P M Gordon Brown called climate change doubters a "flat Earth group"

[Hotspring 44]

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the scientific evidence was "very clear" and called doubters a "flat Earth group".
He said: "There is an anti-change group. There is an anti-reform group. There is an anti-science group, there is a flat Earth group, if I may say so, over the scientific evidence for climate change."
BBC News - UN hits back at climate sceptics amid e-mails row

[Valley Oak]

What is fascinating about this article is that earlier this year, PM Brown's environmental minister publicly scoffed at the idea of Climate Change. And the conservatives here in the US, along with other "flat earthers," relished rubbing it in our faces mercilessly.

What is the problem with Climate Change deniers? What is it that they are SOOO determined to disprove? I just don't get it? Why do they feel so threatened by accepting the fact that Climate Change exists? What reasons have they given? They revile Al Gore and accuse him of being an agendist, etc. Why are they so intensely motivated against the majority of us who clamor for a solution to this pressing problem? Weird.

American reactionaries are basically saying that there is no such thing as Climate Change and that this is all a hoax conjured up by liberals. And to what end are liberals fabricating such an enormous "lie?" So liberals are making this bullshit up in order to achieve what end? We liberals are such terrible, untrustworthy people that we must be up to something, as usual. Flat-earthers better wake up fast, for everyone's sake. They are not the only ones who live in this world but then again they are used to that kind of mind set and lifestyle, at the entire world's expense.

Amazing!

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the scientific evidence was "very clear" and called doubters a "flat Earth group".
He said: "There is an anti-change group. There is an anti-reform group. There is an anti-science group, there is a flat Earth group, if I may say so, over the scientific evidence for climate change."
BBC News - UN hits back at climate sceptics amid e-mails row

[handy]

I, personally, have no problem with climate change. The climate always changes. Our option is to adapt, or follow the dinosaurs.

We have learned to measure, with varying degrees of accuracy, some few of the variables occurring in Nature. Many more variables operate at levels of complexity beyond our capacities of consideration.

All measurements contain a margin of error. In our attempts to measure elemental use, flow and distribution on a planetary scale, our margin of error is a wide band, within which the total influence of humanity is a narrow line.

What I have a problem with is the arrogance of those, who in their utter ignorance, claim to "know" something they cannot prove, and the arrogance of those who demand that the rest of us must agree.

It is not about conservatives vs. liberals, nor reactionaries vs. "terrible, untrustworthy people". The only valid class distinction I see here is between tax payers (wealth producers) and tax feeders (wealth destroyers). The tax payers who agree with the propaganda generated by the tax feeders are commonly known as "useful idiots".

You are not a majority. You are wasting time, energy and effort "clamoring" to solve a "problem" that you cannot prove exists.

Climate changes. It always will. Calling Carbon Dioxide a toxin is insane.
Sink or swim. Bounce or break. Adapt or follow the dinosaurs.
Don't attempt to tell me that you know best, and force others to follow.

What is fascinating about this article is that earlier this year, PM Brown's environmental minister publicly scoffed at the idea of Climate Change. And the conservatives here in the US, along with other "flat earthers," relished rubbing it in our faces mercilessly.

What is the problem with Climate Change deniers? What is it that they are SOOO determined to disprove? I just don't get it? Why do they feel so threatened by accepting the fact that Climate Change exists? What reasons have they given? They revile Al Gore and accuse him of being an agendist, etc. Why are they so intensely motivated against the majority of us who clamor for a solution to this pressing problem? Weird.

American reactionaries are basically saying that there is no such thing as Climate Change and that this is all a hoax conjured up by liberals. And to what end are liberals fabricating such an enormous "lie?" So liberals are making this bullshit up in order to achieve what end? We liberals are such terrible, untrustworthy people that we must be up to something, as usual. Flat-earthers better wake up fast, for everyone's sake. They are not the only ones who live in this world but then again they are used to that kind of mind set and lifestyle, at the entire world's expense.

Amazing!

[Hotspring 44]

Telling you something that may raise your taxes or ask you to change your polluting behavior for the betterment of the environment or humanity or help clean-up a mess that you and the society you live in and have benefited from that is major contributor to the "mess", is like . It's like
you are saying to species of life, and lowlanders so you can have the same old "Privileges" that you have been accustomed to.

The attitude of the GW denier's reminds me of children that refuse to clean their room that also have a bunch of clutter in the family room,that make a plethora of excuses and avoid their responsibility to remove their things out from under foot of the rest of the family; then talk back to their parents when they are "asked" (or told) to "clean it up". Only in this case for lowlanders it is a matter of life and the ability to live at all in their areas.

Your attitude is arrogant, cavalier, offhand, inconsiderate, careless, conceited, egotistical, condescending, smug, and seems a bit overly self-centered and self-righteous.


Besides that, learning to change our ways of energy usage IS adapting. With the sea levels rising for whatever reasons (causes) is making the world for us land dwelling creatures smaller as long as it is going on.

Oh BTW I don't know what your media sources are but the majority of top notch climatologists world wide do agree that the human caused greenhouse gasses and soot from coal fired power plants are both causing polar ice melt acceleration and an additional rise in global average temperature.

When you say the "global warming" crowd is in the "minority", you are; weather you know it or not, actually being hypocritical because the anti GW crowd is claiming that the issue is being "politicized" by the so-called "Al Gore GW's". But the VAST majority of climatologists agree on the GW from humans activity is a major contributing factor that is more likely than not, heading towards a potentially catastrophic "tipping point" at some time in the future. The vast majority of people polled by the media are NOT climatologists. So who's politicizing the GW issue?

Don't you think that the climatologists factor in the margins of error? or do you think they (the ones you disagree with) are ALL conspiratorial, alarmist, politico's?

"Useful idiots"= People whom take surveys that contain pre-determined results by way of the wording of the survey, then make erroneous claims of "knowing".

you may consider this : "Tax payers (wealth producers)" vs.; the corporate welfare (to big business) system of doing the (big) "business as usual"; = "tax feeders" = "(wealth destroyers)";... A.I.G. for one example, there too many more that are in that category as far as I am concerned .

I, personally, have no problem with climate change. The climate always changes. Our option is to adapt, or follow the dinosaurs.

We have learned to measure, with varying degrees of accuracy, some few of the variables occurring in Nature. Many more variables operate at levels of complexity beyond our capacities of consideration.

All measurements contain a margin of error. In our attempts to measure elemental use, flow and distribution on a planetary scale, our margin of error is a wide band, within which the total influence of humanity is a narrow line.

What I have a problem with is the arrogance of those, who in their utter ignorance, claim to "know" something they cannot prove, and the arrogance of those who demand that the rest of us must agree.

It is not about conservatives vs. liberals, nor reactionaries vs. "terrible, untrustworthy people". The only valid class distinction I see here is between tax payers (wealth producers) and tax feeders (wealth destroyers). The tax payers who agree with the propaganda generated by the tax feeders are commonly known as "useful idiots".

You are not a majority. You are wasting time, energy and effort "clamoring" to solve a "problem" that you cannot prove exists.

Climate changes. It always will. Calling Carbon Dioxide a toxin is insane.
Sink or swim. Bounce or break. Adapt or follow the dinosaurs.
Don't attempt to tell me that you know best, and force others to follow.

[handy]

Telling you something that may raise your taxes or ask you to change your polluting behavior for the betterment of the environment or humanity or help clean-up a mess that you and the society you live in and have benefited from that is major contributor to the "mess", is like. It's like you are saying to species of life, and lowlanders so you can have the same old "Privileges" that you have been accustomed to.

The attitude of the GW denier's reminds me of children that refuse to clean their room that also have a bunch of clutter in the family room,that make a plethora of excuses and avoid their responsibility to remove their things out from under foot of the rest of the family; then talk back to their parents when they are "asked" (or told) to "clean it up". Only in this case for lowlanders it is a matter of life and the ability to live at all in their areas.

Where to begin... I'm 63. I was raised by and to be a conservationist before the term 'environmentalist' was coined. I plant and propagate trees every year. I minimise my fuel usage as best I can, and I also minimise my meddling in the affairs of others, because I DO know that I don't know what effect my meddling or interference will have. I learned a long time ago the law of unintended consequences.

Your take, as stated above, on my behavior describes nothing more than your personal fantasy. It has no basis of truth regarding any knowledge on your part.

Your attitude is arrogant, cavalier, offhand, inconsiderate, careless, conceited, egotistical, condescending, smug, and seems a bit overly self-centered and self-righteous.

Gee, that statement certainly could be construed as being just a little "arrogant, cavalier, offhand, inconsiderate, careless, conceited, egotistical, condescending, smug, and seems a bit overly self-centered and self-righteous", now, couldn't it?

Another branch of the arrogance of which I disapprove is the willingness to imply malicious intent in those with whom we disagree.


Besides that, learning to change our ways of energy usage IS adapting.

With this I agree. Government regulation is not a requirement.

With the sea levels rising for whatever reasons (causes) is making the world for us land dwelling creatures smaller as long as it is going on.

Humans move. On average, since the industrial age, 20% of humanity moves every year. Any measurable rise in sea level, given the time frame involved, will be inconvenient, not catastrophic.

agree to disagree

Don't you think that the climatologists factor in the margins of error? or do you think they (the ones you disagree with) are ALL conspiratorial, alarmist, politico's?

Apparently, according to the 'climategate' emails, they "factor in" whatever they need, in order to make their case. And, No. It only takes a few organized alarmists and a lot of sheeple.

Never underestimate the stupidity of large numbers of people.

"Useful idiots"= People whom take surveys that contain pre-determined results by way of the wording of the [/SIZE][/SIZE]survey, then make erroneous claims of "knowing".

Agreed. When called, I always demand to know who is funding the query. They won't say. I hang up.

you may consider this : "Tax payers (wealth producers)" vs.; the corporate welfare (to big business) system of doing the (big) "business as usual"; = "tax feeders" = "(wealth destroyers)";... A.I.G. for one example, there too many more that are in that category as far as I am concerned .

Again, I agree. I make a strong distinction between those businesses which produce life support wealth which is freely and willingly purchased by individuals, and those corporations which would not exist without the government enforced subsidies.

[Hotspring 44]

You are simply FAR more privileged then the average human being on this planet. You apparently are “privileged” enough to have your own land (?), or at least somewhere to “propagate trees”. I applaud you for propagating trees BRAVO!

I also applaud the minimizing your own personal fuel consumption, good for you.
However, when you stated;

“Sink or swim. Bounce or break. Adapt or follow the dinosaurs. Don't attempt to tell me that you know best, and force others to follow."

The statement above is the main part of that which you wrote, is what (and reason) I was referring to as being “cavalier, offhand, inconsiderate, careless, conceited, egotistical, condescending, smug, and seems a bit overly self-centered and self-righteous."; albeit that statement of yours, has it's covert innuendo in it's slant on meaning; nonetheless, I stand by my analogy of it.
Then you went on to say:

Gee, that statement certainly could be construed as being just a little "arrogant, cavalier, offhand, inconsiderate, careless, conceited, egotistical, condescending, smug, and seems a bit overly self-centered and self-righteous", now, couldn't it?

