow Gun on the East Coast; a transparently futile attempt to sow doubt amongst the proles.)

    1. I’m loving this D.C. snowstorm, it’s the type we only get about every seven years or so.

      I shudder to think how much snow we’d get if there were no manmade global warming. 🙂

      1. Ditto here in Pittsburgh. I never remember snow even sticking to the ground here until last year, when I had to shovel pretty much every day in January. And today we’re getting buried again.

        Then again, since global warming is supposed to cause “weird weather”, its advocates will even use snowstorms as evidence for warming.

        1. Worse than that, they will use global cooling as evidence of global warming. Actually, as we all know, the appropriate term is now “climate change” and after all, we all now know that the climate is a static system that has remained constant and stable for … oh, wait a minute, the gobal climate has NEVER remained constant and stable. I guess that is why it is so easy to demonstrate scientifically and exactly the ways in which man and his CO2 emissions are altering the climate.

      2. We’re supposed to get 8+ inches by the end of the day here. Biggest single day of snow I remember since 1993. Yeah, Global Warming. I probably would be snowed in if not for all the carbon in the atmosphere.

  26. Oh yeah, you hit that nail square on the head!

    Jes
    http://www.anonymous-web.cz.tc

  27. P Brooks|12.18.09 @ 9:52AM|#

    If I recall correctly, the Overclass can take the Bills from the House and the Senate into reconciliation, and emerge with something which bears no resemblance whatsoever (other than the title page) to what they started with. That is what I expect to happen. And it will come barrelling out of a dark-of-night session to a vote before ANYBODY knows what’s in it.

    I would really really like to see something which might make me think I’m wrong. I haven’t, so far.

    Let the bribery negotiation commence!

  28. Welcome to the coming Marxist paradise, comrads.

  29. Once the politicians MNG has attached his massive left wing ego to have total power, all humanity’s problems will be solved!!!

    1. John-boy let’s work on your reading comprehension skills. I am AGAINST the Democratic health care reform. I’ve posted on that point literally hundreds of times. It is a disaster. And I am AGAINST the cap-and-trade disaster of a bill the House passed and the Senate is considering. I’m also AGAINST any carbon tax proposal I’ve seen. I also knew that nothing good could come out of the sausage making diplomats at the Copenhagen conference.

      I’m also against gun control and affirmative action (I’ve worked for Ward Connerly’s organization several times collecting petitions).

      For the last time I think AGW is correct because most people who know more than I do say it is. If they start saying it doesn’t add up then I will be the first and happiest to agree.

      You live in such a simplistic talk-radio world I pity you. The world is a more interesting place than that.

      1. The Presidential Candidate I most enthusiastically cast my vote for in my lifetime was Pat Buchanan for pete’s sake. Ross Perot would be my second choice.

        I did vote for Clinton in 92 and Obama in 08 because the GOP, after several terms, needed a spanking.

        1. Oh, and I vote pretty much GOP here in Maryland. Our GOP is pretty moderate and our Dems are pretty far out.

          When I lived in VA I voted pretty much straight Democrat since the VA GOP were a bunch of Pat Robertson zombies. I did however proudly vote for John Warner every time he was up, including supporting him against my 08 Presidential fav, Mark Warner.

          1. And yet, with your preference for voting Republican, you sound like Al Gore.

        2. I would NEVER brag about voting for Buchanan. Well James maybe, but not Pat.

          MNG, are you trying to cozy up to LW?

      2. THE ECONOMICS ARE SETTLED MNG AND YOU WANT TO KILL MILLIONS FOR LACK OF HEALTH CARE IF YOU OPPOSE WHAT OUR MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL PROGRESSIVE SUPERIORS DEMAND IN THEIR WISDOM!! THEY ARE THE RESULT OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HUMAN MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL PROGRESS AND YOU ARE ANTI-INTELLECUTAL AND ANTI-HUMANITY IF YOU OPPOSE THEM ON ANY ISSUE!! THEY ARE THE EXPERTS AND YOU AREN’T!!!

        WHERE IS YOUR ECONOMICS PhD? WHERE IS YOUR MEDICAL DEGREE? HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH OUR BETTERS ON HEALTHCARE!!!! SUBMIT TO YOUR BETTERS, BITCH, SUBMIT TO YOUR LEFT WING BETTERS!!!!!!!!!

