Skeptical Science Debunks the Deniers

Environment • Views: 7,707

Here’s an excellent website that thoroughly debunks a lot of the most common talking points endlessly repeated by climate change skeptics and deniers: Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism.

Their mission statement:

Skeptical Science was created by John Cook, an ex-physicist (majoring in solar physics at the University of Queensland). My interest in global warming began when I got into some discussions with a skeptical family member who handed me a speech by Senator Inhofe. It took little research to show his arguments were misleading and lacking in science.

Since then, I’ve scoured peer reviewed scientific literature in an attempt to penetrate the political agendas and cherry picking. I’ve noticed two patterns in global warming skepticism. Firstly, many reasons for disbelieving in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - it’s all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism (or sometimes just plain dislike for Al Gore). As one person put it, “the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove”.

Beneath the politics is a more elemental instinct - an aversion to alarmism. We’ve been burnt before. The media predicted an ice age in the 70’s which never eventuated. Y2K was going to destroy society - it was barely a hiccup. And I won’t deny there are alarmists in the global warming camp. Urgent cries that the ice sheets are on the verge of sliding into the sea. Or emotional pleas to save those cute little polar bears. Sadly, alarmists seem to be the loudest voices in the global warming debate. But that doesn’t change the science underneath.

So I ignore the distracting politics and ad hominem arguments. Instead, I concentrate on the science. And I noticed when the discussion did get to science, the same flawed skeptic argument continue to propogate through the blogosphere, Chinese whispers style. This website is an attempt to examine all the scientific arguments that reject AGW.

Jump to bottom

413 comments
1 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:10:32pm
Firstly, many reasons for disbelieving in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - it’s all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism (or sometimes just plain dislike for Al Gore). As one person put it, “the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove”.

This is sadly true. It's important to keep in mind that accepting the science supporting AGW does not equal accepting the solutions proposed for dealing with it. Once the right starts to accept AGW is real, then we can begin the task of counter-proposals, and that will be a good day when it comes.

2 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:13:30pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

This is sadly true. It's important to keep in mind that accepting the science supporting AGW does not equal accepting the solutions proposed for dealing with it. Once the right starts to accept AGW is real, then we can begin the task of counter-proposals, and that will be a good day when it comes.

By then there won't be any good options left. If we aren't too late already. I'd rather not wait for the knuckle draggers.

3 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:14:01pm

re: #2 recusancy

Not everyone on the right is a knuckle dragger, thank you.

4 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:14:24pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

This is sadly true. It's important to keep in mind that accepting the science supporting AGW does not equal accepting the solutions proposed for dealing with it. Once the right starts to accept AGW is real, then we can begin the task of counter-proposals, and that will be a good day when it comes.

My hat is off to you. I have a problem with the proposed solutions... your post makes more sense to me then all that has come before.

5 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:14:54pm

re: #3 Sharmuta

Not everyone on the right is a knuckle dragger, thank you.

But enough to hold any talk of solutions hostage.

6 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:17:09pm

re: #5 recusancy

But enough to hold any talk of solutions hostage.

hostage to what?

7 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:17:22pm

re: #5 recusancy

That's why Lindsey Graham is trying a carrot approach.

8 avanti  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:18:24pm

Fox news needs that link. Not 10 minutes ago, they announced that there has been no evidence of warming in the last eleven years. Are they that stupid, or are they willfully misleading their viewers ?

9 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:18:49pm

re: #8 avanti

It's willful.

10 bosforus  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:20:15pm

re: #8 avanti

Makes you wonder where their "evidence" came from. If indeed there's even a hard copy of anything they're claiming to be evidence.

11 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:20:31pm

re: #6 brookly red

hostage to what?

The debate on what to do about the problem is held hostage by the "debate" on whether there's any problem at all.

12 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:21:25pm

The fact is that it's a deliberate strategy to continue focusing on and casting doubt on the science of global warming, because this is MUCH easier than debating policies.

This tactic was employed by the tobacco industry to great effect for decades -- it's the "cloud of confusion" technique. Raise doubts about the science and count on the fact that most people don't have the time or the expertise to check the claims for themselves. And it plays into the latent anti-science bias of many "conservative" Americans as well.

Many of the same front groups that used to make excuses for the tobacco industry are now using this tactic to confuse the issue of global warming. It's not a coincidence.

The tactic proved so successful that it's become completely internalized by large segments of the right wing, and they can recite the talking points like parrots at the drop of a hat.

13 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:21:35pm

re: #11 recusancy

The debate on what to do about the problem is held hostage by the "debate" on whether there's any problem at all.

Calling the people you need to convince "knuckle draggers" might not be the best means of convincing them. Just sayin'.

14 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:21:42pm

re: #8 avanti

Fox news needs that link. Not 10 minutes ago, they announced that there has been no evidence of warming in the last eleven years. Are they that stupid, or are they willfully misleading their viewers ?

The latter.

15 winemaker  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:22:07pm

Thanks for this site.

As to the worries that this is all a commie plot, it is a bit naive to not notice that the bulk of the politicians pressing this are from the left and hard left.

A gasoline consumption tax imposed over a few years in the US ($8 per gallon by 2014!) and a gradually imposed port tax for barrels of imported oil, would (1) force oil to bear its true costs of production, i.e. externalities, and (2) give alternative energy producers a turbo charge, and great capital asset allocation certainty, to ramp up those industries. Alternative energy would boom.

The US would be free of foreign oil in a decade, and the markets would have been developed to figure out the non-petroleum, non-coal alternatives.

Private markets, with taxes to fix externalities; not socialism.

Yet the greens are adamantly opposed to nuclear energy, and somehow all of their "global warming" solutions involve a massive worldwide body to cut down world industrial production by huge amounts.

This violates Occams Razor, particularly regarding nuclear power.

Forgive those of us who are green, and capitalist, but the absence of such solutions being proposed as a US gasoline and an imported oil tax, instead of world socialist energy control, is the tip off that there are socialists lurking behind this whole issue.

Not crazy at all.

Winemaker

16 Ojoe  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:22:46pm
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”


Link. Climate change data dumped - Times Online.

FWIW

17 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:22:46pm

This is going to a very thick one. AGW science is already difficult to produce and harder to prewsent. Add the need for technical solutions, the engineering that goes with the technologies. Scrubbers, carbon capture, mini nuke generators whatever.
And that's just one level!

As further complicating factors we have old world geopolitics, super power shifts, and strategic opponents that will make very attempt to use this to gain influence via reducing ours as a nation.

In short we'll need the best science, the best technology and the best strategy all in concert, just to have the best proposals.

18 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:23:52pm

re: #15 winemaker

Thanks for this site.

As to the worries that this is all a commie plot, it is a bit naive to not notice that the bulk of the politicians pressing this are from the left and hard left.

A gasoline consumption tax imposed over a few years in the US ($8 per gallon by 2014!) and a gradually imposed port tax for barrels of imported oil, would (1) force oil to bear its true costs of production, i.e. externalities, and (2) give alternative energy producers a turbo charge, and great capital asset allocation certainty, to ramp up those industries. Alternative energy would boom.

The US would be free of foreign oil in a decade, and the markets would have been developed to figure out the non-petroleum, non-coal alternatives.

Private markets, with taxes to fix externalities; not socialism.

Yet the greens are adamantly opposed to nuclear energy, and somehow all of their "global warming" solutions involve a massive worldwide body to cut down world industrial production by huge amounts.

This violates Occams Razor, particularly regarding nuclear power.

Forgive those of us who are green, and capitalist, but the absence of such solutions being proposed as a US gasoline and an imported oil tax, instead of world socialist energy control, is the tip off that there are socialists lurking behind this whole issue.

Not crazy at all.

Winemaker

Most lefties, including this one, are all for a gas tax.

19 dogg  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:23:58pm

If global warming or change is man made there should be no fear to share all data and have an open debate.
Charles are you honestly pro global something or getting a kick back?
Please try to have an open mind on the subject.

20 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:24:33pm

re: #16 Ojoe

Did you not see this article?

21 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:25:10pm

re: #16 Ojoe

Link. Climate change data dumped - Times Online.

FWIW

Come on, man! I dealt with this FALSE story yesterday in detail.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

22 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:26:08pm

re: #11 recusancy

The debate on what to do about the problem is held hostage by the "debate" on whether there's any problem at all.

Oh, I see too big the debate & too small the action?

23 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:26:27pm

re: #19 dogg

If global warming or change is man made there should be no fear to share all data and have an open debate.
Charles are you honestly pro global something or getting a kick back?
Please try to have an open mind on the subject.

Apologize for this ugly accusation or you're going to lose your account.

24 Digital Display  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:27:05pm

re: #19 dogg

You can download all the data you want from the NOAA...
[Link: www.noaa.gov...]

25 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:27:40pm

re: #2 recusancy

By then there won't be any good options left. If we aren't too late already. I'd rather not wait for the knuckle draggers.

Yes, we must act (how, no one knows, but it will probably involve taxes and scare tactics) nownownow (next month will not do) to accomplish something (don't ask us what) or else it'll be too late, our children will curse us, and people will drown in the rising seas.

Never mind that the seas are rising by maybe a couple of millimeters per year. Even the most determined suicide will have to find a faster way, or die waiting.

Tell you what. Send me a list of what you're giving up, doing, not doing, and above all, spending to save the planet and I'll read it. Maybe I'll even do some of it.

The only other solutions I see is 1) massive government coercion for a very iffy outcome or 2) we all stand on our heads, wiggle our ears and stop exhaling CO2.

26 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:27:44pm

re: #21 Charles

Come on, man! I dealt with this FALSE story yesterday in detail.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Charles, who is Patrick J. Michaels.

27 albusteve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:28:46pm

dogg eat dogg...

28 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:29:12pm

re: #24 HoosierHoops

You can download all the data you want from the NOAA...
[Link: www.noaa.gov...]

Do you know the NAME of the raw dataset that CRU had originally used. All I can find is mention of the dataset as "raw" but I don't know enough about the different datasets at NOAA to know which one is the same one from the 1980's that CRU used?

29 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:29:16pm

re: #19 dogg

If global warming or change is man made there should be no fear to share all data and have an open debate.
Charles are you honestly pro global something or getting a kick back?
Please try to have an open mind on the subject.

Go look at NOAA & NASA then come back and play. Data is open & available, just because you can't be bothered to find it doesn't mean it's not there.

Nirtherism redux: "if only you'd show us the real birth certificate data we'd be satisfied..."

30 Taqyia2Me  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:29:19pm

Major increase of nuclear energy production can be argued for even without regard to AGW.

31 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:29:59pm

re: #29 Cineaste

Go look at NOAA & NASA then come back and play. Data is open & available, just because you can't be bothered to find it doesn't mean it's not there.

Nirtherism redux: "if only you'd show us the real birth certificate data we'd be satisfied..."

Do you know the NAME of the raw dataset that CRU had originally used.

32 dogg  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:29:59pm

LGF could be an arena for an honest debeat with out all the baggage.

Invite the best from both sides of the debate and let them go at it.

I am sure the Lizards would all contribute a one dollar to grease the skids.l

33 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:30:21pm

re: #28 Walter L. Newton

Do you know the NAME of the raw dataset that CRU had originally used. All I can find is mention of the dataset as "raw" but I don't know enough about the different datasets at NOAA to know which one is the same one from the 1980's that CRU used?

I don't think the name of the dataset is posted on the web. You can write to the NOAA and ask them.

34 bosforus  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:30:36pm

re: #19 dogg

How's about you get off your lazy arse and find the data yourself? As has been mentioned before, it's available.

35 cgn38navy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:31:31pm

During the 70's, 80's, and 90's when everyone had studies to prove that "Margarine is good and butter is bad", I never believed it. I continued to slather my rolls, dip my shrimp, and butter my buns. I was correct. So now I have an inflated sense of my own gut instincts. My gut is telling me that if global warming is happening, people are not causing it, and if they are, Al Gore and other Eco-pimps are not the solution any more than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been the solution to the race problem.
How's that for well reasoned skepticism?

36 dogg  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:32:00pm

If I have insulted you i apologize, however I detect a bias that I do not understand,

37 bosforus  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:32:15pm

re: #32 dogg

People like you bog down the conversation though. No matter how sincere you are (or pretend to be) with your questions you really contribute nothing as your questions have been answered in abundance in the past and it just seems that you don't care to investigate for yourself.

38 winemaker  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:32:28pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

1. 10-year phase in of a $5 per gallon US gas tax. ( I could care less about GM any more).
2. Phase-in of a port safety tax on oil delivered to US by tankers.
3. Phase-in of coal-fired energy tax.
4. Critically, have a private but commission (and not the government, they'll just spend it) directly use the tax revuenues to repurchase Treasuries (i.e., eat up the deficit.)

With that, in about the same amount of time since 9/11 happened, the US would be free of foreign oil; consumption of oil would decrease in a dramatic yet non-catastrophic manner; alternative energy would flourish, and the US companies would own the rights as the world adopts that tech; inflation caused by energy cost-push would be ameliorted by the T-bill purchases, and deficits reduced; AND the West will not be condemned to socialist hell.

How is that for constructive?

The lack of this type of proposal with the global warming advocates, belies the fairly obvious: Collectivism rebranded.

winemaker

39 albusteve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:32:52pm

re: #36 dogg

If I have insulted you i apologize, however I detect a bias that I do not understand,

IF?...what a shameless dodge

40 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:33:09pm

re: #26 Walter L. Newton

Charles, who is Patrick J. Michaels.

Another dishonest "skeptic" in the pocket of the energy industries: Patrick J. Michaels:

Michaels' firm does not disclose who its clients are, but leaked documents have revealed that several were power utilities which operate coal power stations. On a 2007 academic CV, Michaels disclosed that prior to creating his firm he had received funding from the Edison Electric Institute and the Western Fuels Association. He has also been a frequent speaker with leading coal and energy companies as well as coal and other industry lobby groups.

41 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:34:21pm

re: #32 dogg

What's dishonest about the debate here? Present us counterfactuals and we're happy to debate. Crying about boogeymen and making spurious accusations about individuals doesn't constitute honesty or debate.

42 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:35:19pm

re: #38 winemaker

1. 10-year phase in of a $5 per gallon US gas tax. ( I could care less about GM any more).
2. Phase-in of a port safety tax on oil delivered to US by tankers.
3. Phase-in of coal-fired energy tax.
4. Critically, have a private but commission (and not the government, they'll just spend it) directly use the tax revuenues to repurchase Treasuries (i.e., eat up the deficit.)

With that, in about the same amount of time since 9/11 happened, the US would be free of foreign oil; consumption of oil would decrease in a dramatic yet non-catastrophic manner; alternative energy would flourish, and the US companies would own the rights as the world adopts that tech; inflation caused by energy cost-push would be ameliorted by the T-bill purchases, and deficits reduced; AND the West will not be condemned to socialist hell.

How is that for constructive?

The lack of this type of proposal with the global warming advocates, belies the fairly obvious: Collectivism rebranded.

winemaker

You sound like your on the left to me. I agree with all that. Problem is nobody on the right will go along with it because of that "T" word that is the most eveilist thing in the world. And it's not something a slim majority could pass because it's tough politics to raise energy prices like that.

43 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:35:25pm

NASA Ames breakthrough: algae makes biofuel

Thanks to technology developed at Moffett Field's NASA Ames, fuel for cars, trucks and planes can now be produced at your local sewage treatment plant.

The "bioreactor" was invented by NASA Ames bioengineer research scientist Jonathan Trent. The Offshore Membrane Enclosure for Growing Algae (OMEGA) floats in treated municipal wastewater and grows algae inside special plastic membranes. Once harvested, oil can be extracted from the algae for diesel or jet fuel, leaving remains that can be used for cosmetics, animal feed, fertilizer and other "valuable products."

There is a lot of talk about algae, and I imagine it's an exciting time to be working in the biofuel industry.

44 albusteve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:35:50pm

re: #38 winemaker

1. 10-year phase in of a $5 per gallon US gas tax. ( I could care less about GM any more).
2. Phase-in of a port safety tax on oil delivered to US by tankers.
3. Phase-in of coal-fired energy tax.
4. Critically, have a private but commission (and not the government, they'll just spend it) directly use the tax revuenues to repurchase Treasuries (i.e., eat up the deficit.)

With that, in about the same amount of time since 9/11 happened, the US would be free of foreign oil; consumption of oil would decrease in a dramatic yet non-catastrophic manner; alternative energy would flourish, and the US companies would own the rights as the world adopts that tech; inflation caused by energy cost-push would be ameliorted by the T-bill purchases, and deficits reduced; AND the West will not be condemned to socialist hell.

How is that for constructive?

The lack of this type of proposal with the global warming advocates, belies the fairly obvious: Collectivism rebranded.

winemaker

rather see tax incentives or subsidized research into new tech and renewables...otherwise sounds reasonable

45 Girth  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:36:00pm

There needs to be some major pushback from AGW scientists right now.

This email thing is giving the deniers just enough of a leg to stand on. I was travelling today. When I was flipping radio stations, every time I heard Rush or Hannity they were declaring this proof of the hoax and that AGW was a librul lie. I mean flat out, debate over.

People won't do their own research, trust me, I had Thanksgiving dinner with a group of people that just happen to be my family, who believe anything that Rush says.

46 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:36:32pm

re: #2 recusancy

By then there won't be any good options left. If we aren't too late already. I'd rather not wait for the knuckle draggers.

Knuckle dragger...isn't that another one of those "monkey" things?

47 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:37:02pm

re: #35 cgn38navy

During the 70's, 80's, and 90's when everyone had studies to prove that "Margarine is good and butter is bad", I never believed it. I continued to slather my rolls, dip my shrimp, and butter my buns. I was correct. So now I have an inflated sense of my own gut instincts. My gut is telling me that if global warming is happening, people are not causing it, and if they are, Al Gore and other Eco-pimps are not the solution any more than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been the solution to the race problem.
How's that for well reasoned skepticism?