That statement is also, “a bit overly self-centered and self-righteous”; and sounds more like a to me.


some of the rest of the statements in this particular reply we may seem to agree in some of the semantics; I have my doubts as to weather each of us would "agree" on what wold be the preferred ways to solve those things.

Where to begin... I'm 63. I was raised by and to be a conservationist before the term 'environmentalist' was coined. I plant and propagate trees every year. I minimise my fuel usage as best I can, and I also minimise my meddling in the affairs of others, because I DO know that I don't know what effect my meddling or interference will have. I learned a long time ago the law of unintended consequences. Your take, as stated above, on my behavior describes nothing more than your personal fantasy. It has no basis of truth regarding any knowledge on your part.
Gee, that statement certainly could be construed as being just a little "arrogant, cavalier, offhand, inconsiderate, careless, conceited, egotistical, condescending, smug, and seems a bit overly self-centered and self-righteous", now, couldn't it?
Another branch of the arrogance of which I disapprove is the willingness to imply malicious intent in those with whom we disagree.
With this I agree. Government regulation is not a requirement.
Humans move. On average, since the industrial age, 20% of humanity moves every year. Any measurable rise in sea level, given the time frame involved, will be inconvenient, not catastrophic.

agree to disagree


Apparently, according to the 'climategate' emails, they "factor in" whatever they need, in order to make their case. And, No. It only takes a few organized alarmists and a lot of sheeple.
Never underestimate the stupidity of large numbers of people.
Agreed. When called, I always demand to know who is funding the query. They won't say. I hang up.
Again, I agree. I make a strong distinction between those businesses which produce life support wealth which is freely and willingly purchased by individuals, and those corporations which would not exist without the government enforced subsidies.

[Sciguy]

You say your opponents cannot "prove" that climate change is coming. There's your foolishness. What in your life can you "prove" beyond question? We can't "prove" that the wind will blow tomorrow but we will behave, even if it costs our lives, as though it will. Even though wind "always changes". I am not a climate scientist so I decide the issue like all such issues - I listen to those who study it carefully and objectively and I take their word for the conclusion. To doubt careful scientific study because my politics don't support the conclusion is madness unless there is a good reason for suspecting pervasive bias. I know of issues like that. When the government, with its self serving drug war, "studies" LSD, I have no faith in their preordained and directed conclusions. But where is the corresponding bias attached to climate change studies? Nowhere!

I disagree with your pious claim that it is not about conservatives vs liberals. That is all that I am reading. You glibly invoke taxpayers who create wealth and counterpose that to taxfeeders who destroy wealth. This is the essential difference between conservatives and liberals that you are invoking. Conservatives worship only three "p's" profit, privilege and power i.e. those who make money to pay taxes in your formulation, while liberals admire the one "p" - people. And the fact is that ordinary people, millions of whom pay plenty of taxes yet lost their jobs and have no healthcare, are just as valuable and deserving as your so-called taxpayers, many of whom use their wealth to AVOID paying taxes.

So why this digression into the political split? Because you brought it up and showed that in your mind, climate change is really a bogus claim of the liberals for some reason that you seem unable to guess at, since you didn't connect those dots. This appears to be the main reason you are opposed to acknowledging climate change. Because you are solidly in the conservative money worshiping camp and detest the concerns of anyone who is not.

It is not about conservatives vs. liberals, nor reactionaries vs. "terrible, untrustworthy people". The only valid class distinction I see here is between tax payers (wealth producers) and tax feeders (wealth destroyers). The tax payers who agree with the propaganda generated by the tax feeders are commonly known as "useful idiots".

You are not a majority. You are wasting time, energy and effort "clamoring" to solve a "problem" that you cannot prove exists.

Climate changes. It always will. Calling Carbon Dioxide a toxin is insane.
Sink or swim. Bounce or break. Adapt or follow the dinosaurs.
Don't attempt to tell me that you know best, and force others to follow.

[handy]

[QUOTE=Hotspring 44;102622] You are simply FAR more privileged then the average human being on this planet. You apparently are “privileged” enough to have your own land (?),
Of course! Working hard to afford a place to raise kids and attempt a decent life is: "Privileged". Of course! How silly of me.

I also applaud the minimizing your own personal fuel consumption, good for you.
Yeah, woopy twang. Your applause is SO valuable while we pay $400 per gallon to deliver fuel to mountain goat paths on the AfPak border.


“Sink or swim. Bounce or break. Adapt or follow the dinosaurs.
[COLOR="blue"]These are simple behaviors. Like it or not, they are what we do. At worst, I'm being blunt.
Attempting to belittle that by namecalling (cavalier, offhand, inconsiderate, careless, conceited, egotistical, condescending, smug, self-centered and self-righteous) seems rather hateful and mean-spirited.

[Hotspring 44]

Of course! Working hard to afford a place to raise kids and attempt a decent life is: "Privileged". Of course! How silly of me.


Yeah, woopy twang. Your applause is SO valuable while we pay $400 per gallon to deliver fuel to mountain goat paths on the AfPak border.

“Sink or swim. Bounce or break. Adapt or follow the dinosaurs.
These are simple behaviors. Like it or not, they are what we do. At worst, I'm being blunt.
Attempting to belittle that by namecalling (cavalier, offhand, inconsiderate, careless, conceited, egotistical, condescending, smug, self-centered and self-righteous) seems rather hateful and mean-spirited".

“Sink or swim.” (in this context) = to the lowlanders (Pacific Islanders) is in all likelihood, (metaphorically speaking) a scene like throwing someone who can’t swim into deep water with nowhere to get (swim) out of that deep water. That is cavalier, inconsiderate, conceited, condescending, & smug.

“Bounce or break.” (in this context) = When they get slammed with catastrophic weather (that I do believe is exacerbated by human caused emissions that can be somewhat mitigated IF we act now to make the necessary, doable, affordable, changes in a “timely” manor), is in my view; careless, smug, &, mean-spirited.

“Adapt or follow the dinosaurs” = in essence an unnecessary death sentence for some whom have not the resources to evade the torrents of human exacerbated climate swings. Furthermore, in the context here; “follow the dinosaurs”, is leaning in the general direction of a quasi covert genocidal psychopathy, and is cavalier, inconsiderate, smug, and mean-spirited.

BTW, I do acknowledge a GENNERALIZATION of what could be referred to as (so-called) “namecalling” on my part per-se; “flatearther’s” (in my words in another thread), and in the title of this thread; “flat Earth group".

Taking the context into consideration of;

You are not a majority. You are wasting time, energy and effort "clamoring" to solve a "problem" that you cannot prove exists.

Climate changes. It always will. Calling Carbon Dioxide a toxin is insane.
Sink or swim. Bounce or break. Adapt or follow the dinosaurs.
Don't attempt to tell me that you know best, and force others to follow.

It is NOT “namecalling” to say that that those sentences are: “cavalier, offhand, inconsiderate, careless, conceited, egotistical, condescending, smug, and seems a bit overly self-centered and self-righteous”.

“At worst I'm being blunt.”

I understand that; me too, I was also being “blunt”.

Of course! Working hard to afford a place to raise kids and attempt a decent life is: "Privileged". Of course! How silly of me.

A lot of people in this world & USA for that matter work a lot harder than you or I can even imagine is humanly possible and do not ever have as many privileges as both you & I do (I am specifically referring to geography related to weather and other environmental factors not comparing nations politically). I firmly stand by my statement that you are more “privileged” then the vast majority of people on this planet.
I think your wording in the above statement seems a bit pompous and self centered.

Yeah, woopy twang...

“Yeah, woopy twang”? ?

Your applause is SO valuable while we pay $400 per gallon to deliver fuel to mountain goat paths on the AfPak border

That’s a convoluted, out of context, sarcastic, & juxtaposed statement.
What does paying “… “$400 per gallon to deliver fuel to mountain goat paths on the AfPak border”have to do with this discussion topic? How can you (if you are); (legitimately), blame the climatologists’ (you disagree with) for the price of fuel in parts of Afghanistan (“goat paths on the AfPak border”)? Say; what? Is that what you mean by being “blunt” too? Or do you have some sort of conspiracy theory about P M Gordon Brown or whomever? Or somehow do think (believe) that “Cap & Trade is going to foil the conflict in Afghanistan for the US or something like that?
BTW as I mentioned (in one of my posts, somewhere not necessarily this thread), I do not believe C&T is going to be of much good over all, I think that, mandating that would ultimately side-step the issue of what I think should ease (us) into a more sustainable energy usage theme.

[handy]

I'm too slow a typist to give this a proper response while at lunch, but here are a couple essays I agree with, from better writers (and faster typists).
They're a little long, but enjoy. Hope you will consider what they're saying.



The Left Fell into the Climate Morass

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.


It might take a while to sink in, but the global warming cause is on the skids. Two issues are taking the whole project down: it is getting cooler not warmer (and hence the change of the rhetoric to a vague concern over "climate change"), and the email scandal of a few weeks back proved that this really is an opinion cartel with preset views not driven by science.

Oh sure, people are saying that climategate is not really very serious and is only being exploited by Fox News and the like. And it's true that not all measures of global temperature show cooling and that the science can be complex.

On that basis, the New York Times urges us to ignore the outpouring. "It is also important not to let one set of purloined e-mail messages undermine the science and the clear case for action, in Washington and in Copenhagen."

Yes, a clear case. Come on. The whole political agenda of these people is now being seriously questioned. It is no longer a slam-dunk case that we are going to have world central planning in order to control the climate and protect the holy earth from the effects of industrialization. Oh, and tax us good and hard in the process.


But you know what is most tragic to me about this? This whole hysteria led to a fantastic diversion of energy on the left side of the political spectrum. Instead of working against war and the police state, issues on which the left tends to be pretty good, instincts were diverted to the preposterous cause of creating a statist system for global thermometer management.

The effort to whip everyone up into a frenzy over this began more than ten years ago. Every lefty fundraising letter harped on the issue, and demanded people commit their lives to it, explaining that if mother earth dies, then all is lost. It is a more important issue than all the rest, the litmus test to determine whether you are a friend or an enemy.

This made it very difficult for libertarians to cooperate with the left over the last years. Sure, there are some libertarian ideas for dealing with pollution, but none as compelling as central planning, and there was never any way that we would go along with that idea. The costs associated with dismantling industrial civilization outweigh even the worst-case global-warming scenario.


And methodologically, the whole thing was always nuts. If we can't determine cause and effect now with certainty, how in the heck will we be able to determine it after the world state controls our carbon emissions, and impoverishes us in the process? No one will ever be in a position to say whether the policy worked or failed. That is not a good basis for enacting legislation.

Meanwhile, the left threw everything it had into this hysteria. Protests, letters, billions in spending, frenzy, moral passion, mania, witch hunts – you name it. You would swear that climate change was the issue of the millennium for these people.

Meanwhile, the police state has made unbelievable advances in the last ten years. We all live today in fear of the state's "security" apparatus. Airports have become living chapters in a dystopian novel. The local police treat us like potential terrorists. Crossing the US border is becoming reminiscent of East Germany. You can't go anywhere without your papers.

And where has the left been while the whole world is being Nazified? Worrying about my barbecue grill out back.