        1. LOUD NOISES!!

          1. HURR DURR DURR

            ARAB OIL KILLS US BUT WE LIKE IT

            HURR DURR HURR HURRRRRRR

            HUR.

  30. This isn’t anything but a scam to steal from the darker races and to exploit theirresrouces. Reason, you should be ashamed of yourselves for supporting Coppenhagen.

    1. Lee-ROOOOYYYYYYY

  31. For the last time I think AGW is correct because most people who know more than I do say it is.

    That’s fair. Now let me ask you this: Do you believe that it’s a serious problem? IOW, one so serious that it needs to swallow trillions of dollars to fix?

    1. Going over this thread I think I can speak for MNG with an emphatic “No” on that question. He thinks Cap n’Rape and “carbon taxes” are a joke as far as I can tell.

      1. You’ll have to prove that because I for one don’t like to accept such things on faith.

        For the last time I think AGW is correct because most people who know more than I do say it is.

        He probably doesn’t like that he’s taking AGW on faith, so I am also going to guess that he’s not cool with tithing at that magnitude.

        1. And you are not taking your position on faith? You’re a climate scientist or a paleontologist or a geologist?

          Oh, you’re not? So your not only taking your position on faith, you’ve convinced yourself you “figured it out” yourself. Yeah, figured it out by reading blogs on the internet…

          1. I absolutely am taking a position of faith. I’m also not asking anyone else to subsidize it.

            1. Neither am I. Can you point to where I’ve advocated that?

              1. If you re-read my comment, you will see that my guess was that you weren’t going to advocate it.

                I am also guessing that you have more doubt in AGW than you’re ready to admit.

  32. I need to be more specific I guess. Do we really need to reduce carbon emissions? Ergo, the spending of trillions of dollars.

    1. I hope not. Really. I don’t want to see the spending of any money if it’s not true. Think about it: even if I’m a liberal caricature, wouldn’t I rather see that money spent on something else (alleviating hunger, promoting fair labor standards, or whatever liberals are supposed to want to spend money on) rather than just for the fun of restricting people?

      Now sage let me ask you a question. If AGW is true, and if it is going to harm persons and property as some experts say it will, what is justified to be done by governments to ameliorate that?

      My answer is I am not sure, it’s a tough question. But honestly whatever is done I want it to be done with the least amount of restrictions and waste possible in order to prevent that harm. And I can’t foresee our government or world governments acting together achieving that in a million years to be honest…

      So really all I heartily endorse right now is education and voluntary action. Already many people are trying to take significant voluntary steps to reduce their carbon footprints and innovators and businesspersons are helping them. Let that happen for a while and see is my view at this point.

      But I’m not going to plug my ears and close my eyes to what most people who have much more qualifications than me are saying about the science of the phenomena of AGW just because it may recquire policy I’d rather not see to address its effects…

      1. But restricting people is FUN!

        Um, except for me. I still get to keep my jet planes and limousines and my big-assed energy-hog mansion.

        1. Mostly just a big ASS.

          1. Minions! We have a heretic in our midst! Burn the unbeliever in an ecologically-friendly manner!

      2. If AGW is true, and if it is going to harm persons and property as some experts say it will, what is justified to be done by governments to ameliorate that?

        Fair question. It would depend on the specific damage that’s to happen. For example, some predictions of future heat waves are pointing to a possibility of X number of elderly dying from heat exposure. Would reducing carbon emissions shave any significant amount from the peaks of those heat waves such that the number of deaths will be reduced? I haven’t seen any studies that claim that it will. But for a far lower cost than $145T, we can supply X number of air conditioners to those old people so they can beat the heat. Not exactly a true scotsman/libertarian in that regard, I know.

        1. Seems reasonable to me.

  33. I explained MNG in my book “The True Believer”…Have any of you read it?

    1. That book is a fav of mine. Now, who is the “true believer”, a person who defers to those who have more education and expertise than him on a rather technical issue, or the persons who decide their mind on such technical issues by reading conservative magazines and blogs?