Well I'll take a century of data against your 'gut' any day. But go ahead, continue to quest for fire in your cave.

48 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:37:18pm

re: #46 Spare O'Lake

Knuckle dragger...isn't that another one of those "monkey" things?

Cave man.

49 Digital Display  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:37:55pm

re: #31 Walter L. Newton

Do you know the NAME of the raw dataset that CRU had originally used.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Policy on Partnerships in the Provision of Environmental Information strengthens the partnership among government, academia and the private sector which provides the nation with high quality environmental information.
I'm sure they would be very helpful supplying data...Just download all the Dbase data from the CRU or ask them...I think Thanos said today he already did

50 albusteve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:38:16pm

re: #46 Spare O'Lake

Knuckle dragger...isn't that another one of those "monkey" things?

yup...I consider it's usage rude myself...Neanderthal slips by tho...sometimes I use that word to dump on liberals

51 claire  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:38:21pm

re: #38 winemaker

You left out the part about our economy dying. Do you remember those weeks last year when gas was $4 a gallon? Restaurants emptied, people stopped shopping, the economy practically shut down. Empty store fronts blossomed on my town's commercial streets. It was really ugly July, Aug. Sept or so last year. $5 gas tax will pretty much kill it off in the short to medium term.

52 dogg  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:39:25pm

Mr. re: #34 bosforus

The climate data is not clear or understandable to a layman.

It would be like me trying to explain my area of expertise to you or your work to me.

As in all public discourse, credible and understandable people must carry the debate.

When ever I see an unwillingness for openess I suspect politics over truth.

53 The Mongoose  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:39:34pm

This is the first AGW defense I have read that acknowledges the issue of alarmism, which by itself makes it an interesting read. The author even allows that it is not unreasonable for a non-expert to feel as though AGW belongs in the same bucket as the various media-driven panics of the past: DDT, Global Cooling, food crises, acid rain, etc.

In doing so and sticking to science rather than name-calling, he does more to convey a good-faith agenda than many of the sneering hordes on both sides. As he puts it, "scientific skepticism is a good thing". Those who would look down on ANY questioning of prevailing science would do well to remember that, and to present a calm, grounded and data-driven defense of the views they hold.

54 albusteve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:39:35pm

re: #51 claire

You left out the part about our economy dying. Do you remember those weeks last year when gas was $4 a gallon? Restaurants emptied, people stopped shopping, the economy practically shut down. Empty store fronts blossomed on my town's commercial streets. It was really ugly July, Aug. Sept or so last year. $5 gas tax will pretty much kill it off in the short to medium term.

talking a ten year time frame I would think

55 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:40:10pm

re: #52 dogg

I'm still waiting for a real apology from you for accusing me of taking kickbacks. Your account is hanging by a thread.

56 Digital Display  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:40:17pm

re: #36 dogg

If I have insulted you i apologize, however I detect a bias that I do not understand,

Who's Sock are you anyway?

57 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:40:31pm

Algae Turned Into High-Temperature Hydrogen Source

New findings from a team of researchers from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, however, show that photosynthesis – the process by which plants regenerate using energy from the sun – may function as that clean, sustainable source of hydrogen.

The team, led by Barry Bruce, a professor of biochemistry and cellular and molecular biology at UT Knoxville, found that the inner machinery of photosynthesis can be isolated from certain algae and, when coupled with a platinum catalyst, is able to produce a steady supply of hydrogen when exposed to light.

Science is cool.

58 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:41:03pm

re: #52 dogg

When ever I see an unwillingness for openess I suspect politics over truth.

There is a vast difference between unwillingness for openness and acknowledging outright falsehoods.

59 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:42:02pm

A seasonal climate tune.

Youtube Video
60 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:43:56pm
"As both a dean and a chemist, I am very impressed with this recent work by Professor Bruce and his colleagues," said Bruce Bursten, dean of UT Knoxville's College of Arts and Sciences. "Hydrogen has the potential to be the cleanest fuel alternative to petroleum, with no greenhouse gas production, and we need new innovations that allow for hydrogen to be readily produced from non-hydrocarbon sources. Professor Bruce and his team have provided a superb example of how excellence in basic research can contribute significantly to technological and societal advances."

[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]

61 albusteve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:44:19pm

re: #59 MandyManners

A seasonal climate tune.


nice song, but I'm not

62 bosforus  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:44:27pm

re: #52 dogg

When ever I see an unwillingness for openess I suspect politics over truth.

I agree with that sentiment, I just don't see the "unwillingness for openness" that you speak of. I am not able to provide a link to the data you're looking for, is that what you mean? Walter L. Newton, however, in the previous thread is currently searching through NOAA's website to find the data himself. Perhaps if you were to find some data and ask some specific questions someone would be able to better help. It might go further than a general "can someone explain this to me?". Perhaps a blog specifically devoted to AGW would be more helpful for your questions.

63 dogg  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:45:35pm

Charles I apologize for the kick back comment

64 Ben G. Hazi  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:46:02pm

re: #19 dogg

Piss off, wanker...

65 bosforus  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:46:29pm

That's as sincere as it gets right there.
/

66 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:47:02pm

re: #59 MandyManners

A seasonal climate tune.

"If you don't give all political power and all your money to an international panel of ecologists and Marxists right now, there will be no more white Christmases. In fact there will be no Christmas at all. And Bing Crosby will weep in heaven."

67 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:47:17pm

re: #52 dogg

The climate data is not clear or understandable to a layman.

Nonsense. I've been reading the AIP site, and I'm doing just fine.

68 Ben G. Hazi  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:48:13pm

re: #64 talon_262

re: #63 dogg

Charles I apologize for the kick back comment

Now that you've apologized to Charles, I apologize to you...

69 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:48:56pm

When it comes to the data used for the CRU dataset, I am seeing a story that sits somewhere in the middle. The raw data is available, but there is no way to cross reference the raw data to the HadCRUT3 dataset (which is the CRU dataset in question that Jones used). The HadCRUT3 dataset is made of raw data from different reporting stations, but CRU does not have (or will not disclose) how each data point in the HadCRUT3 dataset relates to a certain station.

So, it's nearly impossible to use any raw data from the different stations and say with certainty that that data point is from station so and so.

That's the way I read it so far, and this is only on a first pass reading of a very long blog post from the guy who originally made the FOIA request to CRU (Jones) for the data.

This is not my final say in this, I'm still reading, but maybe with the help of other Lizards, this can be dug into deeper.

If you're interested...

[Link: omniclimate.wordpress.com...]

70 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:51:31pm

re: #68 talon_262

re: #63 dogg
Now that you've apologized to Charles, I apologize to you...
Youtube Video

*weep*
71 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:51:52pm

re: #68 talon_262

re: #63 dogg

Now that you've apologized to Charles, I apologize to you...

Let's all have a beer!

72 SixDegrees  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:51:57pm

re: #49 HoosierHoops

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Policy on Partnerships in the Provision of Environmental Information strengthens the partnership among government, academia and the private sector which provides the nation with high quality environmental information.
I'm sure they would be very helpful supplying data...Just download all the Dbase data from the CRU or ask them...I think Thanos said today he already did

The CRU no longer has the raw data; it was deleted after preliminary editing and filtering. The original data came from NOAA; my impression is that it was a compendium of several data collections. So contacting the CRU would be the first step - both to obtain the designation of the data that was used and to determine how it was filtered - followed by contacting NOAA to see how to obtain the raw data. CRU retained the processed data, but not the raw NOAA data it was derived from.

Me, personally, I would have kept the original dataset, if only to be spared the labor of reassembling it again if a revisit of any sort were required. That's how we handle software deliveries. Everything - source code, third party software, test data, test results - that goes into a delivery gets archived, so every little bit that went into building and testing any given version can be retrieved if required.

But mentioning this seems to raise hackles for some, so I'll leave it at that.

73 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:53:26pm

re: #72 SixDegrees

The CRU no longer has the raw data; it was deleted after preliminary editing and filtering. The original data came from NOAA; my impression is that it was a compendium of several data collections. So contacting the CRU would be the first step - both to obtain the designation of the data that was used and to determine how it was filtered - followed by contacting NOAA to see how to obtain the raw data. CRU retained the processed data, but not the raw NOAA data it was derived from.

Me, personally, I would have kept the original dataset, if only to be spared the labor of reassembling it again if a revisit of any sort were required. That's how we handle software deliveries. Everything - source code, third party software, test data, test results - that goes into a delivery gets archived, so every little bit that went into building and testing any given version can be retrieved if required.

But mentioning this seems to raise hackles for some, so I'll leave it at that.

This link seems to be the whole story (at least from one point of view) of the Freedom of Information Act requests and the results and non-results, from the gentleman who asked for the CRU data...

[Link: omniclimate.wordpress.com...]

74 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:53:29pm

I heard Michael Mann on the radio today. One thing he went on about that I think is pertinent to the discussion is AGW denial has nothing to do with skepticism. Skepticism is a requirement of scientific inquiry and peer review. His angle was the anti-AGW crowd were contrarian and nothing more. Calling them 'skeptics' imparts a degree of respectability that is not there.

75 cgn38navy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:53:50pm

re: #55 Charles

re: #53 The Mongoose

If someone is offering money for stating something on a blog, I'd just like to throw my hat in the ring. What would they like me to say and how much? Maybe I can get a bigger fireplace for my cave? But that would lead to more CO2 emissions. Kind of self defeating isn't it?

Seriously, as a non expert who does understand just enough to realize how big this thing is, this guy nails my skepticism on the head. I don't trust the studies since there is so much money tied up in it. I also don't trust people who believe they know what's best for everyone, and that people who want to wait for further proof before taking extreme measures are "cavemen" or "knuckle draggers". You left out a big one, mongoose, the ozone hole.

76 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:54:26pm

re: #74 Jeff In Ohio

I heard Michael Mann on the radio today. One thing he went on about that I think is pertinent to the discussion is AGW denial has nothing to do with skepticism. Skepticism is a requirement of scientific inquiry and peer review. His angle was the anti-AGW crowd were contrarian and nothing more. Calling them 'skeptics' imparts a degree of respectability that is not there.

Well, here is what Jones thinks of peer review...

(responding in a email about two peer reviewed papers he regarded as flawed - From Phil Jones to Michael Mann, dated July 8, 2004...)

"The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

77 dogg  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:56:54pm

re: #63 dogg

Okay I am a dummy.

If as a country we are committing to incurr zillions in costs to Cap and Trade, then why is there no real public discourse on the subject?

All the propaganda has proven wrong to date... polar bear extinction, rising sea levels, warming over the last five years.

Please we need some emperical evidence besides the melting polrar caps that has happened in the past before.

78 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:57:03pm

re: #75 cgn38navy

I don't trust the studies since there is so much money tied up in it.

What are you talking about? The big money is on the denialist side.

79 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:58:26pm

re: #77 dogg

No, we need to move past the man walked with dinosaurs crowd and move on to a dialogue about solutions.

80 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:58:26pm

re: #78 Sharmuta

What are you talking about? The big money is on the denialist side.

no, there is a lot of money on both sides that is why this is such an issue in the first place.

81 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:59:08pm

re: #75 cgn38navy

re: #53 The MongooseSeriously, as a non expert who does understand just enough to realize how big this thing is, this guy nails my skepticism on the head. I don't trust the studies since there is so much money tied up in it. I also don't trust people who believe they know what's best for everyone, and that people who want to wait for further proof before taking extreme measures are "cavemen" or "knuckle draggers". You left out a big one, mongoose, the ozone hole.

Hmm, there are the academics who you claim are well funded. But you would rather side with the lowly, poor "skeptics" who are backed by the petroleum and coal industries. How much did Exxon/Mobile make last year again? Remind me who has a real financial dog in this fight?

If the academics are in it for the money then they long ago would have been offering up arguments in support of petroleum, not against it. Those guys are way better at compensation than a publicly funded University. Your distrust doesn't pass basic muster.

82 Gus  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 3:59:40pm

re: #74 Jeff In Ohio

I heard Michael Mann on the radio today. One thing he went on about that I think is pertinent to the discussion is AGW denial has nothing to do with skepticism. Skepticism is a requirement of scientific inquiry and peer review. His angle was the anti-AGW crowd were contrarian and nothing more. Calling them 'skeptics' imparts a degree of respectability that is not there.

That's the thing I never understood. Why do many call themselves skeptics since as you mention that requires a "degree of respectability." It is a bit like being agnostic compared to atheist. A skeptic would be willing to at least impart a sense of doubt and communicate a willingness to admit being wrong if proven as such. Somehow, I'm not seeing that from the "skeptic" end.

83 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:01:32pm

re: #77 dogg

Okay I am a dummy.

If as a country we are committing to incurr zillions in costs to Cap and Trade, then why is there no real public discourse on the subject?

All the propaganda has proven wrong to date... polar bear extinction, rising sea levels, warming over the last five years.

Please we need some emperical evidence besides the melting polrar caps that has happened in the past before.

Ok, now you're just being intentionally thick, right? The data has been quite thoroughly presented and there has been no counterfactual data that adds up. Care to offer some?

84 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:01:57pm

re: #80 brookly red

no, there is a lot of money on both sides that is why this is such an issue in the first place.

Except there's not a lot of money in science- it's just not true.

85 bosforus  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:02:14pm

re: #80 brookly red

no, there is a lot of money on both sides that is why this is such an issue in the first place.

I can't imagine any big issue not involving money.

86 bosforus  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:03:46pm

My day is over. Cheers, lizards.

88 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:04:37pm

re: #81 Cineaste

How much did Exxon/Mobile make last year again? Remind me who has a real financial dog in this fight?

well now that you bring up big oil, state & federal taxes are the lion's share of the price of a gallon of gas... juss sayin.

89 [deleted]  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:05:27pm
90 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:05:46pm

re: #88 brookly red

How much did Exxon/Mobile make last year again? Remind me who has a real financial dog in this fight?

well now that you bring up big oil, state & federal taxes are the lion's share of the price of a gallon of gas... juss sayin.

A lot of people have an big money interest, on both sides
re: #87 Walter L. Newton

91 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:05:50pm

OT via the Washington Monthly

92 Gus  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:05:53pm

re: #89 cgn38navy

Poof!

93 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:06:01pm

re: #89 cgn38navy

Not from blogs that smear Charles constantly, it's not.

94 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:06:19pm

re: #80 brookly red

no, there is a lot of money on both sides that is why this is such an issue in the first place.

What's to be gained for the "pro AGW" side?

95 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:06:30pm

re: #84 Sharmuta

Except there's not a lot of money in science- it's just not true.


location, location, location.

96 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:06:41pm

re: #94 recusancy

What's to be gained for the "pro AGW" side?

[Link: www.earthtimes.org...]

97 Randall Gross  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:06:59pm

re: #15 winemaker

Wrong, many of the "Greens" have converted and are now pro nuclear, including the founders of the movement, Stewart Brand and Patrick Moore.

98 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:07:16pm

re: #94 recusancy

What's to be gained for the "pro AGW" side?

Ask GE.

99 cgn38navy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:07:24pm

re: #93 Sharmuta


Sorry, I don't follow the blogosphere brawling. It was the first thing that came up when I googled al gore net worth.

100 winemaker  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:07:45pm

re: #42 recusancy

After the fall of GM and Chrysler, you'd be surprised how feeble the opposition is to a gas tax.

Conservative libertarians - me - are OK with taxes to approximate otherwise unrecoverable externalities. Toss in dying servicemen and the case is easy.

My last post garbled a key piece: someone other than the politicos would directly administer the trust fund with these new tax revenues, and the only thing they could do with the funds is buy back US treasuries (i.e., retire the debt).

101 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:09:06pm

re: #96 Walter L. Newton

[Link: www.earthtimes.org...]

So it's the big 'poor country lobby'?

102 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:09:15pm

re: #88 brookly red

well now that you bring up big oil, state & federal taxes are the lion's share of the price of a gallon of gas... juss sayin.

Yeah, poor ExxonMobil - they only made $45.2 billion in profit in 2008. That's about $124 million a day... That would probably pay for the whole CRU for a year.

103 Randall Gross  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:10:42pm

Patrick Moore, Founder of Greenpeace on Nuclear Energy:

Youtube Video
104 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:10:44pm

re: #94 recusancy

What's to be gained for the "pro AGW" side?

/nothing at all, glad you see that :)

no really, a gazallion dollars for green jobs? 2 gazillion from taxes? carbon credits? that's what makes skeptics skeptic.

105 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:11:01pm

re: #98 Cannadian Club Akbar

Ask GE.

Huh?

106 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:11:12pm

re: #101 recusancy

So it's the big 'poor country lobby'?

Someone asked who can benefit in regards to money, I linked to an answer. Take it as you will, I'm not passing any judgement. Figure it out for yourself.

107 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:11:40pm

re: #102 Cineaste

Yeah, poor ExxonMobil - they only made $45.2 billion in profit in 2008. That's about $124 million a day... That would probably pay for the whole CRU for a year.

Do you have a percentage? 8%? 10%? Compaired to other industries? Just asking.

108 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:12:11pm

re: #11 recusancy

The debate on what to do about the problem is held hostage by the "debate" on whether there's any problem at all.

No it's not.

The debate on what to do is hampered by the fact that aside from doing the best we can - promoting new technologies, reconsidering nuclear, encouraging innovation and conservation, and generally muddling through and hoping for the best - there is no defensible global solution that does not involve massive coercion and perhaps violence. And there is none at all that guarantees success.

So people are rightly skeptical about being asked to stand on their heads for no apparent reason.

109 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:12:12pm

re: #102 Cineaste

Yeah, poor ExxonMobil - they only made $45.2 billion in profit in 2008. That's about $124 million a day... That would probably pay for the whole CRU for a year.

next time you fill up check the price breakdown on the pump.

