There’s No Conspiracy in the ‘Climategate’ Emails

Environment • Views: 4,339

New Scientist has an excellent article titled: Why there’s no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails.

The leaking of emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, has led to a media and political storm. The affair is being portrayed as a scandal that undermines the science behind climate change. It is no such thing, and here’s why.

Read the whole thing.

And they are absolutely right. Despite efforts by the climate change denial industry to promote this as the definitive proof that global warming is a “hoax” by evil scientists trying to get rich and dominate the world, the fact is that there is nothing in the emails that even comes close to this exaggerated, hysterical claim. It’s a phony scandal, based on stolen and cherry-picked emails, and pumped up like a Macy’s clown balloon by dishonest people.

Here’s another post on the subject at DeSmogBlog by Elizabeth May, who read every single email in the package of stolen emails, and came to the same conclusion I did: Elizabeth May: An Informed Look at the East Anglia Emails.

I didn’t quite have the patience of Elizabeth May, but I read a very large selection of the emails, and could not agree more. There’s absolutely no evidence of fraud, cover-ups, or conspiracies. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

Jump to bottom

465 comments
1 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 12:53:07pm
None. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

Better put that in all caps.

Oh, wait. That didn't work either.

2 freetoken  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 12:53:12pm

But... but.. but.. Sarah Palin says that President Obama should skip Copenhagen because the emails prove AGW is not good science.

Are you saying Sarah Palin is wrong?

3 algorerhythm  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 12:53:16pm

Is there a place to read the emails besides anti-global warming outlets?

4 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 12:54:54pm

"the climate change denial industry"? I never heard that one before...

5 algorerhythm  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 12:55:46pm

I haven't read any of the emails anywhere actually except a few excerpts in some links on Drudge and they all seemed like sketchy sources.

6 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 12:57:07pm

Repost on the next big wave of nothing to come from this "scandal"

The UN, Climategate and the Viral Web's Hot Air

The United Nations has jumped into the controversy involving leaked emails on climate change data from the University of East Anglia, with a senior UN official saying Friday that his agency would investigate the matter.

The news may prompt a new series of blog posts, tweets and emails from climate change skeptics, who have used the scandal -- and the Web -- in recent days to advance claims of a conspiracy against their views among the media and scientific community. Scientists, in turn, may have to take some supplemental courses in communications in an Internet-centric world.

7 Girth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 12:58:28pm

re: #2 freetoken

But... but.. but.. Sarah Palin says that President Obama should skip Copenhagen because the emails prove AGW is not good science.

Are you saying Sarah Palin is wrong?

Sarah Palin says...prove...science.

Are you saying Sarah Palin could possibly be right regardless of what words she would insert in those spaces?

8 Bagua  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 12:58:30pm

Getting carried away, the LA Times Top of the Ticket retails

Take back Al Gore's Oscar, 2 Academy members demand in light of Climategate

9 jaunte  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 12:59:05pm

From Elizabeth May's post, this is a good summary of the harassment technique; from a Gavin Schmidt email:

The contrarians have found that there is actually no limit to what you can ask people for (raw data, intermediate steps, additional calculations, sensitivity calculations, all the code, a workable version of the code on any platform, etc) and like Somali pirates they have found that once someone has paid up, they can always shake them down again."
[Link: www.desmogblog.com...]
10 Girth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:01:39pm

re: #8 Bagua

Getting carried away, the LA Times Top of the Ticket retails

Take back Al Gore's Oscar, 2 Academy members demand in light of Climategate

Wow, I was wrong. I was sure one of them would be Jon Voight.

11 algorerhythm  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:02:25pm

I have to say I'm ignorant on the science of global warming and I go back and forth on it(I really would like to educate myself on it). And these latest emails give me pause. Then I think timing of the release of these was impeccable.

12 J.S.  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:03:23pm

Is that the same Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party in Canada?
/just curious

13 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:04:12pm

It's occurred to me that many in the denialist base may believe these conspiracy claims at least in part because they assume the East Anglia CRU is the one and only significant source for the AGW case. That is, they have no idea how extensive and widespread the research is, or how many thousands of scientists and institutions have been working on it for decades. In truth, it would make little difference if we discovered that the CRU crew had invented their data from thin air during all-night drinking binges. There is that much more in the overall body of scientific work.
The same is probably true for any number of other antiscience conspiracy claims. For example, another example of this kind of ignorance might be found in the absurd strawman argument that the whole theory of evolution can be discredited simply by attacking Charles Darwin's character, as though Darwin himself is a kind of cult figure and the sole source for belief in evolution.

14 freetoken  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:05:50pm

Remember yesterday when I linked to the BBC storying noting that Saudi Arabia is using "climategate" as support for their efforts to scuttle any climate deal?

Well, guess who has all of a sudden found a friend in the Saudis... Jonah Goldberg! From Goldberg's latest column as found on Townhall:

Next week's Copenhagen summit on climate change already seems doomed to failure, and voices on both sides of the global-warming debate are trying to pin the blame on Climategate. Republicans on Capitol Hill are trying to use Climategate to scuttle the Democrats' cap-and-trade legislation. Even the Saudis -- who like fossil fuels even more than Tiger Woods likes the ladies -- are getting in on the act, saying the scandal casts the entire case for global warming in doubt.

[...]

While it's great fun -- and entirely worthwhile -- to make a big stink about Climategate, it would be a shame if people believed that Copenhagen's inevitable failure hinged on this one scandal. Even if the CRU researchers were the model of scientific dispassion, these schemes are pointless. Indeed, even if global warming is the threat the alarmists claim it is, it makes no sense to waste trillions of dollars on "fixes" that will do little to fix the alleged problem.

It's time to start over, beginning with the science.

Goldberg is not a dumb person. However, he is not a very moral person either. Intellectual honesty is not his strength, I'm sorry to say.

15 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:06:21pm

So why did Al Gore cancel his speech in Copenhagen? Huh? Huh?

///

16 Girth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:06:39pm

re: #13 Shiplord Kirel

It's occurred to me that many in the denialist base may believe these conspiracy claims at least in part because they assume the East Anglia CRU is the one and only significant source for the AGW case. That is, they have no idea how extensive and widespread the research is, or how many thousands of scientists and institutions have been working on it for decades. In truth, it would make little difference if we discovered that the CRU crew had invented their data from thin air during all-night drinking binges. There is that much more in the overall body of scientific work.
The same is probably true for any number of other antiscience conspiracy claims. For example, another example of this kind of ignorance might be found in the absurd strawman argument that the whole theory of evolution can be discredited simply by attacking Charles Darwin's character, as though Darwin himself is a kind of cult figure and the sole source for belief in evolution.

I believe that they've taken the house of cards analogy to heart, so by removing this one card they've effectively toppled the entire house, thereby not having to deal with all those other pesky facts.

17 Cheechako  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:08:02pm

Today's a great day for a look at a receding glacier:

Mendenhall Glacier


When I first saw the glacier in 1996, the rock out-crop on the right side of the glacier was under ice.

This glacier has been receding since the early 1700's. Where my home is located would have been under the ice in 1700. I've always wondered what climate conditions changed around 1700 to cause this glacier to recede.

18 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:09:26pm

re: #17 Cheechako

Today's a great day for a look at a receding glacier:

Mendenhall Glacier


When I first saw the glacier in 1996, the rock out-crop on the right side of the glacier was under ice.

This glacier has been receding since the early 1700's. Where my home is located would have been under the ice in 1700. I've always wondered what climate conditions changed around 1700 to cause this glacier to recede.

Thats the year I bought my 1st SUV!
/

19 GotFrags?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:09:42pm

Charles is devoting an inordinate amount of time to this topic lately. It sure looks like he's trying to convince himself of something.

20 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:10:03pm

re: #15 SanFranciscoZionist

So why did Al Gore cancel his speech in Copenhagen? Huh? Huh?

///

He read the post in the last thread about thinking of him is an effective method of birth control, and got extremely depressed. He is currently curled up on the couch with a pint of ice cream.
/

21 freetoken  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:10:59pm

re: #19 GotFrags?

Maybe Charles is trying to convince himself that the ignorant really can be educated, and that the immoral really can change their ways?

22 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:11:28pm

re: #19 GotFrags?

Your projecting. Try not to do that too much, it's habit forming.

23 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:11:28pm

re: #2 freetoken

But... but.. but.. Sarah Palin says that President Obama should skip Copenhagen because the emails prove AGW is not good science.

Are you saying Sarah Palin is wrong?

Sarah Palin just wants President Obama to skip Copenhagen so she can criticize him for not going to Copenhagen. To his credit, President Obama has yet to comment on Sarah Palin. And to the media's credit, they have yet to ask him what he has to say about her.

24 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:11:38pm

re: #19 GotFrags?

Or he might think it important to refute idiotarians as often as is necessary.

25 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:11:54pm

re: #19 GotFrags?

ruh roh

Well ,,, you registerd on a GREAT date (November 19th,,, my birhday) ,,,

I don't think I'll have a 12/04 reference to recall your departure!

26 Ben G. Hazi  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:12:05pm

re: #19 GotFrags?

The best weapon against ignorance is education.

/try it sometime...

27 Cathypop  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:12:43pm

re: #26 talon_262

The best weapon against ignorance is education.

/try it sometime...


He can't because he's stuck on stupid.

28 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:13:49pm

re: #19 GotFrags?

Charles is devoting an inordinate amount of time to this topic lately. It sure looks like he's trying to convince himself of something.

The radio quacks and other rightwing types are devoting an inordinate amount of time to this topic lately. It sure looks like they're trying to convince themselves of something.
/

29 algorerhythm  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:15:30pm

re: #19 GotFrags?

Charles is devoting an inordinate amount of time to this topic lately. It sure looks like he's trying to convince himself of something.

It's just a hot topic at the moment.

30 checked08  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:16:17pm

Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails

Youtube Video


Who said nothing 'good' was ever posted on youtube? Think it was The Onion

31 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:16:17pm

I try to convince myself every day that the majority of the people in this world are not scary stupid.

Some days, it seems like a fruitless endeavor.

32 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:16:47pm

re: #20 Slumbering Behemoth

He read the post in the last thread about thinking of him is an effective method of birth control, and got extremely depressed. He is currently curled up on the couch with a pint of ice cream.
/

Ben and Jerry's! Gooo left!

33 Girth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:17:41pm

re: #31 Slumbering Behemoth

I try to convince myself every day that the majority of the people in this world are not scary stupid.

Some days, it seems like a fruitless endeavor.

Sorry, but half of the people on this planet have below average intelligence.

34 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:18:01pm

re: #21 freetoken

Maybe Charles is trying to convince himself that the ignorant really can be educated, and that the immoral really can change their ways?

He's definitely warming up to the subject.

35 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:18:42pm

re: #33 Girth

Sorry, but half of the people on this planet have below average intelligence.

Half? uhhh, I question your math...

36 Cathypop  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:19:13pm

re: #33 Girth

Sorry, but half of the people on this planet have below average intelligence.


5 points below plant life? Sadly I have met and worked with these people. YUCK!

37 Girth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:19:16pm

re: #35 brookly red

Half? uhhh, I question your math...

I know, but it's fun to say.

38 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:19:35pm

re: #30 checked08

LOL!

"Carbon Dioxide's good for you"!
-Alex Jones

39 robdouth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:20:12pm

re: #4 brookly red

Since I'm relatively newer to this realm of expertise, I need to know where the bellweather standard is on this. What is the feeling on a guy like Bjorn Lomborg, who (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to think that although warming is happen, it may not necessarily be a bad thing, or something that should raise us all to "do something" because the cost may outweigh any potential benefits. Please know that until recently I was skeptic in that didn't really believe much of the "science" because of how politicized both sides have been, but I am coming around to the idea that when you scrape away as much politics as possible, the evidence seems to be behind the idea that AGW is real. How troublesome is it once and for all. Are people in panic mode about it, or is it like AGW is real, we'll figure it out eventually, or AGW is real, we need to adopt Kyoto? What is the pulse of the issue from the "true" conservative not "anti-science" position.

Please note there is no condescension meant by the "true" in quotes, I just think that if you're going to be conservative, you should be pro-evidence and worry first and formost what's the truth, and what a practical solution or "what works." Thanks for your patience (or hopefully your patience, looking for a little more than the B. Goldberg fiasco.)

40 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:20:50pm

re: #37 Girth

I know, but it's fun to say.

well careful with that... half the people might beleive you.

41 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:21:37pm

re: #33 Girth

Sorry, but half of the people on this planet have below average intelligence.

And their bloodstream is thoroughly poisoned with evil testosterone.
/
/callback to a lame ass post

42 freetoken  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:22:40pm

re: #39 robdouth

In the debate, if you want to call it that, between mitigation and adaptation, Lomborg definitely has been on to propose that adaptation is more cost effective than most mitigation approaches.

The big question, unanswered and perhaps unanswerable, is how to price certain negative effects of climate change.

43 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:23:26pm

Dang, gotta run. You Lizards are too distracting.

Laters

44 The Curmudgeon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:27:46pm

Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute has been posting every day about ClimateGate, claiming that they too have been the victims of a conspiracy. Quite amusing, actually.

45 freetoken  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:28:18pm

Put in the Links the page from the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Climate Change Dec. 2 meeting, with Holdren and Lubchenco testifying, at which some of the GOP members tried to use "climategate" as some sort of political tool.

Especially that tool Sensenbrenner...

See here:

[Link: globalwarming.house.gov...]

There are two large mpeg video files to download, if you are a glutton for sitting through Congressional meetings.

46 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:29:04pm

re: #42 freetoken

In the debate, if you want to call it that, between mitigation and adaptation, Lomborg definitely has been on to propose that adaptation is more cost effective than most mitigation approaches.

The big question, unanswered and perhaps unanswerable, is how to price certain negative effects of climate change.

Not to mention the negative effects (and to what scope) the mitigation is.Can the earth survive getting warmer? Depending on "how much" warmer, probably. Can humanity survive what could be hugely negative economic consequences to it may take to "fix" things? Perhaps not. I can move futher north or shen more clothes if it gets hotter
I can't feed and house myself if companies close becuase they don't meet draconian standards

47 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:29:43pm

re: #39 robdouth

Lomborg is kind of disingenuous; his point is very valid, it's "What with all the other things affecting the world-- lack of clean drinking water, food, etc, is focusing on AGW the best use of our resources?"

The disingenuousness comes from the fact that climate change will reduce our resources, and exacerbate many of the other problems. Acquifers will change, river courses will change; climate will change. All current problems will be harder to solve.

Individual areas may experience 'benefit', with longer growing seasons, more sun, etc. But the overall aggregate effect on human civiliation will be, basically, to negate our infrastructure. Right now, everything is set up to take advantage of or ameliorate the current climate; changing the climate makes those adaptations much less useful.

For a quick and easy example, imagine that a farmer is currently growing lots and lots of corn. The average temperature shifts, which brings a different variety of pests, as well as a different growing season. He'll either need more or less water, have to harvest at a different time, etc.

Even if his local change was, in the end, beneficial, there would still be his cost of adapting to it; and, in aggregate, the changes would not be beneficial to agriculture in general.

And that's just agriculture, and it's overlooking the change to wind/rain patterns, and a whole lot of other stuff, besides.

48 ignoranceisfatal  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:29:45pm

re: #39 robdouth

As with most (all?) things in science, future predictions are subject to some degree of uncertainty. And your degree of confidence in the answer depends on the question you're asking. If the question is a Yes/No one, such as: "Is there evidence that global warming is happening, and that human beings have had a contribution?", then there is more than enough evidence to confidently assert that the answer is "Yes". But if you instead ask: "How much will the climate change in the next 20 years if we maintain our current pace of emissions?", there is (legitimate) scientific disagreement about what the answer is. Since policy requires us to tackle the latter question, the waters get muddy very quickly.

49 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:30:14pm

re: #44 The Curmudgeon

Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute has been posting every day about ClimateGate, claiming that they too have been the victims of a conspiracy. Quite amusing, actually.

If only they had Charles Darwin's emails! ///

50 algorerhythm  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:31:17pm

re: #49 Sharmuta

If only they had Charles Darwin's emails! ///

good one

51 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:32:03pm

re: #44 The Curmudgeon

Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute has been posting every day about ClimateGate, claiming that they too have been the victims of a conspiracy. Quite amusing, actually.

Climate change deniers and creationists have a LOT in common.

52 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:33:16pm

re: #49 Sharmuta

If only they had Charles Darwin's emails! ///

He deleted them, didn't he?

53 freetoken  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:33:59pm

re: #44 The Curmudgeon

Meanwhile, the Discovery Institute has been posting every day about ClimateGate, claiming that they too have been the victims of a conspiracy. Quite amusing, actually.

Except it is true.

The scientific community has been conspiring... conspiring to maintain the scientific method against both the inherent biases of human thinking as well against the religio-political forces that try to quiet voices that tell the culture what they don't want to hear.

54 Decatur Deb  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:35:11pm

re: #52 wrenchwench

He deleted them, didn't he?

Nothing on beagle.org.

55 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:35:29pm

re: #47 Obdicut

I think that's an excellent take on it, Obdicut, as someone who's discussed this subject with you before.

I also think that, similar to embryonic stem cell research, AGW has been sold, unfortunately, in emotional terms.

I'm not excited about ESCresearch because i think there are better prospects from adult stem cells, not because it's a moral question.

Similarly, i think that we should burn less fossil fuels because it's the right economic and sustainable decision...an approach that would appeal to many who deny AGW...and we'd create much less CO2 while we were at it. Coming around to AGW is an unecessary step in the fight to reduce CO2 emissions; all that's required is a concern for future sustainability.

Does that make any sense?

56 The Curmudgeon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:35:57pm

re: #52 wrenchwench

He deleted them, didn't he?

It was part of his deathbed recantation.

57 lawhawk  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:36:17pm

re: #42 freetoken

And some negatives might have positive consequences; take the opening of a NW passage route that might shorten transit routes over the North Pole. Bad for certain animals and communities that rely on the ice, but it could be spun as a net positive.

Since climate is always changing, adaptation is probably the better route, since mitigation might lead to its own unintended consequences (and what happens if we attempt mitigation, we might still end up being short - like building levees or flood control structures that are insufficient for the task), or the need to abandon coastal cities altogether.

Obdicut: Are we sure that global warming will result in fewer resources? I think we can say with some certainty that resources will shift, but fewer resources? Growing seasons may end up longer in some areas, shorter in others, but this much is certain - potable water is a precious resource that is all too often wasted.

We already see rain patterns shift with El Nino/La Nina, so we might end up with more extremes - flooding and droughts. How that shakes out remains to be seen.

58 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:36:36pm

re: #54 Decatur Deb

Nothing on beagle.org.

Where's the raw data?

59 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:37:35pm

re: #58 Sharmuta

Where's the raw data?

I ated it!
{burp}

60 Decatur Deb  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:37:50pm

re: #58 Sharmuta

Where's the raw data?

Someone finched it.

61 freetoken  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:38:32pm

re: #55 Aceofwhat?


Similarly, i think that we should burn less fossil fuels because it's the right economic and sustainable decision...an approach that would appeal to many who deny AGW...


That's been tried for several years now, both before and after 2001.

Some well known leaders have tried to work a win-win solution, pointing out similarities rather than differences between different elements of the American Polity on these issues.

You know where it has gotten them?

No where.

Sorry, but the Inhofe's, Morano's, and the like will have nothing to do with it. This is a culture war, not rational governance.

62 ignoranceisfatal  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:38:39pm

re: #60 Decatur Deb

Someone finched it.

Well played. Would upding you, but still haven't reached the magic comment threshold. This will help, I suppose.

63 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:38:48pm

I also need the raw transitional data.

64 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:38:50pm

re: #61 freetoken

dang.

65 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:39:17pm

re: #45 freetoken

Put in the Links the page from the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Climate Change Dec. 2 meeting, with Holdren and Lubchenco testifying, at which some of the GOP members tried to use "climategate" as some sort of political tool.

Especially that tool Sensenbrenner...

See here:

[Link: globalwarming.house.gov...]

There are two large mpeg video files to download, if you are a glutton for sitting through Congressional meetings.

Sensenbrenner is number four in oil company stock ownership for congressmen. Found this conspiratorial quote from the hearings:

“At worst, it’s junk science and it’s part of a massive international scientific fraud...The (emails) read more like scientific fascism than the scientific process. They betray economic and ideological agendas that are deaf to disconfirming evidence. Hopefully this scandal is the end of declarations that the ‘science is settled’ and a beginning of a transparent scientific debate.”

Since he used the word fascism it's safe to say he's speaking in the language of the Tea Party fanatics.

66 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:39:25pm

re: #55 Aceofwhat?