      1. A true believer is one who finds his life so worthless that he must lose himself in a mass movement. Once a person has embraced a cause it is near impossible to dissuade him, no matter what logic or proof you show him.
        Tell me what the best sea level for human happiness is

        1. Believing what scientists tell us about scientific phenomena is not embracing a cause.

          Denying what scientists tell us about scientific phenomena because of fears your ideological values may be harmed is the raison d’etre of embracing a cause…

          1. It’s gone way beyond harming ideological values, MNG… it’s square into harming economic reality.

            Raising taxes and energy costs will NOT rebuild the economy. Quite the opposite, in fact.

      2. A true believer is someone who stubbornly continues to cling to a theory even after the theory has already been disproved by observed events.

        1. Thats right, and more scientists who study the observed event of global warming say it is happening than say it is not.

          1. When somebody says that something is happening and it isn’t really happening, I call that person a liar.

            There has been absolutely no warming in the last eleven years. Just the opposite in fact, it has cooled down slightly over that time period.

            1. Did you see the report R. Bailey put up just last week done by very AGW-unfriendly Dr. Spencer from Huntsville-Alabama that said, concurring with many other sources btw, otherwise? Shit buddy you can’t even keep up with your own right-wing blogs, much less the scientific literature. Why the hell would anyone care a fig what you have to say on the subject when it conflicts with people with more qualifications than you?

              1. Reason accepts payola! Hurr durr!

      3. MNG, I’m not a climatologist, but my career and technical expertise is in software QA and development, with a focus on large software systems (including massive simulators for things like financial markets and subpoena searches in twenty languages for Fortune 500 companies). Let me illustrate some issues I have with current AGW formulations:

        1. The climatologists don’t develop the software for their models; i.e. they are not “experts” themselves in the methods they use for their experiments. Most climatologist couldn’t interpret the source code for this web page much less their simulators. Given the sloppy data security and so forth at CRU, it proves my point.

        2. The core NASA AGW code simulator (which every other major AGW-centric research institute leverages for their own code) is derived from legacy software written in FORTRAN for computer architectures that don’t exist anymore. That introduces the potential for serious mathematical errors in algorithms run in series over time.

        3. Bias assumptions are rife in the simulator. For instance, there is no accounting for man-made additions to humidity or heat output via heat-cycle engines. Water is by both weight and molar content the significant majority of combustion products in these engines (car, plane, boat, train, power station) and a significant plurality of the combustion products from coal plants. In the core simulations used by NASA et al, there is no way to differentiate the man-made additions to the hydrosphere from the natural mean average in things like cloud cover (contrails) or humidity (urban islands) or heat addition to the atmosphere.

        The problems I outlined above are not problems with climate science per se, but they are significant technical problems with the science of the simulator itself which is something I am an expert on.

        1. I would add to your list the “homogenisation” process from GHCN and others. If you can’t make a specific adjustment to a specific measurement for a clear reason, you shouldn’t be making any adjustments at all.

        2. TheZeitgeist

          Not being a programmer, but someone who works on validation of behavioral measurement techniques…I would note that the simulator can be seen as a black box and still be validated if the proper procedures are followed (blind data sets, etc…). That said, for these climate models, knowing that your inputs represent real parameters would be necessary for interpretation. These guys do a lot of work to demonstrate that each individual proxy measure is valid before it is included in the simulators.

          So, while I appreciate your concerns here, I think they need to be put into the larger context of WHY the larger climate science community believes the results. These models have been shown, despite the potential problems you mention, to have sufficient skills to answer many of the questions they are used for.

          That said…some people DO overestimate their capabilities and over interpret results as a result. But there are enough people out there paying attention to these issues to minimize the damage…at least that is my reading of it.

          1. That said, for these climate models, knowing that your inputs represent real parameters would be necessary for interpretation.

            I can see your point (black box, white box, you know the lingo) on the why of this general consensus. However, it almost seems like a pre-ordained conclusion towards CO2-driven warming with the basic setup in the GISS GCM data to run.

            Carbon emissions (actually, the rogue’s gallery of Bad Emissions…CO2, carbon black, SO2, CFC’s, etc.) are user-controlled variables in the GISS. But the way you input the data (or at least the researchers do) is an interesting methodology: You take the best census numbers you can get (hardcore scrounging here from what I can see…county records from Montana circa 1880 type stuff) and multiply that population number by the best per-capita carbon footprint you can get for the year in question. That’s how the carbon emission is geographically distributed and computed in most of these models. Obviously, not everyone was keeping census records going back 400 years, but the safe assumption is if you’re not keeping a census, your carbon footprint is nil, hence default natural carbon cycle is assumed. As the clock runs on the sim, the data-set for each year obviously gets better as you get into the modern era.