110 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:13:08pm

re: #105 Sharmuta

Huh?

He asked who is to profit from being pro-AGW.

111 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:13:43pm

re: #110 Cannadian Club Akbar

He asked who is to profit from being pro-AGW.

OT - you got the attachment ok?

112 cgn38navy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:13:53pm

re: #102 Cineaste

Exxon-mobile is a publicly traded company and much of their stock is institutional owned by pension plans and such. Their profit margin is a relatively low percentage of their gross and they pay their taxes. Is that really a problem or are you just envious?

113 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:13:57pm

re: #110 Cannadian Club Akbar

He asked who is to profit from being pro-AGW.

Do you mean in the sense of making money by selling green products?

114 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:14:20pm

re: #111 Walter L. Newton

OT - you got the attachment ok?

Yessir. Thank you.

115 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:14:48pm

re: #100 winemaker

After the fall of GM and Chrysler, you'd be surprised how feeble the opposition is to a gas tax.

Conservative libertarians - me - are OK with taxes to approximate otherwise unrecoverable externalities. Toss in dying servicemen and the case is easy.

My last post garbled a key piece: someone other than the politicos would directly administer the trust fund with these new tax revenues, and the only thing they could do with the funds is buy back US treasuries (i.e., retire the debt).

It still involves taxes and not market base pricing. I just don't see how you would get anyone on the right on board. But count me in.

Cap and Trade would do the same thing, that is putting a price on carbon, so that what we put in the air has an actual cost. It would do the same thing as your tax solution but the price would be set by the market, not the government. (Although, I suppose the cap would be set by the government or an independent world body).

I just don't see how you can be for one and not a least open to the other. I do like your idea though. It's less complicated but, I think, harder to sell to the public and therefore demagogueable.

116 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:14:51pm

re: #113 Sharmuta

Do you mean in the sense of making money by selling green products?

Yes. Turbines, solar panals etc.

117 albusteve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:14:57pm

re: #107 Cannadian Club Akbar

Do you have a percentage? 8%? 10%? Compaired to other industries? Just asking.

I think it is around 6-7%...not outrageous by any means...they sell alot of gas

118 Stuart Leviton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:15:20pm

Charles, blessings to you for your impressive act of grace towards d--g earlier.

119 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:15:42pm

re: #106 Walter L. Newton

Someone asked who can benefit in regards to money, I linked to an answer. Take it as you will, I'm not passing any judgement. Figure it out for yourself.

Fair enough.

120 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:15:54pm

re: #110 Cannadian Club Akbar

He asked who is to profit from being pro-AGW.

Well, lots of fly-by-night sellers of "carbon offsets" (feel-good pieces of paper that give you the right to grin when you pass gas) have already made out like old-time snake-oil salesmen.

Or bandits. Just say bandits.

121 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:15:54pm

re: #116 Cannadian Club Akbar

Yes. Turbines, solar panals etc.

Isn't Green Capitalism the goal? Going green while keeping our economy strong- that's an ideal, right?

122 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:16:04pm

re: #117 albusteve

I think it is around 6-7%...not outrageous by any means...they sell alot of gas

and the % of tax in your state?

123 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:16:16pm

re: #107 Cannadian Club Akbar

Do you have a percentage? 8%? 10%? Compaired to other industries? Just asking.

That's about 10% against $460 billion in total revenues. It's not outlandish on a percentage basis and I don't have a huge problem with them making the money. I'm simply pointing out that the people with the biggest profit motive are not a bunch of scientists but a set of companies that together raked in well over a trillion dollars in 2008, or about 10% of the entire US GDP.

124 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:16:19pm

re: #117 albusteve

I think it is around 6-7%...not outrageous by any means...they sell alot of gas

Funny, peple bitch about $3/gal gas, but pay $5 for a latte.

125 Girth  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:17:13pm

re: #124 Cannadian Club Akbar

Funny, peple bitch about $3/gal gas, but pay $5 for a latte.

Well, the latte tastes a hell of a lot better...

126 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:17:18pm

re: #124 Cannadian Club Akbar

Funny, peple bitch about $3/gal gas, but pay $5 for a latte.

Compare a gallon of gas to a gallon of mid-range bottled water, even.

127 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:17:19pm

re: #109 brookly red

next time you fill up check the price breakdown on the pump.

I know, lots of taxes, and I'm fine with that. But, again, the question was about who stands to profit from the AGW argument. Stop playing whack-a-mole with the point here.

128 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:17:45pm

re: #104 brookly red

/nothing at all, glad you see that :)

no really, a gazallion dollars for green jobs? 2 gazillion from taxes? carbon credits? that's what makes skeptics skeptic.

Oh no! Green jobs. Not JOBS!! We don't need those.

129 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:17:48pm

re: #121 Sharmuta

Isn't Green Capitalism the goal? Going green while keeping our economy strong- that's an ideal, right?

He asked a simple question. I gave a simple answer.

130 winemaker  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:17:50pm

re: #97 Thanos

Greens won't go pro-nuclear in my lifetime, any more so than Christians will abandon their virgin birth dogma. Almah.

So greens propose worldwide socialism under the guise of carbon regulation.

I vote no. There is nothing noble about rendering the lives of billions to misery.

But I'll vote yes for a stiff - very stiff - gradually imposed fossil fuel tax, so long as it is used to counteract the massive inflationary effect thereof that would otherwise cripple long term borrowing rates (the other way to kill capitalism, a al the 1970').

Hey Charles do I still sound like a fact-challenged denier? (Borat would say, "denialist.")

131 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:18:17pm

re: #128 recusancy

Oh no! Green jobs. Not JOBS!! We don't need those.

name one.

132 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:18:47pm

re: #124 Cannadian Club Akbar

Funny, peple bitch about $3/gal gas, but pay $5 for a latte.

Or a $1.50 for 12oz of bottled water.

133 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:18:55pm

re: #128 recusancy

Oh no! Green jobs. Not JOBS!! We don't need those.

God forbid we lead into the future! Much better to desperately cling to old-world manufacturing jobs...///

134 Taqyia2Me  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:19:58pm

re: #121 Sharmuta

Isn't Green Capitalism the goal? Going green while keeping our economy strong- that's an ideal, right?

The bridge to that is nuclear, only massive new nuclear will allow energy usage to grow as it is growing until we bridge to all other green forms.

135 albusteve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:20:04pm

re: #122 brookly red

and the % of tax in your state?

I think the state tax on gas here is 19cents a gallon

136 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:20:05pm

re: #130 winemaker

There is nothing noble about rendering the lives of billions to misery.

Can you offer data for that?

137 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:20:38pm

re: #130 winemaker

[snip]

Hey Charles do I still sound like a fact-challenged denier? (Borat would say, "denialist.")

Ok, you made a point, goody, goody, goody. Why do you have to end your comment with some sort of snotty challenge to Charles?

Just asking?

138 allegro  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:20:48pm

re: #136 Cineaste

Rush said so.

139 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:20:52pm

re: #131 brookly red

name one.

Here's a start. Go fish.

140 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:22:08pm

re: #139 Cineaste

You up dinged my above. Stop that, we are not suppose to agree :)

141 Randall Gross  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:22:48pm

re: #130 winemaker

Wrong, they already are. The hardcore left anti nuclear movement is coagulated in Al Gore's WE and Greenpeace, but even they are starting to waver in the face of reality.

Five years ago you wouldn't see articles proposing new nuclear, or new plants being constructed in the US. Now you are.

142 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:22:59pm

re: #139 Cineaste

Here's a start. Go fish.

what are those things made from anyway?

143 Gus  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:23:07pm

re: #123 Cineaste

That's about 10% against $460 billion in total revenues. It's not outlandish on a percentage basis and I don't have a huge problem with them making the money. I'm simply pointing out that the people with the biggest profit motive are not a bunch of scientists but a set of companies that together raked in well over a trillion dollars in 2008, or about 10% of the entire US GDP.

This is interesting as well:

From 2003 to 2007, Exxon's earnings grew by 89%, while income taxes grew by 170%. Much of that growth was overseas. Oil-producing countries charge companies like Exxon dearly to dig for oil. Arrangements vary from country to country, but Russia and Libya charge companies up to 90% of the revenues they collect for extracting oil, according to Fadel Gheit, senior analyst for Oppenheimer (OPY). These arrangements—whether production share agreements or royalty contracts—are not disclosed by companies and governments.

In tax terms, the U.S. government is kinder to oil companies. According to Securities & Exchange Commission filings, Exxon paid an effective tax rate of 34% to the U.S. government in 2007, or $5.12 billion. While cheaper than rates from some foreign governments, it's still a higher rate than many U.S. companies pay. A BusinessWeek collaboration with Capital IQ in December, 2007, found that the average percentage of earnings spent on taxes by companies that make up the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index was 26%, well under the 35% official U.S. corporate income-tax rate. Companies achieved lower taxes in a variety of ways, from taking advantage of lower tax rates abroad to benefiting from industry-specific breaks. Industry-Specific Tax Breaks

However, Exxon's critics point out that its stated tax rate doesn't reflect a number of deductions and tax breaks that are afforded the oil and gas industry in the U.S. Erich Pica, a spokesman for the environmental group Friends of the Earth, says the U.S. federal tax code contains more than $17 billion in breaks to benefit the oil and gas industry for fiscal years 2007-11.

That $17 billion is made up mainly of tax breaks newly offered or extended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including a "percentage depletion allowance" that allows oil companies to deduct 15% of their sales revenue, to reflect the declining value of their investment, and 70% of their drilling costs.

Additionally, oil and gas companies pay reduced royalty fees on products they recover from federally owned waters, which Pica says could cost taxpayers $65 billion over five years.

Shell game of course. SOP

[Link: www.businessweek.com...]

144 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:23:28pm

re: #130 winemaker

So greens propose worldwide socialism under the guise of carbon regulation.

I vote no. There is nothing noble about rendering the lives of billions to misery.

But I'll vote yes for a stiff - very stiff - gradually imposed fossil fuel tax, so long as it is used to counteract the massive inflationary effect thereof that would otherwise cripple long term borrowing rates (the other way to kill capitalism, a al the 1970').

How does carbon regulation lead to "redering the lives of billions to misery" but large tax hikes are fine and dandy?

145 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:23:35pm

re: #130 winemaker

Greens won't go pro-nuclear in my lifetime, any more so than Christians will abandon their virgin birth dogma. Almah.

Are you kidding? The "greens" where I live - in a nominally (in a political sense) and factually (in the sense of trees) extremely green region of New England - won't even go biomass. The guy who wants to build a plant here was recently featured in an anonymous leaflet (wanted, dead or alive) for "crimes against the planet". And the NIMBYs are out in force these days, because the state wants to enact a new law speeding the approval of wind farms. Everybody loves wind farms until one threatens to spoil your view of the local ridge.

And My Moonbat Brother (MMB™), one of the weepiest Gaia-worshipers you'd ever dislike meeting, thinks the real solution is to try oil executives for crimes against humanity.

But never mind. They can always smoke their hempen underwear if things get tough.

146 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:23:40pm

re: #140 Walter L. Newton

You up dinged my above. Stop that, we are not suppose to agree :)

We have our disagreements but no reason we can't find common ground. But don't get cocky... :)

147 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:24:02pm

re: #142 brookly red

what are those things made from anyway?

sand

148 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:24:22pm

re: #130 winemaker

So greens propose worldwide socialism under the guise of carbon regulation.

That is not accurate. You are not in the least bit distinguishing the many reasonable and sane "greens" from the PETA types.

As was pointed out, there are plenty of pro-nuke 'greens'. And given that socialism relates to the ownership of capital, I'm not sure how any of the proposals floated have been socialist.

149 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:24:29pm

re: #146 Cineaste

We have our disagreements but no reason we can't find common ground. But don't get cocky... :)

I'm constantly surprised by the people I end up agreeing with here. It's one of the cool things about this place.

150 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:24:33pm

re: #75 cgn38navy

re: #53 The Mongoose

If someone is offering money for stating something on a blog, I'd just like to throw my hat in the ring. What would they like me to say and how much? Maybe I can get a bigger fireplace for my cave? But that would lead to more CO2 emissions. Kind of self defeating isn't it?

Seriously, as a non expert who does understand just enough to realize how big this thing is, this guy nails my skepticism on the head. I don't trust the studies since there is so much money tied up in it. I also don't trust people who believe they know what's best for everyone, and that people who want to wait for further proof before taking extreme measures are "cavemen" or "knuckle draggers". You left out a big one, mongoose, the ozone hole.

Right. Yet you'll gladly accept the word of groups who are funded to the tune of millions of dollars by energy industries trying to protect their profits. And you don't see a bit of a disconnect there?

The idea that scientists are getting "rich" by promoting global warming is so ludicrous it doesn't even deserve an answer.

151 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:24:49pm

re: #145 Cato the Elder

[snip]

But never mind. They can always smoke their hempen underwear if things get tough.

Clean them first, take my word for it.

152 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:25:31pm

re: #147 Cineaste

sand

& how does the sand become a solar panel?

153 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:26:25pm

re: #149 Cato the Elder

I'm constantly surprised by the people I end up agreeing with here. It's one of the cool things about this place.

Well you, you're just an a**hole...

///

agree completely!

154 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:26:29pm

re: #151 Walter L. Newton

Clean them first, take my word for it.

Tell them, not me.

155 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:27:18pm

re: #150 Charles

Right. Yet you'll gladly accept the word of groups who are funded to the tune of millions of dollars by energy industries trying to protect their profits. And you don't see a bit of a disconnect there?

The idea that scientists are getting "rich" by promoting global warming is so ludicrous it doesn't even deserve an answer.

I seriously think that this smear, and the others like it, are harming science education in this country.

Why work hard for years and years to become a scientist, when you'll be dismissed as a money-grubbing socialist lunatic for simply reporting on scientific fact and attempting to warn of danger?

Thank god scientists mostly don't give a crap what the lay public think of them; though if they gave more of a crap, they'd be better able to defend against transparent attacks on them. Then they'd be worse scientists.

Catch-22.

156 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:27:25pm

Arkansas withdrew provision that would've kept man in jail

Suspect in cop shootings had been held on no-bail warrant

On parole for various felony convictions in Arkansas, authorities claim Clemmons violated the conditions of his release during the May incident when he allegedly punched a police officer, broke several windows and hit an elderly man in the head with a rock. The allegations that followed -- that he raped the then-12-year-old daughter of an acquaintance -- would also have placed him in violation.

Speaking Monday, Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said Arkansas withdrew the no-bail hold on July 22, ultimately enabling Clemmons to post the $190,000 bail and gain his release from custody.

WTF?

A spokesperson for the Arkansas Department of Community Corrections did not return calls for comment Monday afternoon.

I bet!

157 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:27:30pm

re: #152 brookly red

& how does the sand become a solar panel?

By people working in, wait for it, jobs!

158 Bagua  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:28:05pm

Bagua's Music Break™

Bad Weather Blues - Avery Brady

MP3 Audio
159 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:28:26pm

re: #155 Obdicut

Thank god scientists mostly don't give a crap what the lay public think of them; though if they gave more of a crap, they'd be better able to defend against transparent attacks on them. Then they'd be worse scientists.

Kind of like priests, when you come to think of it.

160 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:29:10pm

re: #159 Cato the Elder

Kind of like priests, when you come to think of it.

Kind of... some of these scientist act like demigods.

161 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:29:14pm

re: #159 Cato the Elder

Minus the get out of jail free card.

162 Digital Display  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:29:17pm

Just finished watching Angels and Demons...
About the ending..boy I didn't see that coming

163 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:29:46pm

One thing I would be in favor of, to take effect immediately: make smokers buy carbon credits with every pack they purchase. Say, three times the cost of the actual tobacco.

164 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:30:21pm

re: #157 Cineaste

By people working in, wait for it, jobs!

didn't require heat, or electricty or any thing like that? just elfs?

165 Ojoe  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:30:35pm

re: #20 Sharmuta

re: #21 Charles

I will go back and read that.

166 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:30:36pm

And by the way, the ozone hole is actually a very good example of how humans CAN make a difference against environmental damage. Since CFCs were phased out (with exactly the same kinds of denialist propaganda campaigns we see now in the global warming field), the ozone hole over the Antarctic has stopped getting bigger and actually started to repair itself.

And yet, the climate deniers continue to hold this up as an example of "fraud," because they know there are millions of people who were hoodwinked by the propaganda and will never believe otherwise.

167 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:30:43pm

re: #161 Jeff In Ohio

Minus the get out of jail free card.

Since the "jail" you reference is not one scientists believe in or fear, that is a funny but irrelevant point.

168 Randall Gross  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:31:11pm

re: #163 Cato the Elder

They already pay incredible taxes. I propose that we tax the food that Cato likes.

169 Digital Display  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:31:17pm

re: #163 Cato the Elder

One thing I would be in favor of, to take effect immediately: make smokers buy carbon credits with every pack they purchase. Say, three times the cost of the actual tobacco.

Would that count for Cuban Cigars?

170 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:31:23pm

[Link: ge.ecomagination.com...]
[Link: www.gepower.com...]
[Link: online.wsj.com...]

IIRC, NBC does (not enough IMO) newscast in the dark, promoting "green." And that's fine. But do they do it because they actually care?

171 Ojoe  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:31:32pm

re: #164 brookly red

People themselves put out heat & elves too, I bet.

172 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:31:52pm

re: #159 Cato the Elder

Kind of like priests, when you come to think of it.

That's nothing but pure anti-science bullshit.

173 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:31:55pm

re: #159 Cato the Elder

I don't think comparing scientists and priests is ever a good idea, no.

174 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:32:05pm

re: #164 brookly red

didn't require heat, or electricty or any thing like that? just elfs?

Are you saying creating jobs is a bad thing because the workers will require heat and electricity?

175 Ojoe  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:33:07pm

re: #163 Cato the Elder

That probably would save on health care costs too.