Similarly, i think that we should burn less fossil fuels because it's the right economic and sustainable decision...an approach that would appeal to many who deny AGW...and we'd create much less CO2 while we were at it. Coming around to AGW is an unecessary step in the fight to reduce CO2 emissions; all that's required is a concern for future sustainability.

Does that make any sense?

I agree with that and it makes sense, but it is also very, important, to me, to not indulge the AGW deniers too much, because science as a whole suffers. While from a pragmatic point of view in regards to solving AGW, I'll use whatever practical approach will work, rather than red-facedly insisting everyone admit AGW is real before we do anything, I do think that this whole shebang shows an underlying problem with the American public vis-a-vis science, and how politicians and the media use scientists as targets in a very, very reprehensible way.

67 freetoken  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:40:42pm

re: #65 Gus 802

Yes, and one of the Democratic congressmen asked Holdren to follow up on that "scientific fascism" claim; Holdren's answer is one of the Youtube clips.

68 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:42:03pm

re: #66 Obdicut

fair point. but as you know, i think that creationism requires 10x the scientific ignorance that AGW denial requires. So i'm not hopeful, in the short term, that the problem is going to be resolved anytime soon...

69 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:42:07pm

re: #67 freetoken

Yes, and one of the Democratic congressmen asked Holdren to follow up on that "scientific fascism" claim; Holdren's answer is one of the Youtube clips.

Which one? I just started the first video.

70 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:42:38pm

re: #57 lawhawk

Obdicut: Are we sure that global warming will result in fewer resources? I think we can say with some certainty that resources will shift, but fewer resources? Growing seasons may end up longer in some areas, shorter in others, but this much is certain - potable water is a precious resource that is all too often wasted.

In the immediate short term, yes, we would face a huge shortage of resources. As I said, right now we have infrastructure set up to cope with current climate. Resources don't just flow into the system-- water needs to flow through our current system set up to deal with water. If the routes of rivers change, we have to redesign infrastructure. If the local temperature changes, the local houses will need to be rebuilt or adapted to that temperature change-- especially since there is that pesky key temperature of 32 degrees. But there are other key temperatures like that, as well.

If nothing else, the change to species will have an absolutely enormous effect on agriculture and epidemiology.

71 Decatur Deb  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:43:24pm

LVQ had interesting things to say about effects beyond crops and shorelines. If we see large dislocations of population, things get spooky fast. It seems to me that everything depends on the speed of onset.

72 generalsparky  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:43:54pm

re: #39 robdouth

I consider myself a true conservative and I do believe that evidence points to warming. I am still on the fence about how much is nature vs. man BUT I do believe that we have to be good stewards of the earth. I am concerned about having clean water supplies and farm land that isn't overrun with poisons.

It absolutely infuriates me to have someone like Al Gore preaching to me about being more "green" because no doubt I am a hell of a lot greener than he is. My family of five live in modest home (1500sqft). We use cloth diapers, vinegar and water for a basic cleaner, hang clothes out on a line, drive less than 6k miles a year with used vehicles, buy used when we can, have a garden, cook from scratch, etc. I am doing what I can to be a good steward.

Side Note : For the clothesline we installed a retractable one so it wouldn't offend my liberal neighbors. Because you know that hanging your clothes out is a sign of poverty. *eyeroll*

73 Cathypop  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:45:58pm

re: #72 generalsparky
Very well put and welcome to LGF.

74 freetoken  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:46:12pm

re: #69 Gus 802

I think it is the one with the captured frame of the congressman with his arms stretched out.

75 Sharmuta  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:46:49pm

re: #72 generalsparky

It absolutely infuriates me to have someone like Al Gore preaching to me about being more "green" because no doubt I am a hell of a lot greener than he is.

Nope:

Al Gore's home, 1 of just 14 LEED rated homes in our country

76 Jadespring  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:47:12pm

re: #47 Obdicut

If I could upding this comment I would. My main interest is agriculture and ecology. It's my job. It would be really nice if things were as simple as, 'well if it just gets warmer in one place or the weather patterns change we'll just shift the industry, production and people to the new place, it's so easy, and problem solved.' I've seen arguments proclaiming that it's overall a good thing because overall warmer weather means we'll be able to grow more in more northern areas. While that may be true is some cases unfortunately having decent conditions to grow stuff in is a lot more complicated then just having overall warmer conditions.

77 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:47:32pm

I am on the same side as Charles on most issues. I also can't stand the Theocrats who run most of the GOP. However, Charles has gone overboard on his AGW stance. The science isn't settled, and there is legitimate debate on the extent that CO2 is causing 'climate change.' What I don't want is some absurd cap and trade program instituted that will result in huge economic damage without any statistically relevant chance of 'reversing climate change.' If, in the end, I am proven wrong and much of humanity is wiped out by 'climate change' well, then, fuck it, that is part of the natural rebalancing process.

78 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:48:06pm

re: #75 Sharmuta

Nope:

Al Gore's home, 1 of just 14 LEED rated homes in our country

/how do his jets rate with LEED?

79 ignoranceisfatal  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:48:35pm

re: #77 Gordon Marock

"climate change" in quotes? Yes, we see where you stand indeed.

80 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:48:50pm

re: #74 freetoken

I think it is the one with the captured frame of the congressman with his arms stretched out.

That's the one.

Here it is. Makes a good point.

State of Climate Science - Congressman Inslee's Q&A

Youtube Video
81 freetoken  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:49:14pm

re: #77 Gordon Marock

' If, in the end, I am proven wrong and much of humanity is wiped out by 'climate change' well, then, fuck it, that is part of the natural rebalancing process.

Down-dinged for juvenile self-centeredness.

82 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:49:55pm

re: #79 ignoranceisfatal

"climate change" in quotes? Yes, we see where you stand indeed.

Oh, really? Where do I stand?

83 generalsparky  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:50:12pm

re: #73 Cathypop

Thank you!

84 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:50:31pm

re: #75 Sharmuta

Nope:

Al Gore's home, 1 of just 14 LEED rated homes in our country

Not really pertinent. In terms of absolute energy usage, Gore outstrips most of the populace.

Glad to hear that he's made improvements, but his personal energy consumption is way above average.

85 freetoken  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:50:53pm

re: #80 Gus 802

Yup, that is the one.

The GOP really came off as asses here.. sorry, but if Sensenbrenner is going on record with "scientific fascism" then frankly the GOP deserves to be ridiculed.

86 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:51:12pm

re: #81 freetoken

Down-dinged for juvenile self-centeredness.

Ding away. As most here know, I rarely post without some sarcastic or juvenile comment.

87 walahi  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:51:35pm

I mentioned in another thread my dismay to the anti-intellecualism embraced by 'conservatives' (playing fast and loose with that term).

Instead of trying to prove a non-existant conspiracy theory, opponents of conferences like COP15 should start looking at the answers being considered.

I would disagree with more bureacracy and international bodies to monitor emissions output. It's like trying to make sure that a lung cancer patient only smokes 2 cigarettes a day instead of 10.

I see that trying to prompt a Green Race between countries is more beneficial. The pros are obvious: (i) if you can have a fuel that isn't as expensive as oil, but as effective, you save money (ii) reducing harm to your environment means less costs in keeping things clean (iii) no dealing with countries for the sake of oil and therefore granting them legitimacy (looking at you Gulf countries).

I don't necessarily accept that the 'science is settled'. Science is never settled. However, most scientists are certain there (i) there is climate change and (ii) a degree of it is man-made. The important debate is not whether these findings are real but what are the proposed solutions. By refusing to accept the science, opponents of government intervention miss the real debate since they have no proposed solutions.

Accepting the science is not accepting prosposed solutions. It's just a ticket to the debate.

88 Dancing along the light of day  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:51:46pm

re: #58 Sharmuta

Where's the raw data?

It evolved!

89 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:51:53pm

re: #78 brookly red

/how do his jets rate with LEED?

I know that's meant to be snark, but really, is Al Gore expected to travel around on a donkey? This is the 21st century. People fly...in airplanes.

90 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:52:07pm

re: #75 Sharmuta

Nope:

Al Gore's home, 1 of just 14 LEED rated homes in our country

Yeah, since 2007. Up until that point, hypocrite Al burned through more KW's than my entire neighborhood. Didn't he use 221,000KwH in 2006?

91 ignoranceisfatal  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:52:40pm

re: #82 Gordon Marock

Oh, really? Where do I stand?

You don't seem to believe that climate change is happening. That view is, well, pretty much irrational.

92 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:52:54pm

re: #89 darthstar

I know that's meant to be snark, but really, is Al Gore expected to travel around on a donkey? This is the 21st century. People fly...in airplanes.

I think #84 said it better than I could have.

93 walahi  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:53:47pm

re: #77 Gordon Marock

you can accept climate change without accepting that cap and trade is the solution

94 Stuart Leviton  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:54:12pm

re: #1 wrenchwench

Better put that in all caps.

Oh, wait. That didn't work either.

Quick! Put it in ice caps before they melt

95 webevintage  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:54:46pm

re: #45 freetoken

There are two large mpeg video files to download, if you are a glutton for sitting through Congressional meetings.

I wonder what kind of drugs people take before going to these meetings to keep them from saying "that is the dumbest fucking question I have ever been asked Senator" or just banging their heads over and over again on the table.

96 Neutral President  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:54:49pm

re: #63 Sharmuta

I also need the raw transitional data.

No transitional forms data!!11!

/

97 yoshicastmaster  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:55:09pm

There is so little about climategate that relates to the science it really makes deniers look desperate.

I haven't read the emails, although I may yet, but the concerns about suppression of publications are valid. The scientific process depends on peer review and open discussion. To say that the attempt to block publication in journals is not an attempt to suppress information, as the article does, seems inaccurate.

I'm guessing the reason the scientists don't want those studies published in the journals is because they don't want those studies to have the validity of the journal's credibility behind the studies. This credibility associated with publication is as much content as the content of the studies. It provides validity on a brand-name basis.

Journals have impact factors (an actual number based on citations), and the scientists in the emails also discussed manipulating these, through not citing the journals, to drive the journals' impact factors lowers. The replacement of denier-sympathetic editors is likewise an attempt to suppress debate, not resolve debate.

Scientists should seek to resolve debate. Not suppress it.

Publication bias DOES exist in the scientific community, and should largely be seen as a tampering with the structures of science on which we depend. Science doesn't always have the right answer at any one moment, but the procedures of science are designed to provide it over time in an open environment.

There is no evidence that the scientists succeeded in these manipulations, but we should still acknowledge that such actions would not be correct.

(commence downvoting in 3...2...)

98 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:55:10pm

re: #89 darthstar

I know that's meant to be snark, but really, is Al Gore expected to travel around on a donkey? This is the 21st century. People fly...in airplanes.

Actually, i would expect him to do a lot more videoconferencing than he actually does. My company saved thousands (of dollars and carbons, thankyouverymuch) on a high-quality videoconferencing system. So, yes. Welcome to the 21st century.

After all, he invented the internet. you'd think he'd figure out how to leverage it to save a few more carbon emissions...

99 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:55:51pm

re: #77 Gordon Marock

I am on the same side as Charles on most issues. I also can't stand the Theocrats who run most of the GOP. However, Charles has gone overboard on his AGW stance. The science isn't settled, and there is legitimate debate on the extent that CO2 is causing 'climate change.' What I don't want is some absurd cap and trade program instituted that will result in huge economic damage without any statistically relevant chance of 'reversing climate change.' If, in the end, I am proven wrong and much of humanity is wiped out by 'climate change' well, then, fuck it, that is part of the natural rebalancing process.

I would be useful, if reduction targets are proposed, to also have predicted temperature reductions presented, along with timetables, so that actual progress toward goals can be measured. Measuring atmospheric CO2, after all, is simple; measuring overall global temperature, not so much, but for the sake of fair comparison just use the techniques already employed. Models accurate enough to serve as the basis for such enormous economic and societal shifts ought to be good enough to predict expected overall temperature declines for a given decrease in CO2 content.

100 walahi  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:56:50pm

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

Now see that right there is a good idea, we have the technology and can be done without too much cost...

101 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:57:30pm

re: #85 freetoken

Yup, that is the one.

The GOP really came off as asses here.. sorry, but if Sensenbrenner is going on record with "scientific fascism" then frankly the GOP deserves to be ridiculed.

It's rather unprofessional and Insless makes a good point bringing up NASA and NOAA since their work and data are involved. This within the context of Sensenbrenner's "scientific fascism" claim. Given that CEI is suing NASA I would say that's just a reflection of the anti-science crusade they've taken on. I assume that within days Jonah Goldberg will be siding with OPEC on this matter.

BTW, that anti cap and trade video you posted yesterday might be handy from time to time especially since it's coming from an environmentalists point of view.

102 ryannon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:57:58pm

re: #89 darthstar

I know that's meant to be snark, but really, is Al Gore expected to travel around on a donkey? This is the 21st century. People fly...in airplanes.

A hot-air balloon?

Could work for Gore.

103 ED 209  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:57:59pm

re: #33 Girth

Sorry, but half of the people on this planet have below average intelligence.

The scariest part may be where average lies.

104 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:58:19pm

re: #92 brookly red

I think #84 said it better than I could have.

re: #84 SixDegrees

Not really pertinent. In terms of absolute energy usage, Gore outstrips most of the populace.

Glad to hear that he's made improvements, but his personal energy consumption is way above average.

He's a rich guy. He's got a big house. So the hell what? I live in a small (1200 sq ft) house in the Santa Cruz mountains...single pane glass, non-insulated walls, but a gorgeous view. I probably use more propane and wood keeping my place warm in the winter than most mcmansions down in the valley do. If I had Al's money, I'd probably have another three or four thousand square feet...and I'd go solar, insulated, etc. to keep the costs and the footprint as small as possible.

People act like Al Gore should live in a yurt.

105 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:58:23pm

re: #91 ignoranceisfatal

You don't seem to believe that climate change is happening. That view is, well, pretty much irrational.

Climate change is always happening. However, the AGW cult picks numbers out of the sky when they purport to know what percent of carbon emissions are necessary to "halt global warming." The fact of the matter is that unless we tell the developing world that they cannot develop, and aceept permanent recession in the developed world, then the bullshit Al Gore is preaching cannot be attained. Reducing harmful or toxic emissions and developing alternate energy are critical for the long term survival of 'society' in its current form. But anyone that tells me that disaster looms unless carbon emissions are reduced by x before the year y might as well be using a ouija borard.

106 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:59:19pm

re: #98 Aceofwhat?


After all, he invented the internet. you'd think he'd figure out how to leverage it to save a few more carbon emissions...

Yes, but the internet is powered by coal.

107 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:59:31pm

re: #100 walahi

Now see that right there is a good idea, we have the technology and can be done without too much cost...

you forgot to finish the quote...

'we have the technology...we have the capability to build..."

108 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:59:31pm

re: #105 Gordon Marock

Picks numbers out of the sky?

109 Decatur Deb  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:59:35pm

re: #93 walahi

you can accept climate change without accepting that cap and trade is the solution

If AGW is accepted, it would be sort of necessary to come up with some kind of alternatives to C/T.

110 Neutral President  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 1:59:59pm

re: #77 Gordon Marock

I am on the same side as Charles on most issues. I also can't stand the Theocrats who run most of the GOP. However, Charles has gone overboard on his AGW stance. The science isn't settled, and there is legitimate debate on the extent that CO2 is causing 'climate change.' What I don't want is some absurd cap and trade program instituted that will result in huge economic damage without any statistically relevant chance of 'reversing climate change.' If, in the end, I am proven wrong and much of humanity is wiped out by 'climate change' well, then, fuck it, that is part of the natural rebalancing process.

So what you are saying is (and really, don't worry, you aren't alone and a lot of Lizards at LGF used to think exactly this way)...

"I think the proposed solutions are bullshit, so therefore the science is flawed."

It's possible to agree with the facts of the science and reject the commie wish-list solutions being proposed by the left you know.

111 walahi  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:00:20pm

re: #107 Aceofwhat?

haha, hadn't thought of that :-)

112 Digital Display  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:00:35pm

re: #104 darthstar

I love the Santa Cruz Mountains! And even the boardwalk in town..

113 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:01:00pm

re: #104 darthstar

He's a rich guy. He's got a big house. So the hell what? I live in a small (1200 sq ft) house in the Santa Cruz mountains...single pane glass, non-insulated walls, but a gorgeous view. I probably use more propane and wood keeping my place warm in the winter than most mcmansions down in the valley do. If I had Al's money, I'd probably have another three or four thousand square feet...and I'd go solar, insulated, etc. to keep the costs and the footprint as small as possible.

People act like Al Gore should live in a yurt.

He only retrofitted it in 2007. Before then, his energy usage was positively obscene. I don't want him to live in a yurt, i just want him to downgrade from flaming hypocrite to middling hypocrite.

114 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:01:38pm

re: #104 darthstar

He's a rich guy. He's got a big house. So the hell what? I live in a small (1200 sq ft) house in the Santa Cruz mountains...single pane glass, non-insulated walls, but a gorgeous view. I probably use more propane and wood keeping my place warm in the winter than most mcmansions down in the valley do. If I had Al's money, I'd probably have another three or four thousand square feet...and I'd go solar, insulated, etc. to keep the costs and the footprint as small as possible.

It's not what he does, it's what he tells others to do.

People act like Al Gore should live in a yurt.

115 Kewalo  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:02:14pm

re: #11 algorerhythm

Until the email issue came up I had been completely ignoring this issue. I hadn't done any thinking about it much less read anything. But when I saw those science ignorant people being so happy I went and looked into in. And I've been having a ball learning all about it. I have literally spent hours reading about it.

IMO the best place to get started is Real Climate and while much of the science is over my head (especially the math and computer codes) the basic science is very accessable and led me to other sites that have really added to my knowledge. Here's a few links if you are interested and of course you should go off on your own for some of the really interesting stuff.

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
[Link: www.grist.org...]

Here is the link to the NYT science blog. The writer is just top notch.
[Link: dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...]

Skeptical Science
[Link: www.skepticalscience.com...]

116 Bagua  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:02:19pm

One good result from the stolen CRU emails, is it has re-energized the debate and helped move Climate Change beyond partisan talking points and dogma and back to focusing on the actual science with its complexities and uncertainties:


Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete. This is especially the case with the science of climate, a complex system of enormous scale, at every turn influenced by human contingencies. Yes, science has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don't know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed—with clear insight—the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales.

[...]

If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public policy deliberations:



- Mike Hulme - Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia
(some of the emails were his.)

117 ignoranceisfatal  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:02:40pm

re: #97 yoshicastmaster

Just as in any other area, serious climatologists seek to prevent bad science from appearing in good journals. Such an effort can, with a manipulative spin, be made to look like an attempt to suppress knowledge.

118 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:02:44pm

If anyone here wants to get into a conspiracy business that pays $$ then get in the patent trolling business.

119 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:03:20pm

re: #110 ArchangelMichael

So what you are saying is (and really, don't worry, you aren't alone and a lot of Lizards at LGF used to think exactly this way)...

"I think the proposed solutions are bullshit, so therefore the science is flawed."

It's possible to agree with the facts of the science and reject the commie wish-list solutions being proposed by the left you know.

I am not saying that the science is flawed. For the most part, the numbers are what they are. The existence of a correlation does not require a particular conclusion, it merely suggests one among others.

120 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:04:40pm

re: #112 HoosierHoops

I love the Santa Cruz Mountains! And even the boardwalk in town..

Thanks...I'm at the north end...closer to Half Moon Bay than Santa Cruz. But all I see when I look out my window are redwoods...and I kind of like it that way.

pic link

121 Digital Display  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:05:38pm

re: #120 darthstar

Thanks...I'm at the north end...closer to Half Moon Bay than Santa Cruz. But all I see when I look out my window are redwoods...and I kind of like it that way.

pic link

Another crappy day in paradise?
Nice view

122 ignoranceisfatal  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:05:39pm

re: #117 ignoranceisfatal

I should also clarify that "bad" science does not mean "ideas that climatologists do not agree with". There are generally legitimate scientific (i.e. apolitical) reasons why work by anti-AGW "scientists" doesn't make it into top-tier journals.

123 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:05:44pm

re: #106 darthstar

Yes, but the internet is powered by coal.

Ah, you've opened the door.

I looove introducing the left's dissonance on this topic. (not saying you're left or dissonant, just that you provided a segue)

So...AGW huh? Good, fine. LET US BUILD SOME !@#%!#$^%ING PEBBLE BED NUCLEAR REACTORS.

I'm pissed off like a cat in a cold shower every time i run into anti-nuke 'environmentalists'.

124 ryannon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:06:00pm

re: #120 darthstar

Thanks...I'm at the north end...closer to Half Moon Bay than Santa Cruz. But all I see when I look out my window are redwoods...and I kind of like it that way.

pic link

sweeet!