            Now, you could pick straws all day with that technique, but really its about as good as you’re going to get. The billions of man-hours spent on collecting and arranging that mess into the appropriate tables for the sim makes me shudder.

            But its not the data that’s there that I wonder about, its the missing stuff. Specifically the way people have manipulated the hydrosphere…there is no input for a anthropogenic variable on that in anything I’ve seen digging through this data and code (and I’ve been digging I assure you). Nada, zip. I find that a pretty bad omission, because as I’ve mentioned before if you’re burning hydrocarbons you’re making more water than CO2…and none of the models take into account any of that.

            The default assumption here is that water only hangs in the air for a few days before being cycled out of the atmosphere. OK, makes sense. But people are a real-time effect…every anthropogenic drop nature wrings out of the troposphere (and these days stratosphere) is replaced by the peeps the next day. More drops than the day before actually, given the growth of people and their industry. So there is an effect there I think – a big one potentially – and it just isn’t a controlled parameter in the simulator. Its assumed to be “nature” and despite my layman’s climate expertise, I know that isn’t true.

            Another anthropogenic hydrological phenomena that I’ve realized is a non-factor in these simulators is the geographical distribution of water by people. The Aral Sea for instance has been almost drained completely. Lake Nasser and Lake Meade are mini-oceans in the middle of deserts where no body of water that size can naturally be. Obviously these are going to drive their own microclimates and such…and there is no parameter to account for that kind of manipulation of water by people.

            I think a good deal of the “why” on this consensus that way (amongst many models, including CRU’s) has to do with the fact you cannot input these kinds of phenomena into the model. The rogue’s gallery I mentioned above is it, the simulator assumes no other parameter could be a human input. CO2 is kind of the only game in town that way on the GISS and its “children.”

  34. On the other hand, the developing countries, most especially including China, are fiercely refusing to give up on the Kyoto Protocol, chiefly because under it they don’t have to do anything to control their emissions of greenhouse gases.

    So, the Chinese are hiding behind the fictional problem of CO2 caused warming so they don’t have to address the real problem of SO2 emissions?

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear…..rming.html

    Have the Greens ever not been the flunkies for the agenda of some party who stood to gain from having a market advantage, be it the Saudi’s in the 70’s, Dow/Corning in the 80’s, Toyota in the 90’s, or China today?

  35. Who says Americans are shallow and disconnected? Let’s take a look at our major media priorities at 4:01 PM Eastern Time:

    NBC: Snowboarding
    CBS: NCAA Basketball
    ABC: Infomercials
    CNN: The appeal of Viral Videos!
    MSNBC: The tribulations of black transvestites
    HLN: Snow!

  36. In his book The Mismeasure of Man Stephen Jay Gould exposed outright falsification by one of the leading fathers of intelligence testing and science (Cyril Burt).

    Question: Does that make all science on intelligence and intelligence testing suspect?

    It’s funny to see the right engaging in such terrible logic (since X who advocated Y engaged in fraud all people who advocated Y are therefore wrong). It’s the same thing the left did when people like noted libertarian Charles Murray mustered a great amount of evidence that intelligence was significantly inherited. The left shuddered at the policy implications of that and tried to deny the findings of scores of experts in the field. They pointed to examples of questionable practices by SOME researchers in the feild to discredit ALL researchers in that area.

    Intelligent Design advocates, as I demonstrated with links to the Discovery Institute’s website a few weeks back, do the same thing. They don’t like the implications of evolutionary research. They point to questionable behavior by evolutionary researchers to “discredit” all research endorsing evolution.

    The list goes on and on. You guys are afraid that AGW will be used to violate your ideological predelictions. Everyone gets that. But noone with any sense is going to believe your rantings over people with far superior qualifications who have reviewed the body of research out there and agree that AGW is for real.

    1. “MNG|12.19.09 @ 4:12PM|#

      In his book The Mismeasure of Man Stephen Jay Gould exposed outright falsification by one of the leading fathers of intelligence testing and science (Cyril Burt).

      Question: Does that make all science on intelligence and intelligence testing suspect?”