176 Randall Gross  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:33:17pm

Stewart Brand on 4 environmental Heresies

[Link: www.ted.com...]

177 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:33:56pm

re: #164 brookly red

didn't require heat, or electricty or any thing like that? just elfs?

Yes - but you are using the canard of more energy in than out. Not true with modern solar panels. You're thinking of the extreme panels that NASA makes. But yeah, hang your hat on that. Your car takes more energy in than it puts out too and it has a whole lot more exhaust. Second law of thermodynamics guarantees that...

178 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:34:15pm

re: #172 Charles

That's another way of putting it.

179 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:34:27pm

re: #174 recusancy

Are you saying creating jobs is a bad thing because the workers will require heat and electricity?

don't even try that, & btw how do the panels get to where they need to go... could it be on a truck? just maybe?

180 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:34:41pm

re: #162 HoosierHoops

Just finished watching Angels and Demons...
About the ending..boy I didn't see that coming

Dan Brown, just about the worst thriller writer we have seen in the last 20 years.

Of course you didn't see it, because Brown makes it up as he goes along, no internal consistency and his backstories sounds like he pulls them out of his ass when he needs them.

Of course I'll be the first to admit that he has made good money from his stuff, but that still doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the literary quality of his work.

By the way, I just finished "Digital Fortress" by him, this past weekend. If you want a book about computers that has nothing to do with any recognizable technology, read it. The book was written in 1998 and it sounded like all he did was read some consumer level articles about computers.

181 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:35:24pm

re: #173 Obdicut

I don't think comparing scientists and priests is ever a good idea, no.

No?

You don't think comparing the hubris of the psychiatric surgeons who maimed and destroyed the brains of untold mental patients with the "wonder operation" frontal lobotomy (sometimes - often, in fact - performed against the will of the subjects) bears any comparison to the arrogance of hierophantic human sacrificers of old?

182 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:35:28pm

re: #170 Cannadian Club Akbar

[Link: ge.ecomagination.com...]
[Link: www.gepower.com...]
[Link: online.wsj.com...]

IIRC, NBC does (not enough IMO) newscast in the dark, promoting "green." And that's fine. But do they do it because they actually care?

Having worked for General Electric myself, I can tell you the company works very hard to give back. After the tsunami, it was GE that donated the world's largest water filtration system to help in relief efforts. Being a charitable big business is good for business, but it has more to do with it being the right thing to do. The people who work for GE around the world are just like you and me- they care.

183 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:35:44pm

re: #179 brookly red

don't even try that, & btw how do the panels get to where they need to go... could it be on a truck? just maybe?

But what if it's an electric truck! Or a CNG truck!

How does that oil get to your local filling station again? Could it be a giant boat going around the horn of Africa, followed by a truck? Nah...

184 Ojoe  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:35:54pm

re: #177 Cineaste

Check out this solar powered plane that can stay up overnight.

185 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:36:09pm

re: #169 HoosierHoops

Would that count for Cuban Cigars?

Not here in America. Officially, there are no Cuban cigars, so how would you tax them?

Smoke in health, my friend! ;^)

186 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:36:32pm

re: #179 brookly red

don't even try that, & btw how do the panels get to where they need to go... could it be on a truck? just maybe?

Ok... Hydrogen powered trucks.

187 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:36:57pm

re: #177 Cineaste

Yes - but you are using the canard of more energy in than out. Not true with modern solar panels. You're thinking of the extreme panels that NASA makes. But yeah, hang your hat on that. Your car takes more energy in than it puts out too and it has a whole lot more exhaust. Second law of thermodynamics guarantees that...

I don't have a car... I live in the city. ooops, so much for thermodynamics...

189 Velvet Elvis  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:37:31pm

re: #130 winemaker

Are you kidding? The "greens" where I live - in a nominally (in a political sense) and factually (in the sense of trees) extremely green region of New England - won't even go biomass. The guy who wants to build a plant here was recently featured in an anonymous leaflet (wanted, dead or alive) for "crimes against the planet". And the NIMBYs are out in force these days, because the state wants to enact a new law speeding the approval of wind farms. Everybody loves wind farms until one threatens to spoil your view of the local ridge.

And My Moonbat Brother (MMB™), one of the weepiest Gaia-worshipers you'd ever dislike meeting, thinks the real solution is to try oil executives for crimes against humanity.

But never mind. They can always smoke their hempen underwear if things get tough.

FWIW, I can't find the poll at the moment but around 50% of registered democratic voters support an increase in nuclear power. Add that to 80% or so republican voters who support it and we've got the public support for more nuclear power.

One of the things I like about Obama is that he's got an actual nuclear physicist in charge of the DOE so he'll make sure the president is well versed on all the options regarding reprocessing waste and whatnot.

190 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:38:21pm

re: #187 brookly red

I don't have a car... I live in the city. ooops, so much for thermodynamics...

I don't think you're going to escape entropy living in the city.

191 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:38:56pm

re: #184 Ojoe

Check out this solar powered plane that can stay up overnight.

You see - we get better and better. The thing that I love is when people make the BS argument that "solar is expensive" or "wind is expensive". It's like they don't understand the nature of markets. It has been expensive because there was no competition, a small market and was produced in small quantities. It's like saying in 1977 that the personal computer will never get less expensive than $50,000 and smaller than a desk.

My iPhone begs to differ.

192 Digital Display  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:39:06pm

re: #180 Walter L. Newton

Dan Brown, just about the worst thriller writer we have seen in the last 20 years.

Of course you didn't see it, because Brown makes it up as he goes along, no internal consistency and his backstories sounds like he pulls them out of his ass when he needs them.

Of course I'll be the first to admit that he has made good money from his stuff, but that still doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the literary quality of his work.

By the way, I just finished "Digital Fortress" by him, this past weekend. If you want a book about computers that has nothing to do with any recognizable technology, read it. The book was written in 1998 and it sounded like all he did was read some consumer level articles about computers.

Jeez Walter..I was just bored and wanted to watch a movie.. There wasn't much choice on-Demand... Buno..Dance flick..G.I. Joe.. You know all the usual crap..

193 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:39:06pm

re: #172 Charles

That's nothing but pure anti-science bullshit.

Really? Let's take it point by point:

"Thank god scientists mostly don't give a crap what the lay public think of them..."

Priests, ditto.

"...though if they gave more of a crap, they'd be better able to defend against transparent attacks on them."

Priests, ditto.

"Then they'd be worse scientists."

Priests, ditto.

Please do not misconstrue this Chestertonian guffaw as an attack on scientists. And especially not on priests.

194 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:39:12pm

My newest grandson is a strapping big boy! 11 lbs.

195 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:39:37pm

re: #187 brookly red

I don't have a car... I live in the city. ooops, so much for thermodynamics...

Absolutely right. The laws of thermodynamics are suspended in urban areas.

//

196 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:39:49pm

re: #181 Cato the Elder

No, I don't.

I think they're both human, and they both had power.

I don't think it relates to the smears against scientists being perpetrated in the modern day, at all. I think it's a strange thing to say.

197 claire  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:39:52pm

Hey, Sandia Labs just came up with a way to sequester CO2 from coal plants and use solar power to create Hydrogen fuel. Commercialization is 10 years out, but I thought that was pretty darn cool. I have no doubt human ingenuity can get us out of this without us having to act like chicken littles and screwing our own pooch prematurely. (Izzat enough cliches'?)

198 Gus  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:39:55pm

re: #181 Cato the Elder

No?

You don't think comparing the hubris of the psychiatric surgeons who maimed and destroyed the brains of untold mental patients with the "wonder operation" frontal lobotomy (sometimes - often, in fact - performed against the will of the subjects) bears any comparison to the arrogance of hierophantic human sacrificers of old?

Most of those surgeons were not scientists.

199 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:40:08pm

re: #190 recusancy

I don't think you're going to escape entropy living in the city.

alas you are right...

now let's just get the gubernmint out of the way and let all of these wonderful things come to pass.

200 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:40:34pm

re: #188 zuckerlilly

The whole energy industry invested Billions in alternative energy.

Well perhaps it's because even they know there is a looming problem.

201 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:40:57pm

re: #194 Alouette

My newest grandson is a strapping big boy! 11 lbs.

congrats! big time...

202 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:40:58pm

re: #193 Cato the Elder

You are completely irrational on this subject, and you've proven it multiple times. There's no point in discussing it with you.

203 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:42:45pm

re: #197 claire

Hey, Sandia Labs just came up with a way to sequester CO2 from coal plants and use solar power to create Hydrogen fuel. Commercialization is 10 years out, but I thought that was pretty darn cool. I have no doubt human ingenuity can get us out of this without us having to act like chicken littles and screwing our own pooch prematurely. (Izzat enough cliches'?)

I agree, human ingenuity CAN get us out of danger. But we have a serious problem; there are people who are pumping millions of dollars into a deceptive effort to make sure that DOES NOT happen. And we have a "conservative" movement that has completely accepted the propaganda.

204 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:43:31pm

re: #189 Conservative Moonbat

FWIW, I can't find the poll at the moment but around 50% of registered democratic voters support an increase in nuclear power. Add that to 80% or so republican voters who support it and we've got the public support for more nuclear power.

One of the things I like about Obama is that he's got an actual nuclear physicist in charge of the DOE so he'll make sure the president is well versed on all the options regarding reprocessing waste and whatnot.

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

205 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:43:33pm

re: #196 Obdicut

No, I don't.

I think they're both human, and they both had power.

I don't think it relates to the smears against scientists being perpetrated in the modern day, at all. I think it's a strange thing to say.

Yes, because human flaws such as hubris, disregard for lesser beings, and the arrogance of power have all been weeded out of the scientific population.

Now I need to go feed my unicorn.

206 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:43:57pm

re: #205 Cato the Elder

Yet another straw man.

207 tradewind  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:43:57pm

re: #194 Alouette
Congratulations to you... and to the Mom (ouch...)
:)

208 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:44:03pm

re: #198 Gus 802

Most of those surgeons were not scientists.

The ones who developed and promoted the operation most emphatically were.

209 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:44:15pm

Nancy Pelosi spends $2,993 on flowers...

In the first paragraph there is a sentence, that I have been reading over and over again, with a little cynicism and a lot of awe...

And Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a fiscal conservative, decided to give about $2,000 in unused office funds back to the government to help reduce the deficit.

I think I just cried a little.

210 claire  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:44:27pm

re: #197 claire

I meant to say:

Acting like chicken littles, jumping the gun, and screwing our own pooches prematurely...

Sigh.

211 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:44:42pm

re: #193 Cato the Elder

I must say I've only known a handful of scientists and a handful of clergy. In that small sample, I'd have to say the scientists actual do care what people think, to the point of making extreme efforts to reach accord with people who were not understanding them. People who were really searching for truth and knowledge.

Clergy...not so much.

212 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:44:56pm

It's like a damned corn field of straw men.

213 Randall Gross  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:45:24pm

re: #188 zuckerlilly

Biofuels are the suck. They still put pollutants into the air we all breathe.

214 Digital Display  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:45:49pm

re: #185 Cato the Elder

Not here in America. Officially, there are no Cuban cigars, so how would you tax them?

Smoke in health, my friend! ;^)

LOL
Last summer I posted how me and some buddies drove up to Windsor and snuck back some Cubans over the Border...Boy some lizard freaked out..We were just the worst criminals in America...It was pretty funny...Which BTW it's just about time for a road trip.. A box of Cuban Cigars lasts about a year and they are pure gold...
*wink*

215 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:46:13pm

re: #205 Cato the Elder

I have a humicorn. I call her Acorna!

216 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:46:42pm

re: #112 cgn38navy

Exxon-mobile is a publicly traded company and much of their stock is institutional owned by pension plans and such. Their profit margin is a relatively low percentage of their gross and they pay their taxes. Is that really a problem or are you just envious?

This is, of course, as opposed to the high-rollin', Cristal-drinkin', party-at-the-Ritz-in-my-Havaianas climatologists, who don't have to pay taxes at all.

/Lord, I guess you can make Exxon sound middle-class if you work hard enough at it.

217 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:46:56pm

re: #202 Charles

You are completely irrational on this subject, and you've proven it multiple times. There's no point in discussing it with you.

Discussing what? I made a joke.

218 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:47:20pm

re: #209 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Nancy Pelosi spends $2,993 on flowers...

In the first paragraph there is a sentence, that I have been reading over and over again, with a little cynicism and a lot of awe...

And Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a fiscal conservative, decided to give about $2,000 in unused office funds back to the government to help reduce the deficit.

I think I just cried a little.

Dibs! I called it first so the 2 grand comes outta my taxes, right?

219 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:48:29pm

re: #213 Thanos

Biofuels are the suck. They still put pollutants into the air we all breathe.

sssh, you will wake the kids...

220 claire  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:48:53pm

re: #203 Charles

Yes, except the technology is happening anyway, without even any real incentives yet. How can they stop it? There's nothing more powerful than an idea who's time has come. 'Course I thought that about Nuclear 25 years ago and look what $10 million and Greenpeace did to mess that up, lol.

221 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:48:56pm

re: #208 Cato the Elder

The ones who developed and promoted the operation most emphatically were.

So were the ones who developed and promoted shock therapy. For which they received high honors and accolades in their time.

But there's no chance any such creeps are creeping around the corridors of science today. We have evolved.

222 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:48:58pm

re: #218 brookly red

Yep! Go ahead and tell the IRS I said it was okay.

223 tradewind  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:49:46pm

re: #208 Cato the Elder
Funny how science cycles around. ' Modern ' medicine laughed at the thought of the leeches used by medieval practitioners, yet today they're standard at major teaching hospitals since they've been found to contain a weird substance that clot-busts and draws pooled blood from wounds more effectively than anything manufactured.

224 Jeff In Ohio  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:49:48pm

re: #218 brookly red

I want to know how much John Boner spends on spray tan.

225 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:50:14pm

re: #222 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Yep! Go ahead and tell the IRS I said it was okay.

cool!

i just need your ss#...

226 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:51:01pm

re: #225 brookly red

cool!

i just need your ss#...

Are you Nigerian?
///

227 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:51:26pm

re: #226 Cannadian Club Akbar

Are you Nigerian?
///

racist!

228 SixDegrees  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:51:58pm

re: #73 Walter L. Newton

This link seems to be the whole story (at least from one point of view) of the Freedom of Information Act requests and the results and non-results, from the gentleman who asked for the CRU data...

[Link: omniclimate.wordpress.com...]

Not good.

The questions that need to be asked here, which the author of your link raises as well, are:

- Is the CRU able to reproduce it's own past results?

- Is enough information and data available for anyone to reproduce CRU's results?

They are reasonable, fundamental questions that stand at the very core of scientific inquiry. And no, it isn't "attacking the scientists" to raise such questions. In fact, it's a necessary step to proving them correct.

It would be much, much easier, and there would be much, much less controversy, if in answer to the question "Where is your original data?" the answer had been "Right here. Feel free to download it." As I've stated before - to howls of derision - preservation of original data is standard in scientific research, for a number of reasons. Under some circumstances, it is a hard requirement; in other cases, it is just common sense. It's one of the simplest measures available to guard against accusations of fraud, screw ups and sloppiness in research protocols, and it's surprising, to say the least, to hear that it hasn't been followed in this case.

229 tradewind  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:52:15pm

re: #209 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Probably sent them to Armani as an apology for letting it slip that the rag she was wearing at the WH state dinner was his design.///

230 tradewind  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:52:53pm

re: #224 Jeff In Ohio
It's carrots. He eats lots and lots of carrots.///

231 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:53:32pm

re: #229 tradewind

Probably sent them to Armani as an apology for letting it slip that the rag she was wearing at the WH state dinner was his design.///


"Her offices defended the charges, saying the Speaker’s office holds more ceremonial events with visiting dignitaries than other congressional offices. They also use a local florist, and about a third of her flower expenses this quarter were for Jack Kemp’s funeral."

232 [deleted]  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:54:56pm
233 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:55:04pm

re: #209 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Nancy Pelosi spends $2,993 on flowers...

In the first paragraph there is a sentence, that I have been reading over and over again, with a little cynicism and a lot of awe...

And Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a fiscal conservative, decided to give about $2,000 in unused office funds back to the government to help reduce the deficit.

I think I just cried a little.


Pelosi, who has come under fire in the past for spending on flowers, also spent roughly $30,610 in food and beverage and about $2,740 on bottled water,

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) racked up about $24,617 in catering costs. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) spent about $1,561 in bottled water and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) spent no money on water but a touch over $18,000 in food. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) spent about $24,116 on food and beverage.

***

Disfuckinggusting.

234 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:55:16pm

re: #231 recusancy

"Her offices defended the charges, saying the Speaker’s office holds more ceremonial events with visiting dignitaries than other congressional offices. They also use a local florist, and about a third of her flower expenses this quarter were for Jack Kemp’s funeral."

the flowers are flown in from Centeral America... oy what a foot print!

235 tradewind  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:55:45pm

re: #231 recusancy
Actually, as much as I kind of loathe Nancy Pelosi, I don't think that bill is terribly out of line for floral expenses for a senator.
Flowers are pricey.

236 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:55:49pm

re: #231 recusancy

"Her offices defended the charges, saying the Speaker’s office holds more ceremonial events with visiting dignitaries than other congressional offices. They also use a local florist, and about a third of her flower expenses this quarter were for Jack Kemp’s funeral."

She spends $3K a QUARTER on flowers? Am I reading that right?

237 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:56:05pm

re: #233 MandyManners

Gotta love Tim Walz's bit though, huh?

238 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:56:28pm

re: #234 brookly red

the flowers are flown in from Centeral America... oy what a foot print!

"Her offices defended the charges, saying the Speaker’s office holds more ceremonial events with visiting dignitaries than other congressional offices. They also use a local florist, and about a third of her flower expenses this quarter were for Jack Kemp’s funeral."