125 Irish Rose  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:06:17pm

OT, but are any of our praying lizards here this afternoon?

My Marine was just taken into medical at MCAS Miramar, they think that he may have a blood clot in his leg.

126 Bagua  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:07:32pm

re: #125 Irish Rose

Best wishes for a speedy recovery!

127 Randall Gross  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:07:57pm

re: #118 karmic_inquisitor

Tell me about it, every contract we have has that legal boilerplate in it for the guy who thinks he has a patent on transmitting email wirelessly by any means with any protocol. Courts who fall for the false notion that you can patent a concept without patenting the technological means are really obnoxious.

128 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:07:59pm

re: #125 Irish Rose

i'm on it

129 Cato the Elder  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:08:03pm

The conspiracy is not among AGW scientists.

The conspiracy is among those who would use AGW to remake the world in the image of a certain bearded gent who spend his days on his boil-covered ass at the British Museum Reading Room.

They're quite open about it, too, so there's actually no need to call it a conspiracy.

130 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:08:47pm

re: #125 Irish Rose

yes, & done.

131 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:08:48pm

re: #104 darthstar

He's a rich guy. He's got a big house. So the hell what? I live in a small (1200 sq ft) house in the Santa Cruz mountains...single pane glass, non-insulated walls, but a gorgeous view. I probably use more propane and wood keeping my place warm in the winter than most mcmansions down in the valley do. If I had Al's money, I'd probably have another three or four thousand square feet...and I'd go solar, insulated, etc. to keep the costs and the footprint as small as possible.

People act like Al Gore should live in a yurt.

So, it's OK for the rich to be profligate?

Isn't working against that attitude pretty much the whole point of the Kyoto Protocols, and the proposed solutions to be presented at Copenhagen?

Face facts here, please: Al Gore is a self-promoting moron who wouldn't know science if it walked up and bit him in his well-fed ass. His distortions, alarmist rhetoric and misstatements on climate are an embarrassment to those working in the field of climate science, and there is little doubt that he has been one of the major reasons for continued opposition to AGW given that his assertions are so easily shot down, staining everything he comes in contact with.

And yes, his actions in his personal life are blatantly hypocritical when held up against what he espouses others should do. And that he's able to "solve" some of his more outstanding hypocrisies by throwing huge wads of discretionary income at them - a solution unavailable to the majority of the country - is hardly praise-worthy.

Color me entirely unimpressed with Gore. He's a loud-mouthed detriment to every AGW researcher on the planet.

132 Digital Display  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:08:59pm

re: #125 Irish Rose

OT, but are any of our praying lizards here this afternoon?

My Marine was just taken into medical at MCAS Miramar, they think that he may have a blood clot in his leg.

I put him on the LGF prayer list

133 webevintage  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:09:04pm

re: #113 Aceofwhat?

He only retrofitted it in 2007. Before then, his energy usage was positively obscene. I don't want him to live in a yurt, i just want him to downgrade from flaming hypocrite to middling hypocrite.

From the site link above:

"We all remember when the Right Wing groups (TCPR, AEI) tried attacking the Gores on energy use, making false claims on the amount the home used, trying to claim it was a higher amount and that he didn't practice wise energy and environmental standards, which all actual reports showed to be incorrect claims. That the Gores actually used less than the average Tennessee home and that 100 percent energy used was all from Renewable resources. But the timing was interesting. The Gore's had been remodelling the home all along. Ripping out floors and putting in radiant heating, replacing all the windows, lightbulbs and installing geothermal heating, but it was when they finally got their Association to change their position on Solar Panels, that the Gore's were finally able to add Solar Paneling to the home and they would be nearing the completed remodel when the Right Wing groups made this claim."

134 Decatur Deb  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:09:33pm

re: #116 Bagua

One good result from the stolen CRU emails, is it has re-energized the debate and helped move Climate Change beyond partisan talking points and dogma and back to focusing on the actual science with its complexities and uncertainties:



- Mike Hulme - Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia
(some of the emails were his.)

I can see that it's good for academics, but the controversy has been used to poison the political well. Our reaction to climate change will not fall back on science until the problem is so obvious that "cheap" corrections might not be possible.

135 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:09:38pm

re: #129 Cato the Elder

The conspiracy is not among AGW scientists.

The conspiracy is among those who would use AGW to remake the world in the image of a certain bearded gent who spend his days on his boil-covered ass at the British Museum Reading Room.

They're quite open about it, too, so there's actually no need to call it a conspiracy.

I second that thought.

136 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:10:05pm

re: #113 Aceofwhat?

He only retrofitted it in 2007. Before then, his energy usage was positively obscene. I don't want him to live in a yurt, i just want him to downgrade from flaming hypocrite to middling hypocrite.

He retrofitted. He's practicing (to his ability) what he preaches. If he kept a hummer idling in the driveway just in case he wanted to go to the store or the mailbox, then he'd be a hypocrite.

But I realize a lot of people resent Al Gore for winning in 2000 and then letting the Supreme Court give his election to bush...hell, I resent him for that. But on environmental issues, so long as he keeps working to make changes in his life (it's a dynamic, not static process), then I'm not going to count the carbon in his farts.

137 voirdire  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:10:22pm

Climate change denial industry. Priceless.

138 walahi  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:10:24pm

re: #110 ArchangelMichael

It's possible to agree with the facts of the science and reject the commie wish-list solutions being proposed by the left you know.

I agree with that whole heartedly and feel that is what is missing from the Climate Change debate. It's not the science I have a problem with, its the solutions. I think that proponents of government intervention (let's call them socialists for convenience) see this as an opporunity to justify further government internvention. You can't really call it a conspiracy because that is their political philosophy: problems can be dealt with by government regulation into the rights of the private individual.

I think if there are any politicians who wish to remain relevant on the Republican side (or any other opposition for that matter), Solutions, based on science that will meet the needs of commerce, manufacturing and private lives are needed. Conspiracy theories are for the logic-challenged.

139 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:10:43pm

re: #129 Cato the Elder

bravo Sir.

140 yoshicastmaster  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:11:15pm

re: #117 ignoranceisfatal

and why should we accept these scientist's versions of bad science over the journals' versions of bad science?

it sounds like they're after suppression, not discussion.

141 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:11:20pm

re: #125 Irish Rose

OT, but are any of our praying lizards here this afternoon?

My Marine was just taken into medical at MCAS Miramar, they think that he may have a blood clot in his leg.

Positive thoughts headed in his direction.

142 Cato the Elder  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:12:00pm

re: #129 Cato the Elder

ΠΙΜΦ: "...spent his days..."

143 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:12:14pm

re: #129 Cato the Elder

Who are 'they', please?

144 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:12:27pm

re: #105 Gordon Marock

However, the AGW *cult* picks numbers out of the sky when they purport to know what percent of carbon emissions are necessary to "halt global warming."

Tipped your hand there, I think. [Emphasis added.]

145 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:12:31pm

re: #116 Bagua

One good result from the stolen CRU emails, is it has re-energized the debate and helped move Climate Change beyond partisan talking points and dogma and back to focusing on the actual science with its complexities and uncertainties:



- Mike Hulme - Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia
(some of the emails were his.)

Similar to what I was saying a couple days ago: reassembling and re-running the HatCRUT3 dataset from the original raw data will be an extremely useful exercise, even more so with all the attention now focused on it.

Examination of raw data and comparison with published results has been the basis for nearly all of the scientific fraud cases that have occurred over the last century. It has also been the source of much vindication.

146 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:12:32pm

re: #133 webevintage

From the site link above:

"We all remember when the Right Wing groups (TCPR, AEI) tried attacking the Gores on energy use, making false claims on the amount the home used, trying to claim it was a higher amount and that he didn't practice wise energy and environmental standards, which all actual reports showed to be incorrect claims. That the Gores actually used less than the average Tennessee home and that 100 percent energy used was all from Renewable resources. But the timing was interesting. The Gore's had been remodelling the home all along. Ripping out floors and putting in radiant heating, replacing all the windows, lightbulbs and installing geothermal heating, but it was when they finally got their Association to change their position on Solar Panels, that the Gore's were finally able to add Solar Paneling to the home and they would be nearing the completed remodel when the Right Wing groups made this claim."

Sorry, it's just not hard to get the raw data. Here's a CBS link quoting the AP...so i'm going to go out on a limb and say that this isn't a 'right-wing' data trove. 191,000 KwH pre-retrofit.

hy
po
crite

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

147 Dancing along the light of day  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:13:00pm

re: #125 Irish Rose

Yes, prayers for both of you.

148 ED 209  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:13:15pm

re: #131 SixDegrees

So, it's OK for the rich to be profligate?

Of course it is. It's OK for the rich to do anything with their money that they like as long as it's legal.
However, feel free to frown and point at them all you like.

149 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:13:37pm

Anyone who thinks you can't live in comfort and have a zero carbon footprint is wrong. Between the PV field I have, the solar water heating I just installed and the remodel I did a few years back I am off grid in a San Diego area community and live just as well as any of the ball players who live nearby. I also have reduced the electrical consumption of the two restaurants I took over by 30% through some fairly "low hanging fruit" changes and investments that will pay for themselves in about 18 months.

And for people in colder climates, go geothermal. It is basically a heat pump that uses a more stable ground temperature instead ambient air temperature for heat exchange.

There is plenty of low hanging fruit out there (including nuclear power - which is safe in France but somehow isn't here: do the French have smarter engineers?), but transportation still accounts for something like %40 of US GHG emissions IIRC.

150 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:13:37pm

re: #133 webevintage

From the site link above:
The Gore's had been remodelling the home all along. Ripping out floors and putting in radiant heating, replacing all the windows, lightbulbs and installing geothermal heating, but it was when they finally got their Association to change their position on Solar Panels, that the Gore's were finally able to add Solar Paneling to the home and they would be nearing the completed remodel when the Right Wing groups made this claim."

Wait...you mean the retrofit wasn't just a one-weekend project? :)

151 ED 209  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:15:01pm

re: #125 Irish Rose

I hope he get's well soon, however I won't be wasting time praying for him.

152 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:15:04pm

re: #136 darthstar

He retrofitted. He's practicing (to his ability) what he preaches. If he kept a hummer idling in the driveway just in case he wanted to go to the store or the mailbox, then he'd be a hypocrite.

But I realize a lot of people resent Al Gore for winning in 2000 and then letting the Supreme Court give his election to bush...hell, I resent him for that. But on environmental issues, so long as he keeps working to make changes in his life (it's a dynamic, not static process), then I'm not going to count the carbon in his farts.

Sorry. gotta disagree. practicing what you preach means practicing it before or damn near to the point where you begin to preach it. Retrofitting years after the preaching began in response to questions about the obvious waste = cover, not walking the walk.

153 generalsparky  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:15:33pm

re: #125 Irish Rose

Prayers!

154 Randall Gross  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:15:43pm

Here's my beef with Al Gore. He and his father both made their political careers on the back of money from the coal industry in Tennessee. Cap and trade, and the credit swapping scheme is just a shell game to move "pollution credits" around and keep the coal industry going as long as possible. AL's also been a lifelong opponent to nuclear energy, and the coal industry has always been nuclear's biggest opponent.

155 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:16:33pm

re: #143 Obdicut

Who are 'they', please?

Youtube Video

//

156 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:16:48pm

Tea Parties to sponsor Republican debates in Virginia congressional election.

Danville area Tea Party leader Nigel Coleman said that “people will see the growth of the TEA Party movement and its effect on the political landscape” in the 2010 election.

157 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:17:06pm

re: #149 karmic_inquisitor

nuclear, nuclear, nuclear. can't say it enough. makes economic sense, sustainable sense, and CO2 sense.

perhaps the problem is that it just makes too much damn sense?

158 srjh  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:17:34pm

re: #115 Kewalo

Until the email issue came up I had been completely ignoring this issue. I hadn't done any thinking about it much less read anything. But when I saw those science ignorant people being so happy I went and looked into in. And I've been having a ball learning all about it. I have literally spent hours reading about it.

I'm in almost the same boat. Reading about the leaks, then quickly seeing them for what they were, has definitely sparked a renewed interest in the science myself. I've got a background in Physics and was familiar with much of the science before, but digging around and reading about feedback mechanisms, radiative forcing, solar cycles and temperature proxies... it's certainly kept me occupied.

Yes, there are a lot of very stupid people who have fallen for the "Climategate" charade. But there are also many people who see it for the non-issue it is and who are thinking about a serious issue that they otherwise might not have.

It's hard to tell what the net effect will be. At the very least, I'd hope more people are made aware of how blindingly easy most of the denier's arguments are to refute.

159 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:17:37pm

re: #152 Aceofwhat?

Okay, either you've got kilowatt hour-envy or you just don't like Al. I realize there will be no convincing you, and that's okay. Now I need to go open some windows...the heater is running and the place is getting too warm.

160 Neutral President  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:17:49pm

re: #149 karmic_inquisitor

Question: That solar watering heating setup, is that just something that works in the place of a hot water heater or is it heating the whole house. Either way how well does it work nights and overcast/cold days?

161 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:18:12pm

re: #154 Thanos

Here's my beef with Al Gore. He and his father both made their political careers on the back of money from the coal industry in Tennessee. Cap and trade, and the credit swapping scheme is just a shell game to move "pollution credits" around and keep the coal industry going as long as possible. AL's also been a lifelong opponent to nuclear energy, and the coal industry has always been nuclear's biggest opponent.

That's what i'm sayin'. Is there a more pathetic hypocrite than an 'environmentalist' opposed to modern nuclear power plants?

162 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:18:28pm

re: #154 Thanos

Here's my beef with Al Gore. He and his father both made their political careers on the back of money from the coal industry in Tennessee. Cap and trade, and the credit swapping scheme is just a shell game to move "pollution credits" around and keep the coal industry going as long as possible. AL's also been a lifelong opponent to nuclear energy, and the coal industry has always been nuclear's biggest opponent.

Yes.

People who harp about the "energy companies" need to understand that many of the "sooty" companies have been involved in shaping legislation to preserve income streams and create barriers to entry while throwing up all sorts of roadblocks to nuclear power. It is a multi-generational war and this is the latest battle.

163 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:18:46pm

re: #149 karmic_inquisitor

Anyone who thinks you can't live in comfort and have a zero carbon footprint is wrong. Between the PV field I have, the solar water heating I just installed and the remodel I did a few years back I am off grid in a San Diego area community and live just as well as any of the ball players who live nearby. I also have reduced the electrical consumption of the two restaurants I took over by 30% through some fairly "low hanging fruit" changes and investments that will pay for themselves in about 18 months.

And for people in colder climates, go geothermal. It is basically a heat pump that uses a more stable ground temperature instead ambient air temperature for heat exchange.

There is plenty of low hanging fruit out there (including nuclear power - which is safe in France but somehow isn't here: do the French have smarter engineers?), but transportation still accounts for something like %40 of US GHG emissions IIRC.

All admirable steps, and it sounds like you have the cash and knowledge to make it happen. But what about the family in the developing world?

164 Bagua  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:18:48pm

re: #134 Decatur Deb

I can see that it's good for academics, but the controversy has been used to poison the political well. Our reaction to climate change will not fall back on science until the problem is so obvious that "cheap" corrections might not be possible.

The political well is already poisoned, that's the problem. Those few activist scientists made a major misstep when they blurred the lines between science and politics.

Climate scientists, knowingly or not, become proxies for political battles. The consequence is that science, as a form of open and critical enquiry, deteriorates while the more appropriate forums for ideological battles are ignored.

By overplaying their cards they have ended up with a busted flush as the polarization and intense antagonism [of politics] is now found in some areas of climate science.

165 ignoranceisfatal  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:18:52pm

re: #140 yoshicastmaster

and why should we accept these scientist's versions of bad science over the journals' versions of bad science?

it sounds like they're after suppression, not discussion.

At some point, a scientific area reaches a point where a question has largely been settled. At that point, the idea that you should "teach the controversy" (to borrow a phrase from the creationists) does nothing except spread confusion and hinder knowledge-based progress.

Should we be crying for the trailblazing academics whose groundbreaking research on the flatness of the earth is being suppressed by the evil "round-earther" conspiracy?

166 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:19:11pm

re: #159 darthstar

Okay, either you've got kilowatt hour-envy or you just don't like Al. I realize there will be no convincing you, and that's okay. Now I need to go open some windows...the heater is running and the place is getting too warm.

ok, no sweat. what do you think about his opposition to nuclear power?

167 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:19:12pm

Nirther @ 6 o'clock.

168 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:19:55pm

re: #163 Gordon Marock

All admirable steps, and it sounds like you have the cash and knowledge to make it happen. But what about the family in the developing world?

or the average Joe right here?

169 Cato the Elder  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:20:19pm

Here in Western Massachusetts, the NIMBYs are winning on all fronts.

You can't put up wind farms because they spoil the ridges they have to be located on.

You can't put up solar farms because they spoil the southward-facing declivities.

Two proposed "carbon-neutral", high-efficiency, low-emissions biomass plants are facing fierce opposition from the local "greens" because, well, they aren't wind or solar and they [shudder!] burn stuff to produce energy.

The nuclear plants we have in the vicinity show no signs of getting siblings anytime this century.

Given that New England prides itself on being ecotastic and green-to-the-gills, what does all this portend for the rest of the country?

170 Kewalo  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:20:29pm

re: #136 darthstar

Wow! He even farts CO2? And all the time I thought he farted methane.

171 Jadespring  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:21:13pm

re: #149 karmic_inquisitor

My parents got a geothermal system put in two summers ago. They were on oil before. The costs savings are more then they calculated and they figure it will have paid for itself in three to four years depending on how cold the next couple of winters are. The added bonus is the cheap air conditioning in the summer.

I did an estimate on my place, it's an old house which unfortunately uses electric heat for now. If we put in a geothermal the electric company gave us and estimate which cuts an average of 250 bucks off our monthly bill which is pretty significant. I'm saving my pennies and hopefully next year I can get on in this place. It just makes sense from both a financial and ecological standpoint.

172 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:21:18pm

The Guy Who Brought the AR-15 to an Obama Speech Meets a GOP Candidate

A 27-year-old libertarian who became a leader of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Kokesh is mounting a Ron Paul-style antiwar, small-government campaign in the heavily Democratic 3rd district of New Mexico — it gave the Obama-Biden ticket 61 percent of the vote in 2008 while freshman Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.) won with 57 percent of the vote in a three-way race. And at a screening of “For Liberty,” a documentary about the Paul campaign that features Kokesh, the candidate met Chris Broughton, a Second Amendment activist who gained some infamy this year when he brought an AR-15 to a rally outside an appearance by President Obama.

Picture, from Kokesh’s Facebook page, below the jump.

Looks like he left his weapon at home for this meeting.

173 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:21:35pm

re: #148 ED 209

Of course it is. It's OK for the rich to do anything with their money that they like as long as it's legal.
However, feel free to frown and point at them all you like.

I happen to agree. However, that's not what those in charge at Kyoto or Copenhagen have said in the past or will propose next week. They are, in fact, saying that the rich should take the lead in curtailing their appetites, while allowing the not so rich to continue doing precisely the same odious things that led to such problems in the first place. Applying the same framework as that codified in the Kyoto Protocols, or being proposed at the Copenhagen conference, to Al Gore would put him near the pinnacle of egregious offense and impose harsh corrective penalties on him and his lifestyle.

But as already noted, Gore is a self-aggrandizing hypocrite. It isn't at all surprising to have him happily wallow in a puddle of do-as-I-say-and-ignore-what-I-do sanctimony.

174 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:21:40pm

re: #38 Slumbering Behemoth

LOL!

"Carbon Dioxide's good for you"!
-Alex Jones

If you're an elm, sure.

175 webevintage  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:22:01pm

re: #152 Aceofwhat?

Sorry. gotta disagree. practicing what you preach means practicing it before or damn near to the point where you begin to preach it. Retrofitting years after the preaching began in response to questions about the obvious waste = cover, not walking the walk.

They bought the house in 2002 and began retrofitting the house when they bought the house so when were they not "walking the walk" when it came to their home?

I agree about the BS of being against NE...it has to be part of changes to the way we create energy (solar,wind, ect) or everything else is a waste of time.

176 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:22:05pm

re: #168 brookly red

or the average Joe right here?

I am warming a can of Campbell's soup between my ass cheeks.

177 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:22:24pm

re: #160 ArchangelMichael

Question: That solar watering heating setup, is that just something that works in the place of a hot water heater or is it heating the whole house. Either way how well does it work nights and overcast/cold days?

I pre-heat.

So I have a tank connected to the solar collectors in front of an electric water heater (which draws juice from my PV field).

So the water going into the electric water heater is usually hotter / as hot as that coming out of the electric heater, so the elements in the electric heater rarely work (except a few days of clouds, or when my sons take their really long showers on vacation).