      First, false analogy:
      No one (even AGW “deniers”) is claiming climate science as a whole is suspect; “deniers” claim the *conclusions* of some scientists within the field won’t hold water.
      Further, if ‘intelligence research’ was based on Burt’s data, then, yes *all* conclusions following from that are suspect.
      In this case, we have a central figure in the specific conclusions who has yet to clear the air: “He did not address his use of the phrase “to hide the decline.”
      While you may not like the source, until some one successfully refutes the claim, it seems data from Russia is at least suspect, if not fudged.
      And the case isn’t helped by Mann’s seemingly conscious fabrication (and defense) of the ‘hockey stick’. Why is he still publishing?
      Then we have another of the leading lights (Hansen) making the claim that by this year, windows in NYC would have to be taped against the winds.
      I’d be far more inclined to yield my position if there had been any non-trivial, specific, dated predictions which have been shown.

      To make my position clear, I’m convinced and not at all surprised the climate is changing. Further, I’m convinced man plays some role in the current changes.
      I’m not convinced that it’s either catastrophic, or that it’s on balance negative with respect to life on the planet.
      I’m certainly in disagreement that government coercion is the proper response.

      1. “To make my position clear, I’m convinced and not at all surprised the climate is changing. Further, I’m convinced man plays some role in the current changes.
        I’m not convinced that it’s either catastrophic, or that it’s on balance negative with respect to life on the planet.
        I’m certainly in disagreement that government coercion is the proper response.”

        I agree with all of these sentences except the third one. If it has some of the consequences I’ve heard of, such as flooding coastal property, then I think it could have a significant negative effect. And apart from that it is hardly fair to let person A engage in activity that harms person B’s property and person even if the end result would not be “on balance negative with respect to life on the planet.” Let’s say no person is harmed. Some people will lose property (those flooded), others will gain value in property (new beachfront property!), but should we allow that to happen?

        “No one (even AGW “deniers”) is claiming climate science as a whole is suspect; “deniers” claim the *conclusions* of some scientists within the field won’t hold water…In this case, we have a central figure in the specific conclusions who has yet to clear the air: “He did not address his use of the phrase “to hide the decline.””

        To the extent AGW rests upon the research of those involved then it is suspect, just like to the extent intelligence science rest upon Burt’s findings it is suspect. Most people in the know say that there is ample evidence apart from both in each respective field to maintain the conclusion of each. Can you refute that?

        “While you may not like the source, until some one successfully refutes the claim, it seems data from Russia is at least suspect, if not fudged.”

        I’m curious how you come to that conclusion. Because the Moscow branch of the Institute of Economic Analysis alleges it? I’m afraid I have a higher criteria for changing my mind on matters of science than that an ideologically motivated think tank alleges the scientific evidence for the matter is corrupt…Imagine rejecting intelligence science because a left-wing think tank opposed to the policy implications of the science alleged the evidence for it was corrupt. What kind of skeptic would conclude from this that this was the case?

        1. “I agree with all of these sentences except the third one. If it has some of the consequences I’ve heard of, such as flooding coastal property, then I think it could have a significant negative effect.”
          Of which there is no doubt, nor is there any doubt that there are other, positive effects.

          “Let’s say no person is harmed. Some people will lose property (those flooded), others will gain value in property (new beachfront property!), but should we allow that to happen?”
          Absolutely, unless you can come up with some reasons the current conditions are of some transcendent value. Got any?

          “To the extent AGW rests upon the research of those involved then it is suspect, just like to the extent intelligence science rest upon Burt’s findings it is suspect. Most people in the know say that there is ample evidence apart from both in each respective field to maintain the conclusion of each. Can you refute that?”
          Uh, you have this a bit backwards. I’ve shown reasons to question either the data or the interpretation, and you respond that ‘most people say it’s OK, and *I’m* supposed to refute an appeal to authority?
          That’s a fail; please address the concerns.

          “Imagine rejecting intelligence science because a left-wing think tank opposed to the policy implications of the science alleged the evidence for it was corrupt. What kind of skeptic would conclude from this that this was the case?”
          First, you’re again conflating an entire field of study with the conclusions of some of the workers; it may make you feel good, but it *really* isn’t good argument.
          Secondly, if a ‘left wing’ group made specific accusations and the other side could not refute them, any skeptic is bound to say the ‘left wing’ group is right.
          Again, the question exists, either refute the claim or admit you’re appealing to authority.
          As a final note, you claim the source is ‘ideologically motivated’ while ignoring the same sort of bias among the catastrophists; Mann didn’t make up the hockey stick because he’s neutral.
          And your claim of ‘higher standards’ might impress someone….