239 [deleted]  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:57:03pm
240 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:57:43pm

On my desk is a bottle of ethos water I bought at Starbucks two years ago. I keep it washed and fill it out of my freezer's water dispenser. EVERYONE in DC needs to learn how to RECYCLE RECYCLE RECYCLE. There is no excuse for spending thousands of dollars for bottled water. No excuse. I am so mad right now I gotta' step back and take a walk. bbiab

241 Racer X  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:58:00pm

I blame the hippies.

Seriously.

The knuckleheads who protested nuclear power back in the 70's and 80's inadvertently caused global warming. I blame them.

242 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:58:07pm

Wash. shooting re-opens Huckabee's clemency record

On Monday, Huckabee offered little explanation for why he made Clemmons eligible for parole in 2000, and called the case a failure of the justice systems in Arkansas and Washington.

"If I could have known nine years ago and could have looked into the future, would I have acted favorably upon the Parole Board's recommendation? Of course not," Huckabee told Fox News Radio on Monday.

Huckabee was expected to discuss the Clemmons case Monday night during an interview with Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly.

I can't wait to see this clip on youtube.

243 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:58:23pm

re: #238 recusancy

Using a local florist doesn't mean using local flowers.

244 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:58:33pm

Oh, sorry. That wasn't my SS#. That was the one from the guy in those commercials who puts his SS# on the side of the truck.

I wasn't thinking, Charles.

Thinking that's my second delete.

245 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:58:42pm

re: #209 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Nancy Pelosi spends $2,993 on flowers

I have no love for Nancy but it doesn't sound like a crazy figure for the office of the Speaker of the House. That being said, if one of those charges was for personal use it's a big problem. It's worth noting, also from the same article:

These line by line expenditures used to come just in bound green books, but for the first time ever, Pelosi requested that the reports also be put online this quarter.

I'll give credit where credit is due. This is a good step towards transparency.

I want to go through those numbers and get the total on bottled water and then demand they all use tap.

246 tradewind  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:59:01pm

re: #238 recusancy
That's silly too... all flowers, or most of them, are ' flown in ' from somewhere, usually South America or Hawaii, and in summer, often from Europe. Local florists can't find a local source for every thing.

247 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:59:02pm

re: #228 SixDegrees

Not good.

The questions that need to be asked here, which the author of your link raises as well, are:

- Is the CRU able to reproduce it's own past results?

- Is enough information and data available for anyone to reproduce CRU's results?

They are reasonable, fundamental questions that stand at the very core of scientific inquiry. And no, it isn't "attacking the scientists" to raise such questions. In fact, it's a necessary step to proving them correct.

It would be much, much easier, and there would be much, much less controversy, if in answer to the question "Where is your original data?" the answer had been "Right here. Feel free to download it." As I've stated before - to howls of derision - preservation of original data is standard in scientific research, for a number of reasons. Under some circumstances, it is a hard requirement; in other cases, it is just common sense. It's one of the simplest measures available to guard against accusations of fraud, screw ups and sloppiness in research protocols, and it's surprising, to say the least, to hear that it hasn't been followed in this case.

But again -- that small percentage of raw data was discarded by the CRU nearly 30 years ago. And it was a COPY of the NOAA data. In the 1980s storage capacity was severely limited and very expensive. Why should they retain all raw data, when it exists and is archived already at the NOAA?

No data was destroyed.

248 SixDegrees  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:59:17pm

I'm out. See y'all tomorrow.

249 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:59:29pm

re: #238 recusancy

"Her offices defended the charges, saying the Speaker’s office holds more ceremonial events with visiting dignitaries than other congressional offices. They also use a local florist, and about a third of her flower expenses this quarter were for Jack Kemp’s funeral."

/oh, he grew them in his office... mi culpa!

250 tradewind  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:59:39pm

re: #242 Sharmuta
I'm most outraged that he pardoned Keith Richards in '75.///

251 Cathypop  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:59:56pm

re: #241 Racer X

I blame the hippies.

Seriously.

The knuckleheads who protested nuclear power back in the 70's and 80's inadvertently caused global warming. I blame them.


Forget about blaming everything on George Bush. Blame it on the hippies. What a great idea!

252 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 4:59:57pm

re: #228 SixDegrees

Not good.

The questions that need to be asked here, which the author of your link raises as well, are:

- Is the CRU able to reproduce it's own past results?

- Is enough information and data available for anyone to reproduce CRU's results?

They are reasonable, fundamental questions that stand at the very core of scientific inquiry. And no, it isn't "attacking the scientists" to raise such questions. In fact, it's a necessary step to proving them correct.

It would be much, much easier, and there would be much, much less controversy, if in answer to the question "Where is your original data?" the answer had been "Right here. Feel free to download it." As I've stated before - to howls of derision - preservation of original data is standard in scientific research, for a number of reasons. Under some circumstances, it is a hard requirement; in other cases, it is just common sense. It's one of the simplest measures available to guard against accusations of fraud, screw ups and sloppiness in research protocols, and it's surprising, to say the least, to hear that it hasn't been followed in this case.

No, I agree with you, as I read further down in that long article, it appears that there are connections now missing. I don't think anyone could reconstruct the original data. It's a matter of have records without having all the relational references for those records.

I'm not even going into anti-pro AGW or any of that. But there appears that there may have been some very unscientific and unethical problems in regards to some of these scientist. For me, the verdict is out, and the case is not closed.

We don't have the full story yet.

253 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:00:46pm

re: #244 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Oh, sorry. That wasn't my SS#. That was the one from the guy in those commercials who puts his SS# on the side of the truck.

I wasn't thinking, Charles.

Thinking that's my second delete.

Way to drag down the team.
///

254 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:01:02pm

re: #240 MandyManners

On my desk is a bottle of ethos water I bought at Starbucks two years ago. I keep it washed and fill it out of my freezer's water dispenser. EVERYONE in DC needs to learn how to RECYCLE RECYCLE RECYCLE. There is no excuse for spending thousands of dollars for bottled water. No excuse. I am so mad right now I gotta' step back and take a walk. bbiab

I am more in favor of taxing the piss (as it were) out of bottled water than of soda.

It is nothing but a huge scam.

255 Claire  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:01:30pm

re: #234 brookly red
Sometimes the footprint will surprise you- I read somewhere that getting flowers and produce from a naturally warm place and shipping them often had a smaller footprint than getting them from a local greenhouse in a colder climate that has to be heated. So you never know-

256 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:01:49pm

re: #241 Racer X

I blame the hippies.

Seriously.

The knuckleheads who protested nuclear power back in the 70's and 80's inadvertently caused global warming. I blame them.

well now you will have a chance to vote them out, LOL!

257 recusancy  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:02:00pm

re: #254 Cato the Elder

I am more in favor of taxing the piss (as it were) out of bottled water than of soda.

It is nothing but a huge scam.

Soda's no less of a scam. Carbonated sugar water with some artificial flavoring and fancy marketing.

258 Digital Display  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:02:38pm

re: #254 Cato the Elder

I am more in favor of taxing the piss (as it were) out of bottled water than of soda.

It is nothing but a huge scam.

Man you are in a taxing mood tonight..You should run for Congress...

259 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:02:39pm

re: #233 MandyManners

Pelosi, who has come under fire in the past for spending on flowers, also spent roughly $30,610 in food and beverage and about $2,740 on bottled water,

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) racked up about $24,617 in catering costs. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) spent about $1,561 in bottled water and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) spent no money on water but a touch over $18,000 in food. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) spent about $24,116 on food and beverage.

***

Disfuckinggusting.

Am I insane to say that this doesn't sound that extreme to me?

Basically, on any given day, the Congressional leadership is spending about a grand on food, flowers, etc. This includes meetings with foreign dignitaries, work lunches, gift, yadda yadda.

That does not actually sound out of the ballpark. I've worked for companies and nonprofits that required me to order food, set up dinners, etc. Sure, it would be nice if they all brown-bagged it and fed the Japanese foreign minister Oreos, but that's not going to happen.

260 tradewind  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:02:51pm

re: #254 Cato the Elder
I agree for the most part... but if you live in some parts of FL, you're gonna want to drink bottled. Tap water tastes awful there.
It's not so hot in SFO, either, actually.
My city's tap water is so wonderful that it has been found bottled in other states... we never have to buy bottled. But I do feel for people who live where the water tastes like crap.

261 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:03:19pm

re: #252 Walter L. Newton

Sorry, but reading through that blog, it looks like a very hardcore denial blog. And I'm extremely suspicious of its claims.

262 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:03:58pm

re: #240 MandyManners

I have nine water bottles that I keep in my car's cooler. I re-fill them from the nearest tap. Had the same nine water bottles for 6 months.

Put them in the dishwasher once a month or so.

I ain't afraid of my own cooties.

263 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:04:15pm

re: #257 recusancy

Soda's no less of a scam. Carbonated sugar water with some artificial flavoring and fancy marketing.

Plus is bad for your health.

Also- it's one of the highest marked-up products you can buy- percentage wise.

264 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:04:29pm

re: #260 tradewind

I agree for the most part... but if you live in some parts of FL, you're gonna want to drink bottled. Tap water tastes awful there.
It's not so hot in SFO, either, actually.
My city's tap water is so wonderful that it has been found bottled in other states... we never have to buy bottled. But I do feel for people who live where the water tastes like crap.

I bought an inline filter running to my fridge. Ice and water is fine.

265 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:04:32pm

re: #257 recusancy

Soda's no less of a scam. Carbonated sugar water with some artificial flavoring and fancy marketing.

Yes, but there is value added in the sugar and flavoring.

Water you can get out of a tap. Anyone who pays for it in bottles is a dupe.

266 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:04:48pm

re: #247 Charles

But again -- that small percentage of raw data was discarded by the CRU nearly 30 years ago. And it was a COPY of the NOAA data. In the 1980s storage capacity was severely limited and very expensive. Why should they retain all raw data, when it exists and is archived already at the NOAA?

No data was destroyed.

No, but looking at some of the narratives about the data that I have been reading this afternoon, it appears that the RELATIONS from certain data records to the actual STATIONS that collected the data is not possible to reconstruct. And that is a sticking point for anyone that wants to reconstruct the science.

And the actual percentage of discarded data was 2 percent.

267 Racer X  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:05:06pm

re: #251 Cathypop

Forget about blaming everything on George Bush. Blame it on the hippies. What a great idea!

Oh I'm sure there is more there too. It's a a hippie conspiracy I tell ya.

268 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:05:06pm

re: #259 SanFranciscoZionist

I only brought it up because a guy gave back 2grand he was allotted.

269 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:05:45pm

re: #258 HoosierHoops

Man you are in a taxing mood tonight..You should run for Congress...

I would tax my colleagues with stupidity until they had me whacked.

270 SixDegrees  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:06:03pm

re: #247 Charles

But again -- that small percentage of raw data was discarded by the CRU nearly 30 years ago. And it was a COPY of the NOAA data. In the 1980s storage capacity was severely limited and very expensive. Why should they retain all raw data, when it exists and is archived already at the NOAA?

No data was destroyed.

The dataset that CRU used was destroyed. I have no doubt it can be reconstructed - although the article that Walter linked suggests that this isn't a simple task.

At this point, it behooves the original researchers to reassemble their data from the original sources, re-validate their models by running the reconstituted data through them to verify their results end to end, and make the raw data available for others. They could even skip the actual work involved and simply provide the information needed for others to reassemble the original data used along with instructions on how it was processed before being run through their models.

And in the future, they ought to take more pains to preserve such things, as is commonly done by researchers in other fields. One quick glance around the Web is all the proof that's needed to show that this is now a problem.

271 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:06:24pm

re: #263 Sharmuta

Plus is bad for your health.

Also- it's one of the highest marked-up products you can buy- percentage wise.

Except for water. You should see the markups on that.

272 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:06:33pm

re: #238 recusancy

"Her offices defended the charges, saying the Speaker’s office holds more ceremonial events with visiting dignitaries than other congressional offices. They also use a local florist, and about a third of her flower expenses this quarter were for Jack Kemp’s funeral."

Where do you think those flowers are grown?!

273 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:06:47pm

re: #266 Walter L. Newton

No, but looking at some of the narratives about the data that I have been reading this afternoon, it appears that the RELATIONS from certain data records to the actual STATIONS that collected the data is not possible to reconstruct. And that is a sticking point for anyone that wants to reconstruct the science.

And the actual percentage of discarded data was 2 percent.

Two percent?

Two percent?

This whole thing is over two percent of the raw data, discarded over 30 years ago, in just one dataset out of many hundreds of datasets collected by scientists around the world.

Are you starting to see how completely, utterly insignificant and overblown this story is?

274 Digital Display  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:06:54pm

re: #265 Cato the Elder

Yes, but there is value added in the sugar and flavoring.

Water you can get out of a tap. Anyone who pays for it in bottles is a dupe.

I love black cherry flavored bottled water..0 calories and purified water.. I'm not a dupe...I work hard everyday it's one of my little pleasures...

275 Racer X  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:06:56pm

re: #263 Sharmuta

Plus is bad for your health.

Also- it's one of the highest marked-up products you can buy- percentage wise.

Popcorn is about a 95% markup.
French Fries are about 90%.

276 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:07:11pm

re: #261 Charles

Sorry, but reading through that blog, it looks like a very hardcore denial blog. And I'm extremely suspicious of its claims.

For me the verdict is out. As you know, I just started looking at this dataset issue this afternoon. I certainly have not had enough time to agree with you or disagree with you (or anyone else) on this dataset situation. And I am not going to jump to any conclusions.

277 SixDegrees  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:07:15pm

re: #252 Walter L. Newton

No, I agree with you, as I read further down in that long article, it appears that there are connections now missing. I don't think anyone could reconstruct the original data. It's a matter of have records without having all the relational references for those records.

I'm not even going into anti-pro AGW or any of that. But there appears that there may have been some very unscientific and unethical problems in regards to some of these scientist. For me, the verdict is out, and the case is not closed.

We don't have the full story yet.

You and I are on the same page here.

OK, now I really am going to go.

278 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:07:53pm

re: #254 Cato the Elder

I am more in favor of taxing the piss (as it were) out of bottled water than of soda.

It is nothing but a huge scam.

I like the bottles, not the water. Well, I don't like my area's water so I use filtered water. The bottle is just a delivery system.

279 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:08:01pm

re: #275 Racer X

Popcorn is about a 95% markup.
French Fries are about 90%.

Don't get me started on coffee.

280 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:08:14pm

re: #274 HoosierHoops

I love black cherry flavored bottled water..0 calories and purified water.. I'm not a dupe...I work hard everyday it's one of my little pleasures...

Ever have New York Seltzer?

281 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:08:17pm

brb

282 Cato the Elder  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:08:19pm

Well, I'm off to watch "Cyrano de Bergerac" with Jose Ferrer.

Quote for the hour:

I am not young enough to know everything.
--Oscar Wilde

283 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:09:45pm

re: #209 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Nancy Pelosi spends $2,993 on flowers...

Zedushka buys me a bouquet of flowers every week, which comes to $780 a year.

284 albusteve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:10:20pm

re: #271 Cato the Elder

Except for water. You should see the markups on that.

I pay 25cents a gallon...it taste better than my tapwater...same price, all over ABQ

285 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:10:24pm

re: #273 Charles

Two percent?

Two percent?

This whole thing is over two percent of the raw data, discarded over 30 years ago, in just one dataset out of many hundreds of datasets collected by scientists around the world.

Are you starting to see how completely, utterly insignificant and overblown this story is?

Charles, I'm not complaining nor making any judgement about that 2 percent, I was just filling in the actual number, since no one else mentioned it. I was just being accurate. I never made any judgement on what that 2 percent represents or doesn't represent.

I will say this much, I know data, I know how data relates to itself and other data, and if there is a problem with actually recreating this data, I will be able to understand the problem. And if the data is constructible, I'll be able to discover that and understand that too.

This is my territory.

286 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:10:28pm

re: #268 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I only brought it up because a guy gave back 2grand he was allotted.

That was pretty cool. He should have a website. The Frugal Congressman. Give tips.

287 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:10:34pm

re: #283 Alouette

NOT WHY I QUOTED THE ARTICLE! AAARRRGGGHHH!

288 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:10:37pm

re: #275 Racer X

Popcorn is about a 95% markup.
French Fries are about 90%.

plus tax.

289 Digital Display  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:11:04pm

re: #280 Cannadian Club Akbar

Ever have New York Seltzer?

Nope..I tasted some seltzer once and didn't like it...or maybe it was the Gin.. I don't recall..
/Gin...gross!

290 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:11:31pm

re: #287 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

NOT WHY I QUOTED THE ARTICLE! AAARRRGGGHHH!

I know, I know. Some guy gave $2000 back to the taxpayers. One nanosecond worth of congressional spending.

291 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:11:32pm

re: #275 Racer X

Popcorn is about a 95% markup.
French Fries are about 90%.

Yeah, but I'm NOT going to deep-fry anything if I can help it, so I'm perfectly willing to pay extra for someone else's labor.

292 Cannadian Club Akbar  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:12:35pm

re: #289 HoosierHoops

Nope..I tasted some seltzer once and didn't like it...or maybe it was the Gin.. I don't recall..
/Gin...gross!

It's flavored. I like blueberry flavor when I eat powdered doughnuts.

293 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:12:56pm

re: #273 Charles

Two percent?

Two percent?

This whole thing is over two percent of the raw data, discarded over 30 years ago, in just one dataset out of many hundreds of datasets collected by scientists around the world.

Are you starting to see how completely, utterly insignificant and overblown this story is?

To clarify. I was only giving the actual number since it was not mentioned. I never said the problem is over this 2 percent of what or where the problem is, or isn't. I'm looking at it, and it won't be something that I will discover overnight.

294 brookly red  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:13:20pm

re: #290 Alouette

I know, I know. Some guy gave $2000 back to the taxpayers. One nanosecond worth of congressional spending.