178 Decatur Deb  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:22:25pm

re: #164 Bagua

You had me with "activist scientist"--sort of like a chatty Trappist.

179 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:22:49pm

re: #166 Aceofwhat?

ok, no sweat. what do you think about his opposition to nuclear power?

I've been against nuclear power since Three Mile Island. Nuclear isn't the answer...though it is cleaner until you have to dispose of the spent fuel rods.

Solar, Wind, Thermal, Hydro...they're all better. The bottom line, however, is that human beings are parasites that suck the life out of earth to survive. So we'll always have an impact on the planet. Minimizing that impact will allow future generations to do the same. Not minimizing it will bring about something really ugly in 50 to 100 years, and whomever is around then will be screwed.

180 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:23:08pm

re: #157 Aceofwhat?

nuclear, nuclear, nuclear. can't say it enough. makes economic sense, sustainable sense, and CO2 sense.

perhaps the problem is that it just makes too much damn sense?

On a brighter note, many environmentalists who were formerly opposed to nuclear power have had a change of heart, and are now beginning to actively promote it's expansion.

They need to rapidly accelerate it's deployment, and there will be many hurdles to face, but it's a positive development from at least some.

181 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:23:15pm

re: #175 webevintage

fair enough. i'm 100x more passionate about nuclear energy, anyway, so i'll stick to that.

182 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:24:27pm

re: #167 Gus 802

Nirther @ 6 o'clock.

I answered.

183 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:24:37pm

re: #179 darthstar

I've been against nuclear power since Three Mile Island. Nuclear isn't the answer...though it is cleaner until you have to dispose of the spent fuel rods.

Solar, Wind, Thermal, Hydro...they're all better. The bottom line, however, is that human beings are parasites that suck the life out of earth to survive. So we'll always have an impact on the planet. Minimizing that impact will allow future generations to do the same. Not minimizing it will bring about something really ugly in 50 to 100 years, and whomever is around then will be screwed.

Uhhh...hi, i'm a pebble-bed nuclear reactor. Have we met?

184 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:24:39pm

re: #9 jaunte

From Elizabeth May's post, this is a good summary of the harassment technique; from a Gavin Schmidt email:

"The contrarians have found that there is actually no limit to what you can ask people for (raw data, intermediate steps, additional calculations, sensitivity calculations, all the code, a workable version of the code on any platform, etc) and like Somali pirates they have found that once someone has paid up, they can always shake them down again."

That methodology is precisely what is being used by the birthers as well.

Demand the birth certificate, demand the original birth certificate, demand a different original birth certificate, demand a birth announcement, demand the original papers - not microfiche...

185 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:24:56pm

re: #176 Gordon Marock

I am warming a can of Campbell's soup between my ass cheeks.

/have a seat, it will take a while...

186 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:25:06pm

re: #170 Kewalo

Wow! He even farts CO2? And all the time I thought he farted methane.

Damn...I knew someone would catch that...As soon as I clicked submit I thought, fuck! I meant methane!...

187 robdouth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:25:15pm

re: #47 Obdicut

re: #48 ignoranceisfatal

So my head spun one way, then 360'd back the other way. If I may be so bold as to pose an uneducated question/statement.

Given we know or can assume AGW is 99.9% solid evidence (hate to say 100% because you never know) And I'm pretty sold on the A part of AGW, it sound like we have varying issues as to what the results may be and whether we have the power to stop/reverse it, which to me seems very similar in terms of what actions we should take to where deniers end up, though on a more intellectually honest road. Instead of "we shouldn't do anything, it's a hoax," It's more like "We proably shouldn't do anything drastic, because we don't know the ramifications.

Therefore, how can you (Obdicut) talk about the horrible effects on agriculture, water sources etc. when one thing I know isn't for sure is the probably effects of AGW. I don't know if it's just a denier claim that "if AGW is real, it may not be bad" but do we know for sure that it would, or is it just a measure of how bad, how much can we help, etc?

Again I'm genuine in my concern, and new to crawling out from under the full-skeptic rock.

188 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:25:16pm

re: #179 darthstar

I've been against nuclear power since Three Mile Island. Nuclear isn't the answer...though it is cleaner until you have to dispose of the spent fuel rods.

Solar, Wind, Thermal, Hydro...they're all better. The bottom line, however, is that human beings are parasites that suck the life out of earth to survive. So we'll always have an impact on the planet. Minimizing that impact will allow future generations to do the same. Not minimizing it will bring about something really ugly in 50 to 100 years, and whomever is around then will be screwed.

wind power is "better" than nuclear?...I don't think I'm convincable to that notion

189 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:25:57pm

re: #185 brookly red

/have a seat, it will take a while...

No it won't, not with my ass.

190 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:26:01pm

re: #182 wrenchwench

I answered.

Is he a nirther or am I imagining things?

It's one of those day on me end.

191 ED 209  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:26:13pm

re: #179 darthstar

...
Solar, Wind, Thermal, Hydro...they're all better. The bottom line, however, is that human beings all animals are parasites that suck the life out of earth to survive. ...

FTFY

192 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:26:41pm

re: #163 Gordon Marock

All admirable steps, and it sounds like you have the cash and knowledge to make it happen. But what about the family in the developing world?

Which part of the developing world?

India and China are going into Copenhagen with BAU plans (Business as usual). Both claim they will reduce their carbon intensity, but that will happen simply as they industrialize (an odd outcome of prosperity when measured against GDP rather than per capita).

They could step up but they won't and will get another Kyoto pass claiming that no developing country should be bound by CO2 constraints. 3rd world nations should be off the hook, but India and China aren't and will lure more polluters to their industrial zones with exemptions which will make the problems even worse.

193 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:27:35pm

re: #177 karmic_inquisitor

I pre-heat.

So I have a tank connected to the solar collectors in front of an electric water heater (which draws juice from my PV field).

So the water going into the electric water heater is usually hotter / as hot as that coming out of the electric heater, so the elements in the electric heater rarely work (except a few days of clouds, or when my sons take their really long showers on vacation).

In Israel, every house is required to have a water heater on the roof with PV attached. Has been that way for 20+ years. They have a good climate for it, but regardless, it's thoughtful policy.

194 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:28:12pm

re: #190 Gus 802

Is he a nirther or am I imagining things?

It's one of those day on me end.

You ID'd him correctly, IMHO.

195 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:28:24pm

re: #191 ED 209

FTFY

True, but humans are the only ones who intentionally burn resources for their pleasure.

196 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:28:25pm

re: #192 karmic_inquisitor

Which part of the developing world?

India and China are going into Copenhagen with BAU plans (Business as usual). Both claim they will reduce their carbon intensity, but that will happen simply as they industrialize (an odd outcome of prosperity when measured against GDP rather than per capita).

They could step up but they won't and will get another Kyoto pass claiming that no developing country should be bound by CO2 constraints. 3rd world nations should be off the hook, but India and China aren't and will lure more polluters to their industrial zones with exemptions which will make the problems even worse.

RIGHT! so, instead of some plan that makes my life more expensive, I recommend that we do nothing and see what happens over the next decade.

197 ryannon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:28:42pm

Are you ready for cold fusion? Don't laugh. Check out who's checking it out:

Youtube Video
Youtube Video
198 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:28:50pm

re: #192 karmic_inquisitor

Which part of the developing world?

India and China are going into Copenhagen with BAU plans (Business as usual). Both claim they will reduce their carbon intensity, but that will happen simply as they industrialize (an odd outcome of prosperity when measured against GDP rather than per capita).

They could step up but they won't and will get another Kyoto pass claiming that no developing country should be bound by CO2 constraints. 3rd world nations should be off the hook, but India and China aren't and will lure more polluters to their industrial zones with exemptions which will make the problems even worse.

I believe China is now the world's most prolific polluter. And most of their population is still mired in poverty, albeit poverty that's rapidly easing.

Wait until there are a billion Chinese driving cars.

199 Cato the Elder  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:29:09pm

re: #143 Obdicut

Who are 'they', please?

The people who bring you this idea, for instance.

Maybe you would like to explain to me how it would reduce CO2 and stave off ecological disaster, as as distinct from merely destroying the economy and sending free money to Somalia. No one else has been able to do so.

200 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:29:44pm

re: #46 sattv4u2

Not to mention the negative effects (and to what scope) the mitigation is.Can the earth survive getting warmer? Depending on "how much" warmer, probably. Can humanity survive what could be hugely negative economic consequences to it may take to "fix" things? Perhaps not. I can move futher north or shen more clothes if it gets hotter
I can't feed and house myself if companies close becuase they don't meet draconian standards

Major migrations of industrialized nations are going to suck big-time, especially if we didn't create infrastructure or planning because it was going to be expensive and 'draconian'.

You won't be able to feed or house yourself if agriculture is destroyed, or if you're just another American refugee sitting in a camp outside Toronto...and by the way, Mr. Border Jumper, what part of 'illegal' didn't you understand?

The effects of this stuff, should it come to pass will be major. We need to have a better response than "I can go somewhere else", because a LOT of us will need to go somewhere else if we get to that stage.

And this is just North America I'm thinking of. And I haven't even considered who's south of us.

This would be a lot uglier than moving north, or 'shedding clothes', if I understand the projections correctly.

201 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:29:46pm

On the subject of safe nuclear power, it appears that the only thing that unsafe nuclear power threatens are...humans! the wildlife are doing just fine at chernobyl, thank you. (not saying we should be casual with nuclear tech...)

[Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]

202 ignoranceisfatal  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:30:36pm

re: #187 robdouth

Instead of "we shouldn't do anything, it's a hoax," It's more like "We proably shouldn't do anything drastic, because we don't know the ramifications.

Again I'm genuine in my concern, and new to crawling out from under the full-skeptic rock.

If I told you that:
- there's a 25% chance that AGW will have no significant impact on our future lives
- there's a 50% chance that AGW will have the predicted impact on our lives
- there's a 25% chance that AGW will have a more dramatic than predicted impact on our lives

Wouldn't that be a pretty convincing argument for doing *something*? Sure, you can peg your hopes on that 25% no-impact outcome, but that seems a rather imprudent course of action.

203 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:30:39pm

re: #191 ED 209

FTFY

I don't know that it necessarily needed fixing. Animals live in relative stasis with the environment. The eat, they then crap nutrients back out. They breath O2 in, they breathe out CO2.

We have applied leverage to the equation. We pull FAR more out of the earth, energy-wise, than we return to it. Until cows start eating coal & oil, they'll be more in stasis than us.

FWIW

204 Randall Gross  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:31:27pm

re: #179 darthstar

They are not better, they are different. All power sources have their pluses and negatives, considering that the waste for all of the energy you use in a life time would fit in a coke can if it were all nuclear, I consider that cleaner than most other sources.

Hydro is great, but it causes problems with fish, downstream species, and it's also variable in places.
Wind's great, but what do you do on a hot dead air day when everyone wants to run their AC?
Solar's great, but what do you do about overnight during a cold cloudy winter?

Every source has its niche, and Hydro/Nuclear are the best trade off combination of baseload power you can find.

205 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:31:46pm

re: #172 Killgore Trout

The Guy Who Brought the AR-15 to an Obama Speech Meets a GOP Candidate

Looks like he left his weapon at home for this meeting.

Weigel links to an article from 2002 that says Kokesh is the new Cindy Sheehan. Too bad the old one didn't really go away.

206 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:31:56pm

re: #183 Aceofwhat?

Uhhh...hi, i'm a pebble-bed nuclear reactor. Have we met?

No, but that is interesting...looking at it now.

207 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:32:26pm

re: #89 darthstar

I know that's meant to be snark, but really, is Al Gore expected to travel around on a donkey? This is the 21st century. People fly...in airplanes.

If Al Gore rode around on a donkey, people would say he was pretending to be like Jesus.

208 ryannon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:33:04pm

re: #201 Aceofwhat?

On the subject of safe nuclear power, it appears that the only thing that unsafe nuclear power threatens are...humans! the wildlife are doing just fine at chernobyl, thank you. (not saying we should be casual with nuclear tech...)

[Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]

Yeah, all that's working out just great:

Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving

209 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:33:08pm

re: #200 SanFranciscoZionist

Major migrations of industrialized nations are going to suck big-time, especially if we didn't create infrastructure or planning because it was going to be expensive and 'draconian'.

You won't be able to feed or house yourself if agriculture is destroyed, or if you're just another American refugee sitting in a camp outside Toronto...and by the way, Mr. Border Jumper, what part of 'illegal' didn't you understand?

The effects of this stuff, should it come to pass will be major. We need to have a better response than "I can go somewhere else", because a LOT of us will need to go somewhere else if we get to that stage.

And this is just North America I'm thinking of. And I haven't even considered who's south of us.

This would be a lot uglier than moving north, or 'shedding clothes', if I understand the projections correctly.

you make it sound like this coming climate warming horror is going to happen practically over night...I don't think so, but what makes you think so?...sounds like a Hollywood movie script

210 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:33:13pm

re: #204 Thanos

good point, and I thought about that as I posted...esp. with Hydro as I kind of like my salmon to be able to spawn.

211 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:33:24pm

re: #206 darthstar

No, but that is interesting...looking at it now.

Trust me, i don't want 3-mile island either. But you can put a pebble-bed reactor in my backyard anytime you want, as long as you preserve enough trees to block the view.

212 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:33:29pm

re: #207 SanFranciscoZionist

If Al Gore rode around on a donkey, people would say he was pretending to be like Jesus.

And if he walked around with a statue of Jesus on his back they would call him a donkey.

Oh wait... they already call him an ass.

//

213 Randall Gross  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:33:34pm

re: #201 Aceofwhat?

Everyone thinks of Chernobyl and Three mile as the worst nuclear problems, but most forget that their are people living in Hiroshima and Nagsaki right now. You can't get worse than that.

214 Cato the Elder  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:33:43pm

Given that no Kyoto country, however much they all lambasted the US for not signing that worthless piece of paper, has so far met its reduction targets, what do you think the chances are that the US will have reduced its carbon emissions by 80% in 2050?

215 Randall Gross  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:34:38pm

/pimf "there"

216 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:34:51pm

re: #205 wrenchwench

Heh.

217 Kewalo  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:34:58pm

re: #158 srjh

I'm in almost the same boat. Reading about the leaks, then quickly seeing them for what they were, has definitely sparked a renewed interest in the science myself. I've got a background in Physics and was familiar with much of the science before, but digging around and reading about feedback mechanisms, radiative forcing, solar cycles and temperature proxies... it's certainly kept me occupied.

You're lucky to have that Physics background. While I do have a little chem from college I've had to learn and relearn. But what I think a lot of people don't understand is how much fun it can be. It needn't be just slogging through dry subjects.

At this point I haven't come to any conclusions about what we should do about it, but I'm certain we should do something. My personal favorite is orbital solar panels the we and the Japanese are collaborating on. If they can solve the problem of bringing the energy down to earth we could supply the whole world with electricity.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

218 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:35:42pm

re: #208 ryannon

Yeah, all that's working out just great:

Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving

Riiight.

"We find an elevated frequency of partial albinism in barn swallows, meaning they have tufts of white feathers," Mousseau said.

It's not 3-eyed fish, copain. I'm not saying there are no negative effects. I'm saying that even our worst nuclear reactor disaster caused less environmental impact than you'd have ever thought possible. that's all.

219 Cineaste  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:36:02pm

re: #201 Aceofwhat?

On the subject of safe nuclear power, it appears that the only thing that unsafe nuclear power threatens are...humans! the wildlife are doing just fine at chernobyl, thank you. (not saying we should be casual with nuclear tech...)

[Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]

That's some serious cherry picking Ace. They are "thriving" because an area once densely populated has been abandoned by humans due to fallout and the animals don't know better than to stay away.

I'm not against nuclear, but using the aftermath of Chernobyl as proof that's safe is probably not the strongest line of reasoning.

220 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:36:04pm

re: #213 Thanos

great point

221 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:36:32pm

re: #215 Thanos

You've been a little scarce lately. I was starting to get worried about you.

222 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:36:55pm

re: #207 SanFranciscoZionist

If Al Gore rode around on a donkey, people would say he was pretending to be like Jesus.

Silly...everyone knows Jesus rode around on a dinosaur...

223 Digital Display  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:37:23pm

re: #208 ryannon

Yeah, all that's working out just great:

Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving

Exclusion zone? 19km's? One of the issues that is always forgot about is birds..It's always been an issue and is uncontrollable...They spread radiation.

224 Gordon Marock  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:37:41pm

Poker night. See ya.

225 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:37:45pm

re: #219 Cineaste

That's some serious cherry picking Ace. They are "thriving" because an area once densely populated has been abandoned by humans due to fallout and the animals don't know better than to stay away.

I'm not against nuclear, but using the aftermath of Chernobyl as proof that's safe is probably not the strongest line of reasoning.

I'm not saying it's proof of safety. i'm saying it's proof that even the worst reactor disaster in history didn't utterly damage the local environment. add to that the technological leap that we have in pebble-bed nuclear reactors, and i can find no opposition to modern nuclear power that isn't laughable.

226 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:37:59pm

re: #221 Killgore Trout

You've been a little scarce lately. I was starting to get worried about you.

I'm starting to worry about Honorary Yooper.

227 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:38:25pm

re: #222 darthstar

lmao

228 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:38:39pm

re: #214 Cato the Elder

Given that no Kyoto country, however much they all lambasted the US for not signing that worthless piece of paper, has so far met its reduction targets, what do you think the chances are that the US will have reduced its carbon emissions by 80% in 2050?

I think we need to achieve world peace before we try to tackle reversing GW...it's surly more attainable, right?...good grief was a bad joke

229 ryannon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:39:04pm

re: #218 Aceofwhat?

Riiight.

"We find an elevated frequency of partial albinism in barn swallows, meaning they have tufts of white feathers," Mousseau said.

It's not 3-eyed fish, copain. I'm not saying there are no negative effects. I'm saying that even our worst nuclear reactor disaster caused less environmental impact than you'd have ever thought possible. that's all.

There was more info than that.

I wonder how the cherry-picking is out there?

230 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:39:35pm

Birdfeeders Found to Cause Evolution of New Species

Up until now, most people have likely regarded bird-feeders as merely a pleasant addition to their gardens. But scientists have just discovered that bird-feeders in the UK are actually having a serious long term impact on bird life--they've found that the feeders have brought about the first evolutionary step in the creation of a brand new species.

According to the BBC, the European blackcap bird's natural instinct has historically been to migrate to Spain to spend their winters, where they feed on fruits and berries. But the rise of bird-feeders in the UK have changed that. Scientists discovered that blackcaps "follow a different "evolutionary path" if they spend the winter eating food put out for them in UK gardens."

A Species of Bird that Eats Only From Bird-feeders?
Those blackcaps that have opted instead to head north to the UK begun to form a brand new species of bird, all thanks to the British putting bird-feeders in their yards.

231 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:39:42pm

re: #213 Thanos

Everyone thinks of Chernobyl and Three mile as the worst nuclear problems, but most forget that their are people living in Hiroshima and Nagsaki right now. You can't get worse than that.

Chernobyl compared with an atomic bomb

Far fewer people died as an immediate result of the Chernobyl event than died of radiation at Hiroshima, and the eventual total is also significantly less when including those predicted by the WHO to die in the future[citation needed]. Due to the differences in half-life the different radioactive fission products undergo exponential decay at different rates. Hence the isotopic signature of an event where more than one radioisotope is involved will change with time.

Some comments have been made in which the radioactive release of the Chernobyl event is claimed to be 300[1] or 400[2] times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The work of SCOPE[3] suggests that the two events can not be simply compared with a number suggesting that one was XX times larger than the other.

The radioactivity released at Chernobyl tended to be more long lived than that released by a bomb detonation hence it is not possible to draw a simple comparison between the two events.

232 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:40:05pm

re: #226 wrenchwench

I'm starting to worry about Honorary Yooper.


He's been around.

233 ryannon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:40:22pm

re: #213 Thanos

Everyone thinks of Chernobyl and Three mile as the worst nuclear problems, but most forget that their are people living in Hiroshima and Nagsaki right now. You can't get worse than that.

Yep, that's working out really well too:

"The populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki now have among the highest rates of liver cancer in the world. "

Must be the sushi.

[Link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]

234 Randall Gross  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:40:59pm

re: #217 Kewalo

The G.K. O'Neill folks used to think Microwave is the best method, and scientists have broadcast power this way for 8 miles with efficiency close to that of aluminum wire.

The other might be a space tether, but both of those are well in the future along with Fusion.

235 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:41:13pm

re: #229 ryannon

There was more info than that.

I wonder how the cherry-picking is out there?

Yeah, there was more. None of it made the reader believe that the environment wasn't doing 10x better than one would have expected 20 years ago.