          1. Are you new here? Because slapping down amateur logicians has become something of a hobby around here for me. See, the appeal to authority fallacy that folks learn in community college logic classes means only this: that one cannot conclude that x is true solely because authority y says it is.

            Of course concluding that the opinion of an expert in the relevant field is more likely correct than a non-expert is a well accepted position in the field of informal logic. Look it up.

            Second, I find it amusing that you shrug off damage to property owners with the statement that it might positively effect others. By that logic if I steal your house everything’s cool with you; after all your loss is my gain, and you can’t appeal to some “transcedent” correct distribution or property ownership. Fail buddy, fail by your own libertarian principles…

            “I’ve shown reasons to question either the data or the interpretation”

            No, you’ve only shown reasons to question either the data or the interpretations of the research of the CRU malefactors. Their actions don’t cast doubt on people not involved; how could it? Again, by that logic Cyril Burt’s fraud makes Charles Murray’s research suspect. But of course that’s absurd.

            The Russia claim is just that, a claim. It’s hilarious to hear you crow about “appeal to authority”, not only for the reasons I outlined above, but because your conclusion that the Russia data is corrupt rests solely on the pronouncements of an “authority;” the Institute for Economic Analysis; hilariously it is an authority without expertise in the relevant field, the classic and most cited example of the commission of the appeal to authority fallacy!

            1. MNG|12.20.09 @ 2:04AM|#”Are you new here? Because slapping down amateur logicians has become something of a hobby around here for me.”
              Goody for you, bozo. As an amateur, you’re probably right up on the tricks.
              Now answer the questions or admit you’re an ignoramus.

              “Second, I find it amusing that you shrug off damage to property owners with the statement that it might positively effect others. By that logic if I steal your house everything’s cool with you; ”
              You claim to have some knowledge of logic and you post *this*? Exactly when did you fall out of the school bus?
              Sorry, if you didn’t get an 0.0, you must have been in a school with real idiots.

        2. Let’s say no person is harmed. Some people will lose property (those flooded), others will gain value in property (new beachfront property!), but should we allow that to happen?

          You can try, but I’m pretty sure King Canute already proved the difficulty with that.

    2. It’s the same thing the left did when people like noted libertarian Charles Murray mustered a great amount of evidence that intelligence was significantly inherited. The left shuddered at the policy implications of that and tried to deny the findings of scores of experts in the field.

      Not sure that is a great example for a couple of reasons: 1) it misrepresents Murray’s claim, which was that race (not family, but race) was a significant factor in intelligence (which doesn’t pan out on closer inspection, accounting for, iirc, 6% of the variance), and 2) Murray is really an outsider trying to disprove the accepted position and really did use pretty questionable techniques.

      I guess if you are saying that people questioned anyone who supported Murray’s contentions by pointing to Murray’s sloppy techniques, it would be a good analogy…but Murray’s position was not supported by the majority of experts in the field. He was the one challenging the accepted conclusion.

      In the CRU case, you have people questioning the accepted position due to the behaviors of some who agree with the majority. It seems very different to me.

      But I have been drinking Laphroaig all night, so maybe I am missing something.

      1. Dig around here for some good discussions on the race/intelligence issue.

        http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/

  37. MNG,
    Tell us the optimal sea level. Please explain how there were once glaciers as far south as Kansas.

    1. He can’t. He can’t tell you what the optimal world average temperature should be either. He also can’t tell you why it was warmer than today when the Vikings were colonizing Greenland 1000 years ago, despite the fact that there was no human industry to increase co2 levels.

    2. I hear “deniers” toss this line around a lot as if it were meaningful. It’s obviously a talking point that real deal true believers who read something like that can toss out. Few people who are not retarded would come to this line on their own reason…

      Yes, yes, there is no “cosmically” optimal sea level that anyone can determine by fiat.

      If you own property on a coast or live there then the optimal sea level would not be much higher to you I imagine. That’s the point. The claim as I have always understood it is that rises in sea level will mean trouble for such folks, inter alia it will be less than “optimal” for them. Either way that’s part of my concern.