Then there is the war issue. The scary George Bush started war after war and kept them going to bolster his own power and prestige, creating as many enemies as possible through provocations and making up enemies if he had to. He funded a bubble that wrecked the economy and destroyed country after country in the name of justice and peace.


And what followed Bush? A president who repudiated this ghastly legacy? No, Obama is a supporter of the same wars and continues them, even ramps them up. Does the left consider him a bad guy? Not really. With a handful of exceptions, his critics on the left are friendly critics. They are glad to put up with this because he is willing to do their bidding on the climate change front.

You think Democrat politicians don't exploit this? They surely do. In this sense, the climate issue is much like the pro-life cause on the right. If a politician pushes the correct buttons, it doesn't matter what else they say or do. They are no longer looked at with a critical eye.

The American left has long forgotten its roots. As Arthur Ekirch has explained, the left sold its soul to the state with the New Deal. Whereas it once opposed regimentation and industrial management of society, it turned to support exactly that. War was the next issue to go. The New Left in the 1960s held out the hope of capturing some of that early love of liberty on the left, even the anarchist impulse, but the New Left didn't last long. It was eventually swallowed up by machine politics.

The left today that supports world government to stop climate change bears little resemblance to the left of 100 years ago, which favored civil liberties and social liberality and was willing to do anything to end war. Now it has diverted its energies to a preposterously unworkable scheme based on pseudo-science. This is a terrible tragedy.

The left still has much to contribute to American public life. It can oppose the police state and the militarization of society. It can favor human liberty in most every area of life, even if it hasn't made its peace with the free market. Most of all, it can oppose American imperialism. But before it recaptures the spirit of its youth, it has to get rid of the preposterous idea that it should support the total state to manage what every generation has always known is unmanageable.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Meaning of 'Climategate'

by William L. Anderson

Almost anyone who can read has heard about the “Climategate” scandal in which emails between the scientists that have been at the forefront of promoting the apocalyptic views of “climate change” were hacked and then made public. The snippets I have read confirm my worst fears, as we are seeing exactly what happens when the political process completely hijacks science.

As an Austrian economist, I don’t worship at the feet of the “scientific community,” in large part because the “scientific community” is able to engage in trickery but defend its actions in the name of “preserving science.” However, because of my own experience in publishing papers in refereed journals and knowing the experiences of others, I can see what has been happening over the past decade in “climate science,” and I can tell you that while it is not rigged, it is close to being so.

Modern science is all about receiving grants, and the biggest checkbooks are those wielded by governments, and governments expect certain results. For example, the government two decades ago funded research into the alleged “acid rain” problems and the researchers reached very different conclusions than what the U.S. Government, and especially Congress and the George H.W. Bush administration (and his William Reilly-led EPA) had wanted to see.

Acid rain, apparently, was not going to destroy U.S. forests, lakes, and rivers, and the government was ticked, really ticked. The EPA attempted to destroy the career of one scientist, Edward Krug, who had a paper in the prestigious Science in 1983 that demonstrated that lakes with high acidity were located in watersheds where the soil happened to be acidic. Furthermore, as Krug and other researchers noted, acid lakes existed in many places around the globe hundreds of years before “industrial society” became the norm.


This researched “watershed-based” conclusion (which now is the accepted theory of lake and stream acidification, not “acid rain”) was unacceptable to the EPA, and the agency engaged in a shameful campaign against Krug, something I documented in a January, 1992, cover story article in Reason. During my research for the article, one person told me that there would be no such government study for “global warming,” indicating that the government would ramrod through the policies it wanted whether or not they actually were necessary.


However politicized “acid rain” might be, it did not fire up the environmentalist and leftist communities like “global warming” (later changed to “climate change”). This was not the first time that the environmentalists had tried to claim that capitalism was creating hazards with the weather. In 1975, Newsweek had a cover story in which it claimed that industrial society was pushing the globe into a new Ice Age. However, in a move that mirrored George Orwell’s 1984 in which the people of Oceania are told that they are not at war with Eurasia, but rather East Asia, and that Goldstein had tricked them, in little more than a decade, the movement had turned not from cooling but to warming.

All the movement needed was a figurehead, and to the forefront came two men, James Hansen, a NASA scientist, and Al Gore, who had been a U.S. Senator, Vice-President to Bill Clinton, and the loser of a highly-controversial U.S. Presidential election. Gore already had published his apocalyptic tome, Earth in the Balance, before becoming Veep, in which he claimed that industrial society was killing the planet and only a global “Marshall Plan” complete with near-dictatorship by the authorities could “save” us.

Gore had latched onto the “global warming” mantra in the late 1980s, and championed Hansen who told a congressional committee in 1988 that a drought that year was being caused by “unprecedented global warming.” (The summer of 1989 was cool and wet, but the True Believers also laid that situation at the feet of “climate change.”) However, the people-are-causing “global warming” advocates needed something to jump-start their campaign, and three researchers, including Michael E. Mann of Penn State, came to the rescue, the infamous “hockey stick” study.

Anyone who was familiar with the history of climate is familiar with the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago, as well as the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling that lasted from the mid-1500s to the late 1800s. These periods of warming and cooling occurred long before what we know as a modern economy with its supposed “spewing” of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which means that both of these climate patterns could not have been caused by human activity.

Obviously, this was of huge concern to those who claim that people are causing the changes in temperature, so the “scientists” simply made the Medieval Warm Period disappear by tricking the data. In 1999, three scientists, including Mann, published a paper which showed average global temperatures to be relatively steady for thousands of years, but suddenly shooting up in the last few decades, a “hockey stick” approach. Gore and his environmental allies now had the ammunition they needed.



In his Oscar-winning movie, An Inconvenient Truth (which departed from the truth in many places), Gore used the “hockey stick” graph as “proof” that the discussion over global warming needed to end. The results were in, and now what was needed was action, ACTION! The fact that the scientists refused to release the data used in their study, which is a fundamental breach of what is supposed to be scientific method, was shooed away as being something akin to a conspiracy theory by the “deniers,” who were labeled Enemies of the People. Scientists who dissented found themselves being bullied, journals refusing to publish their papers, and being denounced by environmentalists, other scientists, government officials, and, of course, Gore and Hansen. (Both Gore and Hansen have called for criminal prosecutions of corporate executives of companies that have helped to fund any study that disagrees with what Gore and Hansen declare to be the truth.)


In the Climategate emails, the scientists described their strategy of reviewing each others’ papers, shutting down scientists who disagreed, hiding their data, and admitting to fudging the numbers in order to obtain the results they wanted. Furthermore, because many of them were using funds allocated by U.S. Government agencies, what they did was fraud, and many people have gone to prison for much less.

Austrian economists are quite familiar with the drill here. First, the advocates of a position, be it mainstream economics or human-caused climate change, make sure that no dissenting papers can be published. Second, after having successfully shut out the opposition, they claim that the theories of the Austrians or dissenters “fail the market test” because their views don’t appear in the mainstream literature. The logic is circular, but it sure appeals to the True Believers.

It is interesting to see the response of Gore, the New York Times, the White House, and others who have been demanding that modern life be shut down for an economic regime that is more to the liking of the global-warming crowd. (The economic and political elites pushing these bogus theories have wonderful futures planned for us; they just have no intention of joining us for meals in unheated buildings, while we eat our gruel. Heated and cooled residences with plenty of good food will be their future.)

So far, the response from The Usual Suspects has been a repeat of the “Wizard of Oz” in which the wiz bellows, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” The Times recently editorialized:

The theft of thousands of private e-mail messages and files from computer servers at a leading British climate research center has been a political windfall for skeptics who claim the documents prove that mainstream scientists have conspired to overstate the case for human influence on climate change.

They are using the e-mail to blast the Obama administration’s climate policies. And they clearly hope that the e-mail will undermine negotiations for a new climate change treaty that begin in Copenhagen this week.

No one should be misled by all the noise. The e-mail messages represent years’ worth of exchanges among prominent American and British climatologists. Some are mean-spirited, others intemperate. But they don’t change the underlying scientific facts about climate change.


Funny, when the Times runs stories using material that has been stolen, they never refer to it as “stolen.” Indeed, as one who has published many academic papers (and I always make my data available for inspection), I can smell a fix as well as the next person.

Of course, with the Times, it only gets better. The public editor who defended the newspaper’s abysmal and utterly dishonest coverage in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Non-Rape Case, had this to say about the recent events:

As for not posting the e-mail, Revkin said he should have used better language in his blog, Dot Earth, to explain the decision, which was driven by advice from a Times attorney. The lawyer, George Freeman, told me that there is a large legal distinction between government documents like the Pentagon Papers, which The Times published over the objections of the Nixon administration, and e-mail between private individuals, even if they may receive some government money for their work. He said the Constitution protects the publication of leaked government information, as long as it is newsworthy and the media did not obtain it illegally. But the purloined e-mail, he said, was covered by copyright law in the United States and Britain.

This is a howler, a real howler. This is the same New York Times that gleefully published illegal leaks from federal prosecutors in the Michael Milken and Martha Stewart cases, which meant that the newspaper was aiding and abetting the commission of real felonies. The Times is a newspaper that does what it wants from publishing illegal (and untrue) material to seizing property by eminent domain so the paper could build a brand new headquarters in Manhattan. The idea that the paper suddenly decided to be “law-abiding” by not breaking “copyright law” is a joke, a real joke. Please do not tell me that the 800-pound gorilla is afraid of a few mice!

As governments are meeting in Denmark for yet another “climate change” summit, I am reminded that what really is happening is that the economic and political elites have decided they have had enough of the rabble and are going to put us in our places. That their actions are violent and fraudulent and have been duly exposed clearly is not a hindrance to them.

Keep in mind that I am not presenting my own “hockey stick” view of global temperatures. Indeed, for the last century or so, global temperatures have risen, but one must remember that the period preceding them was very cold, and cold weather means crop failures and starvation. Furthermore, the issue is not whether we have seen changes in temperatures around the world, but whether or not the human issuance of a gas that makes up approximately 0.4 of one percent of the atmosphere is the cause.

However, instead of wanting to know the truth, the elites have decided what we are supposed to believe as the truth. In my view, the release of these emails is as important in exposing the dishonesty of the “climate change” crowd as the Pentagon Papers were in exposing the dishonesty of the U.S. Government as it was ravaging Vietnam.

December 7, 2009
William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He also is a consultant with American Economic Services. Visit his blog.

You say your opponents cannot "prove" that climate change is coming. There's your foolishness. What in your life can you "prove" beyond question? We can't "prove" that the wind will blow tomorrow but we will behave, even if it costs our lives, as though it will. Even though wind "always changes". I am not a climate scientist so I decide the issue like all such issues - I listen to those who study it carefully and objectively and I take their word for the conclusion. To doubt careful scientific study because my politics don't support the conclusion is madness unless there is a good reason for suspecting pervasive bias. I know of issues like that. When the government, with its self serving drug war, "studies" LSD, I have no faith in their preordained and directed conclusions. But where is the corresponding bias attached to climate change studies? Nowhere!