Disagree, if you want, but i've been linking and quoting the whole time. It's your turn.

236 Neutral President  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:41:43pm

re: #225 Aceofwhat?

I'm not saying it's proof of safety. i'm saying it's proof that even the worst reactor disaster in history didn't utterly damage the local environment. add to that the technological leap that we have in pebble-bed nuclear reactors, and i can find no opposition to modern nuclear power that isn't laughable.

Pebble Bed reactors and other Gen IV Reactors are not quite ready for prime-time yet (maybe by 2020-2025 or so if engineering and research continues), but even the Gen III designs are far better than what we have in use today, which is still far safer than Chernobyl ever was.

237 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:42:14pm

re: #209 albusteve

you make it sound like this coming climate warming horror is going to happen practically over night...I don't think so, but what makes you think so?...sounds like a Hollywood movie script

No, it's not going to happen 'practically overnight', but it's not going to happen all that slowly either, and making plans, which can be modified according to facts on the ground, is better than winging it.

Look at what happened with Katrina. (I'm not saying it was AGW what done it, don't freak out, folks). Refugees, cities outside the disaster zone dealing with the influx, crime issues, supply issues. And that was just a city's worth of people moving a little out of nature's way, in a prosperous and stable nation. Best-case scenario, in other words.

A pinch of prevention...

238 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:43:32pm

re: #237 SanFranciscoZionist

No, it's not going to happen 'practically overnight', but it's not going to happen all that slowly either, and making plans, which can be modified according to facts on the ground, is better than winging it.

Look at what happened with Katrina. (I'm not saying it was AGW what done it, don't freak out, folks). Refugees, cities outside the disaster zone dealing with the influx, crime issues, supply issues. And that was just a city's worth of people moving a little out of nature's way, in a prosperous and stable nation. Best-case scenario, in other words.

A pinch of prevention...

AGW refugees in Toronto?...you must be kidding, refugees from what?

239 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:43:49pm

re: #237 SanFranciscoZionist

No, it's not going to happen 'practically overnight', but it's not going to happen all that slowly either, and making plans, which can be modified according to facts on the ground, is better than winging it.

Look at what happened with Katrina. (I'm not saying it was AGW what done it, don't freak out, folks). Refugees, cities outside the disaster zone dealing with the influx, crime issues, supply issues. And that was just a city's worth of people moving a little out of nature's way, in a prosperous and stable nation. Best-case scenario, in other words.

A pinch of prevention...


Everyone knows George Bush did it.//

240 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:44:57pm

re: #238 albusteve

AGW refugees in Toronto?...you must be kidding, refugees from what?

Read the original post. Satt referred to 'moving north'.

241 Neutral President  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:44:59pm

re: #238 albusteve

AGW refugees in Toronto?...you must be kidding, refugees from what?

From the decrease or lack of usable farmland south of that particular border.

242 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:45:18pm

re: #236 ArchangelMichael

Pebble Bed reactors and other Gen IV Reactors are not quite ready for prime-time yet (maybe by 2020-2025 or so if engineering and research continues), but even the Gen III designs are far better than what we have in use today, which is still far safer than Chernobyl ever was.

Well said. France gets the majority of their energy from nuclear reactors. I don't recall having to debate the finer points of French wildlife mutations...

243 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:45:35pm

Headline of the day: Michelle Obama Wore Clothes to Light the Christmas Tree

244 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:45:37pm

re: #237 SanFranciscoZionist

No, it's not going to happen 'practically overnight', but it's not going to happen all that slowly either, and making plans, which can be modified according to facts on the ground, is better than winging it.

Look at what happened with Katrina. (I'm not saying it was AGW what done it, don't freak out, folks). Refugees, cities outside the disaster zone dealing with the influx, crime issues, supply issues. And that was just a city's worth of people moving a little out of nature's way, in a prosperous and stable nation. Best-case scenario, in other words.

A pinch of prevention...

somewhat agree, but the katrina people did move practically overnight & that was the problem.

245 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:46:18pm

re: #242 Aceofwhat?

Well said. France gets the majority of their energy from nuclear reactors. I don't recall having to debate the finer points of French wildlife mutations...

France also has a much better infrastructure than Russia's. Less corruption.

246 E.T.  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:47:12pm

So let's say for the sake of argument that climate change is real. It will result in the death of millions upon millions and cost trillions of dollars. It will have long lasting implications. Something drastic will have to be done immediately to stop this from happening.

The west is willing to significantly reduce carbon emissions, ok fine. But if China and India won't play ball then why should we bother? We can't hope to make up for the carbon that India and China are putting out.

Whats the next step if others don't play along? .. war?

If the problem is as bad as we are told then the consequences should be as bad for those countries not willing to contribute to a solution... what to do ?

247 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:47:30pm

re: #243 Killgore Trout

Headline of the day: Michelle Obama Wore Clothes to Light the Christmas Tree

Thank God. I realize standards of formality have gone down in the last few decades, but a naked First Lady lighting the Christmas tree at the White House is more than I'm totally ready to handle.

248 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:47:35pm

re: #243 Killgore Trout

Have our past First Ladies lit the Christmas tree bare assed?

249 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:48:00pm

re: #241 ArchangelMichael

From the decrease or lack of usable farmland south of that particular border.

mass migrations inside of one generation?...we're doomed. DOOMED!...I'm goin down with the ship then...I'll never leave New Mexico...any bets on when this might start

250 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:48:07pm

re: #245 SanFranciscoZionist

France also has a much better infrastructure than Russia's. Less corruption.

Then we're agreed: membership in the AGW camp granted after presenting one's enthusiasm for modern nuclear power!!

251 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:48:29pm

re: #246 E.T.

So let's say for the sake of argument that climate change is real. It will result in the death of millions upon millions and cost trillions of dollars. It will have long lasting implications. Something drastic will have to be done immediately to stop this from happening.

The west is willing to significantly reduce carbon emissions, ok fine. But if China and India won't play ball then why should we bother? We can't hope to make up for the carbon that India and China are putting out.

Whats the next step if others don't play along? .. war?

If the problem is as bad as we are told then the consequences should be as bad for those countries not willing to contribute to a solution... what to do ?

Nuke em and go for nuclear winter over climate change?

252 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:48:54pm

re: #244 brookly red

somewhat agree, but the katrina people did move practically overnight & that was the problem.

Yep...and a 2004 sized tsunami hitting any of our coasts would cause a similar effect. While I'm concerned about global warming, the fact that this planet can fart and kill 200,000+ people in a matter of minutes is something that makes me think we're all just a little bit insignificant at times.

Too many people, and nowhere to put them.

253 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:49:11pm

re: #244 brookly red

somewhat agree, but the katrina people did move practically overnight & that was the problem.

Oh, totally true. Katrina's not an example of what would happen if warming became an immediate problem for NA, just a sort of speeded up miniversion. It suggests some of the problems inherent in big groups of people trying to move out of nature's way in a society like ours.

254 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:49:27pm

re: #251 soxfan4life

Nuke em and go for nuclear winter over climate change?

It would save the environment!

hahahahaha

(when you can't amuse others, amuse yourself...)

255 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:50:07pm

re: #248 soxfan4life

Have our past First Ladies lit the Christmas tree bare assed?


I think Elenore Roosevelt was the only one.
/

256 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:50:19pm

re: #249 albusteve

mass migrations inside of one generation?...we're doomed. DOOMED!...I'm goin down with the ship then...I'll never leave New Mexico...any bets on when this might start

mass migration to NM? think it started 20+ years ago...

257 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:50:44pm

re: #233 ryannon

Yep, that's working out really well too:

"The populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki now have among the highest rates of liver cancer in the world. "

Must be the sushi.

[Link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]

According to your link, it almost certainly has nothing to do with radiation. The rate has increased only in the last 20 years of the study, between 1967 and 1987. Rates for other cancers seem to be comparable with other regions, even other countries. I would be inclined to look elsewhere for the cause.

258 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:50:54pm

re: #246 E.T.

So let's say for the sake of argument that climate change is real. It will result in the death of millions upon millions and cost trillions of dollars. It will have long lasting implications. Something drastic will have to be done immediately to stop this from happening.

The west is willing to significantly reduce carbon emissions, ok fine. But if China and India won't play ball then why should we bother? We can't hope to make up for the carbon that India and China are putting out.

Whats the next step if others don't play along? .. war?

If the problem is as bad as we are told then the consequences should be as bad for those countries not willing to contribute to a solution... what to do ?

That's the bazillion dollar question, innit? My hope is that new technology will answer some of it.

259 Randall Gross  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:50:55pm

re: #233 ryannon

Yes, but compare their life expectancy and those of coal minerst? 40 -50 k coal miners die every year to mine associated problems. If you did an epidemiological study of deaths from coal pollution you would find that it's quite high in areas near coal power plants.

No US nuclear reactor releases as much radiation into the atmosphere per year as a coal plant does per day.

260 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:51:07pm

re: #255 Killgore Trout

I think Elenore Roosevelt was the only one.
/

You totally ruined my appetite.

261 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:51:54pm

world wide, govt sanctioned enforcement of our habits (what?, 6b people?) for a century or more is just ridiculously impractical...I hate to tell you this but that is pure fantasy...the international community cannot even stop Somalian piracy...hahaha!

262 E.T.  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:52:04pm

re: #254 Aceofwhat?

A sarcastic but serious question about how far are the believers willing to take this nonsense ...

263 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:52:08pm

re: #243 Killgore Trout

Headline of the day: Michelle Obama Wore Clothes to Light the Christmas Tree

Michelle's an attractive woman...if she didn't wear clothes it would be a bigger story...that said, I'm not looking forward to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly going nudist in response to this transgression by the First Lady.

264 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:52:36pm

Here's why European Jews are nervous about minaret ban...

Update: Swiss party leader backs off call for Jewish, Muslim cemetery ban


A leading Swiss politician who called for a ban on separate Jewish and Muslim cemeteries has back-tracked and apologized.

"I am sorry. I didn't mean it like that," said Christophe Darbellay, leader of the country's Christian Democratic Party, according to the World Bulletin news site.
...
TA reports: "Darbellay reportedly said that existing cemeteries would not be affected by a ban, but that there should be no separate cemeteries in the future."

265 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:52:50pm

re: #256 brookly red

mass migration to NM? think it started 20+ years ago...

friggin New Yorkers and Kaliforniacators...go back!

266 Digital Display  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:53:01pm

re: #235 Aceofwhat?

Yeah, there was more. None of it made the reader believe that the environment wasn't doing 10x better than one would have expected 20 years ago.

Disagree, if you want, but I've been linking and quoting the whole time. It's your turn.

I spent 20 years working in the Nuclear Field...There are issues with power plants that can be fixed over a period of time...I've posted many here before...
Training, Safety, Designs etc
I'll give you one...The private nuclear industry is all about profits.. They will zoom their workers for a buck and buck safety issues..
For instance.. In a Navy reactor we would shut down the reactor and Eddy current and inspect the primary bundle at certain periods written in stone period.
The private industry...Fuck it we need to keep making bucks to pay the share owners...
There are solutions, We can use nuclear energy to power America.. But we must take the long view and educate America about an overarching strategy.. There are solutions if we don't bury our heads in the sand

267 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:53:06pm

re: #251 soxfan4life

Nuke em and go for nuclear winter over climate change?

/the scary part is it works on paper...

268 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:53:42pm

re: #249 albusteve

mass migrations inside of one generation?...we're doomed. DOOMED!...I'm goin down with the ship then...I'll never leave New Mexico...any bets on when this might start

Probably not within one generation. But if you want projections, people have been posting them feverishly for months. Look through Ludwig's old posts.

269 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:53:58pm

re: #250 Aceofwhat?

Then we're agreed: membership in the AGW camp granted after presenting one's enthusiasm for modern nuclear power!!

Sounds fine to me.

270 Funky_Gibbon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:55:09pm

I've just watched a very funny interview on the Friday edition of the BBC's Newsnight programme where they had Professor Andrew Watson and some former Communications Director for the US Senate who is a climate skeptic/denier.

The debate itself wasn't particularly enlightening given that the climate skeptic ignored anything to do with the science and just spent the time shouting. It's clearly annoyed Prof. Watson because as the interviewer ended the interview he said "What an asshole!" before they cut away.

271 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:55:37pm

re: #266 HoosierHoops

So france can do it and we can't? I don't disagree with your points. They just sound like lower hurdles than "figure out what to do when the wind isn't blowing today" or "oops, it's been cloudy 3 days in a row and i want to turn my computer on".

272 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:55:53pm

re: #251 soxfan4life

Nuke em and go for nuclear winter over climate change?

As a ski patroller, I'd welcome the longer winter. Right now, the Sierras are sadly low in the snow department. But a nuclear winter does have its drawbacks.

273 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:56:15pm

OK, I've gotta go see a kid about a paper.

274 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:56:20pm

re: #236 ArchangelMichael

Pebble Bed reactors and other Gen IV Reactors are not quite ready for prime-time yet (maybe by 2020-2025 or so if engineering and research continues), but even the Gen III designs are far better than what we have in use today, which is still far safer than Chernobyl ever was.

To be blunt, a shoebox full of enriched uranium would be safer than Chernobyl was. It was incredibly poorly designed from a safety standpoint, little more than a cheap cinderblock enclosure around a barely-contained reactor core. Add that it was being run far outside it's already questionable specifications when the accident occurred, and that there was basically no plan whatsoever in place for dealing even with a minor accident, and you have a recipe for disaster grounded in stupidity that would require monumental effort to duplicate with today's designs.

More importantly, nothing is without risk. The overall risks of nuclear plants are extremely low compared with anything else out there today.

Time to start building.

275 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:57:30pm

re: #271 Aceofwhat?

So france can do it and we can't? I don't disagree with your points. They just sound like lower hurdles than "figure out what to do when the wind isn't blowing today" or "oops, it's been cloudy 3 days in a row and i want to turn my computer on".

/get yer butt on that tredmill...

276 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:58:11pm

re: #268 SanFranciscoZionist

Probably not within one generation. But if you want projections, people have been posting them feverishly for months. Look through Ludwig's old posts.

he's a zealot...anyway, there is no cure besides a political tweek here and there, like nuclear power...the rest of the known universe could care less...the best we in the west can do is use our energy wisely and learn to cope...there is no silver bullet to stop GW, and besides that nobody knows whats going to happen or when anyway...

277 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 2:59:03pm

re: #272 darthstar

As a ski patroller, I'd welcome the longer winter. Right now, the Sierras are sadly low in the snow department. But a nuclear winter does have its drawbacks.

Ski patrolling is one of my 'if i had decided not to have a family' dream jobs, and what I want to do if/when i retire early. you're a new hero of mine.

278 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:00:27pm

re: #275 brookly red

ha! great mental image

typing...hard...out...of...breath...dang...stupid mouse...

279 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:00:53pm

re: #87 walahi

One up for the last line.

280 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:01:08pm

re: #253 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, totally true. Katrina's not an example of what would happen if warming became an immediate problem for NA, just a sort of speeded up miniversion. It suggests some of the problems inherent in big groups of people trying to move out of nature's way in a society like ours.

Not a reasonable comparison. Those displaced by Katrina moved over a period of days, or weeks at the very most. It was the rapidity of the change that caused problems in neighboring regions.

More reasonable comparisons would be the population drain in Detroit - a decline of over a million, representing more than half of the city's peak population, in a matter of three to four decades; or the migration of huge numbers of people to Phoenix and Las Vegas over the last 20 years or so. The changes in both cases have been profound, to be sure, but nowhere near the catastrophic changes conjured by a comparison with New Orleans.

281 Randall Gross  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:02:26pm

i finally broke down and bought the newest version of photoshop elements after finding out that I survived the latest round of layoffs, so I"m off to twiddle with some photomerge stuff.

282 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:02:54pm

re: #280 SixDegrees

It would be much, much vaster, though, than Katrina, because it's, you know, global.

283 Digital Display  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:03:04pm

re: #271 Aceofwhat?

So france can do it and we can't? I don't disagree with your points. They just sound like lower hurdles than "figure out what to do when the wind isn't blowing today" or "oops, it's been cloudy 3 days in a row and i want to turn my computer on".

The French and US Navy are world class...My first day in Class in Navy Nuclear training our instructor walked into class with huge books and slammed them on the desk and said these are the NRC Regs on Nuclear power..
We groaned.. He said the Navy doesn't follow them.. They need to come up to our standards...We can run a safe Nuclear powered Nation...Maybe we need to subcontract the Navy or the French.. Cause the private industry has been epic fail and that's why Americans are nervous about power plants..
Elect me..I'll straighten this shit out

284 bosforus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:03:26pm

re: #281 Thanos

i finally broke down and bought the newest version of photoshop elements after finding out that I survived the latest round of layoffs, so I"m off to twiddle with some photomerge stuff.

Upding for surviving layoffs and having some spending money!

285 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:03:48pm

re: #278 Aceofwhat?

ha! great mental image

typing...hard...out...of...breath...dang...stupid mouse...

2 more miles & diner will be warm!

286 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:04:09pm

re: #277 Aceofwhat?

Ski patrolling is one of my 'if i had decided not to have a family' dream jobs, and what I want to do if/when i retire early. you're a new hero of mine.

I'm a volunteer with the NSP...only have to commit to 14 days a season...and I get a free season pass for myself and my wife(and kids, if/when we have them). You should seriously consider it. Pro-patrollers are mostly young people (20s-30s) who work summer jobs to finance their ski season (they only get paid about $15 an hour, and have to work their asses off for it). It's a lot of fun, though when it's blowing 70mph and snowing (or raining) at the summit and they want to close the mountain, we do have to stand up there and wait for the last chair to sweep the mountain for lost skiers.

287 Kewalo  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:04:12pm

re: #225 Aceofwhat?

A lot of what I hear on the left concerns the nuclear waste. What would you do with it?

288 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:04:26pm

re: #282 Obdicut

It would be much, much vaster, though, than Katrina, because it's, you know, global.

But the scale isn't the problem being discussed; it's the rapidity.

289 bosforus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:05:42pm

re: #287 Kewalo

A lot of what I hear on the left concerns the nuclear waste. What would you do with it?

You mean other than put it in those big containers that can withstand the impact of a train or a free fall from a plane? I'm not sure what more can be done with it.

290 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:05:45pm

Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy

This is basically James Lovelock's organization. Lovelock, as everyone should know, was the originator of the much-misrepresented Gaia Hypothesis, which is not some new kind of animist religion, but a model of the Earth as a complex interacting system.

291 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:06:00pm

re: #287 Kewalo

A lot of what I hear on the left concerns the nuclear waste. What would you do with it?

Shoot it into space, or open Yucca Mountain up.

292 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:06:45pm

re: #283 HoosierHoops

Hey, at least you're saying 'we can'. It's the "oh, the globe is warming, woe is me, hell no you can't build any reactors in my country" folks that drive me batty. Might as well be deniers for all the practical good that mindset will do.

293 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:06:45pm

re: #286 darthstar

I'm a volunteer with the NSP...only have to commit to 14 days a season...and I get a free season pass for myself and my wife(and kids, if/when we have them). You should seriously consider it. Pro-patrollers are mostly young people (20s-30s) who work summer jobs to finance their ski season (they only get paid about $15 an hour, and have to work their asses off for it). It's a lot of fun, though when it's blowing 70mph and snowing (or raining) at the summit and they want to close the mountain, we do have to stand up there and wait for the last chair to sweep the mountain for lost skiers.

I am a great admirer of the SP...they let me off the hook a couple of times when I should have been busted and sent to the bar...and seriously, they made me a safer skier...I learned to not hate cops in my old age too, same difference

294 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:06:59pm

re: #287 Kewalo

A lot of what I hear on the left concerns the nuclear waste. What would you do with it?

armor piercing rounds... and that's not snark.

295 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:07:23pm

re: #288 SixDegrees

But the scale isn't the problem being discussed; it's the rapidity.

Okay. Rapidity of acclimatization is a function of scale over time, so scale does matter.

It takes longer to respond to enormous changes. And some things could be quite rapid, because some events will be triggered events.

Look at how quickly dutch Elm disease killed of elms in the second wave, for example.

296 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:08:16pm

re: #281 Thanos

I love that feature in CS2. Saves me serious trouble sometimes.

297 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:08:31pm

re: #288 SixDegrees

But the scale isn't the problem being discussed; it's the rapidity.

right, it sounds like a ride at Cedar Point...the "Refugee Raptor"!...hold on to your socks!

298 ryannon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:08:52pm

re: #235 Aceofwhat?

Yeah, there was more. None of it made the reader believe that the environment wasn't doing 10x better than one would have expected 20 years ago.

Disagree, if you want, but I've been linking and quoting the whole time. It's your turn.

"The effects of the Chernobyl catastrophe are still being felt today—whole towns lie abandoned, and cancer rates in people living close to the affected areas are abnormally high."