      1. MNG|12.19.09 @ 6:04PM|#

        “I hear “deniers” toss this line around a lot as if it were meaningful.”
        Which it is.

        “If you own property on a coast or live there then the optimal sea level would not be much higher to you I imagine. That’s the point.”
        Are you familiar with the French economist Bastiat?
        That’s not much of a point in that it simply favors the status quo without any examination of alternatives; any change in sea level will penalize some and reward others.
        You’re arguing that the way is, is the way it should be. Oh, and ignoring the costs of accomplishing that, which means even those having beach-front property might be better off with higher sea levels.

        1. An inconvenient truth

          Miami Herald – July 5, 1989 – 2E SCIENCE

          GREENHOUSE WARMING NATIONS MAY VANISH, U.N. SAYS
          A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the United Nations U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the…

        2. BTW, it’s not that hard to manage the sea level. If we dug a trench through Libya and let the Sahara flood with seawater, we could drop the world sea level by a dozen feet and draw enough power from the inflow current to supply most of southern europe indefinitely.

          This kind of a project would cost a hell of a lot less than the trillions that the greens want us to fork over to the UN in atonement for having more money than the average Indian farmer.

          -jcr

      2. BTW, it’s obvious that a “denier” would do nothing of the sort, since a “denier” would deny it was going to happen at all. Would you care to be a bit more specific in your claims?

    3. It is relevant in the sense that humans don’t think and act collectively. Maybe on ‘Superfriends’ some evil-doer might have a sea-level changing machine, but humans act indepently mostly.

  38. We are the world. We are the snow storm!

    1. Our asses are literally buried here in Baltimore, somewhere between 20 – 30 inches. I think they said it is a record. It sucks whatever it is, but the in an ironic way it is good since the high preists of AGW are inevitably going to have to explain how the suns solar cycles are not exponentially more responsible for warming/cooling trends that any CO2 that industrialized nations have put into our atmosphere.

      1. Hyperion|12.19.09 @ 7:16PM|#

        “Our asses are literally buried here in Baltimore, somewhere between 20 – 30 inches.”

        It’s just a shame Obama wasn’t delayed a couple of hours and had to be diverted to deliver his ‘cooling is at hand’ speech from, oh, Miami

  39. Global warming. The countries of Russia, America and South Africa coming together to decide the future of the world. What do they all have in common? Yea, they’re white! Hands off our resources!

    1. South africa, white?

      1. Yes, the white man pulls the strings. They still got their money and farms.

        1. So Mandela was only a puppet? Interesting.

          1. Why does the black man still live in a slum and why does the white man have a house and servants?

    2. Global warming. The countries of Russia, America and South Africa coming together to decide the future of the world. What do they all have in common? Yea, they’re white! Hands off our resources!

      And what is wrong with white people?

  40. Tell me what the best sea level for human happiness is

    Right where it effin’ is.

    1. You noticed any rises in that in that last 10 years? Al Gore sais that your ass will be underwater in about 20 minutes. Oh, and since we failed to act quickly enough, you are fucked, but you can still send all of your money to Gore, he will appreciate it and save some polar bears.

      1. I saw a speech that Monckton gave, where he mentioned that Gore had bought a condo in San francisco, very close to the waterfront. Like, close enough for the bottom floors of the building to be be underwater if Gore’s predictions are to be believed.

        Gee, I guess that’s one more example of Al not believing his own bullshit.

        -jcr

  41. Marsha Blackburn Voted FOR:
    Omnibus Appropriations, Special Education, Global AIDS Initiative, Job Training, Unemployment Benefits, Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Agriculture Appropriations, U.S.-Singapore Trade, U.S.-Chile Trade, Supplemental Spending for Iraq & Afghanistan, Prescription Drug Benefit, Child Nutrition Programs, Surface Transportation, Job Training and Worker Services, Agriculture Appropriations, Foreign Aid, Vocational/Technical Training, Supplemental Appropriations, UN “Reforms.” Patriot Act Reauthorization, CAFTA, Katrina Hurricane-relief Appropriations, Head Start Funding, Line-item Rescission, Oman Trade Agreement, Military Tribunals, Electronic Surveillance, Head Start Funding, COPS Funding, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Peru Free Trade Agreement, Economic Stimulus, Farm Bill (Veto Override), Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening.