I disagree with your pious claim that it is not about conservatives vs liberals. That is all that I am reading. You glibly invoke taxpayers who create wealth and counterpose that to taxfeeders who destroy wealth. This is the essential difference between conservatives and liberals that you are invoking. Conservatives worship only three "p's" profit, privilege and power i.e. those who make money to pay taxes in your formulation, while liberals admire the one "p" - people. And the fact is that ordinary people, millions of whom pay plenty of taxes yet lost their jobs and have no healthcare, are just as valuable and deserving as your so-called taxpayers, many of whom use their wealth to AVOID paying taxes.

So why this digression into the political split? Because you brought it up and showed that in your mind, climate change is really a bogus claim of the liberals for some reason that you seem unable to guess at, since you didn't connect those dots. This appears to be the main reason you are opposed to acknowledging climate change. Because you are solidly in the conservative money worshiping camp and detest the concerns of anyone who is not.

[Hotspring 44]

I'm too slow a typist to give this a proper response while at lunch, but here are a couple essays I agree with, from better writers (and faster typists).
They're a little long, but enjoy. Hope you will consider what they're saying.
The Left Fell into the Climate Morass

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr....
...He also is a consultant with American Economic Services. Visit his blog.

I read that long-winded political hype.I think that sciguy had a legitimate point about:"So why this digression into the political split? Because you brought it up and showed that in your mind, climate change is really a bogus claim of the liberals for some reason that you seem unable to guess at, since you didn't connect those dots. This appears to be the main reason you are opposed to acknowledging climate change. Because you are solidly in the conservative money worshiping camp and detest the concerns of anyone who is not". that post seems to prove that point.

Climate changes. It always will. Calling Carbon Dioxide a toxin is insane.
Sink or swim. Bounce or break. Adapt or follow the dinosaurs.
Don't attempt to tell me that you know best, and force others to follow.

Some people believe that to label CO2 as a toxic gas is “insane”.

BTW, I type slowly, but I can copy & paste too:
Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Toxicity See also: Carbon dioxide poisoning [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/SH/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] Main symptoms of Carbon dioxide toxicity, by increasing volume percent in air.[2][41]. Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 hPa level, i.e. about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location[42]. Prolonged exposure to moderate concentrations can cause acidosis and adverse effects on calcium phosphorus metabolism resulting in increased calcium deposits in soft tissue. Carbon dioxide is toxic to the heart and causes diminished contractile force.[41] Toxicity and its effects increase with the concentration of CO2, here given in volume percent of CO2 in the air: 1%, as can occur in a crowded auditorium with poor ventilation, can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.[2] At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.[41] At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath.[41]. In addition at this concentration panic attacs may occur.[43][44] At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.[41] A natural disaster linked to CO2 intoxication occurred during the limnic eruptions in the CO2-rich lakes of Monoun and Nyos in the Okun range of North-West Cameroon: the gas was brutally expelled from the mountain lakes and leaked into the surrounding valleys, killing most animal forms. During the Lake Nyos tragedy of 1988, 1700 villagers and 3500 livestock died. Due to the health risks associated with carbon dioxide exposure, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm (0.5%). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues is significantly less. For short-term (under ten minutes) exposure, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) limit is 30,000 ppm (3%). NIOSH also states that carbon dioxide concentrations exceeding 4% are immediately dangerous to life and health.[45] Adaptation to increased levels of CO2 occurs in humans. Continuous inhalation of CO2 can be tolerated at three percent inspired concentrations for at least one month and four percent inspired concentrations for over a week. It was suggested that 2.0 percent inspired concentrations could be used for closed air spaces (e.g. a submarine) since the adaptation is physiological and reversible. Decrement in performance or in normal physical activity does not happen at this level.[46][47] These figures are valid for pure carbon dioxide. In indoor spaces occupied by people the carbon dioxide concentration will reach higher levels than in pure outdoor air. Concentrations higher than 1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of occupants, and the discomfort will increase with increasing CO2 concentration. The discomfort will be caused by various gases coming from human respiration and perspiration, and not by CO2 itself. At 2,000 ppm the majority of occupants will feel a significant degree of discomfort, and many will develop nausea and headaches. The CO2 concentration between 300 and 2,500 ppm is used as an indicator of indoor air quality. Acute carbon dioxide toxicity is sometimes known by the names given to it by miners: blackdamp (also called choke damp or stythe). Miners would try to alert themselves to dangerous levels of carbon dioxide in a mine shaft by bringing a caged canary with them as they worked. The canary would inevitably die before CO2 reached levels toxic to people. Carbon dioxide ppm levels (CDPL) are a surrogate for measuring indoor pollutants that may cause occupants to grow drowsy, get headaches, or function at lower activity levels. To eliminate most indoor air quality complaints, total indoor CDPL must be reduced to below 600. NIOSH considers that indoor air concentrations that exceed 1,000 are a marker suggesting inadequate ventilation. ASHRAE recommends they not exceed 1,000 inside a space.

some may not agree with the greenhouse gas hypothesis in the article noted above, but I would think the medical aspect is not so "controversial".

[Sciguy]

Handy:
I was allowing a certain bias to go uncontested but I want to question you about your certainty that you are tilting at climate change LIBERALS. I don't really understand that. It is true that when Pacific Islands are inundated, the damage is primarily to people, not large economies. But if the coasts of the US are inundated, the commercial losses will be gigantic. Why is this then a liberal or left issue, as your quotations by Rockwell and Anderson seem to assume? Climate change gores everyone's ox (pardon that pun). Neocons and Chevrons are not insulated from CC as institutions, even though rich people will be able to find personal escapes. My personal experience is not the stuff of statistics but I am a leftist, even a radical, and I don't work at all in the CC world. I think it is a waste of time; a campaign that cannot be won. I think the Copenhagen meeting will achieve nothing. CC is far too widely distributed for any meaningful changes. I hope to be proven wrong. But I still believe that the scientific community's consensus is valid that humans are causing the melting of the polar ice and the rest. Unprecedented ice melting isn't open to doubting.

Once again, your hatred for a supposedly liberal position is about the only motor I see for your denunciations. We have seen that the Republicans in Congress will oppose anything put forward by a Democrat, with the most egregious lies and inventions (death panels, birthers and other nonsense) just because they hate liberals/Democrats and for no other reason. It seems to me that you are in precisely that camp, and all of your rationalizations against scientific claims of CC are so much fluff. If conservatives took up the CC cudgels, you would switch in midstream and fall in line with the new party program.

I, personally, have no problem with climate change. The climate always changes. Our option is to adapt, or follow the dinosaurs.



It is not about conservatives vs. liberals, nor reactionaries vs. "terrible, untrustworthy people". The only valid class distinction I see here is between tax payers (wealth producers) and tax feeders (wealth destroyers). The tax payers who agree with the propaganda generated by the tax feeders are commonly known as "useful idiots".

You are not a majority. You are wasting time, energy and effort "clamoring" to solve a "problem" that you cannot prove exists.

[handy]

You seem to read a lot more into what I say than is actually there.
Statements like "sink or swim" are clichés that are older than you and I put together. It IS what we do whenever we are confronted with a problem.
I gave it no "context" regarding mean-spiritedness toward islanders. That is your attribution. Having been seafarers for as long as we've been landlubbers, they'll probably handle a slight rise in sea level better than we will on the mainland. You seem to assume that a catastrophic rise will catch them sleeping. I think your time frame is severely compressed.

Adapt or follow the dinosaurs. I'm making a simple observation. If we fail to adapt, we die (follow dinosaurs). Do you somehow find this to be false?
To read that you therefore think that I am "leaning in the general direction of a quasi covert genocidal psychopathy, and is cavalier, inconsiderate, smug, and mean-spirited", brings sadness. Sure am thankful I don't live between your ears.


Can't even discuss "privelege". We're obviously using different definitions.

You said,"What does paying “… “$400 per gallon to deliver fuel to mountain goat paths on the AfPak border”have to do with this discussion topic? How can you (if you are); (legitimately), blame the climatologists’ (you disagree with) for the price of fuel in parts of Afghanistan (“goat paths on the AfPak border”)? Say; what? Is that what you mean by being “blunt” too?

No, silly. I simply think that driving a Prius, or whatever other attempts at conservation "at home", become approximately irrelevant as long as we keep supporting a war that delivers fuel at great expense to remote locations to run thousands of tanks and APCs and other heavy equipment with 1 or 2 mpg range. I'm not "blaming" anyone. I'm merely pointing out that the benefits of one action are effectively cancelled by the other.

You can't have, and we can't afford, both clean air and War.

I read the wikipedia entry on CO2 toxicity. Interesting read, but a "straw man" argument.

"1%, as can occur in a crowded auditorium with poor ventilation, can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.[2]"

True. That would be a concentration of 10,000 ppm. From 360-390 ppm.
Do you actually believe that a thirty-fold increase in atmospheric concentration is realistic? Or even probable?

I'm gonna have to stick with the "highly unlikely" crowd.

You also said,"BTW as I mentioned (in one of my posts, somewhere not necessarily this thread), I do not believe C&T is going to be of much good over all, I think that, mandating that would ultimately side-step the issue of what I think should ease (us) into a more sustainable energy usage theme."

Here I agree, but where you see a side-step, I see direct damage. Research into alternatives will only come about through the initiative and effort of individuals. Governments may redistribute and misallocate other peoples' money as "grants", but governments cannot do research. And money going to C & T is money that does not get spent by small business people with good ideas.

“Sink or swim.” (in this context) = to the lowlanders (Pacific Islanders) is in all likelihood, (metaphorically speaking) a scene like throwing someone who can’t swim into deep water with nowhere to get (swim) out of that deep water. That is cavalier, inconsiderate, conceited, condescending, & smug.

“Bounce or break.” (in this context) = When they get slammed with catastrophic weather (that I do believe is exacerbated by human caused emissions that can be somewhat mitigated IF we act now to make the necessary, doable, affordable, changes in a “timely” manor), is in my view; careless, smug, &, mean-spirited.

“Adapt or follow the dinosaurs” = in essence an unnecessary death sentence for some whom have not the resources to evade the torrents of human exacerbated climate swings. Furthermore, in the context here; “follow the dinosaurs”, is leaning in the general direction of a quasi covert genocidal psychopathy, and is cavalier, inconsiderate, smug, and mean-spirited.

BTW, I do acknowledge a GENNERALIZATION of what could be referred to as (so-called) “namecalling” on my part per-se; “flatearther’s” (in my words in another thread), and in the title of this thread; “flat Earth group".

Taking the context into consideration of; It is NOT “namecalling” to say that that those sentences are: “cavalier, offhand, inconsiderate, careless, conceited, egotistical, condescending, smug, and seems a bit overly self-centered and self-righteous”. I understand that; me too, I was also being “blunt”. A lot of people in this world & USA for that matter work a lot harder than you or I can even imagine is humanly possible and do not ever have as many privileges as both you & I do (I am specifically referring to geography related to weather and other environmental factors not comparing nations politically). I firmly stand by my statement that you are more “privileged” then the vast majority of people on this planet.
I think your wording in the above statement seems a bit pompous and self centered. “Yeah, woopy twang”? ? That’s a convoluted, out of context, sarcastic, & juxtaposed statement.
What does paying “… “$400 per gallon to deliver fuel to mountain goat paths on the AfPak border”have to do with this discussion topic? How can you (if you are); (legitimately), blame the climatologists’ (you disagree with) for the price of fuel in parts of Afghanistan (“goat paths on the AfPak border”)? Say; what? Is that what you mean by being “blunt” too? Or do you have some sort of conspiracy theory about P M Gordon Brown or whomever? Or somehow do think (believe) that “Cap & Trade is going to foil the conflict in Afghanistan for the US or something like that?
BTW as I mentioned (in one of my posts, somewhere not necessarily this thread), I do not believe C&T is going to be of much good over all, I think that, mandating that would ultimately side-step the issue of what I think should ease (us) into a more sustainable energy usage theme.