/2 grand? maybe the escort couldn't make it.

295 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:13:55pm

re: #289 HoosierHoops

Nope..I tasted some seltzer once and didn't like it...or maybe it was the Gin.. I don't recall..
/Gin...gross!

My daughter in Israel has a seltzer-making pump. I keep meaning to buy one, and I don't know why I haven't, especially since I sell it at the Zionist Mall ("Soda Club" banner, right sidebar).

296 Racer X  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:14:12pm

Report Warns of Rising Water Demand

A report on global water resources released Monday said that governments must address booming water demand or face grave human, environmental and economic consequences.

“Water needs to rise up the totem pole of political discourse,’’ said Giulio Boccaletti of McKinsey, the consulting firm that wrote the report, during a press conference. “We need to stop flying blind in making decisions about water without a map on the table.’’

The report, Charting Our Water Future, says that that in 20 years, water demand will be 40 percent higher than it is today, and more than 50 percent higher in the most rapidly developing countries. Historic rates of supply expansion and efficiency improvement will close only a fraction of this gap.

Closing the future “water gap” will cost $50 billion to $60 billion per year of investment by expanding measures already being taken in some communities to boost efficiency, augment supply, or lessen the water-intensity of the economy.

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the chairman of Nestlé, said he expected the report to “de-emotionalize’’ the issue of water management by simply laying out facts in clear terms.

Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe said that water’s value is not adequately reflected in its cost. He emphasized that access to clean water was a human right, but that “it’s not a human right to wash your car, fill up your swimming pool and water your golf course.’’

He said South Africa has an example of a sustainable water policy in which households are entitled to 6,000 liters, or about 1,500 gallons per month of free water, after which they must pay.

He also pointed to what he clearly considered an absurdity: that it takes 9,100 liters of water to make one one liter of biodiesel fuel.

“We don’t give value to the most precious resource we have on earth,’’ Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe said.

297 tradewind  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:14:19pm

re: #291 SanFranciscoZionist
Yes, and throw in the peeling/julienne part... big hassle, worth paying for.

298 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:14:43pm

re: #279 Sharmuta

Don't get me started on coffee.

I once had a guy ON THE BUS ask how much I'd paid for my cup of coffee, and then start explaining to me how much I could save by making it at home.

I wasn't impressed. I was buying a cup of coffee for a buck fifty, five days a week, at a local small business. The business was part of a complex built to bring new business to a blighted part of Oakland. The employees were college kids, and were really pleased if I gave them my change in the tip jar. And at the time, I could afford it. The only thing that even slightly bothered me was the waste of the paper cups.

299 Big Steve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:14:56pm

Up thread people were talking about the need to separate the science from the policy. I agree. However, a fundamental conflict I see for Republicans in the AWG debate is that it appears, that we will not be able to let market forces naturally cure the problem. By this I mean that as fossil fuels dry up the cost moves up and alternatives become more attractive. Unfortunately the world can continue to consume known fossil fuel reserves at the same accelerated clip it is now for at least 20 more years. Whether this tips the balance of the world climate or not, at best it leaves us 20 years further behind dealing with the problem

300 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:15:15pm

Supper... be back in a few minutes...

301 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:15:58pm

re: #297 tradewind

Yes, and throw in the peeling/julienne part... big hassle, worth paying for.

Popcorn I'll make at home.

302 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:16:19pm

This is a partial list of data sources used by the CRU and other climate scientists:

RealClimate: Data Sources

TWO PERCENT of one dataset was discarded 30 years ago because they didn't have the storage capacity, and they knew the original data was still being archived by the NOAA.

This is such a tiny, tiny fraction of the mountain of evidence that it's almost funny to see it being used to claim "global warming is a hoax!"

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic and sad.

303 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:16:26pm

Can anyone convert the charts in the Polosi PDF to some more useful format? A CSV or XLS file? PDF is useless.

304 Digital Display  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:17:03pm

re: #298 SanFranciscoZionist

I like the Oakland Hills...The view at night is spectacular

305 haakondahl  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:18:08pm

re: #298 SanFranciscoZionist

I once had a guy ON THE BUS ask how much I'd paid for my cup of coffee, and then start explaining to me how much I could save by making it at home.

I wasn't impressed. I was buying a cup of coffee for a buck fifty, five days a week, at a local small business. The business was part of a complex built to bring new business to a blighted part of Oakland. The employees were college kids, and were really pleased if I gave them my change in the tip jar. And at the time, I could afford it. The only thing that even slightly bothered me was the waste of the paper cups.

You should ask him how much he paid to ride the bus, and explain that he could save money by walking.

306 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:18:23pm

You know, we haven't had a private thread in a long time. Just sayin'. (I have a picture of the new baby, babezilla)

307 lostlakehiker  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:18:48pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

This is sadly true. It's important to keep in mind that accepting the science supporting AGW does not equal accepting the solutions proposed for dealing with it. Once the right starts to accept AGW is real, then we can begin the task of counter-proposals, and that will be a good day when it comes.

We risk the same situation re AGW that we now face re health care. "Reforms" that make matters worse stand at the brink of passage, because doing something, anything, even if it aggravates the situation, sometimes gets more of a constituency than doing nothing and saying there isn't even a problem.

308 zuckerlilly  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:19:07pm

re: #200 Cineaste

Well perhaps it's because even they know there is a looming problem.

All the big ones in the energy industry sell what? Right, energy. They don’t care what kind of energy they sell (oil, bio-fuel, algae-fuel, solar-, wind-power or whatsoever) and they have invested since decades in alternative energy and they are the big stakeholder in the alternative energy industry and they don’t care to what price they sell. Consumer and the industry need energy like a piece of bread so they will pay any price but what they want and need are clear and worldwide enforceable rules.

If the states sign a treaty (no matter what kind of treaty) and your energy bill is rising, they don’t care, it is not their problem. They stay in the business and the consumers pay the price and the price will be a high one.

Btw: it’s the same with the tobacco companies. They have invested in the pharmaceutical-industry which sells products to quit smoking. So they have it both sides.

309 Big Steve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:20:30pm

re: #302 Charles

This is a partial list of data sources used by the CRU and other climate scientists:

RealClimate: Data Sources

TWO PERCENT of one dataset was discarded 30 years ago because they didn't have the storage capacity, and they knew the original data was still being archived by the NOAA.

This is such a tiny, tiny fraction of the mountain of evidence that it's almost funny to see it being used to claim "global warming is a hoax!"

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic and sad.

Not being a denier her, just a logician...but if one had the storage capacity to retain 98% of the data, it seems that retaining the last 2% hardly seems like much of an additional burden.

310 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:21:17pm

re: #308 zuckerlilly

You know, your link to that ludicrous German study claiming that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas was thoroughly refuted -- destroyed, in fact -- in the previous thread where you posted it. But you never even acknowledged any of that.

311 Killgore Trout  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:22:39pm

British Jewish group urges Jews to not participate in SIOE protests because of the connections to Eurofascists...
Don’t be fooled by Islamophobia

A small Islamophobic group, called Stop Islamisation Of Europe (SIOE), has called for 1,000 Jews to attend its forthcoming demonstration at Harrow mosque; and for each Jew to bring an Israeli flag.

This is strikingly similar to appeals that have also been made in recent months by the English Defence League (EDL). It is also essentially the same as opportunistic attempts by British National Party leader Nick Griffin to ditch both his and his party’s antisemitic heritage, by stressing his supposed new-found support for Israel and Jews.

SIOE’s appeal for Jewish participation sits alongside this grotesque Islamophobic image on its website:
...
CST has raised awareness of the activities of extreme Islamist groups in the UK for many years. But to demonise an entire community, every Muslim and every mosque, in the way that SIOE does, shows exactly the kind of bigotry from which Jews have suffered so often in our history. For SIOE to appeal to Jews to support them shows a complete ignorance of the Jewish experience of being on the receiving end of exactly this type of politics.
...
Hatred, division, cycles of inter-communal violence, intimidation and polarisation feed the extremists on every side. They encourage social division and leave all minorities vulnerable. Anti-Muslim bigotry is a vital recruiting sergeant for both the far right, and its Islamist extremist counterparts. It generates votes for the BNP and, at the furthest ends of this political spectrum, it even provides the fuel for terrorism. British Jews should have no part of it.

312 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:22:57pm

re: #308 zuckerlilly

All the big ones in the energy industry sell what? Right, energy. They don’t care what kind of energy they sell (oil, bio-fuel, algae-fuel, solar-, wind-power or whatsoever) and they have invested since decades in alternative energy and they are the big stakeholder in the alternative energy industry and they don’t care to what price they sell. Consumer and the industry need energy like a piece of bread so they will pay any price but what they want and need are clear and worldwide enforceable rules.

You're almost correct here. It is true that they don't care about the type of energy they sell EXCEPT that they do care about how much that energy will cost them to develop and whether or not they will continue to be the dominant energy supplier. Right now oil is unbelievably easy for them. You stick a straw in the ground somewhere in the middle east and start sucking. Figuring out a new source of energy is wildly expensive and they are not structured to guarantee they will create better solar panels than kyocera, or better wind farms than GE, or better algae than MIT. It's an enormous risk for them to move into a new type of energy economy and it is a risk they would like to forestall as long as possible. Case in point, look at the ongoing battle between oil & coal over electricity production.

313 Racer X  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:23:06pm

Kiwi Rocket Scares Sheep, Reaches Space

314 haakondahl  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:23:31pm

Hmmm. I'm 24 hours ahead of the President's speech, no?
re: #311 Killgore Trout

British Jewish group urges Jews to not participate in SIOE protests because of the connections to Eurofascists...
Don’t be fooled by Islamophobia

Sweet.

315 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:24:17pm

re: #311 Killgore Trout

British Jewish group urges Jews to not participate in SIOE protests because of the connections to Eurofascists...
Don’t be fooled by Islamophobia

Anytime a group of non-Jews ask Jews to show up and identify themselves I don't like where the conversation is headed...

316 haakondahl  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:24:31pm

re: #313 Racer X

Kiwi Rocket Scares Sheep, Reaches Space

Only one of these things represents a change in the Kiwi zeitgeist.

317 haakondahl  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:25:04pm

re: #315 Cineaste

Anytime a group of non-Jews ask Jews to show up and identify themselves I don't like where the conversation is headed...

Here. Have a nametag! :-)

318 dwells38  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:25:53pm

re: #35 cgn38navy

Yeah it turns out you can eat what you want, just keep your weight down. Oh and make sure your immediate ancestors lived to a ripe old age.

319 Big Steve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:26:17pm

I mean for being a bastard oil company guy (and an Aussie)...this guy Shell's Climate Advisor has a very cogent and precise explanation of the Copenhagen conference.

320 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:26:37pm

re: #317 haakondahl

Here. Have a nametag! :-)

It's just a little yellow schmata - place it on your arm...

321 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:29:07pm

How many bottles of water does $2,740.00 buy? That's just in the last quarter. Three months. BUY YOUR OWN DAMN WATER, CONGRESS.

322 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:29:14pm

re: #319 Big Steve

I mean for being a bastard oil company guy (and an Aussie)...this guy Shell's Climate Advisor has a very cogent and precise explanation of the Copenhagen conference.

Shell Oil seems to be one of the more responsible energy companies. Unlike Exxon-Mobil, they don't seem to be funding denialist efforts, and actually accept the scientific evidence for AGW.

323 Killgore Trout  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:29:35pm

re: #311 Killgore Trout

Crazy Pam is flipping out...
Atlas Urges Jews Worldwide to Support SIOE, Ignore Dhimmi "Jewish Councils"


Are the Jews going to shuffle onto the trains yet again? Not me. No way.
...
Much like the Jewish councils of World War II Germany helped assist in what would become the extermination of the Jews, we are witnessing Jewish groups like the CST aiding and abetting Islamic jihad and Islamic anti-semitism.
...
I think I am going to throw up. I cannot believe that not 60 years after the Shoah, this kind of appeasing of Jew haters is (LOL - ed)

I find this Jewish sniveling to Islamic anti-semitism abhorrent. The Jewish online publication, The JC.com is running a piece urging Jews not to support the SIOE here.
...
Oncve (lol-ed) again leftist Jews lying and deceiving to advance the aims of the enemies of Jews andJewish (lol-ed) life.

Stphwn Gash (who?-ed) who I support and admire responds:


Read the whole thing. She's really in a froth over this.

324 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:30:39pm

re: #323 Killgore Trout

Crazy Pam is flipping out...
Atlas Urges Jews Worldwide to Support SIOE, Ignore Dhimmi "Jewish Councils"


Read the whole thing. She's really in a froth over this.

Good grief. She aligns herself with fascists and Nazis, and heaps venom on Jews who try to be sensible.

That woman is completely insane. She should be in a sanitarium.

325 haakondahl  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:31:37pm

re: #323 Killgore Trout

Crazy Pam is flipping out...
Atlas Urges Jews Worldwide to Support SIOE, Ignore Dhimmi "Jewish Councils"


Read the whole thing. She's really in a froth over this.

I'll take your word for it. Thanks for the research. [shudder!]

326 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:31:38pm

Huckabee is on O'Reilly right now!

327 haakondahl  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:32:08pm

re: #326 Cineaste

Huckabee is on O'Reilly right now!

They talking about Willie Horton II?

328 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:32:17pm

re: #322 Charles

Shell Oil seems to be one of the more responsible energy companies. Unlike Exxon-Mobil, they don't seem to be funding denialist efforts, and actually accept the scientific evidence for AGW.

They're also leaders in biofuel research:

Algae biofuels still 10 years away, says Shell

Shell has been one of the most vocal advocates of second-generation biofuels among big oil and has argued that subsidies and regulation to encourage R&D should be reformed in favour of products that cut emissions. It currently believes that all biofuel production is supported indiscriminately no matter what the environmental impact.

329 Claire  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:33:09pm

re: #312 Cineaste

I have to stick up for the oil industry somewhat- they have invested zillions in enhanced oil recovery research. Most oil in the world has to be coaxed out of the ground these days- it rarely flows on it's own. They do a lot to utilize existing wells to get as much as they can out of them so new ones don't have to be drilled. Also, an offshore oil rig costs $1 billion. Easy peasy to drill thru a mile of ocean? Not so much these days.

330 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:33:20pm

re: #327 haakondahl

They talking about Willie Horton II?

Yup and Huckabee is saying "hey, I just followed the recommendation of others" and "I didn't let him out, I just cut his years and that made him eligible for parole, but someone else paroled him."

What a chickenshit.

331 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:33:42pm

Huckabee is laying blame at the feet of the court and the parole board. He's saying that the prosecutors did not protest.

Whoa. He just said that he was the one repsonsible for this.

332 Killgore Trout  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:33:53pm

re: #324 Charles

She certainly has issues. Aligning with neo-nazis was always a bad idea. I wish more people had followed your lead.

333 haakondahl  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:34:07pm

re: #330 Cineaste

Yup and Huckabee is saying "hey, I just followed the recommendation of others" and "I didn't let him out, I just cut his years and that made him eligible for parole, but someone else paroled him."

What a chickenshit.

I have had a deep and abiding disdain for that dude for, Oh, about a year now.

334 MandyManners  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:34:39pm

re: #331 MandyManners

Huckabee is laying blame at the feet of the court and the parole board. He's saying that the prosecutors did not protest.

Whoa. He just said that he was the one repsonsible for this.

Amended: he said that he was not aware of any protests from the prosecutors.

335 haakondahl  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:35:15pm

re: #331 MandyManners

Huckabee is laying blame at the feet of the court and the parole board. He's saying that the prosecutors did not protest.

Whoa. He just said that he was the one repsonsible for this.

I thought that the prosecutors objected strongly? Did he just sense the wind change in the studio, or what? (not watching).

336 Big Steve  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:35:24pm

re: #322 Charles

Shell Oil seems to be one of the more responsible energy companies. Unlike Exxon-Mobil, they don't seem to be funding denialist efforts, and actually accept the scientific evidence for AGW.

Yea...David's blog is kind of interesting because he shows some "inside baseball" hydrocarbon statistics. Probably I am biased since I used to be with Shell but they have always had a longer vision of the world. Some of this comes from having your major stock holder being the royal family of the Netherlands and therefore not as subject to the drive to produce quarterly results.

337 Randall Gross  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:35:27pm

re: #328 Sharmuta

However Biofuels are almost as bad as fossil. They aren't the long term answer just because they are renewable.

338 Claire  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:35:32pm

re: #333 haakondahl

He eats squirrels and thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Yep.

339 Neutral President  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:35:35pm

re: #322 Charles

Shell Oil seems to be one of the more responsible energy companies. Unlike Exxon-Mobil, they don't seem to be funding denialist efforts, and actually accept the scientific evidence for AGW.

I may start buying gas from them if that's the case.

340 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:35:40pm

re: #329 Claire

I have to stick up for the oil industry somewhat- they have invested zillions in enhanced oil recovery research. Most oil in the world has to be coaxed out of the ground these days- it rarely flows on it's own. They do a lot to utilize existing wells to get as much as they can out of them so new ones don't have to be drilled. Also, an offshore oil rig costs $1 billion. Easy peasy to drill thru a mile of ocean? Not so much these days.

I understand all that, but it's a business they have a lock on compared to entering a brave new world where they could lose energy dominance. I don't hate oil companies and I don't think their profits are out of line with corporate norms, relative to their revenues, that all being said, they have a lot more money at risk than these scientists. I do not buy into the belief that tens of thousands of scientists are all lying because they're getting rich and poor little ExxonMobil is getting beat up.

341 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:35:48pm

Charles -

Isn't that story on the "lost data" that the Torygraph reported 3 months old?

IIRC Hadley/UEA announced that 3 months ago. But they decided to report it a couple of days ago.

Anyone reading the emails and seeing that there was a campaign to shape perceptions needs to understand that there is a campaign to shape perceptions from the other side.