Yeah, well tough cookies. Let's get down to brass tacks here:

"But it turns out that the radioactive cloud may have a silver lining. Recent studies suggest that the 19-mile (30-kilometer) "exclusion zone" set up around the reactor has turned into a wildlife haven."

Now, how cool is that!

"Roe deer bounce though the deserted houses while bats roost in the rafters. Plants and trees have sprung back to life, and rare species, such as lynx, Przewalski's horses, and eagle owls, are thriving where most humans fear to tread."

Assholes. Pass the deer-meat, would ya'. Tender as anything!

And in the towns where humans have moved out, plants and animals seem to have moved in.

"Wild boar like to live in former villages, and I have found many birds' nests in the buildings," Gaschak said."

Man, nature is so fucking mysterious and...and...ASTONISHING!

"I met a hare in the sarcophagus area, and birds nest there," said Gaschak, referring to the concrete and steel shell that encases the still smoldering reactor."

Yum! Wabbit! A real hare of the Beast that bit him.

"But while wildlife seems to be proliferating in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, not everyone is convinced that these plants and animals are healthy."

Yeah, we know who those people are, don't we?

"Moller and Mousseau have shown that certain species in the area have a higher rate of genetic abnormalities than normal."

Aw, who gives a shit! People always wanting a perfect world. Assholes, I tell 'ya.

"Late last year Moller and Mousseau published a paper in the Journal of Animal Ecology showing that reproductive rates and annual survival rates are much lower in the Chernobyl birds than in control populations."

Good. Birds are parasites. And they're always shitting on my SUV.

"Mutation isn't the only adverse effect of the radiation. Working in the Red Forest area, James Morris, a USC biologist, has observed some trees with very strange twisted shapes. The radiation, he says, is confusing the hormone signal that the trees use to determine which direction to grow.
"These trees are having a terrible time knowing which way is up," Morris said."

Pass the Kleenex, bro. Jeez, first it's PETA and now the goddam Tree-Huggers.

"Gaschak, the Kiev ecologist, believes such radiation effects will diminish over time. He is celebrating the way that Chernobyl has burst into life and hopes that the area will become a national park one day."

Tell ya' what, Ace: my treat for your ticket of admission for the new national park when it opens. No man, don't thank me... it's one from the heart.

"But Mousseau is less optimistic. "One of the great ironies of this particular tragedy is that many animals are doing considerably better than when the humans were there," he said. "But it would be a mistake to conclude they are doing better than in a control area. We just don't know what is normal [for Chernobyl]. There just haven't been enough scientific studies done."

SCIENCE!?

We don't need ya' stinkin' science.

And neither do those animals and plants!

299 BruceKelly  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:09:29pm

I can help. Google search "Bruce Kelly" and contact me.

I hope this isn't breaking the rules Charles. I almost posted the file name for the Google search but I decided that wouldn't be such a good idea.

300 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:10:22pm

re: #294 brookly red

armor piercing rounds... and that's not snark.

put the stuff in those Schwann trucks and drive it around the US continuously...nobody will ever find it

301 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:10:23pm

re: #293 albusteve

I am a great admirer of the SP...they let me off the hook a couple of times when I should have been busted and sent to the bar...and seriously, they made me a safer skier...I learned to not hate cops in my old age too, same difference

Telling people to slow down is for their own good. When someone whacks a tree and breaks their femur, it's pretty ugly (it takes about as much force to break that bone as it does a wooden baseball bat)...lots of screaming, usually some blood, and a call for a helicopter as the femoral artery, if cut, will bleed you out rather quickly.

302 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:10:59pm

re: #287 Kewalo

A lot of what I hear on the left concerns the nuclear waste. What would you do with it?

Reprocess it. France is already doing it.

[Link: spectrum.ieee.org...]

303 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:11:21pm

re: #287 Kewalo

A lot of what I hear on the left concerns the nuclear waste. What would you do with it?

Several things. France has an aggressive maintenance program in place for their waste that involves, first, reprocessing it so it can be reused several times; extracting useful isotopes that can be used in other industries, particularly medical applications; and finally reducing it's volume to roughly a few percent of it's original space, rendering the final waste much more compact and easy to both store and transport. This also makes it more radioactive per unit volume, which makes handling somewhat more problematic, but the half-life is also reduced, so only centuries of storage need to be planned for rather than millennia.

Establishing a central repository for waste - or a small number of them - would also be an important step. Yucca Mountain has been delayed by political squabbling for decades now, and here is where the Federal government needs to assert some actual leadership and get it open.

304 ryannon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:12:04pm

re: #289 bosforus

You mean other than put it in those big containers that can withstand the impact of a train or a free fall from a plane? I'm not sure what more can be done with it.

Sell it to the Chinese. They can turn it into batteries or something.

305 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:12:49pm

re: #304 ryannon

Sell it to the Chinese. They can turn it into batteries or something.

Or Drywall.

306 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:13:04pm

re: #298 ryannon

The current human population of Hiroshima is in excess of 1 million people. Ground zero for an atomic attack with a very primitive "dirty" atom bomb just a few decades ago.

I have no fear of a reactor up wind from me.

307 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:13:19pm

re: #196 Gordon Marock

RIGHT! so, instead of some plan that makes my life more expensive, I recommend that we do nothing and see what happens over the next decade.

Hey - let China and India off the hook while the US and EU have decarbonization commitments and you will pay twice -

1) once for the cost for domestic decarbonization

2) for the added costs of sustaining unemployed/underemployed Americans as their energy intensive jobs are shipped to China and India where there is no cost for decarbonization.

Sounds like a winning plan to me.

It is also why Republicans should actually get engaged in climate policy instead of dismissing it - Democrats are about to go for Kyoto on steroids which will hand China, India and Brazil permanent structural advantages in energy intensive industries.

308 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:13:39pm

re: #295 Obdicut

Since you clearly are only interested in argument, I'm not going to play.

If you ever want to have a real discussion, feel free to participate.

309 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:13:52pm

The words from the New Scientist are great, but the typical denier will never be bothered to read them. He or she will just point to the name of the journal and say "What do you expect?" Reason and logic are not the tools of the radical conservative.

310 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:13:58pm

re: #287 Kewalo

A lot of what I hear on the left concerns the nuclear waste. What would you do with it?

Pack it down into a tight little orb, and sell it to children.

311 ryannon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:14:03pm

re: #250 Aceofwhat?

Then we're agreed: membership in the AGW camp granted after presenting one's enthusiasm for modern nuclear power!!

Who's we?

312 BruceKelly  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:14:38pm

re: #299 BruceKelly

I can help. Google search "Bruce Kelly" and contact me.

I hope this isn't breaking the rules Charles. I almost posted the file name for the Google search but I decided that wouldn't be such a good idea.

Shoot! That was meant for algorerhythm re:5

313 Digital Display  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:14:45pm

re: #298 ryannon

"The effects of the Chernobyl catastrophe are still being felt today—whole towns lie abandoned, and cancer rates in people living close to the affected areas are abnormally high."

The stupidity never had to happen..That's the rub of it all.. Some idiot engineer cut off the cooling water and remove the rods all spin up the turbines at 2am for a test.. They couldn't recover in time..
Even Windows Vista couldn't fuck up that bad...
There are solutions and methods we can employ...We need a forward looking leaders..Not a boy president

314 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:15:10pm

re: #298 ryannon

I honestly don't know what to do with your post. Most of what you say supports what i was talking about...i wasn't saying it was paradise; i was saying that the environment is rebounding.

The sarcastic tone (which is fine - i appreciate the finer vintages of sarcasm) makes me think this is supposed to be one big rebuttal...except the point of the article comes back to the fact that the wildlife is recovering, but is not yet fully recovered...

...sooo...the wildlife is recovering. i would say that it's recovering well. so, i think, does this article.

315 Velvet Elvis  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:15:12pm

re: #305 soxfan4life

Or Drywall.

Or catfood.

316 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:15:14pm

re: #311 ryannon

Who's we?

Ace and I are, I think. At least he responded to my post.

317 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:15:29pm

re: #291 soxfan4life

Shoot it into space, or open Yucca Mountain up.

Space isn't a realistic solution. Crazy expensive.

318 robdouth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:15:32pm

re: #91 ignoranceisfatal

With all do respect, it may be wrong, but it's not completely irrational. It's pretty rational just on a common sense basis to think the planet is too big for us to have that big a footprint on it. Again it may be wrong (and I think it mostly is), but it's not irrational, and ridiculing those who don't agree with you because there are still skeptical, instead of outright deniers, you come off as a Kos-kid by just shouting down and insulting those who don't share you're view. If they come off all asshat calling Charles and those who have done the research and come out on that side names, and being hateful, then whatever, game on, but if they aren't being overtly aggressive and a-holish, at least show respect, or else you come off as an arrogant dick moreso than I think you mean too (if at all.)

319 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:16:52pm

re: #317 SixDegrees

320 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:17:28pm

re: #198 SixDegrees

I believe China is now the world's most prolific polluter. And most of their population is still mired in poverty, albeit poverty that's rapidly easing.

Wait until there are a billion Chinese driving cars.

I'd be happy if a billion Chinese are driving cars. But I hope by that time they are electric cars. by letting them off the hook on GHGs that probably won't happen.

321 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:17:28pm

re: #301 darthstar

Telling people to slow down is for their own good. When someone whacks a tree and breaks their femur, it's pretty ugly (it takes about as much force to break that bone as it does a wooden baseball bat)...lots of screaming, usually some blood, and a call for a helicopter as the femoral artery, if cut, will bleed you out rather quickly.

it was never about tree's...it was about air...at Alta I crossed the traversing trail and shot through the air and nearly decapped a lady that ducked away from me at the last second as I flew over her shoulder...I just crashed in a pile and she came over and started beating me with her poles...no shit...the SP came up and resolved the whole thing, which was to lecture me sternly...I apologized to that gal about 20 time, but it didn't matter...I was really moved by the whole incident, but explained I could not see below me when I launched and had no intention of endangering anyone...it all just came together like that (secretly it was all planned ahead of time), and could not resist the chance to get some right then

322 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:17:30pm

re: #297 albusteve

right, it sounds like a ride at Cedar Point...the "Refugee Raptor"!...hold on to your socks!

just showing a little love for cedar point...one of the world's best pure coaster parks.

323 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:17:51pm

re: #317 SixDegrees

Not as expensive as Waxman-Markey Cap and trade will be.

324 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:18:04pm

re: #261 albusteve

world wide, govt sanctioned enforcement of our habits (what?, 6b people?) for a century or more is just ridiculously impractical...I hate to tell you this but that is pure fantasy...the international community cannot even stop Somalian piracy...hahaha!

There is no language in the Kyoto Protocol regarding the design of enforcement of people's habits. The primary function of it is for the reduction of 6 greenhouse gases:

Carbon dioxide (C02)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N20)
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)

The governing body to meet these goals are set within the nations themselves and not from outside nations or any other international governing bodes such as the UN. In other words, the USA would be free to attain the reduction in any manner possible through either private or public measures. The signatories have mechanisms available to reach the set reduction goals.

The Kyoto mechanisms

Under the Treaty, countries must meet their targets primarily through national measures. However, the Kyoto Protocol offers them an additional means of meeting their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms.

Enforcement is actually rather week and come in the form of economic remediation:

Enforcement

If the enforcement branch determines that an annex I country is not in compliance with its emissions limitation, then that country is required to make up the difference plus an additional 30%. In addition, that country will be suspended from making transfers under an emissions trading program.

Again, there is no international (United Nations) design or technological standards to attain the reduction in the 6 greenhouse gases. The means to the end is left to us.

325 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:18:11pm

re: #316 SanFranciscoZionist

Ace and I are, I think. At least he responded to my post.

Yep.

326 Velvet Elvis  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:18:31pm

re: #313 HoosierHoops

"The effects of the Chernobyl catastrophe are still being felt today—whole towns lie abandoned, and cancer rates in people living close to the affected areas are abnormally high."

The stupidity never had to happen..That's the rub of it all.. Some idiot engineer cut off the cooling water and remove the rods all spin up the turbines at 2am for a test.. They couldn't recover in time..
Even Windows Vista couldn't fuck up that bad...
There are solutions and methods we can employ...We need a forward looking leaders..Not a boy president

Plus the design of the reactor was soviet engineering at its finest. Something like that would never have been approved pretty much anywhere else on earth.

327 MandyManners  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:18:33pm

re: #311 ryannon

Who's we?

I have a mouse in my pocket. Does that count?

328 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:18:35pm

re: #306 Rightwingconspirator

The current human population of Hiroshima is in excess of 1 million people. Ground zero for an atomic attack with a very primitive "dirty" atom bomb just a few decades ago.

I have no fear of a reactor up wind from me.

I would much rather have a nuclear reactor upwind from me than a coal, propane or oil-fired plant of similar capacity and distance. The risk of disease, particularly respiratory disease and a variety of cancers, are much higher for the latter than the former.

329 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:19:50pm

re: #327 MandyManners

I have a mouse in my pocket. Does that count?

you're in!!

330 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:20:11pm

re: #324 Gus 802

Correction on a word there. Weak instead of week.

In case the spell checkers are checking. //

331 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:20:13pm

re: #306 Rightwingconspirator

I wouldn't feel unsafe either. I think I can scramble with the best of them, assuming the operator sounds the alarm properly (As opposed to the Three Mile Island incident last month). I just wouldn't count on my house appreciating.

332 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:20:48pm

re: #320 karmic_inquisitor

I'd be happy if a billion Chinese are driving cars. But I hope by that time they are electric cars. by letting them off the hook on GHGs that probably won't happen.

Even if they're electric cars, the energy that powers them has to come from somewhere.

333 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:21:29pm

re: #331 SteveMcG

I'm more afraid of molasses.

334 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:21:40pm

re: #321 albusteve

Yep...that'll usually get your ticket pulled. Skier-to-Skier collisions can be pretty bad. You got lucky. :)

335 ryannon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:21:52pm

re: #257 SixDegrees

According to your link, it almost certainly has nothing to do with radiation. The rate has increased only in the last 20 years of the study, between 1967 and 1987. Rates for other cancers seem to be comparable with other regions, even other countries. I would be inclined to look elsewhere for the cause.

Hell, anything you want, Boss. As you saw above, I'm always ready to shoot myself in my foot for a good cause:

[Link: resources.metapress.com...]

336 Kewalo  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:22:12pm

re: #291 soxfan4life

I have to admit my first thought has been the shoot it into space idea.

But I still think we should go balls to the walls on the orbital solar panels.

337 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:22:32pm

re: #324 Gus 802

nice post...but the results are the same...there are not enough people on board no matter how govts try to influence us...by law, or through taxation or however it would work...it won't

338 MandyManners  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:23:13pm

re: #336 Kewalo

I have to admit my first thought has been the shoot it into space idea.

But I still think we should go balls to the walls on the orbital solar panels.

Is that what you kids are calling it nowadays?

339 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:23:19pm

re: #334 darthstar

Yep...that'll usually get your ticket pulled. Skier-to-Skier collisions can be pretty bad. You got lucky. :)

I was in a sweet tuck...

340 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:23:43pm

It is actually true that the uranium and thorium present in coal as an impurity would produce more energy than burning the coal itself.

This article at the Oak Ridge website has the details. It suggests, among other things, that coal ash heaps could someday be mined as a source of uranium and thorium for nuclear energy.

341 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:24:20pm

re: #286 darthstar

I'm a volunteer with the NSP...only have to commit to 14 days a season...and I get a free season pass for myself and my wife(and kids, if/when we have them). You should seriously consider it. Pro-patrollers are mostly young people (20s-30s) who work summer jobs to finance their ski season (they only get paid about $15 an hour, and have to work their asses off for it). It's a lot of fun, though when it's blowing 70mph and snowing (or raining) at the summit and they want to close the mountain, we do have to stand up there and wait for the last chair to sweep the mountain for lost skiers.

Sounds like heaven. But i'm in FL at the moment, so step one is moving closer to mountains. Step two will be volunteering.

342 robdouth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:24:54pm

re: #179 darthstar

I don't understand this sentiment because it seems like one of the few areas where much of the Left and Right agree. We wouldn't make 50's and 60's style reactors. There are new designs, they can reuse and recycle fuel until there is very little left by comparison to the older nuke plants. This is such a no brainer I don't know why it's not pushed. We need to stop the "anti-science" hard left that has freaked out about Yucca Mountain, and there wouldn't even be an issue about AGW as a man caused phenomenon anymore, so there wouldn't even be a reason to have an "anti-science" hard right in terms of "climate change."

Please note that the quotes are just to give the general idea, not to denigrate the idea as frivolous. Just putting quotes becuase the terms seem to mean different things to different people and I'm trying to use the catch all term.

343 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:24:55pm

re: #337 albusteve

nice post...but the results are the same...there are not enough people on board no matter how govts try to influence us...by law, or through taxation or however it would work...it won't

Once the evil North American greenhouse gasses are curbed and our economy and standard of living are in the crapper, the hue and cry for reducing emissions will be gone.

344 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:25:18pm

re: #337 albusteve

nice post...but the results are the same...there are not enough people on board no matter how govts try to influence us...by law, or through taxation or however it would work...it won't

How so? The Clean Air Act worked. The Clean Water Act worked. Wildlife management works and so does fisheries management.

345 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:25:25pm

re: #336 Kewalo

Remember The Great Escape? We could have our soldiers wear lead BVD's and shake out powdered waste all over the place when they patrol.

346 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:26:05pm

re: #345 SteveMcG

Remember The Great Escape? We could have our soldiers wear lead BVD's and shake out powdered waste all over the place when they patrol.

Great idea Ashley Pitt.

347 brookly red  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:27:08pm

re: #343 soxfan4life

Once the evil North American greenhouse gasses are curbed and our economy and standard of living are in the crapper, the hue and cry for reducing emissions will be gone.

In fact the the rush to recover may be even worse.

348 ryannon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:27:48pm

re: #313 HoosierHoops

"The effects of the Chernobyl catastrophe are still being felt today—whole towns lie abandoned, and cancer rates in people living close to the affected areas are abnormally high."

The stupidity never had to happen..That's the rub of it all.. Some idiot engineer cut off the cooling water and remove the rods all spin up the turbines at 2am for a test.. They couldn't recover in time..
Even Windows Vista couldn't fuck up that bad...
There are solutions and methods we can employ...We need a forward looking leaders..Not a boy president

Dude, what the fuck does that mean?

349 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:28:02pm

re: #344 Gus 802

How so? The Clean Air Act worked. The Clean Water Act worked. Wildlife management works and so does fisheries management.

it worked for us...China and India are out of control and doubtfully can be reined in...then there is Mexico, Brazil etc etc

350 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:28:26pm

re: #346 soxfan4life

That was fast.

351 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:28:49pm

re: #341 Aceofwhat?

Sounds like heaven. But i'm in FL at the moment, so step one is moving closer to mountains. Step two will be volunteering.

FLORIDA!...OMgosh
sorry to hear that

352 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:29:08pm

re: #350 SteveMcG

That was fast.

Might have seen the movie once or twice.

353 Velvet Elvis  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:29:11pm

re: #340 Shiplord Kirel

It is actually true that the uranium and thorium present in coal as an impurity would produce more energy than burning the coal itself.

This article at the Oak Ridge website has the details. It suggests, among other things, that coal ash heaps could someday be mined as a source of uranium and thorium for nuclear energy.

I've heard that coal fired power plants release more radiation into the air than a nuclear plant does so it's probably true.

354 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:29:40pm

re: #343 soxfan4life

Once the evil North American greenhouse gasses are curbed and our economy and standard of living are in the crapper, the hue and cry for reducing emissions will be gone.

it's all about the New Pink...fashion

355 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:29:44pm

re: #345 SteveMcG

Remember The Great Escape? We could have our soldiers wear lead BVD's and shake out powdered waste all over the place when they patrol.

Yikes. i'll live with a modern reactor in my backyard, but i wouldn't let the powder anywhere near James Westfall and Dr. Kenneth Noisewater...

356 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:31:09pm

re: #351 albusteve

FLORIDA!...OMgosh
sorry to hear that

Eh. Spent a lot of time in Cleveland when i was younger. Makes you appreciate most of the other States!

357 ryannon  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:31:21pm

re: #327 MandyManners

I have a mouse in my pocket. Does that count?

"Is that a mouse in your pocket, or are you just glad to...

Oh, never mind.

358 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:31:38pm

re: #352 soxfan4life
Funny thing is I was actually veiling a Tom Lehrer reference.

359 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:31:49pm

re: #355 Aceofwhat?