[handy]

Handy:
I was allowing a certain bias to go uncontested (no. you weren't)but I want to question you about your certainty that you are tilting at climate change LIBERALS.

I make a strong distinction between climate change, which does, and always will, happen, and Anthropogenic Global Warm-mongering, which seems like a scam. I try to avoid name-calling, so I try not to use words like Liberals. Neither did I claim any certainty on my part. It is precisely the certainty of the AGW crowd that I find scary.

Gregory Bateson said, "We cannot afford to attempt conscious control of sub-conscious systems."

Another cyberneticist, can't remember who off the top of my head, said, "When preparing to insert a newly designed system, be sure you are not disrupting a system that is already working."

I don't really understand that. It is true that when Pacific Islands are inundated, the damage is primarily to people, not large economies. But if the coasts of the US are inundated, the commercial losses will be gigantic. Why is this then a liberal or left issue, as your quotations by Rockwell and Anderson seem to assume?

I have a hard time seeing a rise of inches per century as "inundation".

Anderson and Rockwell are both small 'l' libertarian. I don't know that either of them belong to a party. Having read both of them for several years, they strike me as having a healthier outlook than most of the essayists I read in the MSM. Just my opinion.

Climate change gores everyone's ox (pardon that pun).
Excellent pun, Gore Bull Warning!

Neocons and Chevrons are not insulated from CC as institutions, even though rich people will be able to find personal escapes. My personal experience is not the stuff of statistics but I am a leftist, even a radical, and I don't work at all in the CC world. I think it is a waste of time; a campaign that cannot be won. I think the Copenhagen meeting will achieve nothing.
It will spend a lot of money that otherwise could have been invested productively.

CC is far too widely distributed for any meaningful changes. I hope to be proven wrong. But I still believe that the scientific community's consensus is valid that humans are causing the melting of the polar ice and the rest. Unprecedented ice melting isn't open to doubting.

Science is an individual behavior. Consensus is a political ploy. Whenever I see them used together, I get suspicious.

The ice melt IS open to doubt, actually. There is plenty to read on the subject, IF you look...

Once again, your hatred My hatred? Gave it up long ago as a mostly useless emotion. I suppose I could resent the accusation, or I can consider the source and let it go. for a supposedly liberal position is about the only motor I see for your denunciations. We have seen that the Republicans in Congress will oppose anything put forward by a Democrat, with the most egregious lies and inventions (death panels, birthers and other nonsense) just because they hate liberals/Democrats and for no other reason. It seems to me that you are in precisely that camp, and all of your rationalizations against scientific claims of CC are so much fluff. If conservatives took up the CC cudgels, you would switch in midstream and fall in line with the new party program.

There are a lot of "supposedly liberal" Democrats, and there are a lot of "supposedly conservative" Republicans. I think both positions are extreme, and have little use for either. Considering them useless does not equate with hatred. Seeing them both as harmful does not strike me as extreme.

[Hotspring 44]

Statements like "sink or swim" are clichés that are older than you and I put together. It IS what we do whenever we are confronted with a problem. I gave it no "context" regarding mean-spiritedness toward islanders….

You did mention about; “unintended consequences” in an earlier post, so I think you would understand what happened with that one; and (also) this one too:

…I gave it no "context" regarding mean-spiritedness toward islanders. That is your attribution. Having been seafarers for as long as we've been landlubbers, they'll probably handle a slight rise in sea level better than we will on the mainland. You seem to assume that a catastrophic rise will catch them sleeping. I think your time frame is severely compressed.

Not so. I suggest that you read-up: Faced with rising sea levels, the Maldives seek new homeland | csmonitor.com

Other low-lying Pacific islands that could disappear in this century include those in Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Fiji. Were these countries to be evacuated, the legal status of the global warming diaspora would be unclear. The same goes for that of a submerged country’s sovereignty. No nation in recorded history has peacefully relocated its entire population and remained intact, and, as National Geographic pointed out in 2005, environmental refugees are not recognized by international law.

so those "cleches" in the context of the conversation here are in nature, cavalier, & inconsiderate.

True. That would be a concentration of 10,000 ppm. From 360-390 ppm. Do you actually believe that a thirty-fold increase in atmospheric concentration is realistic? Or even probable?

You apparently missed the point. CO2 is a toxic gas in relatively low concentrations, therefore, that is not “insane” the way that you said, it is (“insane”).
I never even heard any climatologists’ mention “10,000 ppm” (of CO2), so that question (“Do you actually believe that a thirty-fold increase in atmospheric concentration is realistic? Or even probable?”), is derived from a convoluted assessment (at best) of the fact about my rebuttal of your hyperbolic statement that it being “insane” to call CO2 a toxic gas.
I remember not too long ago a young lad was asphyxiated from high levels of CO2 while cleaning a fermentation vat in a Sonoma County Winery; so I hope for your sake you don’t say something to one of his surviving relatives about CO2 (gas) not being toxic; you may get an ear full!

I'm gonna have to stick with the "highly unlikely" crowd.

That is OBVIOUS.

I simply think that driving a Prius, or whatever other attempts at conservation "at home", become approximately irrelevant as long as we keep supporting a war that delivers fuel at great expense to remote locations to run thousands of tanks and APCs and other heavy equipment with 1 or 2 mpg range. I'm not "blaming" anyone. I'm merely pointing out that the benefits of one action are effectively cancelled by the other.

So you are saying: because of the cost of delivered fuel in the remote regions of Afghanistan; and such, means that all else you mentioned are doomed to failure?


My humble opinion about Prius cars is that they are not worth the hassle or the money, until the battery banks are improved to capacitate electric only range at least 3 times the range they get now; in an affordable package. At this point in time they are another over priced, “feel good”, placebo, effect, money-sucker.

You can't have, and we can't afford, both clean air and War.

As long as “War” is being the main concern, “clean air” and a long list of other things are going to the wayside, or lost altogether.

Here I agree, but where you see a side-step, I see direct damage. Research into alternatives will only come about through the initiative and effort of individuals. Governments may redistribute and misallocate other peoples' money as "grants", but governments cannot do research. And money going to C & T is money that does not get spent by small business people with good ideas.

That statement has a strange twist; it seems to go good until:

Governments may redistribute and misallocate other peoples' money as "grants", but governments cannot do research.

That is essentially so (unless top secret military research is considered); BTW collected tax money is our money not "somebody else s" . How would the incentive process work if only already existing big business (other than govt' have the $? Are you against govt' grants to "small business entrepreneurs? I am having a difficult time following your logic here. Then you go on to say:

And money going to C & T is money that does not get spent by small business people with good ideas.

I think that is where the "twist" is. What “small business people with good ideas” will be (so directly) affected? I honestly do not quite get the drift of that one. Are you talking about an independent truck driver that may be directly affected by either new requirements or fuel costs; or the price of electricity being affected because of the coal and other carbon based fuel fired utility’s being C&T’d? Or did you actually mean Big Businesses such as large scale coal and natural gas fired power plants, oil refineries, or maybe Wall Street share holders instead of “small Businesses”? I sort of doubt the Wall Street, but thought I would ask anyhow.


I BTW, I already know about the new requirements in California regarding lawn mowers and things like that to the small-business home maintenance and construction trades that are required to change to California air resource Board requirements. that's already a done deal.



I don't think there's anything wrong with the government giving small businesses grants, or at least very low interest loans for entrepreneurial endeavors towards things that the nation needs; good productive jobs being one of them.

Can't even discuss "privelege". We're obviously using different definitions.

You may not see clearly the difference between “privilege” and elite?
It seems to me that you may be interpreting my usage of the word “privilege” for the word “elite”.
Maybe you are in denial of the fact that it is more a “privilege” to be a person that has access to resources, both natural & man-made because of the geographic place of your home.

I have known a lot of people that worked their a- - - - off for years upon years (35+ years on end) and still have not a place that they are secure in as you seem to say you have because you “work hard”.
There is really is a limited amount of geographical areas that are (relatively) “secure” that the average working class people could have access to. So in a sense; using the word “privilege” in the context I was using it here in this discussion is instead of “elite”; which would be too far from the literal meaning of my comment….
… In other words, you are geographically “privileged” compared to the vast majority of people on this planet; furthermore you, I & others here on this “waccobb” are also politically “privileged” to the point that in comparison to the large majority of other peoples on this planet; are in essence, “elite”.
Because you say, “Can't even discuss "privilege",… So I am defining the way I have used that word here to help with the apparent misunderstanding:

1. a benefit, immunity, etc., granted under certain conditions; privilege - definition of privilege by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The context that I was originally using the word “privileged” was in direct comparison to the “lowlanders” and the “Pacific Islanders”; hence with higher sea levels their island homes would be inundated with the ocean waters. You on the other hand are geographically “privileged” because the rising ocean to some extent will not affect you as adversely, you have the “benefit, immunity” granted under certain conditions; (geographical).
So, if you still “Can't even discuss "privilege" here, so be it.

Sciguy wrote:
Handy:
I was allowing a certain bias to go uncontested (no. you weren't)but I want to question you about your certainty that you are tilting at climate change LIBERALS.

I make a strong distinction between climate change, which does, and always will, happen, and Anthropogenic Global Warm-mongering, which seems like a scam. I try to avoid name-calling, so I try not to use words like Liberals. Neither did I claim any certainty on my part. It is precisely the certainty of the AGW crowd that I find scary.

Gregory Bateson said, "We cannot afford to attempt conscious control of sub-conscious systems."

Another cyberneticist, can't remember who off the top of my head, said, "When preparing to insert a newly designed system, be sure you are not disrupting a system that is already working."

I don't really understand that. It is true that when Pacific Islands are inundated, the damage is primarily to people, not large economies. But if the coasts of the US are inundated, the commercial losses will be gigantic. Why is this then a liberal or left issue, as your quotations by Rockwell and Anderson seem to assume?

I have a hard time seeing a rise of inches per century as "inundation".

Anderson and Rockwell are both small 'l' libertarian. I don't know that either of them belong to a party. Having read both of them for several years, they strike me as having a healthier outlook than most of the essayists I read in the MSM. Just my opinion.

Climate change gores everyone's ox (pardon that pun).
Excellent pun, Gore Bull Warning!

Neocons and Chevrons are not insulated from CC as institutions, even though rich people will be able to find personal escapes. My personal experience is not the stuff of statistics but I am a leftist, even a radical, and I don't work at all in the CC world. I think it is a waste of time; a campaign that cannot be won. I think the Copenhagen meeting will achieve nothing.
It will spend a lot of money that otherwise could have been invested productively.