I'd like to see the whole thing depolarized but I know that will never happen. Too much at stake.

342 _RememberTonyC  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:35:51pm

re: #331 MandyManners

Huckabee is laying blame at the feet of the court and the parole board. He's saying that the prosecutors did not protest.

Whoa. He just said that he was the one repsonsible for this.

i knew huckabee was a fucking tool when io saw this photo ... Image: huckxmas.jpg

343 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:36:12pm

re: #322 Charles

Shell Oil seems to be one of the more responsible energy companies. Unlike Exxon-Mobil, they don't seem to be funding denialist efforts, and actually accept the scientific evidence for AGW.

Apologies if I seem like in the denier camp, but I keep seeing these accusations of Exxon, and I don't currently own any of their stock. What exactly are their support of the moonbats and what could be their potential profit from doing so?

344 haakondahl  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:36:13pm

re: #331 MandyManners

Huckabee is laying blame at the feet of the court and the parole board. He's saying that the prosecutors did not protest.

Whoa. He just said that he was the one repsonsible for this.

Perhaps he has some good advisors, who told him to go get on the hook so people can get him off of it, rather than the other way around.

345 Sharmuta  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:36:46pm

re: #337 Thanos

Did you see #57?

346 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:36:51pm

Interview ended with Bill O saying that more people should be a stand up guy like Huckabee.

Fox covering its own ass.

347 Gus  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:37:22pm

re: #346 Cineaste

Interview ended with Bill O saying that more people should be a stand up guy like Huckabee.

Fox covering its own ass.

Fair and balanced.

/

348 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:38:00pm

re: #321 MandyManners

How many bottles of water does $2,740.00 buy? That's just in the last quarter. Three months. BUY YOUR OWN DAMN WATER, CONGRESS.

Oh, I'm sure it's the good stuff. No Aquafina or Sam's Club water for these guys.

349 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:38:59pm

re: #343 Naso Tang

Apologies if I seem like in the denier camp, but I keep seeing these accusations of Exxon, and I don't currently own any of their stock. What exactly are their support of the moonbats and what could be their potential profit from doing so?

Links abound in this thread and elsewhere. They fund the "foundations" that sponsor the primary skeptics. Their profit motive is that they have a business which they control and makes a lot of money, if we start moving away from oil and on to other means of energy, they may not have the same control of supply. I don't hate them for it, they're making the right move to protect shareholder value. I'm just not a shareholder... :)

350 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:40:52pm

re: #302 Charles

Thanks for the link. Like I say, I intend to look into this "dataset" issue as well as I can.

351 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:41:14pm

re: #343 Naso Tang

Apologies if I seem like in the denier camp, but I keep seeing these accusations of Exxon, and I don't currently own any of their stock. What exactly are their support of the moonbats and what could be their potential profit from doing so?

Every petroleum company has a PR strategy in dealing with AGW. Some fight it. Others are trying to co-opt it while assuming that demand for their products will outlast decarbonization efforts. BP adopted "Beyond Petroleum" as such a PR effort.

352 haakondahl  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:42:15pm

re: #348 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Oh, I'm sure it's the good stuff. No Aquafina or Sam's Club water for these guys.

Here ya go. Blame Canada.

353 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:42:21pm

Now this... is a Monday Night Football game!

354 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:42:48pm

re: #341 karmic_inquisitor

Charles -

Isn't that story on the "lost data" that the Torygraph reported 3 months old?

IIRC Hadley/UEA announced that 3 months ago. But they decided to report it a couple of days ago.

Anyone reading the emails and seeing that there was a campaign to shape perceptions needs to understand that there is a campaign to shape perceptions from the other side.

I'd like to see the whole thing depolarized but I know that will never happen. Too much at stake.

Yes, it's an old story that was recycled to cash in on the CRU business. And sure enough, the right wing blogs started salivating over it like Pavlovian dogs.

355 Charles Johnson  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:43:39pm

re: #346 Cineaste

Interview ended with Bill O saying that more people should be a stand up guy like Huckabee.

Fox covering its own ass.

What else did you expect? Huckabee has a show on Fox.

356 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:44:31pm

re: #349 Cineaste

Links abound in this thread and elsewhere. They fund the "foundations" that sponsor the primary skeptics. Their profit motive is that they have a business which they control and makes a lot of money, if we start moving away from oil and on to other means of energy, they may not have the same control of supply. I don't hate them for it, they're making the right move to protect shareholder value. I'm just not a shareholder... :)

Links may abound and I have seen a few which leave me cold, other than perhaps by retrospective selective association since large corporations seem to be in the business of supporting everyone to cover their asses. (I have never understood how public corporations can decide to pay millions to this or that political cause, of sharehoder money, without a vote).

Oil companies are in zero risk territory of going out of business, or profits, because of AGW. What is their interest in supporting idiots?

357 dwells38  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:46:53pm

re: #38 winemaker

1. 10-year phase in of a $5 per gallon US gas tax. ( I could care less about GM any more).
2. Phase-in of a port safety tax on oil delivered to US by tankers.
3. Phase-in of coal-fired energy tax.
4. Critically, have a private but commission (and not the government, they'll just spend it) directly use the tax revuenues to repurchase Treasuries (i.e., eat up the deficit.)

I think the time not to care about GM was before we bought it. Now I'd like to get our tax money back from them although I'm not holding my breath. They couldn't compete before without selling gas guzzlers. Now we tie their hands and say go make clean, populare and affordable vehicles better than Honda and Toyota.

358 lostlakehiker  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:47:39pm

re: #77 dogg

Okay I am a dummy.

If as a country we are committing to incurr zillions in costs to Cap and Trade, then why is there no real public discourse on the subject?

All the propaganda has proven wrong to date... polar bear extinction, rising sea levels, warming over the last five years.

Please we need some emperical evidence besides the melting polrar caps that has happened in the past before.

Imagine there's a roulette wheel, and it has 20 slots saying warmer (1) and 18 slots saying colder (0), but we don't get to see the slots. All we see is the sequence of W's and C's. So we look at 200 spins of the wheel, and here's what we see:
1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1,
1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1,
0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0,
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1,
1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0,
0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1,
0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1,
1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1.

So I say, hey, the wheel is biased. It gives more 1's than 0's. And you say, proves nothing. This could easily have happened by chance alone. And you know, you're right. The result of these spins proves nothing. With a perfectly fair wheel, we'd get a result this extreme or more about 14 percent of the time.

But then you say, and what's more, in the past 30 years, it's gotten cooler. This shows that in fact we don't have any more global spinning. And I say, that proves nothing. That, even more than the overall spins story which I concede doesn't prove much, is something that could easily have happened by chance, and what's more, I think you sort of cherry picked your time interval.

The chance of this 13 out of 30 fluctuation, or more extreme, is about 30 percent with a fair wheel, and still over 20% assuming a 20 to 18 edge for warmer. The chance that you could find a run like that by picking when to start is better still.

The science to this point is closing in on all wrapped up, but the topic is complicated and it remains an outside possibility that there is some sort of feedback we don't recognize that will prevent any major warming. But don't think that that little run of cool weather proves that we're off the hook. Gamblers think they're hot when really those random fluctuations to the upside serve merely to gull them into betting more at bad odds, full of hope and ignorance. The House always wins in the long run, and CO2 really is a greenhouse gas.

Footnote: I used real random numbers and I didn't try twice to get a better example.

359 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:47:55pm

re: #351 karmic_inquisitor

Every petroleum company has a PR strategy in dealing with AGW. Some fight it. Others are trying to co-opt it while assuming that demand for their products will outlast decarbonization efforts. BP adopted "Beyond Petroleum" as such a PR effort.

That is simplistic retroactive logic. Illogic. Makes no sense except to a conspiracy buff. (no name calling intended, but perhaps shooting from the hip, you are)

360 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:49:25pm

re: #359 Naso Tang

That is simplistic retroactive logic. Illogic. Makes no sense except to a conspiracy buff. (no name calling intended, but perhaps shooting from the hip, you are)

Wait - so you're saying that oil companies don't have a PR strategy for AGW?

361 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:55:35pm

re: #360 Cineaste

Wait - so you're saying that oil companies don't have a PR strategy for AGW?

You tell me what it is.

AGW is an issue that none of us will live to see the conclusion of, and oil company CEOs are smart enough to know the same about their own mortality.

How many companies are you aware of that bet the farm on more than a 5 year plan today, or yesterday?

I don't own Exxon, but I do follow the stock market and trust me, it doesn't follow Glenn Beck or LGF expose's of fruitcakes.

We will need oil for generations yet; that is not in question. The only question is how we will burn it, and how much the price will go up, not down.

362 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:55:38pm

I Believe?
1. I believe in climate change. The data has me convinced that climate has constantly been changing, warming and cooling, ever since Gord created the earth more than 6,000 years ago.
2. I believe in global warming. The data has me convinced that we have been in a period of global warming for at least several decades.
3. I believe in global cooling. The data has me convinced that there have been many periods of cooling during the history of the earth, and most recently there are signs that we may have entered a period of global cooling for the past 2 or 3 years.
4. I believe that human activities contribute in some degree to climate change. The data has not convinced me that human activity is the only cause of climate change, or even necessarily the main cause. I believe the jury is still out on this.
5. As a corollary of the preceding belief, I also believe that human activity can in the future contribute in some degree to a change in the rate of warming or cooling. However the data has not convinced me of the difference which altered human behaviour can make in the rate of warming or cooling.

Does this make me an idiotic denialist?

363 dwells38  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:57:21pm

re: #41 Cineaste

What's dishonest about the debate here? Present us counterfactuals and we're happy to debate. Crying about boogeymen and making spurious accusations about individuals doesn't constitute honesty or debate.

That's right Dogg. I tried it and you just get downdinged by Charles. LOL!

Seriously (no you really do get downdinged by Charles every time) if you can point to something solid and peer-reviewed that effectively refutes that there is a warming trend until the recent sun spot inactivity I'd like to see it. Merely voicing your gut disbelief doesn't fly at this blog.

For instance I was at one time seduced by some of the common-sense type arguments: we're in a larger ice age, climate always fluctuates, why did it warm in the past without CO2, the GH particulates have doubled but from somenthing miniscule -6 per 100000 to 12 per 100000, etc..

But someone has to do a serious study and demonstrate that this refutes we on the "not sold" side can't point to anything that effectively makes that case to real climate scientists. Right wing websites make what sound like great arguments all the time but that's all they are. Arguments.

364 karmic_inquisitor  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 5:58:17pm

re: #359 Naso Tang

That is simplistic retroactive logic. Illogic. Makes no sense except to a conspiracy buff. (no name calling intended, but perhaps shooting from the hip, you are)

So petroleum companies don't have PR departments?

They maintain a benign disinterest in AGW?

Beyond Petroleum was the result of 1,000 monkeys with typewriters attempting Shakespeare?

365 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:00:27pm

re: #362 Spare O'Lake


Does this make me an idiotic denialist?

No, it just means that you are unable to comment on the data that many others consider seminal and that therefore you remove yourself from the discussion.

366 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:01:33pm

re: #361 Naso Tang

You tell me what it is.

AGW is an issue that none of us will live to see the conclusion of, and oil company CEOs are smart enough to know the same about their own mortality.

How many companies are you aware of that bet the farm on more than a 5 year plan today, or yesterday?

By your (incredibly bad) logic oil companies shouldn't spend a penny on alternative energy and definitely shouldn't spend a penny on campaigns proclaiming themselves to be green. And yet...

367 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:01:54pm

re: #364 karmic_inquisitor

So petroleum companies don't have PR departments?

They maintain a benign disinterest in AGW?

Beyond Petroleum was the result of 1,000 monkeys with typewriters attempting Shakespeare?

You only ask questions that have obvious answers unrelated to the issue at hand.

Peace :=)

368 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:05:34pm

re: #366 Cineaste

By your (incredibly bad) logic oil companies shouldn't spend a penny on alternative energy and definitely shouldn't spend a penny on campaigns proclaiming themselves to be green. And yet...

Moving the goal posts. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

I think "energy" related companies are the only likely source of alternative, or cleaner, energy solutions in the future.

My question to you was why you think they would think they can profit from supporting loonbats who distort simple science?

369 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:07:14pm

re: #361 Naso Tang

re: #368 Naso Tang

Actually, when there's a technological switch, a lot of old companies tend to go out of business, unable to adapt. So the current energy companies may or may not be the energy companies of the future.

They can profit from the status quo. Any change hurts them.

370 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:08:07pm

re: #368 Naso Tang

My question to you was why you think they would think they can profit from supporting loonbats who distort simple science?

I don't know. Why did the tobacco companies support all that medical research that said cigarettes weren't linked to cancer.

371 dwells38  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:08:48pm

re: #43 Sharmuta

Sounds good but I was a little confused. Says it converts carbon dioxide (CO2) into abundant and inexpensive fuels. Unlike the current method of burning gas that gives off CO2. Or does it still put off some CO2 after it's reconverted into energy/power in the cars engine?

372 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:09:30pm

re: #368 Naso Tang

I think "energy" related companies are the only likely source of alternative, or cleaner, energy solutions in the future.

Also, what makes you believe this? It may be true. But where oil companies have their biggest investments are largely in places & methods that are not beneficial for many of the future proposed energy solutions.

373 dwells38  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:10:24pm

re: #45 Girth

There needs to be some major pushback from AGW scientists right now.

This email thing is giving the deniers just enough of a leg to stand on. I was travelling today. When I was flipping radio stations, every time I heard Rush or Hannity they were declaring this proof of the hoax and that AGW was a librul lie. I mean flat out, debate over.

People won't do their own research, trust me, I had Thanksgiving dinner with a group of people that just happen to be my family, who believe anything that Rush says.


Yep. They were already gaining steam on the current pause in warming. This just ramped it up more steeply.

374 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:14:39pm

re: #369 Obdicut

re: #368 Naso Tang

Actually, when there's a technological switch, a lot of old companies tend to go out of business, unable to adapt. So the current energy companies may or may not be the energy companies of the future.

They can profit from the status quo. Any change hurts them.

Yes and no. Old companies dependent on intellectual property with zero hard capital value, like Silicon Valley software or restaurant concepts, do disappear. Businesses with hundreds of billions in territory and equipment assets, evolve or merge, or invent.

The only way oil companies will go out of business tomorrow is if the LHG discovers a new principle that allows us to build a fusion reactor in the space of a Hummer (I was going to say VW, but I decide to stay nationalistic).

375 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:16:38pm

re: #374 Naso Tang

Yes and no. Old companies dependent on intellectual property with zero hard capital value, like Silicon Valley software or restaurant concepts, do disappear. Businesses with hundreds of billions in territory and equipment assets, evolve or merge, or invent.

The only way oil companies will go out of business tomorrow is if the LHG discovers a new principle that allows us to build a fusion reactor in the space of a Hummer (I was going to say VW, but I decide to stay nationalistic).

You're absolutely right. Just like the steel industry in the US. And the US auto industry. And the US milling industry at the turn of the century. And the...

oh wait, nevermind...
//

376 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:17:56pm

re: #365 Naso Tang

No, it just means that you are unable to comment on the data that many others consider seminal and that therefore you remove yourself from the discussion.

But I have commented. It is not I but you who have purported to remove me from the discussion. Unfortunately for you, that is above your pay grade.

377 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:21:18pm

re: #374 Naso Tang

I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem accurate to me. There are lots of "we make real, physical stuff" companies that go under when a technological change occurs because of inability to adapt. It's one of many reasons that can cause a corporation to go under, but a corporation gains no special protection because of their size.

Plenty of companies survive into the next generation as well by the exact tactics you talked about, but not all of them. And many companies 'merging' are actually that company failing and being taken over by another one. That's not beneficial to the officers of that company, in the least, and it usually isn't to the stockholders, either.

378 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:21:26pm

re: #370 Cineaste

I don't know. Why did the tobacco companies support all that medical research that said cigarettes weren't linked to cancer.

This is a canard that deserves little respect. Tobacco is a product that can profit from marketing to as many individuals and groups of individuals as possible; the younger the better. In truth it is a marketing of an addictive drug, and for full disclosure I am a recent quitter.

This has no relevance to global warming and the interests of providers of energy that every last one of us needs.

The issue is how we make use of that energy; not to mention that you haven't answered my question. What specific benefit would Exxon gain from supporting the idiots of the day?

379 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:22:59pm

re: #376 Spare O'Lake

But I have commented. It is not I but you who have purported to remove me from the discussion. Unfortunately for you, that is above your pay grade.

You commented that you had no answers. Feel free to correct me. (BTW, the "pay grade" slogan is tacky)

380 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:25:06pm

re: #375 Cineaste

You're absolutely right. Just like the steel industry in the US. And the US auto industry. And the US milling industry at the turn of the century. And the...

oh wait, nevermind...
//

None of those industries have gone out of business. They have just moved to places where people can do the same thing more efficiently or cheaper.

381 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:27:15pm

re: #377 Obdicut

I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem accurate to me. There are lots of "we make real, physical stuff" companies that go under when a technological change occurs because of inability to adapt. It's one of many reasons that can cause a corporation to go under, but a corporation gains no special protection because of their size.

Plenty of companies survive into the next generation as well by the exact tactics you talked about, but not all of them. And many companies 'merging' are actually that company failing and being taken over by another one. That's not beneficial to the officers of that company, in the least, and it usually isn't to the stockholders, either.

I was not referring to corporations going under. I was referring to industrial technologies going under. Buggy whips and all that...

382 Cineaste  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:28:08pm

re: #378 Naso Tang

What specific benefit would Exxon gain from supporting the idiots of the day?

What happened when oil decreased from $5/gallon last fall? Year-on-year profits for ExxonMobil fell 33%. That is bad for shareholder value and bad for the bottom line. High prices keep consumption down. What could cause high prices? Taxes. Why would people support a tax on gasoline? If a consensus forms that it is bad for society and we need the revenue to fund alternative research and subsidize other industries. A good example is to look at Europe where consumption is far below the US and one reason is the high taxation on gasoline.