Yikes. i'll live with a modern reactor in my backyard, but i wouldn't let the powder anywhere near James Westfall and Dr. Kenneth Noisewater...

you can bury them throughout the countryside...mini reactors here and there

360 Velvet Elvis  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:32:25pm

re: #342 robdouth

I don't understand this sentiment because it seems like one of the few areas where much of the Left and Right agree. We wouldn't make 50's and 60's style reactors. There are new designs, they can reuse and recycle fuel until there is very little left by comparison to the older nuke plants. This is such a no brainer I don't know why it's not pushed. We need to stop the "anti-science" hard left that has freaked out about Yucca Mountain, and there wouldn't even be an issue about AGW as a man caused phenomenon anymore, so there wouldn't even be a reason to have an "anti-science" hard right in terms of "climate change."

Don't count on it. The only US company that can still make a reactor, Westinghouse, is technologically behind it's foreign competitors by a longshot. Either we're going to be building revised versions of 60s reactors put out by Westinghouse or we're going to be paying the Japanese and Canadians to build our reactors for us.

We've fallen way, way behind.

361 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:32:26pm

re: #359 albusteve

anchorman reference. google either of the names.

362 Neutral President  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:32:42pm

re: #355 Aceofwhat?

Yikes. i'll live with a modern reactor in my backyard, but i wouldn't let the powder anywhere near James Westfall and Dr. Kenneth Noisewater...

Or the Octagon...

363 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:32:45pm

Maybe we can have the navy plug all their nucear ships into the grid.

364 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:33:45pm

re: #356 Aceofwhat?

Eh. Spent a lot of time in Cleveland when i was younger. Makes you appreciate most of the other States!

there are a few things I like about Florida, well two...actually just one thing, Disney World

365 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:34:01pm

re: #360 Conservative Moonbat

Don't count on it. The only US company that can still make a reactor, Westinghouse, is technologically behind it's foreign competitors by a longshot. Either we're going to be building revised versions of 60s reactors put out by Westinghouse or we're going to be paying the Japanese and Canadians to build our reactors for us.

We've fallen way, way behind.

I'd still rather pay a foreign company to install our plants than to run on the treadmill to warm Brookly Red's dinner because it's been raining for 3 days and we're all out of solar power...

366 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:34:10pm

re: #353 Conservative Moonbat

I've heard that coal fired power plants release more radiation into the air than a nuclear plant does so it's probably true.

Absolutely. The link has the details on that too. Coal plants in this country alone dump something like 800 tons of uranium and twice that much thorium into the environment every year. Most of this is concentrated in the ash, but a fair amount also goes up the stacks and out into the air you breathe. If a nuclear plant did anything remotely similar, there would be riots.

367 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:34:25pm

re: #362 ArchangelMichael

exaaactly

368 Gus  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:34:53pm

re: #349 albusteve

it worked for us...China and India are out of control and doubtfully can be reined in...then there is Mexico, Brazil etc etc

In that case it would be a matter of trust I suppose. Are those nations committed to the reductions and would they be at an economic advantage if they weren't.

In the end the lack of cooperation amongst nations wouldn't surprise me. Like people nations have their own self interest at heart. Even if it meant the extinction of man they will go pell-mell into the future only to satisfy their own need for greed and instant gratification. We put oil and coal into use and "gosh darn it" we're going to keep using it until the end of days.

Humans don't respond until faced with a catastrophe. Until then, nothing will happen.

369 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:34:59pm

re: #364 albusteve

there are a few things I like about Florida, well two...actually just one thing, Disney World

being 10min from the beach improves things tremendously

370 robdouth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:35:04pm

re: #202 ignoranceisfatal

It would mean something, but then you have another set of percentages:

25% chance that doing that "something" has great affect

50% chance it has some effect, but not really cost effective

25% it has minimal effect.

Granted those percentages are just copied from yours, but when you start following the logic, and you're talking about a lot of probabilities strung together, then using your logic, doing "something" unless you are sure or pretty damn sure it will have a positive effect becomes futile or not very cost effective. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something, but it seems like policy gets passed by doing the least impactful thing at the highest cost. You're politicians at work people.

371 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:35:34pm

re: #360 Conservative Moonbat

Don't count on it. The only US company that can still make a reactor, Westinghouse, is technologically behind it's foreign competitors by a longshot. Either we're going to be building revised versions of 60s reactors put out by Westinghouse or we're going to be paying the Japanese and Canadians to build our reactors for us.

We've fallen way, way behind.

wrong...
[Link: www.nextenergynews.com...]

372 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:36:03pm

re: #342 robdouth

No worries. It has been 30 years and technology has changed. I suppose nuclear power should be part of a longer-term solution, but it won't solve our problems overnight.

373 Kewalo  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:36:31pm

re: #302 Aceofwhat?

Thank you, this is the type of thing I was interested in. I'll read it all later when I have the time to give it a good think.

374 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:38:03pm

re: #369 Aceofwhat?

being 10min from the beach improves things tremendously

the only beaches worth a crap in Florida are up in the panhandle...I'm a Caribbean guy myself...ahhh!

375 Jeff In Ohio  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:38:11pm

re: #242 Aceofwhat?

Well said. France gets the majority of their energy from nuclear reactors. I don't recall having to debate the finer points of French wildlife mutations...

And France also nationalized their electrical producers to get there. The French government currently owns a majority of the vertical monopoly that is the French nuclear industry.

I'm very interested in an American nuclear industry, but what does it look like?

376 billbrent  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:38:35pm

Elizabeth May writes:

The emails are the story of serious science up against blogs.

Let me rewrite that:

The National Guard memo is the story of serious journalism up against blogs.

Should Charles have been forbidden to comment on the National Guard memo because he was not a professional journalist? The blogosphere has allowed a level of fact checking to occur in journalism that was not possible in the past.

By the same token, should professional statisticians be forbidden access to data obtained thorugh publicly funded research because they are not climate scientists? Climate scientists deal with statistics. Those statistical methods should be open to review by professional statisticians - peer-reviewed or not. As with journalism, the blogosphere is providing a level of fact checking that was not previously available in the peer-review process.

I only want to make one other point. Charles's conclusion after reading the New Scientist and Elizabeth May analyses is that,

There’s absolutely no evidence of fraud, cover-ups, or conspiracies. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

That does not seem to be the conclusion Michael Le Page reaches in his New Scientist piece. He writes,

Clearly the leaked emails have caused disquiet in some quarters. There's no doubt there are concerns about the content of some of the emails – even when you know the way science really works – as laid out above. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the University of East Anglia are now holding investigations to determine if anything unethical did go on. If these dispel uncertainty and restore the credibility of science, that can only be a good thing.
377 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:39:07pm

re: #372 darthstar

No worries. It has been 30 years and technology has changed. I suppose nuclear power should be part of a longer-term solution, but it won't solve our problems overnight.

That's all the agreement i was pulling for. It's the hardcore, 'notnownotever' folks who dissonantly also think we're superheating the globe that i'm railing against.

I wonder if i can think of a nice moniker for that crowd. we have truthers, birthers, nirthers...hmmm...nuucthers? reacthers?

378 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:39:14pm

re: #369 Aceofwhat?

If I understand it, there isn't much in FL more than 10 minutes from a beach. Biggest drawbacks of FL: the sun, the thunderstorms, Bermuda greens.

379 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:39:50pm

re: #360 Conservative Moonbat

Don't count on it. The only US company that can still make a reactor, Westinghouse, is technologically behind it's foreign competitors by a longshot. Either we're going to be building revised versions of 60s reactors put out by Westinghouse or we're going to be paying the Japanese and Canadians to build our reactors for us.

We've fallen way, way behind.

That is certainly a problem, but one that can be quickly overcome. All that existing expertise will not only be happy to contract with US firms, but it's talent will also be happy to relocate to US firms.

380 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:40:53pm

re: #378 SteveMcG

If I understand it, there isn't much in FL more than 10 minutes from a beach. Biggest drawbacks of FL: the sun, the thunderstorms, Bermuda greens.

Florida is a madhouse...way too many people along the coasts

381 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:42:00pm

re: #379 SixDegrees

That is certainly a problem, but one that can be quickly overcome. All that existing expertise will not only be happy to contract with US firms, but it's talent will also be happy to relocate to US firms.

notice the Hyperion never gets any play?

382 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:43:47pm

re: #373 Kewalo

Thank you, this is the type of thing I was interested in. I'll read it all later when I have the time to give it a good think.

You joined today, right? Welcome to the best group of folks i've ever encountered on the internet. Glad to meet you, if only in a rather impersonal and electronic sort of way...re: #378 SteveMcG

If I understand it, there isn't much in FL more than 10 minutes from a beach. Biggest drawbacks of FL: the sun, the thunderstorms, Bermuda greens.

When you've spent 15 years in Cleveland, the greens are the only drawback. The sun is a strange, luminous ball in the sky with which i was previously unacquainted, and the thunderstorms leave as fast as they arrived. But yes, more than 10 minutes from the beach...welll...you should be on your way to a natural park or you should turn around...

383 robdouth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:44:18pm

re: #360 Conservative Moonbat

This should be something where Charles blames the anti-science left for helping create an anti-science right. Want to know why there is an AGW-denier group, because there were anti-science anti-nuclear people organizaing against anything nuclear, and therefore allowing our dependence to grow deeper and deeper. Where did the AS right learn their methods? AS Left. Dispute science weakly, create horror scenario of dangers (anti-science left.) Dispute science weakly, create horror scenario of financial dangers (anti-science right.)

It makes you really start to believe in the horseshoe theory of the political spectrum.

384 sattv4u2  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:45:18pm

re: #380 albusteve

Florida is a madhouse...way too many people along the coasts

Won't be a problem soon. The "coast" will be Indiana on the east coast and Nebraska on the west coast in awhile!
/

385 Kewalo  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:46:08pm

re: #303 SixDegrees

I just want to add that I'm not sure that Yucca is just a political problem. I know if I lived in NV I wouldn't want it filled with nuclear waste either. In this case I sympathize with the NIMBYs.

386 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:46:16pm

re: #381 albusteve

notice the Hyperion never gets any play?

That thing's pretty sweet. I wouldn't mind having one to power our subdivision. And with the much-touted Smart Grids and one-for-one compensation plans on the way, it's actually looking quite attractive.

387 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:46:47pm

re: #384 sattv4u2

Won't be a problem soon. The "coast" will be Indiana on the east coast and Nebraska on the west coast in awhile!
/

Omaha beach

388 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:47:41pm

re: #375 Jeff In Ohio

And France also nationalized their electrical producers to get there. The French government currently owns a majority of the vertical monopoly that is the French nuclear industry.

I'm very interested in an American nuclear industry, but what does it look like?

I don't know, but we need the nimby's out of the way to make progress towards the answer. It just seems more realistic in the short term than windmills and treadmills.

389 robdouth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:48:10pm

re: #372 darthstar


I hate that excuse (I know you aren't proposing it) but if we drilled some and built reactors every time we talked about it instead of giving into the whole, "it won't solve the problem now" BS argument, then the problem would be solved. To borrow a stupid cliche' "THE FUTURE IS NOW MOTHAF-ER" or the future is whenever you decide to push it. Instead of wasting more and more research money on whether or not AGW is happening (clearly either way, we need to look for a long term solution) why not invest all the BS "green technology" money into upgrading our nuke capabilities, tell everyone how much has been sunk into Yucca to prove "yes it's safe people, go back in a tree you hippies and let us get cheap clean energy" and then I'll go take a nap.

390 robdouth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:49:18pm

re: #377 Aceofwhat?

How about Nuclear Reactionaries. I like that one.

391 Kewalo  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:49:20pm

re: #338 MandyManners

HAHAHAHA! I'm truely embarrassed because I can't think of one clever thing to say...but that was funny.

392 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:49:37pm

re: #383 robdouth

I hear you, problem is it's a lot easier for the no nukes crowd to point to the disadvantages of nuclear power. I don't know exactly how much we got away with at TMI or how many more plants are built like Chernobyl, but somebody's going to have to figure a way to overcome NIMBY. I mentioned earlier that I would feel safe enough, but not without caveats.

393 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:49:59pm

re: #383 robdouth

It makes you really start to believe in the horseshoe theory of the political spectrum.

I'm thinking circular. pure fascism and communism have way more in common with each other than they do with any of us.

394 darthstar  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:50:37pm

re: #389 robdouth

I hate that excuse (I know you aren't proposing it) but if we drilled some and built reactors every time we talked about it instead of giving into the whole, "it won't solve the problem now" BS argument, then the problem would be solved. To borrow a stupid cliche' "THE FUTURE IS NOW MOTHAF-ER" or the future is whenever you decide to push it. Instead of wasting more and more research money on whether or not AGW is happening (clearly either way, we need to look for a long term solution) why not invest all the BS "green technology" money into upgrading our nuke capabilities, tell everyone how much has been sunk into Yucca to prove "yes it's safe people, go back in a tree you hippies and let us get cheap clean energy" and then I'll go take a nap.

Except that green technology isn't BS...we need to invest in green tech too so it can be a part of the solution.

395 Velvet Elvis  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:51:00pm

re: #371 albusteve

wrong...
[Link: www.nextenergynews.com...]

Hell yeah, those things rock. There's just the question of if the NRC will approve it. I was speaking strictly of NRC approved designed.

396 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:51:29pm

re: #385 Kewalo

I just want to add that I'm not sure that Yucca is just a political problem. I know if I lived in NV I wouldn't want it filled with nuclear waste either. In this case I sympathize with the NIMBYs.

It wouldn't bother me even a little bit. In fact, there were proposals many years ago to do exactly that - store high-intensity nuclear waste in vast quantities right in my backyard - and I had no problem with it at all. The geology didn't work out when tests were performed, but before that failure I had had no issues with the concept.

Coupled with the other measures mentioned, the Yucca repository would take much, much longer to "fill" as well.

Meanwhile, coal-powered electrical plants are spewing enormous quantities of toxins downwind and causing far more health problems than any nuclear plant ever will. You're not only probably breathing that right now, but likely have been for decades already.

The same is true for ALL energy sources - they present a risk, whether in their operation or their construction, and often both. We just have irrational ways of assessing such risks.

397 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:52:01pm

re: #384 sattv4u2

Won't be a problem soon. The "coast" will be Indiana on the east coast and Nebraska on the west coast in awhile!
/

ha!...the NFL will be back to eight teams!

398 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:52:17pm

re: #390 robdouth

How about Nuclear Reactionaries. I like that one.

i like it too. upding duly executed.

399 robdouth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:53:30pm

re: #392 SteveMcG

Have to see Gwyneth Cravens post at the Huffpo about the truth about nuclear energy. She was a hard left anti-nuke buff, who didn't know the science. Did a tour, wrote a book and now she's championing nuclear power. The reason I say Huffpo, is because even some of the harder of the hard lefties there are saying it's well written and we should look into it. It seems like there's never been a better time to push Nuclear.

BTW, for the Gwyn Cravens article, just google "The truth about nuclear energy" and it's the first link. Her book should put nuke skeptics at ease.

400 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:54:36pm

re: #396 SixDegrees

I agree. Show me a Nevadan who rails against the anti-science stance of an AGW denier, and I'll show you a Nevadan who stands obstinately opposed to the science of Yucca. It's why i like hanging out with lizards. Everywhere else i go, i get dissonance feedback, which is headache-inducing.

401 Aceofwhat?  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:55:47pm

bbl

402 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:56:00pm

re: #397 albusteve

ha!...the NFL will be back to eight teams!

And the Browns will still suck

403 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:56:15pm

re: #400 Aceofwhat?

I agree. Show me a Nevadan who rails against the anti-science stance of an AGW denier, and I'll show you a Nevadan who stands obstinately opposed to the science of Yucca. It's why i like hanging out with lizards. Everywhere else i go, i get dissonance feedback, which is headache-inducing.

Yucca will work, period
25b in it already

404 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:56:22pm

re: #394 darthstar

Except that green technology isn't BS...we need to invest in green tech too so it can be a part of the solution.

Nuclear power is green power, by any reasonable definition of the term.

Although I do agree that looking for a single solution isn't best. I look at nuclear as an easy, off the shelf solution that's ready to go online right now, buying time for other sources to be be discovered, developed and mature. And a variety of energy sources is a good thing in the long run.

But trying to replace what we currently have with untried, immature technologies is foolish.

405 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:57:10pm

re: #402 soxfan4life

And the Browns will still suck

what will fans do when there is no Dallas to hate?...ho hum

406 soxfan4life  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:58:02pm

re: #405 albusteve

what will fans do when there is no Dallas to hate?...ho hum

There is always the Steelers or Vikings.

407 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 3:59:08pm

re: #399 robdouth

I know we gotta go nuclear. The no-nuke crowd drives my crazy. In spite of it all, nothing's foolproof. Things go wrong. Things go boom, they go hsss, they go timber, they go WTF. I just don't have to like it.

408 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 4:03:47pm

was driving across Albuquerque's vast West Mesa today and look way over to the remote Double Eagle Airport and saw this beautiful gal sitting there...I drove in and got some pix...here she is not far from me...the 'Liberty Belle'...what a sweet bird

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

409 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 4:04:36pm

re: #408 albusteve

Speaking of WTF...

410 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 4:04:40pm

re: #406 soxfan4life

There is always the Steelers or Vikings.

I still hate the Steelers with a passion...we're 2-1 against them in the big game

411 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 4:06:06pm

re: #410 albusteve

But they're 2-1 against the Cowboys in the big one.

412 albusteve  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 4:07:30pm

re: #411 SteveMcG

But they're 2-1 against the Cowboys in the big one.

right

413 robdouth  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 4:10:40pm

re: #394 darthstar

I didn't mean to say we couldn't invest in green tech, but for god's sake I don't even know exactly what that means. at least I know the benefits and what it means if we invest in Nuclear and unless there is something I'm missing, it would get us the most bang for our buck. Again if there is a some kind of green technology that will save the world from certain destruction, then I'm in. Until then, Go green as in radioactive waste green.

414 SteveMcG  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 4:11:41pm

re: #408 albusteve

Makes me think of an airplane/hotel/roach story from the summer. Most profoundly NSFW, and as a rookie I'm not sure it's NSF here. Damn sure it's over 4000 characters. Moment of truth, I had to decide how I wanted to hate myself for the rest of my life.

415 Kewalo  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 4:15:44pm

re: #382 Aceofwhat?


Yep, I'm new today, it was just a fluke I got here while registration was open and I've been having a great time. Thanks for the welcome and the interesting thoughts. I've been putting all the links together and plan on checking them all out. I'm a reader and don't watch the vids so I really appreciate good links.

BTW I don't think being against using nuclear power is AS. I do think it's possible that those nuclear "accidents" scared people so much they might not have kept up with the newest science. But I don't think it makes them AS.

416 Jadespring  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 4:20:08pm

re: #404 SixDegrees

Nuclear power is green power, by any reasonable definition of the term.

Although I do agree that looking for a single solution isn't best. I look at nuclear as an easy, off the shelf solution that's ready to go online right now, buying time for other sources to be be discovered, developed and mature. And a variety of energy sources is a good thing in the long run.

But trying to replace what we currently have with untried, immature technologies is foolish.

This is the way I tend to look at it now. I've gone from being very anti-nuke to it may be the best large scale solution for now that will buy time, but it's not without it's issues. I've come to this stance because of the advance in safety as well as the development of technologically smaller applications. It's the one of the better solutions that we have now.

I'm a big supporter of other green tech like wind and solar but understand that a total replacement using these techs just isn't there yet. Nuclear is a 'green' tech in the sense that it doesn't pollute in terms of gases (CO2 etc), which is great in the context of what's happening now but it isn't in the sense that it's ultimately a renewable resource (still depends on extraction of mostly uranium which has it's own set of ecological considerations) and though the tech around dealing with it's waste products is better and more efficient now it still depends on storing and sequestration for an incredibly long period of time in relative human terms before it reverts back to something that isn't harmful to biological life. So it's far from being 'green' if it's entire lifecycle is considered but still 'greener' in the context of the problems we're dealing with now.

Ultimately looking very far down the road I believe that the 'greenest' technologies are going to come out of the bio-sciences such as research into the mechanisms of photosynthesis which is an incredibly efficient energy exchange process with totally renewable and recycling properties. I think it's one of the most efficient actually. This work is happening but we're so far off anything meaningful or useful for us in terms large scale technological applications that it might as well be in the realm of science fiction.

417 Spare O'Lake  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 4:50:50pm

re: #12 J.S.

Is that the same Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party in Canada?
/just curious

I was wondering the same thing. Anyone know?

418 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 4:52:27pm

re: #417 Spare O'Lake

I was wondering the same thing. Anyone know?

You could try actually clicking the link and reading it.

419 island  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 4:54:46pm

Charles,
You say you haven't read all the climate emails, I haven't either. That woman you quote claims she did. Seems more like a social "scientist" than a scientist, so I question her science background, but...