CC is far too widely distributed for any meaningful changes. I hope to be proven wrong. But I still believe that the scientific community's consensus is valid that humans are causing the melting of the polar ice and the rest. Unprecedented ice melting isn't open to doubting.

Science is an individual behavior. Consensus is a political ploy. Whenever I see them used together, I get suspicious.

The ice melt IS open to doubt, actually. There is plenty to read on the subject, IF you look...

Once again, your hatred My hatred? Gave it up long ago as a mostly useless emotion. I suppose I could resent the accusation, or I can consider the source and let it go. for a supposedly liberal position is about the only motor I see for your denunciations. We have seen that the Republicans in Congress will oppose anything put forward by a Democrat, with the most egregious lies and inventions (death panels, birthers and other nonsense) just because they hate liberals/Democrats and for no other reason. It seems to me that you are in precisely that camp, and all of your rationalizations against scientific claims of CC are so much fluff. If conservatives took up the CC cudgels, you would switch in midstream and fall in line with the new party program.
There are a lot of "supposedly liberal" Democrats, and there are a lot of "supposedly conservative" Republicans. I think both positions are extreme, and have little use for either. Considering them useless does not equate with hatred. Seeing them both as harmful does not strike me as extreme.

[handy]

Not quite sure how observing the simple fact that we sink or swim relates to unintended consequences... but, oh well.

Regarding the article you referenced about the Maldive Islanders, I note that the article mentions:

Mohamed Nasheed, who was sworn in Tuesday as the Maldives’ first democratically elected president, says that rising sea levels threaten to inundate the tiny Indian Ocean island nation. He has announced plans for a fund to buy land elsewhere in the region, where the country’s population, estimated to be about 386,000, could rebuild their lives.

In an interview with the Guardian, Mr. Nasheed said that he is preparing for the worst:

“We can do nothing to stop climate change on our own and so we have to buy land elsewhere. It’s an insurance policy for the worst possible outcome. . . We do not want to leave the Maldives, but we also do not want to be climate refugees living in tents for decades,” he said.

This seems like a sensible response. A rise of 25 to 58 cm over 90 years is an inch or two per decade. Hardly catastrophic. Using tourist income to buy land elsewhere seems intelligent to me. They don't seem to be panicking...

[QUOTE=Hotspring 44;102789]

Statements like "sink or swim" are clichés that are older than you and I put together. It IS what we do whenever we are confronted with a problem. I gave it no "context" regarding mean-spiritedness toward islanders….

You did mention about; “unintended consequences” in an earlier post, so I think you would understand what happened with that one; and (also) this one too:

…I gave it no "context" regarding mean-spiritedness toward islanders. That is your attribution. Having been seafarers for as long as we've been landlubbers, they'll probably handle a slight rise in sea level better than we will on the mainland. You seem to assume that a catastrophic rise will catch them sleeping. I think your time frame is severely compressed.

Not so. I suggest that you read-up: Faced with rising sea levels, the Maldives seek new homeland | csmonitor.com

Other low-lying Pacific islands that could disappear in this century include those in Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Fiji. Were these countries to be evacuated, the legal status of the global warming diaspora would be unclear. The legal status of ANY diaspora is usually unclear. Uncertainty exists. It is normal. We may learn to attenuate it when and where we can, but we CANNOT eliminate it. The same goes for that of a submerged country’s sovereignty. No nation in recorded history has peacefully relocated its entire population and remained intact, and, as National Geographic pointed out in 2005, environmental refugees are not recognized by international law.

so those "cleches" in the context of the conversation here are in nature, cavalier, & inconsiderate.

True. That would be a concentration of 10,000 ppm. From 360-390 ppm. Do you actually believe that a thirty-fold increase in atmospheric concentration is realistic? Or even probable?

You apparently missed the point. CO2 is a toxic gas in relatively low concentrations, therefore, that is not “insane” the way that you said, it is (“insane”).
I never even heard any climatologists’ mention “10,000 ppm” (of CO2), so that question (“Do you actually believe that a thirty-fold increase in atmospheric concentration is realistic? Or even probable?”), is derived from a convoluted assessment (at best) of the fact about my rebuttal of your hyperbolic statement that it being “insane” to call CO2 a toxic gas.
I remember not too long ago a young lad was asphyxiated from high levels of CO2 while cleaning a fermentation vat in a Sonoma County Winery; so I hope for your sake you don’t say something to one of his surviving relatives about CO2 (gas) not being toxic; you may get an ear full!

When did grade school math and chemistry become "convoluted assessment"? From the table you provided, the present norm is 360-390 ppm. That equals 360 thousandths of 1%. To measure a 1% concentration requires 10,000 parts per million. 10,000 is 1/100th of one million. This is an approximately 30-fold increase over atmospheric norms. And that will make you drowsy with prolonged exposure. Hardly toxic.

I read about the suffocation death. Highly concentrated Carbon Dioxide is common in any fermentation process. Anyone working in that industry needs to know the hazards as part of their job qualification. Ignorance of hazard does occasionally result in death. Sorry 'bout that. Darwin Award.

No substance is simply and purely "toxic". Toxicity is a ratio of substance to body mass and is usually stated as LD50. How many grams per kilogram will be lethal dose to 50% of the subjects. Drinking 2 gallons of water at one sitting will kill most people. Is Dihydrogen Monoxide toxic? Do you want to outlaw water?

Carbon Dioxide at atmospheric concentrations is PLANT FOOD. Please, learn some basic chemistry. The fears you are expressing are irrational.

I'm gonna have to stick with the "highly unlikely" crowd.

That is OBVIOUS.

I simply think that driving a Prius, or whatever other attempts at conservation "at home", become approximately irrelevant as long as we keep supporting a war that delivers fuel at great expense to remote locations to run thousands of tanks and APCs and other heavy equipment with 1 or 2 mpg range. I'm not "blaming" anyone. I'm merely pointing out that the benefits of one action are effectively cancelled by the other.

So you are saying: because of the cost of delivered fuel in the remote regions of Afghanistan; and such, means that all else you mentioned are doomed to failure?

No. I'm saying we have finite resources, time and energy. We can invest them in livingry or killingry, but we can't afford both.



My humble opinion about Prius cars is that they are not worth the hassle or the money, until the battery banks are improved to capacitate electric only range at least 3 times the range they get now; in an affordable package. At this point in time they are another over priced, “feel good”, placebo, effect, money-sucker.

Complete agreement here.

You can't have, and we can't afford, both clean air and War.

As long as “War” is being the main concern, “clean air” and a long list of other things are going to the wayside, or lost altogether.

Exactly.

Here I agree, but where you see a side-step, I see direct damage. Research into alternatives will only come about through the initiative and effort of individuals. Governments may redistribute and misallocate other peoples' money as "grants", but governments cannot do research. And money going to C & T is money that does not get spent by small business people with good ideas.

That statement has a strange twist; it seems to go good until:

Governments may redistribute and misallocate other peoples' money as "grants", but governments cannot do research.

That is essentially so (unless top secret military research is considered); BTW collected tax money is our money not "somebody else s" . How would the incentive process work if only already existing big business (other than govt' have the $? Are you against govt' grants to "small business entrepreneurs? I am having a difficult time following your logic here.

Try to follow this. "Free" grant money from the government is money taken from other productive citizens. A company that accepts such a grant is not an entrepreneur; it is a government dependent. A true entrepreneur will use his own savings, and/or will borrow private money under contract in order to grow his business. The last thing a self reliant individual wants is government strings (and they are always attached) controlling his efforts. If I discover that a business is dependent on government grants for its livelihood, I boycott it as best I can.

Then you go on to say:

And money going to C & T is money that does not get spent by small business people with good ideas.

I think that is where the "twist" is. What “small business people with good ideas” will be (so directly) affected? I honestly do not quite get the drift of that one. Are you talking about an independent truck driver that may be directly affected by either new requirements or fuel costs; or the price of electricity being affected because of the coal and other carbon based fuel fired utility’s being C&T’d? Or did you actually mean Big Businesses such as large scale coal and natural gas fired power plants, oil refineries, or maybe Wall Street share holders instead of “small Businesses”? I sort of doubt the Wall Street, but thought I would ask anyhow.


WTF? Is finding a "twist" (or twisting things) just an obnoxious trolling habit, or are you really that thick? A dollar taken from you (or anyone else) by the government, is a dollar of your savings that you are no longer free to invest in growing your business. To anyone with grade school numeracy, that would be obvious. Do you honestly believe that government's decision to send that dollar to Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel to finance the murder of people who have done you no harm, is a better decision than you could take on your own initiative? I truly hope not.

[Hotspring 44]

Not quite sure how observing the simple fact that we sink or swim relates to unintended consequences... but, oh well.

It's all about context. one of the "unintended consequences" was that your so-called "observation" as you stated it was interpreted as being amongst other things I won't need to repeat here; smug.

Do you honestly believe that government's decision to send that dollar to Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel to finance the murder of people who have done you no harm, is a better decision than you could take on your own initiative? I truly hope not.

No.
I think that those wars are wrong to begin with (the premise for Iraq was a lie as far as I can determine (no "WOMD" in Iraq, and Afghanistan is too little too late at best).Those wars are extreme money pits. The innovations of peaceful things & college are worth grant money however, particularly when those are going to reduce our dependency on foreign oil or other things that make us vulnerable to war interests. those "Productive" ones should realize that govt grants are public investments. some investments work-out some don't. That's the price of doing business.

try to follow this. "Free" grant money from the government is money taken from other productive citizens. A company that accepts such a grant is not an entrepreneur; it is a government dependent.

"Productive" here to me is a Arbitrarily relative term; Blackwatter (or whatever they are called now) could be considered a "Productive" company: (they make loads of money) "Companies" are not the only ones that receive "govt grants". nor do I think they should be.

What about education "Grants"? What about education in general? there are taxes for that. Are schools not worthy of tax dollars?

Maybe I am a little off here, but there are humanitarian issues that are worthy of grants that would just not ever happen without some of those govt grants.

Yes the wars are too expensive in more ways than 1. Furthermore my opinion is that the war profiteers should pay more tax than everyone else. That way the wars in the future would be less likely to be so tempting to wage & the things that got ruined (this time around) by way of war budgeting. I think that more important things like public education & infrastructure, for example, would be better funded (next time).

This seems like a sensible response. A rise of 25 to 58 cm over 90 years is an inch or two per decade. Hardly catastrophic. Using tourist income to buy land elsewhere seems intelligent to me. They don't seem to be panicking...

You seem to minimize the realities of: environmental refugees are not recognized by international law. That is not a done deal for the Islanders.

Do you really think they can purchase sovereignty? I seriously doubt it.

When did grade school math and chemistry become "convoluted assessment"? From the table you provided, the present norm is 360-390 ppm. That equals 360 thousandths of 1%. To measure a 1% concentration requires 10,000 parts per million. 10,000 is 1/100th of one million. This is an approximately 30-fold increase over atmospheric norms. And that will make you drowsy with prolonged exposure. Hardly toxic.

That is the problem; you are using grade school math & not the super computer models that show the real potential of "possible" outcomes.

I never stated that I thought that the CO2 gas from humans was going to become concentrated enough to choke me out in the natural environment. That is utter ridiculousness!