It's not a hard line of logic. They are protecting their market, and one way to do it is PR. Why don't you explain why they finance the "institutes" of the leading skeptics?

383 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:29:47pm

re: #381 Naso Tang

I was not referring to corporations going under. I was referring to industrial technologies going under. Buggy whips and all that...

Oh, then absolutely no argument. I'm just explaining why some companies have a different strategy. Exxon-Mobil apparently feels it will lose hugely by a change in the status quo, and is spamming disinformation and attacking climatologists. Other companies are doing more to become the next-gen energy companies.

384 dwells38  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:30:47pm

re: #82 Gus 802

That's the thing I never understood. Why do many call themselves skeptics since as you mention that requires a "degree of respectability." It is a bit like being agnostic compared to atheist. A skeptic would be willing to at least impart a sense of doubt and communicate a willingness to admit being wrong if proven as such. Somehow, I'm not seeing that from the "skeptic" end.

Yep that's why James Randi has a standing million dollar prize to anyone who can prove in a double blind, scientifically approved test that they have psychic powers.

Once they prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt to the scientific comminity's satisfaction he'll dish out the lettuce and change his position.

385 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:37:21pm

re: #382 Cineaste

You cover a lot of ground in a short space. Trust me (maybe not), but the price of oil or gas from aday to day or month to month has zilch to do with propaganda, from any source, about AGW (we are still on that subject are we not?).

I've been in Europe. Have you? People drive much smaller cars, more efficient cars and diesel is available at every station, and if you try google.earth.com you would see quickly that people in Europe have much smaller distances to travel than in the USA, on average and in the cities you would be amazed at how many bicycles you see.

However we digress. What benefit do you think major energy corporations gain from supporting AGW deniers (never mind if they are wrong or not)?

386 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:40:34pm

re: #383 Obdicut

Oh, then absolutely no argument. I'm just explaining why some companies have a different strategy. Exxon-Mobil apparently feels it will lose hugely by a change in the status quo, and is spamming disinformation and attacking climatologists. Other companies are doing more to become the next-gen energy companies.

But if you think Exxon "feels" that way, you should be able to explain how or why it might feel that way. I sure can't. Everyone still wants oil. What's their problem?

387 William of Orange  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:42:36pm

Yaiks!! 1,4 meters up in 2100! (Link.)

I may have a serious problem by then, although I'm 141 years old by that time.

388 zuckerlilly  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:43:28pm

re: #310 Charles

You know, your link to that ludicrous German study claiming that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas was thoroughly refuted -- destroyed, in fact -- in the previous thread where you posted it. But you never even acknowledged any of that.

1. Charles, since you are mocking everyone for posting on “dead threats” I’m ignoring them.

2. Charles, do we speak about the peer reviewed paper of ‘Gerlich & Tscheuschner” which was published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275-364?

3. If this is so, then please explain to me when is “peer reviewed” the Holy Grail or sacrosanct and when not and please tell me who makes the decision.

Good night everyone.

389 dwells38  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:46:21pm

re: #209 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Another non-troversy. Can't stand Pelosi but if she bought them for official duties and not to say, decorate her patio I don't see a problem.

390 freetoken  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:46:34pm

re: #388 zuckerlilly


3. If this is so, then please explain to me when is “peer reviewed” the Holy Grail or sacrosanct and when not and please tell me who makes the decision.

.

Minor journals often struggle for attention.

That G&T paper brought scorn upon those who were not bright enough, or perhaps were no scrupulous enough, to deep six it.

G&T cannot get their paper published in leading journals because those editors and reviewers don't want to be associated with it.

391 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:48:14pm

re: #372 Cineaste

Also, what makes you believe this? It may be true. But where oil companies have their biggest investments are largely in places & methods that are not beneficial for many of the future proposed energy solutions.

Huh? We have no immediate replacements for oil/gas/coal as primary energy sources on a global scale (the French may have managed 70% of their electricity on nuclear, but their cars still use gasoline).

If you believe in capitalism, future proposed energy solutions will take the prize when they are no longer proposed and if you think existing energy companies are not aware of that but think they can delay the day by supporting assholes instead of putting their intellect to work, then you have little faith in human ambition.

392 dwells38  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:50:48pm

re: #214 HoosierHoops

LOL
Last summer I posted how me and some buddies drove up to Windsor and snuck back some Cubans over the Border...Boy some lizard freaked out..We were just the worst criminals in America...It was pretty funny...Which BTW it's just about time for a road trip.. A box of Cuban Cigars lasts about a year and they are pure gold...
*wink*

Smoked one at Simpsons on the Strand in London with after-dinner brandy. Quite nice! Although I'm such a lightweight I started to get a little nauseous about half-way through.

393 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:50:58pm

re: #386 Naso Tang

Um, I did just explain why they feel that way. What are you talking about?

If the energy market shifts away from using oil, they feel they are unprepared for it and will lose from that. They are attempting to stop that from happening.

What isn't clear about what I'm saying?

re: #388 zuckerlilly

1. Charles, since you are mocking everyone for posting on “dead threats” I’m ignoring them.

No you're not.


2. Charles, do we speak about the peer reviewed paper of ‘Gerlich & Tscheuschner” which was published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275-364?

Yes, Charles has addressed that. It's a crap paper that makes strange assumptions and was torn apart after its publication. Peer review could be described as a 'laugh test'. It's a basic qualification. That's all. You can have crappy peer reviewed papers published. But any paper that can't even pass peer review is almost certainly garbage.


3. If this is so, then please explain to me when is “peer reviewed” the Holy Grail or sacrosanct and when not and please tell me who makes the decision.

Good night everyone.

Unfortunately, it's more nuanced than that. Peer review means peers capable of reviewing the paper have reviewed it and criticized it. That's all. There's a secondary aspect, in terms of the ranking and prestige of journals; getting published in Nature is hard, getting published in the international Journal of Modern Physics is rather a lot easier.

There are also peer-reviewed journals that accept letters-- like letters to the editor, but written by National Academy members or what have you-- and those letters are not peer-reviewed, though they appear in peer-reviewed publications.

So sorry, it's not as easy as "sacrosanct".

394 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:51:54pm

re: #388 zuckerlilly

1. Charles, since you are mocking everyone for posting on “dead threats” I’m ignoring them.

2. Charles, do we speak about the peer reviewed paper of ‘Gerlich & Tscheuschner” which was published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275-364?

3. If this is so, then please explain to me when is “peer reviewed” the Holy Grail or sacrosanct and when not and please tell me who makes the decision.

Good night everyone.

Don't ask questions like that followed by "goodnight". Some people might think you are just a jackass troll.

Did you mean "good evening"?

395 dwells38  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:55:48pm

re: #259 SanFranciscoZionist

Am I insane to say that this doesn't sound that extreme to me?

No you're not insane. It's just fodder for right-wing hysterics. She wasn't buying them for personal use but public duties entertaining and meeting with dignitaries.

396 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:56:47pm

re: #393 Obdicut

Um, I did just explain why they feel that way. What are you talking about?

If the energy market shifts away from using oil, they feel they are unprepared for it and will lose from that. They are attempting to stop that from happening.

What isn't clear about what I'm saying?

We are working from different perspectives. You are imagining that the energy market shifts away from oil, without offering any evidence at all. The truth is it is not in any significant way that will have the slightest effect on the price of oil in your lifetime or mine.

They are attempting to stop that from happening.


Sorry, but they know better than that.

397 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 6:58:52pm

re: #396 Naso Tang

We are working from different perspectives. You are imagining that the energy market shifts away from oil, without offering any evidence at all. The truth is it is not in any significant way that will have the slightest effect on the price of oil in your lifetime or mine.

I lack your perfect crystal ball. I also think you're overlooking that oil is multipurpose, and burning it for energy is just one use of it.

Sorry, but they know better than that.

Then please explain why, exactly, Exxon-Mobil and Texaco are funding climate change deniers? What is your explanation?

398 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 7:00:12pm

re: #338 Claire

He eats squirrels and thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Yep.

Only one of those things really bothers me. And it doesn't bother me that much, if you're not out and about trying to share the squirrel with others.

/

399 dwells38  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 7:01:52pm

re: #262 Fat Bastard Vegetarian


Do you mean those are sturdier dish washer safe water bottles that didn't come with water in them originally? Or are you keeping say Evian plastic bottles and re-using them?

Only reason I ask is my wife likes to hold onto the flimsy ones that the bottled water comes in. And she was giving them to our kids. I put a stop to it because I don't know at what point those bottles begint to degrade and I don't want my kids consuming any moleculse of plastic if I can help it. That stuff could build up and I don't know which ones are carcinogenic and which aren't.

I'm probably just being paranoid but better safe than sorry and we can afford proper bottles.

400 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 7:07:12pm

re: #397 Obdicut

I lack your perfect crystal ball. I also think you're overlooking that oil is multipurpose, and burning it for energy is just one use of it.

Burning it is by far the primary AGW issue. Making plastics is a minor component. I do not overlook that, I simply consider it irrelevant.

Then please explain why, exactly, Exxon-Mobil and Texaco are funding climate change deniers? What is your explanation?

Actually I have been asking for concrete proof of this from the beginning. If my memory serves me, it is the primary reason I jumped into this.

I haven't got a clue why they would do that (nor that they do), because I haven't been able to see how they would profit from it.

401 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 7:16:43pm

re: #400 Naso Tang



Burning it is by far the primary AGW issue. Making plastics is a minor component. I do not overlook that, I simply consider it irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant to the oil companies, that was my point.


Actually I have been asking for concrete proof of this from the beginning. If my memory serves me, it is the primary reason I jumped into this.

Oh! Sorry. Check out the CEI-- the Competitive Enterprise Institute. They spread and endorse many of the anti-AGW smears, and they recieved millions of dollars in funding from Exxon-Mobil. That's just one example.

There are tons and tons of industry front-groups-- Charles isn't lying when he says that the same people who did big tobacco's dirty work are now doing it for Exxon-Mobil and other energy companies.

Sorry, I didn't understand your angle.

402 Achilles Tang  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 7:34:02pm

re: #401 Obdicut

Oil companies sell oil. The end use does not determine how much they pump. It may have done years ago, it does not today.

I don't know CEI and I can accept that one group or another receives "marketing" money and turns around and uses it in more ways than one, some which may be disagreeable to you or me.

As an example, a few years ago (before my LGF days) Bill Gates Foundation donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Discovery Institute. Supposedly for a study of transportation options in Seattle, but I have a funny feeling it helped pay for a computer or two for promoting ID.

So, am I supposed to lambast Bill Gates for supporting ID? I don't think that was their intent.

Bring me the direct proof of corporate policies behind donations to AGW deniers.

403 Ocelot  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 8:03:39pm

The following is a straight forward, well-referenced
discussion of the shortcomings of long-term climate
modeling:
[Link: www.skeptic.com...]

I have some quibble with how a model including cloud cover would
propagate error over the long term -- one supposes that the models
also have bands of validity, so the wide error bars actually cause the
models to just fall apart. That just strengthens the article's point.

The misleading nature of error bars in an IPCC report is a highlight.

It's a couple pages long and the math is not so hard.
I encourage skeptics and skeptic skeptics to read it.

ocelot

404 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 8:12:22pm

And the AGW deniers keep on coming! Mysterious posters who never seem to show up regularly, magically appear out of the ether to be very VERY concerned.

405 freetoken  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 8:15:51pm

re: #403 Ocelot

His thesis:

The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable

is fallacious.

He implies that the large coupled global climate models are the basis for attributing current temperature increases to anthropogenic CO2. The attribution of increased recent temperatures with human CO2 increase can be had instead by paleoclimate data combined with the changes essential radiative transfer.

406 freetoken  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 8:24:18pm

re: #403 Ocelot

The author seems to rely quite a bit on a paper by Soon and Baliunas, which has been shown to be errant (do a search) in quite a few places.

Note that Baliunas is often associated with the notorious Idso clan, a family operation that has been quite a source of obfuscation.

But again, your author's fundamental error is in conflating projections with known physics.

407 bandit  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 9:34:47pm

To buy into the global warming hysteria requires you to accept all of the following:

1. The global average temperature is rising. (Seems pretty clear, though the CRU leak certainly raises a few questions at a minimum).
2. The cause is CO2 emission (maybe partly correct, but certainly there are other explanations like the sun's cycle).
3. We can actually stop global warming by doing something (whether it's cut CO2 emissions or otherwise, maybe it's too late? Maybe we lack the power to stop the pattern?)
4. Global warming will have, on balance, primarily negative effects on human life. (This is pure assumption. The earth has gone through temperature cycles -- and yet here we are! Warm weather leads to longer growing cycles in certain lands. Fewer deaths due to hypothermia, etc. We can deal with slowly rising seas if we have to, just like Holland has. Warm=bad is universally accepted but cold=bad seems just as obvious to me and rarely do people admit to ANY of the benefits of warmer global temperatures.)
5. The negative effects are so great that they justify the investment of trillions of dollars and/or the diversion and disruption of industry, farming, transportation and commerce that gives us the quality of life we enjoy and that is elevating people like the Chinese from rural poverty. (This can only be speculation, of course.)
6. Even if the effects are, on balance, negative and serious, there are no other more pressing causes, environmental or otherwise, that deserve this money, energy, research attention, and policy making, that has been dedicated to the CO2 issue. (I can think of many others, including real and actual pollution of the air, land and water by dangerous and harmful chemicals, deforestation, overfishing, etc. CO2 is not a pollutant and not a poison. It is a trace element and it doesn't harm humans. Shouldn't we focus on particulate pollution, carcinogens, mercury in the fish streams, etc? )

So you see, there is a hysteria about CO2 and yet by the time you get to question 3 or 4 out of 6, if you are reasonable person you really ought to wonder whether the hysteria is justified by the science and whether it's worth all this time, money and energy. And yet the mainstream press feeds us the story of "carbon footprints" as if it's an undeniable and catastrophic problem. Once question #1 is answered in the affirmative, the remaining answers are simply assumed to be yes. Yet those points are actually much more important than the observation that temperatures have increase by 0.8 degrees in the past few decades. That's the issue people like me have who are often unfairly labeled as "denyers" -- there is a cultish nature to the activists' positions, and a refusal to take the time and do the science to figure out if what we propose to do is actually something we ought to do. Now it seems that even #1 may be called into question in some way. But it's the subsequent questions that really matter.

408 bandit  Mon, Nov 30, 2009 9:53:02pm

Interesting WSJ Op-Ed today from Richard Lindzen at MIT. Well-reasoned and calm approach to trying to understand all the variables involved. Does my open-mindedness about the "scientific" conclusion mean I'm a "denier?" I find that label utterly dismaying.

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

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

409 carnaby  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 12:26:37am

Now what about the code?

410 carnaby  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 12:27:22am

re: #408 bandit

Bandit, I fear you are talking to a brick wall.

411 ocelot  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 5:08:42am

freetoken:

Thank you for your kind replies. I had not followed up that reference
to Soon. But it seems not to make a difference to the argument below.

It does not appear that Frank relies on Soon, et al for his objection to the
misleading description of the error bars.

Quoting Frank:

The original caption to Figure SPM-5 said, in part: “Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980–99) for the scenarios A2, A1B and B1, shown as continuations of the 20th century simulations. Shading denotes the plus/minus one standard deviation range of individual model annual averages.”

Well and good. We look at the projections and see that the error bars don’t make much difference. No matter what, global temperatures are predicted to increase significantly during the 21st century. A little cloud of despair impinges with the realization that there is no way at all that atmospheric CO2 will be stabilized at its present level. The Year 2000 scenario is there only for contrast. The science is in order here, and we can look forward to a 21st century of human-made climate warming, with all its attendant dangers. Are you feeling guilty yet?

But maybe things aren’t so cut-and-dried. In 2001, a paper published in the journal Climate Research13 [Soon, et al] candidly discussed uncertainties in the physics that informs the GCMs. This paper was very controversial and incited a debate.14 [Reply to Soon, et al] But for all that was controverted, the basic physical uncertainties were not disputed. It turns out that uncertainties in the energetic responses of Earth climate systems are more than 10 times larger than the entire energetic effect of increased CO2.15 If the uncertainty is larger than the effect, the effect itself becomes moot. If the effect itself is debatable, then what is the IPCC talking about? And from where comes the certainty of a large CO2 impact on climate?

With that in mind, look again at the IPCC Legend for Figure SPM-5. It reports that the “[s]hading denotes the plus/minus one standard deviation range of individual model annual averages.” The lines on the Figure represent averages of the annual GCM projected temperatures. The Legend is saying that 68% of the time (one standard deviation), the projections of the models will fall within the shaded regions. It’s not saying that the shaded regions display the physical reliability of the projections. The shaded regions aren’t telling us anything about the physical uncertainty of temperature predictions. They’re telling us about the numerical instability of climate models. The message of the Legend is that climate models won’t produce exactly the same trend twice. They’re just guaranteed to get within the shadings 68% of the time.16

Regret I must be an occasional poster due to work demands...
I try to avoid drive-bys, though.

ocelot

412 yoshicastmaster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 12:56:25pm

all the science flying around, mixed with psuedoscience, and the willingness of some people to willfully take things out of context...

reminds me a lot of the problems with the religious debates...

and it's making it really hard to feel confident in my understanding of any of it!

413 axegrinder  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:06:18pm

re: #8 avanti

Fox news needs that link. Not 10 minutes ago, they announced that there has been no evidence of warming in the last eleven years. Are they that stupid, or are they willfully misleading their viewers ?

Yeah, those scoundrels. We only know about '98 to '08. We don't have reliable data for this year yet. Tacking on that extra year is unconscionable. Somebody get a rope. ///


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 150 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1