On a climate blog I did run across this "fudge factor" and did plot it myself. The guy that found it plotted it too.

It plots out into the infamous hockey stick man made global warming.

Can you speculate why climate scientists would have this in their computer programs, if not to make the outcome what they have preconceived?

I know you try to do your best to keep things honest with everyone on all matters and do get beat up for it and sometimes I do disagree with your methods.

But I remember Dan Rather and how you stood up for right when everyone was bashing you, and you know how to analyze data.

So, for what it is worth... why don't you plot the fudge factor too and let us know what you think.


"This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
1. ;
2. ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3. ;
4. yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5. valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6. if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7.
8. yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
If you plot the valadj (value adjustment?) fudge factor in a series
[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor "

This guy did it, and gave more detail
[Link: cubeantics.com...]

Island

420 Digital Display  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 5:09:36pm

re: #348 ryannon

Dude, what the fuck does that mean?

You know what? I spent 20 years of my life working as a nuke for the Navy...
And you are trying to trash me? Bring it...If you want to talk about Nuclear energy than bring it..I just got home from dinner and if you think you know shit then bring it.. Otherwise my friend..just back off..This is a complex issue And I have no problem talking you up about this issue...
I have an opinion...That is my right...But when it comes to Radiological issues..You damn well know what you are talking about...Walk softly...
Be well.. I'm giving you space

421 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 5:25:19pm

re: #419 island

Too bad the guy who "did it" has no idea at all what the code is intended to do or what it meant by the comments. No one does, at least not based on the incomplete fragments supplied.

But as someone who works with computer code on a daily basis, a great deal of it produced by scientists who are not professional programmers, I'll tell you what my first interpretation of that single line was - you've got an array, and every element in the array is multiplied by 0.75. Why? I've seen similar constructs many times, and the most common use is to scale one axis of a graph so it fits within a particular display size. The scale factor is the "fudge factor" mentioned in the comments, which are there as a note to remind the author that shrinking the graph this way is an off-the-cuff workaround done quickly to provide a reasonable margin around the graph. This is reinforced by the range of the values - just shy of 3.0 altogether, which would press the graph itself uncomfortably close to the "edges" of a graph made 3 units high.

A better approach to such a problem, of course, would be to take into account the actual display geometry and scaling, make a pass over the data to determine it's range at runtime, and calculate the "true" scale factor to use in order to produce the desired margins. But that's harder, and has nothing to do with the problem at hand.

Is my interpretation correct? I have no idea. It's just something I've seen done hundreds of times that happens to exactly match what's going on in the code and explains all of it's features.

Which is quite unlike the article you reference, which leaves out references, explanations and illustrations of several important elements necessary to understanding. The entire article reads like it's been "fudged" to support a predetermined explanation involving guilt and fraud, and is deliberately written to obscure the thin explanation provided. And, frankly, I'm being very kind by omitting any commentary on what others will surely point out is outright misrepresentation of certain key elements of the tale related. But I'll leave that for others.

The fact is, you have no idea what the code is supposed to do, you don't understand the article you referenced, and the author of it likewise is working completely in the dark.

I hope you realize that this sort of blatant shoveling is going to bite opponents in the ass, hard, when it turns out that the code is entirely correct and produces reasonable results.

422 b_snark  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 5:40:59pm

re: #56 The Curmudgeon

It was part of his deathbed recantation.

Funny no one mentions his post death after life recantation of his recantation.

Hey, that's what Bernice the medium medium told me.

423 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 5:44:06pm

re: #419 island

Again with this nonsense. It never stops.

424 island  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 5:44:09pm

re: #421 SixDegrees

Very nice notes section Charles.

Well, for what its is worth, sea level has risen about 140 meters in the last 20,000 years. About the same rise that is going on today. So global warming is occurring. In Florida, the Keys are constructed of Coral which only grows under water. The coral cross sections show the Keys were underwater for a hundred thousand years or so by at least 40 feet.

As for the file- You can search yourself for the briffa file but here it is below.

The "data" plots out to be a hockey stick is all I know.
This is the whole code section.
Maybe it explains more to you.

;
; Now prepare for plotting
;
loadct,39
multi_plot,nrow=3,layout='caption'
if !d.name eq 'X' then begin
window,ysize=800
!p.font=-1
endif else begin
!p.font=0
device,/helvetica,/bold,font_size=18
endelse
def_1color,20,color='red'
def_1color,21,color='blue'
def_1color,22,color='black'
;
restore,'compbest_fixed1950.idlsave'
;
plot,timey,comptemp(*,3),/nodata,$
/xstyle,xrange=[1881,1994],xtitle='Year',$
/ystyle,yrange=[-3,3],ytitle='Normalised anomalies',$
; title='Northern Hemisphere temperatures, MXD and corrected MXD'
title='Northern Hemisphere temperatures and MXD reconstruction'
;
yyy=reform(comptemp(*,2))
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy,tslow=tslow
oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=22
yyy=reform(compmxd(*,2,1))
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
;
;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow
;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20
;
filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy,tslow=tslow
oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=21
;
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
plot,[0,1],/nodata,xstyle=4,ystyle=4
;legend,['Northern Hemisphere April-September instrumental temperature',$
; 'Northern Hemisphere MXD',$
; 'Northern Hemisphere MXD corrected for decline'],$
; colors=[22,21,20],thick=[3,3,3],margin=0.6,spacing=1.5
legend,['Northern Hemisphere April-September instrumental temperature',$
'Northern Hemisphere MXD'],$
colors=[22,21],thick=[3,3],margin=0.6,spacing=1.5
;
end

425 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 5:48:03pm

re: #421 SixDegrees

I hope you realize that this sort of blatant shoveling is going to bite opponents in the ass, hard, when it turns out that the code is entirely correct and produces reasonable results.

Exactly. This foolishness is almost beyond belief.

426 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 5:48:27pm

re: #424 island

Please read this:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

427 b_snark  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 5:49:49pm

re: #97 yoshicastmaster


There is no evidence that the scientists succeeded in these manipulations, but we should still acknowledge that such actions would not be correct.

There is no evidence they even tried those manipulations.

I suspect it was only wishful thinking on their part.

428 b_snark  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 5:50:58pm

re: #98 Aceofwhat?


After all, he [Gore] invented the internet.

According to whom?

429 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 5:59:33pm

re: #425 Charles

Exactly. This foolishness is almost beyond belief.

The problem I have with this sort of bilge is that there's simply no way at all to deduce what an entire program does from a small fragment of code. In the case above, it's even worse - the author is attempting to draw a conclusion from a single data element. We don't even know the purpose of that element, let alone what role it plays in the subsequent routine, nor what role that routine plays in whatever program it is a part of.

It's nearly identical to counting how many times the words "I" and "me" occur in a speech and deriving a psychological diagnosis of the speaker from that alone.

This particular author is extremely disingenuous in a number of other ways that fairly scream fraud and bias themselves. Apparently, it isn't enough for him to simply force an interpretation that fits his needs; he seems to realize how weak his argument is, and performs all sorts of distortions, omissions and outright misrepresentations in order to shore up his position.

The way to check the code is: get all of it and run the original data through it to see if you get the same results as those published. Recreate the data from the raw samples and see it it matches. Analyze the filtering and scaling performed on the raw data to make sure it is sensible.

But don't start making shit up that you know nothing about. It's just too damn easy to detect, and it weakens your case by making you appear desperate.

430 b_snark  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 5:59:46pm

re: #119 Gordon Marock

I am not saying that the science is flawed. For the most part, the numbers are what they are. The existence of a correlation does not require a particular conclusion, it merely suggests one among others.

This is an argument creationists use so I'll say to you what I say to them.

The greater the number of independent lines of evidence the higher the confidence level in the correctness of a correlation. It isn't just a matter of choosing a conclusion you like or claiming the evidence leads to many equal conclusions.

431 SixDegrees  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 6:01:42pm

re: #428 b_sharp

According to whom?

Actually, Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet.

He said that he created it.

Much more God-like and praise worthy. Mere invention was obviously a blatant right wing distortion, applied to diminish Gore's awesomeness.

432 spare o'lake  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 6:03:12pm

re: #418 Charles

You could try actually clicking the link and reading it.

I tried. Unfortunately I am restricted to dialup for the next couple of days and it takes forever to download some things.

433 island  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 6:06:34pm

re: #426 Charles

Charles, Didn't see the thread before, so I went and read most of it, and like I said, coding is beyond me. What I read, it looks like a food fight. Some people yes some people no. I don't know.

But, like I said. The oceans have been going up for 20,000 years and since the Keys were underwater are probably due to go up another 50-100 feet. Should have eliminated all those cave women and their fires I guess.

434 island  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 6:09:45pm

re: #429 SixDegrees

I agree. Run the original data through it.

435 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 6:11:42pm

re: #433 island

OK. Well, I've been programming for more than 20 years, and I've read and written a LOT of source code, in several different languages, and the idea that you can detect fraud from the comments in one tiny module of a very large program is so mind-bogglingly ludicrous that it gives me a headache.

436 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 6:13:17pm

re: #429 SixDegrees

The problem I have with this sort of bilge is that there's simply no way at all to deduce what an entire program does from a small fragment of code.

I think it's deliberate dishonesty, actually.

437 island  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 6:19:05pm

re: #435 Charles

I have admired your code writing.

438 charlie.the.ad.man  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 6:27:24pm

Sad day for science. The myopic focus on man ignores logic AND the sun, oceans, etc. . . .

439 freetoken  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 6:39:51pm

re: #438 charlie.the.ad.man

If your goal is to blind yourself by poking out your own eyes with the nearest stick you can reach... you'll likely succeed.

440 doubter4444  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 6:41:30pm

re: #438 charlie.the.ad.man

Not sure of your post, and seeing that you have posted only a few times since 2007, makes me wonder.
But you nic intrigues me. I've been in the business for a looong time.
I kinda hope you are real, and not a puppet. I'd like to think there are more us us types here

441 doubter4444  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 7:01:37pm

re: #78 brookly red

/how do his jets rate with LEED?

Wow. If that kind of retort was used against Bush, or or someone you agreed with, you know how you would respond.
The guy is rich and travels. How exactly do you suppose he does so? Private Jet is less carbon neutral than commercial, yes. He also happens to be the ExVPOTUS, and a VIP.
He is putting his money where his mouth is in areas where he can.
To deride one part because of another is unfair and, frankly, (I've seen your posts, and even though I don't side with them a lot), beneath you.

442 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 7:39:29pm

re: #438 charlie.the.ad.man

Sad day for science. The myopic focus on man ignores logic AND the sun, oceans, etc. . . .

Wow. I'm convinced. I'm throwing out all the scientific evidence after reading your incredibly eloquent comment.

Not.

443 grahamski  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 8:01:42pm

More money, more power...that is what it's about.
The climate constantly changes, is it caused by Man?...No, although we do an excellent job of polluting our oceans, air and just about everything else on this rock, the temperatures rise and fall no matter what we do. The radical leftists ( and easily led fools who read these blogs) can tax the living hell out of all of you, but in the end, it will have no effect on something that we have no control over.
I am more concerned with the cruise ship loaded with drunk retirees dumping their garbage and waste in our oceans than I am with this nonsense.

444 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 8:04:05pm

re: #443 grahamski

Right, it's those evil money-grubbing, power-hungry, leftist commie scientists again, trying to trick us.

Listen to yourself. Stand back and read your own comment. You don't feel embarrassed?

445 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 8:10:24pm

The sleepers awake. Again. Happens in every climate change thread.

446 ED 209  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 8:34:02pm

re: #203 Cineaste

I don't know that it necessarily needed fixing. Animals live in relative stasis with the environment. The eat, they then crap nutrients back out. They breath O2 in, they breathe out CO2.

We have applied leverage to the equation. We pull FAR more out of the earth, energy-wise, than we return to it. Until cows start eating coal & oil, they'll be more in stasis than us.

FWIW


A little late back to the party but would like to reply- Any animal left unchecked in it's environment, i.e. without predators, overwhelms it's environment and damages/destroys/changes it. Humans have to learn to limit there own impact or at some point it will be done for them. In other words no fundamental difference between humans and animals.

447 CERDIP  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 8:48:50pm

#12 J.S.

>>>Is that the same Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party >>>in Canada?
>>>/just curious

Yes it is.

Yeah, I know. Me too. *rollseyes*

448 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 9:28:38pm

And another sleeper awakes.

449 srjh  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 10:15:58pm

re: #438 charlie.the.ad.man

Do you really think that hundreds of years of climate science and several decades of solid global warming theory have somehow, inexplicably, forgotten to account for 2/3 of the surface of the planet and the giant ball in the sky that either directly or indirectly drives virtually every element of the climate?

The contributions from solar variation are well understood: They vary in an 11-year cycle to contribute to a radiative forcing of 0.19 W/m^2 between maximum and minimum (and, being cyclical, they tend to cancel out over time).

The contribution from radiative forcing due to a doubling of carbon dioxide (which we're rapidly approaching)? 3.7 W/m^2: 20 times higher. This doesn't even take the climate sensitivity into account, which is expected to have an amplifying effect due to positive feedback effects - it's the straight difference in the radiation budget of the earth, so if solar variations have a noticeable effect, CO2 should have an even more significant impact.

The oceans are better understood as a store of heat, rather than a heat source (not sure how the latter would work), but more subtle effects such as releasing oceanic CO2 into the atmosphere as temperatures rise are believed to have an effect as well.

Far from ignoring oceans and the sun, climatologists have been accounting for them from day one. To assume they haven't is not only incredulous, it conveys a clear ignorance of the absolute fundamentals of our scientific understanding.

450 Greengolem64  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 10:39:53pm

re: #149 karmic_inquisitor

Anyone who thinks you can't live in comfort and have a zero carbon footprint is wrong. Between the PV field I have, the solar water heating I just installed and the remodel I did a few years back I am off grid in a San Diego area community and live just as well as any of the ball players who live nearby. I also have reduced the electrical consumption of the two restaurants I took over by 30% through some fairly "low hanging fruit" changes and investments that will pay for themselves in about 18 months.

And for people in colder climates, go geothermal. It is basically a heat pump that uses a more stable ground temperature instead ambient air temperature for heat exchange.

There is plenty of low hanging fruit out there (including nuclear power - which is safe in France but somehow isn't here: do the French have smarter engineers?), but transportation still accounts for something like %40 of US GHG emissions IIRC.

Just curious...what was the outlay in $$ for the PV field you put in...and size of your house?

GG

451 Ian MacGregor  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 10:54:18pm

re: #421 SixDegrees

What makes the debate interesting is that the mails in question have nothing to do with whether global warming is occurring. It has to do with how good a thermometer proxy are tree-ring data. The argument is that tree-rings are not very good proxies because present-day tree-ring data fails to show the warming, and that the data massaged to have it do just that. The evidence for this cannot be dismissed out-of-hand. It may even appear compelling, but we don't know enough yet to make any judgment. The situation is being investigated.

Until that investigation is completed and released, much of what is said is a perhaps an ounce of truth wrapped in a pound of speculation.

452 Claire  Fri, Dec 4, 2009 11:52:09pm

re: #450 Greengolem64

While we are on the subject-

San Diego is an extremely benevolent climate for heating and cooling compared to most of the US. And last time I looked, digging the hole for a Geothermal transfer loop cost around $40,000. Lots of things "can" be done, but really can't be done easily by most people simply because of cost.

453 Jadespring  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 12:06:36am

re: #452 Claire

The cost of geothermal seems to really vary from area to area and depends on the system one already has in. If you have to put in ducting it's more expensive for instance. Where I am the system costs between 20,000 to 25,000 thousand for the initial outlay for a house my size but you can get about 9000 back in rebates from a government program and tax credit. There's difference financing available too. Sometimes the monthly savings pays back the loan and then some depending on what ones current system is. Like in my case even though I'm in a low income category, if I can qualify for financing paying the money back is easy because the pay back rate is actually less then what I have to pay out monthly now for heat. I'd actually end up with more money in my monthly pocket with the system.

454 SixDegrees  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 3:43:59am

re: #419 island

Also, your cited author is wrong - well, lying, actually - about what the 'interpol()' function call does. He claims it it will somehow cause the data points to "skew toward" the "adjustment" vector, which is pure, unadulterated bullshit. All interpol() does it perform a linear interpolation of the data - which contains a small number of points - onto a grid with a lot more points. It doesn't apply any sort of "skew" at all, nor does it introduce any bias.

Why would someone do this? Well, again - it's typical as part of the preprocessing applied when something is about to be graphed, to make it fit onto a graphing window of some predetermined size - exactly like my speculation on the "fudge factor" of 0.75 is simply scaling the data to make it fit on the graph.

And, lo - what do we behold when we examine the actual, complete code fragment, instead of the nearly microscopic snippet of 4 lines provided by Greiner in support of his explanation? Why, immediately following all these machinations, the code falls into a section that...is obviously a plotting section.

Hey - I wanna thank you for forcing me to finally look at the code. Because after less than two minutes of attention, it is now pretty damn obvious that there is nothing at all sinister going on here, and that the code's author is simply adjusting the data in a non-distortive fashion to make it the right size for display.

Sorry, but your wet dream of code proving skullduggery on the part of it's authors just went all dry and sandpapery.

455 son of a son  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 9:05:17am

As a geologist I get really sick about creationists and man-made climate change...

456 Ron Bacardi  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:07:40am

[Link: newsbusters.org...]

457 Charles Johnson  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 11:12:16am

re: #454 SixDegrees

And of course, right after you post that, someone shows up with yet another link to yet another lying post at Newsbusters claiming that the code disproves all the evidence for global warming.

458 marksstudio  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 12:42:30pm

That's pseudocode that is displayed in the emails. To write an algorithm ( kinda sounds like al-gore, doesn't it?) that can then be flowcharted and coded, you need sets of data to bench test your model. It would be really simple to release the data, then programming pros with many years of experience can test variables and build modules, and run the program. In order to do that you need data. 'The' data, preferably. What's that you say, the data is ...gone for lack of storage? Sheesh, Dick Cheney does get around now, doesn't he.

I know where this is going; I'm going to be told I'm embarrassing myself, but if a simple carpenter knows about desk checking data, then the cat is truly out of the 'bag' so to speak. Original data gone...why? Didn't fit the agenda? Not valuable enough? Wouldn't get you invited to the best dinner parties on campus, or get you laid by comely students(male or female) in awe of your ability to handle the 'data'?

A sad day for those who claim to be scientists. Ridiculous to assume nothing was lost here. Much was lost and cannot be regained, so it seems.

459 saik0max0r  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 2:56:31pm

So Now "New Scientists" is a reputable peer reviewed journal?

/sarc

460 saik0max0r  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 3:04:28pm

re: #454 SixDegrees

Wrong. Your description of the Interpol function is more correctly applied to the Interfunc function.

E.G., it generates the X in interfunc(x), and the inputs can (and are) weighted without explanation.

461 saik0max0r  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 3:08:34pm

re: #436 Charles

There is nothing wrong with looking at specific functions or subroutines to determine if the input and outputs are sane.

462 saik0max0r  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 3:46:57pm

Ok, Just took another look at the program. Frankly, its very very bad that they are using different functions to generate the forcing weights instead of just treating them as variables obtained from the raw data. You shouldn't hard code that stuff in, esp. when the line in question manipulates the proxy inputs to have them match the grafted on temperature record without even checking for obvious problems.

I digress, but I wonder if the same coders worked on Turbo Tax Timmy's tax returns. This crap wouldn't even notice the problem when it's sum for 2+2 = 5.

I'm *sure* the fine folks at UAE have a CVS repo where these changes to the code were logged.

463 cerdip  Sat, Dec 5, 2009 4:47:12pm

re: #448 Charles

And another sleeper awakes.

Oh. Pardon me for not having much to say.

464 Ron Bacardi  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 7:44:36am

re: #457 Charles

Nice Strawman, Charles, but I don't think the article said anything about the code disproving all of global warming. Only that the code was poorly written and that basing potentially billions of dollars on data produced by this code could be dangerous. I've gone from believing in global warming, to not believing, to being a skeptic of both sides. But now you've announced and called out the "deniers," it appears you've closed your mind off to anymore debate. I'm disappointed, Charles.

465 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 6, 2009 8:41:13pm

re: #464 Ron Bacardi

Nice Strawman, Charles, but I don't think the article said anything about the code disproving all of global warming. Only that the code was poorly written and that basing potentially billions of dollars on data produced by this code could be dangerous. I've gone from believing in global warming, to not believing, to being a skeptic of both sides. But now you've announced and called out the "deniers," it appears you've closed your mind off to anymore debate. I'm disappointed, Charles.

Somehow, I'll try to find the strength to carry on despite your disappointment.


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
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 71 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
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
4 days ago
Views: 169 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1