I read about the suffocation death. Highly concentrated Carbon Dioxide is common in any fermentation process. Anyone working in that industry needs to know the hazards as part of their job qualification. Ignorance of hazard does occasionally result in death. Sorry 'bout that. Darwin Award.

Darwin award? That is really a callous, caviler, inconsiderate (not to me personally but to the family of the victim) of a statement!

No substance is simply and purely "toxic".

So according that "logic, like for example, uranium is not "simply and purely toxic" ... yet in "certain concentrations" it is?... That in other than absolute terms is,an arbitrary statement at best! you should be a tobacco company lawyer; you are good at semantics. But "pure" CO2 is deadly none the less.

Carbon Dioxide at atmospheric concentrations is PLANT FOOD.

Do you really believe that I did not already know that?

Rodent feces is aloud in certain concentrations in our grain supply because it is unavoidable. CO2 will if it is regulated have certain allowable limits of ppm and tonnage because it is unavoidable. So you may not have anything to be personally concerned about with the potential (new) regulations.

[handy]

[QUOTE=Hotspring 44;102870]

It's all about context. one of the "unintended consequences" was that your so-called "observation" as you stated it was interpreted (by you) as being amongst other things I won't need to repeat here; smug.



No.
I think that those wars are wrong to begin with (the premise for Iraq was a lie as far as I can determine (no "WOMD" in Iraq, and Afghanistan is too little too late at best).Those wars are extreme money pits.
Agreed.
The innovations of peaceful things & college are worth grant money however, particularly when those are going to reduce our dependency on oil or other things that make us vulnerable to war interests.

Sorry, but "free" money creates dependence. Individual incentive to succeed requires having a personal stake in the outcome. If you have poured your own savings (from your past productivity) into creating a product that people need or will buy, you have a vested interest in product quality and customer satisfaction. You want to grow your investment, not lose it.

those "Productive" ones should realize that govt grants are public investments.

This is just wrong. Investment comes from savings. Taxes taken at threat of legal (or armed) action, misallocated by political whim (after substantial skim), then redistributed to "researchers" having favored status (toeing the government line), is NOT investment.

"Productive" here to me is a Arbitrarily relative term; Blackwatter (or whatever they are called now) could be considered a "Productive" company: (they make loads of money) "Companies" are not the only ones that receive "govt grants". nor do I think they should be.

What?? Productive vs. Destructive is Not an 'arbitrarily relative term', concept or distinction. Blackwater (now called Xe) is destructive. They are hired mercenary killers. Their 'corporation' was never designed to be a free market venture. Their paymaster is government. Their 'loads of money' comes from your tax dollars. They are welfare queens. Is their behavior something you would invest in, if you still had those dollars?

What about education "Grants"? What about education in general? there are taxes for that. Are schools not worthy of tax dollars?

Education is much too important to permit political control and direction.
Private schools do it better, for less, even when constrained by the government approved curricula.

Maybe I am a little off here, but there are humanitarian issues that are worthy of grants that would just not ever happen without some of those govt grants.
Yah, right! were you thinking of FEMA's response to Katrina, perhaps? When they turned around or prevented Wal-Mart trucks from bringing in supplies?
Yes the wars are too expensive in more ways than 1.duh. Myriad.

Furthermore my opinion is that the war profiteers should pay more tax than everyone else. Ah, yes. And how long would you like them to stay in business? Long enough to hire a few more accountants to shuffle line items, I'm sure, since that will be the only effect. It is your taxes that pay them now. Taxation will result in a line item increase, under cost of doing business. Then they will point to it as justification for a price increase. I'd much rather just bring home the troops and put them out of business.




You seem to minimize the realities of: environmental refugees are not recognized by international law. That is not a done deal for the Islanders.

Do you really think they can purchase sovereignty? I seriously doubt it.

They don't need to. The sovereign people are buying land.


That is the problem; you are using grade school math & not the super computer models that show the real potential of "possible" outcomes.
You need a super computer model to figure relative percentages??? Most people do those in their head... You use a chainsaw for your butter? (just askin...)



I never stated that I thought that the CO2 gas from humans was going to become concentrated enough to choke me out in the natural environment. That is utter ridiculousness! [/COLOR]

OK. Did seem to be implying that at one point.

Darwin award? That is really a callous, caviler, inconsiderate (not to me personally but to the family of the victim) of a statement![/COLOR]

I do so appreciate your willingness, even eagerness to attribute malign intent to two words of macabre humor. We laugh at our pain. Both our own, and others'. Without pain, stand-up comedians would be out of work. Grow some skin. Or go pound sand. whatever works. No apology here.

The operative statement was,"Ignorance of hazard does occasionally result in death." But you apparently missed that.


[COLOR=Black] So according that "logic, like for example, uranium is not "simply and purely toxic" ... yet in "certain concentrations" it is?...
By George, I think he's GOT it!!!
(Although the damage done by high energy particles is closer to mechanical breakage than chemical toxicity.)

That in other than absolute terms is,an arbitrary statement at best!
That, in absolute terms, is a nonsense statement.

you should be a tobacco company lawyer;No interest. More of a carpenter/gardener/handyman type of guy.
you are good at semantics. Thank You. I did not know that. They do seem somewhat important to clear communication. I was lucky (I'm sure you'd prefer "privileged") enough to have a couple really good English teachers in grade school.

But "pure" CO2 is deadly none the less.

No. It's a colorless gas. Being dumb enough to inhale it repeatedly is deadly.

Rodent feces is aloud (can't you hear it?)in certain concentrations in our grain supply because it is unavoidable.

CO2 will if it is regulated have certain allowable limits of ppm and tonnage because it is unavoidable.
We do not know, and likely Cannot know, enough to attempt regulation. Define "allowable limits". How do you propose to "allow"?Believing you have the knowledge, and believing you have the right, to meddle with Nature at these levels of complexity strikes me as a most arrogant kind of insanity.

Goood luck wid dat. Best regards,

[Hotspring 44]

What?? Productive vs. Destructive is Not an 'arbitrarily relative term', concept or distinction.

I disagree. In a politicized sense; as much as this topic has recently become it is quite arbitrary.

This more completed form of that quote from you helps exemplify that point:

“What?? Productive vs. Destructive is Not an 'arbitrarily relative term', concept or distinction. Blackwater (now called Xe) is destructive. They are hired mercenary killers. Their 'corporation' was never designed to be a free market venture. Their paymaster is government. Their 'loads of money' comes from your tax dollars. They are welfare queens. Is their behavior something you would invest in, if you still had those dollars?”

To be simple about it: You are Comparing apples and oranges here.

Education is much too important to permit political control and direction. Private schools do it better, for less, even when constrained by the government approved curricula.

Your point is well taken, However the govt grants that go to the A+ students whom would otherwise be picking fruit is better than the Country being relegated into a 17^th century like plutocracy economy.

You are overlooking the historical relevance of govt grants for highly motivated but financially poor individual people that are far brighter than the both of us combined.
The best colleges in the US to some degree rely on some form of govt funding and / or tax loopholes.

Yah, right! were you thinking of FEMA's response to Katrina, perhaps? When they turned around or prevented Wal-Mart trucks from bringing in supplies?

No! That’s convoluted! The exact opposite! It was the “free market” enthusiasts (specific govt officials that preached and or bought into the administration’s “Free Market” / lower taxes for the top 10% income bracket) that were at the helm on that one! That is where the Halliburton & Blackwater’s should have been for peaceful relief ops, & not in Iraq profiteering. Back to the subject here: What CO2 regulations were they afraid of violating in that scenario?

Ah, yes. And how long would you like them to stay in business? Long enough to hire a few more accountants to shuffle line items, I'm sure, since that will be the only effect. It is your taxes that pay them now. Taxation will result in a line item increase, under cost of doing business. Then they will point to it as justification for a price increase. I'd much rather just bring home the troops and put them out of business.

I agree about bringing home the troops. That would mean less CO2 emissions.

They don't need to. The sovereign people are buying land.

Land by itself is not sovereignty. (What Clueless thing to think that $ without military backing would = sovereignty, that is naive). Of course that may be why we are so involved with that “hell” in Palestine (Israel).

You need a super computer model to figure relative percentages??? Most people do those in their head... You use a chainsaw for your butter? (just askin...)

LOL! You are (hard core) evading the premise with this one.
Cheers.

[handy]

[QUOTE=Hotspring 44;102940]I disagree. In a politicized sense; as much as this topic has recently become it is quite arbitrary.

Just reread the definitions of 'productive' and 'destructive'. Nowhere did I see :Warning! This definition may be 'arbitrarily relative'!

The claim of arbitrariness is usually the beginning of the politicization. Solid definitions give politicians no wiggle room.

To be simple about it: You are Comparing apples and oranges here.

Your point is well taken, However the govt grants that go to the A+ students whom would otherwise be picking fruit is better than the Country being relegated into a 17^th century like plutocracy economy.
In the child-control prisons of the present, intelligence is more likely hunted down and punished. I'd love to see a table comparing the money spent on "counselors", "behavioral therapists", Ritalin, Zoloft, Paxil and all the other mindclamps we put on the bright kids, with the amount we devote to scholarship.
You are overlooking the historical relevance of govt grants for highly motivated but financially poor individual people that are far brighter than the both of us combined.
I'm not overlooking the historical relevance at all. The net result of the billions spent on programs like Head Start and No Child Left Behind has been a decline in grades, literacy, and percentage graduated.
The best colleges in the US to some degree rely on some form of govt funding and / or tax loopholes.[/FONT]
Precisely. Like I said earlier, when you accept "free" government money, you give up your liberty and become a government dependent.

No! That’s convoluted! The exact opposite! It was the “free market” enthusiasts (specific govt officials that preached and or bought into the administration’s “Free Market” / lower taxes for the top 10% income bracket) that were at the helm on that one! That is where the Halliburton & Blackwater’s should have been for peaceful relief ops, & not in Iraq profiteering.
The administration's "Free Market" is a lie. Thank you for putting it in quotes. Halliburton is a welfare queen, too. Blackwater was in New Orleans after Katrina. They were confiscating legally owned guns from citizens prepared to defend their homes. I'm surte they were paid well.
Back to the subject here: What CO2 regulations were they afraid of violating in that scenario?
Don't recall many regs being in place yet at that time. I wonder what the "Carbon footprint" was for all the trailers/temp housing that got moved into the area and then never used.

Land by itself is not sovereignty. (What Clueless thing to think that $ without military backing would = sovereignty, that is naive).
Land will feed you. Sovereignty won't. Seems like a no-brainer.

Of course that may be why we are so involved with that “hell” in Palestine (Israel).

Nah. That's because Congress is now Israeli occupied territory through AIPAC, and we've outsourced our foreign policy to them. And now, we've been given our own Palestines in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They'd rather have us think that the comparison is with VietNam, but having been there, I can tell you, It's Not.

BTW, does any one know the 'Carbon footprint' of the most recent slaughter in Gaza?

[Hotspring 44]

In the child-control prisons of the present, intelligence is more likely hunted down and punished. I'd love to see a table comparing the money spent on "counselors", "behavioral therapists", Ritalin, Zoloft, Paxil and all the other mindclamps we put on the bright kids, with the amount we devote to scholarship.