    Marsha Blackburn Voted AGAINST:
    Ban on UN Contributions, eliminate Millennium Challenge Account, WTO Withdrawal, UN Dues Decrease, Defunding the NAIS, Iran Military Operations defunding Iraq Troop Withdrawal, congress authorization of Iran Military Operations.

    Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
    See her unconstitutional votes at :
    http://tinyurl.com/qhayna
    Mickey

  42. Oh, so this is where everyone is.
    Heck with the Rothbard VS Hayek pillow fight, eh.

  43. MNG, Here’s something that might explain East Anglia’s influence on the IPCC.

    From Roger Pielke Sr., who believes that humans are affecting the atmosphere and whatnot.

    “Despite claims that there are thousands who are driving the focus on CO2 as the primary human climate forcing, the reality is that only a relatively small number of individuals are actually directing this effort.” etc.

  44. Correction: The article mostly explains NSF, NASA and NRC conflict of interest on IPCC orthodoxy. The Phil Jones and CRU e-mails illuminate how independent oversight was dissuaded.

    And click on the links to the documentation of the 2007 IPCC WG1 meeting. Interesting stuff.

    1. Something is happening here but you don’t know what it is. Do you, Mr. Jones?

    2. Holy shit, you didn’t even know what the article you linked to was claiming and yet you want us to think you have a better understanding of the enormously complex subject of climate change than people with decades of education and experience in the subject. Fail buddy…Sorry, but I’m a bit “skeptical” of someone who claims people who are obviously much more careful than he is are wrong about such things…

      1. Holy shit, you’re absolutely right — I have little understanding of the complex nature of climate change. That’s why I linked to a post by someone who is involved in the IPCC meetings, if you read the thing.

        “The released e-mails from Phil Jones, in conjunction with the experience I discuss above as well my 2005 CCSP experience…suggest that the collusion to suppress other scientifically supported views of the climate system, and the human role within it, is a systemic problem with the climate assessment process.”

      2. MNG, from one non-scientist to another, what would it take for you to reverse your beliefs on the causes and consequences asserted by the consensus?

  45. Until Klaatu comes to Earth and tells us that our CO2 output is wrecking the universe and that we will be annihilated unless we make it stop…Wait a minute, even that heavy-handed imperialistic approach wouldn’t work. We’re all individual agents (unlike on Klaatu’s statist wet-dream.)

    We can’t even stop whaling, save Philippine forests or get along on an airplane.

    At least the Middle East is nearly solved.

  46. Kyoto= Take lotsa Eco-irresponsible vacations in places like Costa Rica or Mexico.

    Meanwhile, the Unions would have to get some extra-tough protectionism in to keep us buying American and Union Made.

  47. Why must all the media be so deceptive when showing video of greenhouse gas emmission from all those steam-belching smoke stacks? That is not carbon dioxide smoke, but moisture. True, moisture is the biggest greenhouse gas of all, forming a global warming blanket in the form of clouds, falling snow and rain, but telling people that won’t gain points for the communists pushing our surrender to illogical forces. claysamerica.com

  48. Ed
    12.19.09 @ 6:45AM
    ” the economics… hasn’t prevented the Obama Administration from claiming that every hairbrained scheme hatched by one of its imbeciles will “create” jobs …

    Afghanistan? 38,271 Archaeologists. With Guns!”

    What’s the going rate for an _Antiquity _ lead author with a 12-gauge?

  49. There is a finite amount of carbon in the biosphere, and all fossil fuels were once a part of it. By burning oil and coal, we are merely recovering the carbon that was once a part of our environment, rather than letting it slowly seep into the magma of the Earth’s core.

    Rather than fret over a little extra carbon in the biosphere, if it can be established that warming is an unwelcome trend (and I’m not convinced that it has), let’s look at other means of controlling global temperatures which don’t lay entire economies to waste, such as cloud seeding.

  50. Thanks for the post and for sharing the very resourceful information here, great post.

  51. The sceptics are internally divided and disagree with each other more than the mainstream, I have argued they are like alcoholics, any excuse to continue will do.

    http://another-green-world.blo…..olics.html

  52. I have been a reader for a long while, but this is my first time as a commenter. I just wanted to let you know that this has been / is my favorite entry of yours! Keep up the good work and I’ll keep on checking back.
    seo company

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.