That is a bit off the topic of CO2, soot from coal fired power plants etc causing sea level to rise.
Perhaps another thread would better suit the need / desire for that very important subject?

I'm not overlooking the historical relevance at all. The net result of the billions spent on programs like Head Start and No Child Left Behind has been a decline in grades, literacy, and percentage graduated.

I was referring to the PELL College grants prior to the Bush Admin. To compare that to “No child left behind” (which IMHO has ruined the education system more than helped because it, instead of helping the
“failing” schools it punishes them.).
That is again in essence, comparing apples to oranges.

Precisely. Like I said earlier, when you accept "free" government money, you give up your liberty and become a government dependent.

I disagree with that evaluation.

The administration's "Free Market" is a lie. Thank you for putting it in quotes. Halliburton is a welfare queen, too. Blackwater was in New Orleans after Katrina. They were confiscating legally owned guns from citizens prepared to defend their homes. I'm surte they were paid well.

:thumbsupwink: I think we agree on this.

[handy]

:thumbsupwink: I think we agree on this.


cool.

Please check recent waccoreaderLord Monckton interview by Russia Today.

Look forward to reading your take.

Best regards,

[Hotspring 44]

Here is my short version "take" on the 2 videos I viewed:

Interesting that in one of these videos Lord Monckton states that Russia is more of a "democracy" than Brittan and that he would be talking to them and he wonn’t (bother to) talk to the Britt’s. That is about 11 minutes into this one: YouTube - Who's behind the curtain? - Lord Monckton at alternative Copenhagen conference

…and in the other one he says lobby Groups are being funded by "Russia" & "China" that have not so friendly intentions towards us (western developed nations).

In essence he is saying that the poorer countries are somehow being used as an excuse to limit our access to the resources so the Chinese and Russians can use those resources instead. About 7 minutes 40 seconds into the other…. …So why then bother to talk to the Russians about the concerns he has about the one world government conspiracy theory he espouses?
YouTube - Lord Monckton: Global Warming big scientific fad
At this point, I do not have much trust in this dude.

:thumbsupwink: I think we agree on this.


cool.

Please check recent waccoreaderLord Monckton interview by Russia Today.

Look forward to reading your take.

Best regards,

[Valley Oak]

I found this shocking news that I could hardly believe. The following article actually reports that there is evidence of global warming kept secret under Bush.

I don't know about you but I am absolutely astonished that our government, whether it be Bush or any other administration, would ever L I E to us !!!

Obama administration reveals evidence of global warming kept secret under Bush.

[David8]

Have you folks done ANY comparative fact checking on Climate Change? I really wanted to believe it - it's so seductively seeming to be aligned with environmentalism. And seeing the likes of Glenn Beck frothing do nothing for the credibility of opposing viewpoints.

Don't just believe the hype. Carbon taxes and credits will bakrupt the third world, and line the pockets of the bankers behind the current economic coup. The medieaval warm period was a time of abundance far warmer than where we're headed. Warming is largely driven by the sun, not Co2. Cutting pollution would be great, but this is not the answer. Inconvenient Truth is now banned from British public schools by their courts based on MANY factual errors. This IS deliberate deception. Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (link below), and check your sources.

I care about the truth, and I'm not particularly credulous of mainstream sources, so I've been researching the opposing information for months, with no preconceptions. I have done this primarily because the political implications make it so plausible that the same thieves that just stole trillions of dollars of public money stand to gain so enormously in money and most dangerously power from the proposed solutions to this problem. Is this a Hegelian dynamic? (manufactured problem to ram through "solutions" with hidden agendas)

I heartily recommend that you do the same. Don't believe me or anyone else. Take a deep breath and use a few hours to research the sources yourself, and for God's sake do so with a good measure of critical skepticism as to the motivations that are involved on all sides. I think you'll be surprised at what you find.

By the way, Lord Monckton is a wacky character with a lot of extreme opinions, but his politics and showmanship are less interesting and relevant than the science he demonstrates - he may be a wierdo, but he's a brilliant one. Just check his facts and ignore his flamboyant eccentricities. Same with Alex Jones. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Here's a few interesting sources:

(I don't endorse the complete content of any of these videos, I just found them really worth viewing by anyone genuinely interested in knowing the truth here.)

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647&ei=3dwqS_bqBoH8qAO51ZCHBQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

Peace, Love, & Truth

[Hotspring 44]

Have you folks done ANY comparative fact checking on Climate Change?

the term "you folks"is a pejorative (but that's OK with me). People examine the same evidence and come up with different opinions all the time that is a constant throughout history.

(I don't endorse the complete content of any of these videos, I just found them really worth viewing by anyone genuinely interested in knowing the truth here.)

That sounds like a wishy-washy (or should I say flip-flop) statement.
So some is "truth" & some is not worthy for you to "endorse"?
I could say the exact same thing about Al Gore's book "The inconvenient truth" too.

I have done comparative fact checking for months too. There are "Hidden agendas" all over the map on all sides of the issue. That is precisely why it is important to listen to the consortium of climatologists and not to take the one-sided pov of anyone whom uses far out factoids ( 2. Usage Problem A brief, somewhat interesting fact.) that producees a skew of the multifaceted aspects that stray off point in one direction. The overall dynamic of world wide global temperature average is in an increasing (↑) direction now, not decreasing as some GW deniers would have us believe.

Lord Monckton is a wacky character...

I do agree with that!

Here is (in short) my personal "agenda" (so called)> Get America off the "tit" of foreign oil and other (foreign) "Energy" sources, gain more patents for more sustainable, renewable energy system/s that are more decentralized than it is now so as to be less vulnerable to extremes in weather, earthquakes, solar phenomena, or terrorist attacks and other unforeseen events. To start that process sooner rather than "force" an so-called emergency that is as false as the WOMD in Iraq, (as example of a "forced emergency") just so the same old "powers that be" can continue to use our supposed "emergency" to propagate nuclear power plants and other "hidden agendas".

There is pro-nuclear power generating entities that would have us believe that there are not enough other technologies developed to “replace” the fossil-fuels that we now use except nuclear.
So both they & the fossil-fuel power generation are in some cases one in the same (company). That consortium of “business intrests” has a lot at stake financially.

It is important to have some idea of the individual scientist’s main field of study and also who is PAYING for the particular study and also what outcome of that particular conclusion is.


Here is one of (10 of) the denier’s claims with a rebuttal to that claim:
(1.) IS TEMPERATURE OF EARTH GETTING WARMER?
Sceptic
Instruments show there has been some warming of the Earth's surface since 1979, but the actual value is subject to large errors. Most long-term data comes from surface weather stations. Many of these are in urban centres which have been expanding and using more energy. When these stations observe a temperature rise, they are simply measuring the "urban heat island effect". In addition, coverage is patchy, with some regions of the world almost devoid of instruments. Data going back further than a century or two is derived from "proxy" indicators such as tree-rings and stalactites which, again, are subject to large errors.
Counter
Warming is unequivocal. Ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with records from surface weather stations. The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by Nasa , for example, use only rural stations to calculate trends. Research has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see more warming on calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn't resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes. Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979.

That article here: BBC News - The arguments made by climate change sceptics

Have you folks done ANY comparative fact checking on Climate Change? I really wanted to believe it - it's so seductively seeming to be aligned with environmentalism. And seeing the likes of Glenn Beck frothing do nothing for the credibility of opposing viewpoints.

Don't just believe the hype. Carbon taxes and credits will bakrupt the third world, and line the pockets of the bankers behind the current economic coup. The medieaval warm period was a time of abundance far warmer than where we're headed. Warming is largely driven by the sun, not Co2. Cutting pollution would be great, but this is not the answer. Inconvenient Truth is now banned from British public schools by their courts based on MANY factual errors. This IS deliberate deception. Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (link below), and check your sources.

I care about the truth, and I'm not particularly credulous of mainstream sources, so I've been researching the opposing information for months, with no preconceptions. I have done this primarily because the political implications make it so plausible that the same thieves that just stole trillions of dollars of public money stand to gain so enormously in money and most dangerously power from the proposed solutions to this problem. Is this a Hegelian dynamic? (manufactured problem to ram through "solutions" with hidden agendas)

I heartily recommend that you do the same. Don't believe me or anyone else. Take a deep breath and use a few hours to research the sources yourself, and for God's sake do so with a good measure of critical skepticism as to the motivations that are involved on all sides. I think you'll be surprised at what you find.

By the way, Lord Monckton is a wacky character with a lot of extreme opinions, but his politics and showmanship are less interesting and relevant than the science he demonstrates - he may be a wierdo, but he's a brilliant one. Just check his facts and ignore his flamboyant eccentricities. Same with Alex Jones. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Here's a few interesting sources:

(I don't endorse the complete content of any of these videos, I just found them really worth viewing by anyone genuinely interested in knowing the truth here.)

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647&ei=3dwqS_bqBoH8qAO51ZCHBQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

Peace, Love, & Truth

[David8]

Conversation continues: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...tml#post103503

[David8]

the term "you folks"is a pejorative (but that's OK with me). People examine the same evidence and come up with different opinions all the time that is a constant throughout history.

Not at all - you folks is my folks, that's why I'm bothering.


That sounds like a wishy-washy (or should I say flip-flop) statement.
So some is "truth" & some is not worthy for you to "endorse"?
I could say the exact same thing about Al Gore's book "The inconvenient truth" too.

No flip flop at all. On the whole, I have not seen good rebuttals to the major points in those videos. I take exception to minor points in them ie: in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" I think they are too dismissive on renewable energy in the third world. In Lord Monckton, he brings in unecessary and dubious political views, about Obama's birth certificate and such (which understandably turn people off). Same with Alex Jones - I don't personally resonate with the militant tone of his videos, though I understand where he is coming from. I'm just trying to get people past the window dressing to a discussion of the facts. MANY facts in Inconvenient Truth have been demonstrated to my satisfaction to be incomplete, misleading, or just plain false. This is why the British courts banned the video from public schools.

I have done comparative fact checking for months too. There are "Hidden agendas" all over the map on all sides of the issue. That is precisely why it is important to listen to the consortium of climatologists and not to take the one-sided pov of anyone whom uses far out factoids ( 2. Usage Problem A brief, somewhat interesting fact.) that producees a skew of the multifaceted aspects that stray off point in one direction. The overall dynamic of world wide global temperature average is in an increasing (↑) direction now, not decreasing as some GW deniers would have us believe.

There is no "consortium of climatologists" with a unified viewpoint. That's what Gore and IPCC would have us believe. The opinions of honest scientists are nowhere near consensus. However, suppression is now rampant, as well as deception: such as scientists opposed to their conclusions being added to IPCC's lists on technicalities.

I do agree with that!

Here is (in short) my personal "agenda" (so called)> Get America off the "tit" of foreign oil and other (foreign) "Energy" sources, gain more patents for more sustainable, renewable energy system/s that are more decentralized than it is now so as to be less vulnerable to extremes in weather, earthquakes, solar phenomena, or terrorist attacks and other unforeseen events. To start that process sooner rather than "force" an so-called emergency that is as false as the WOMD in Iraq, (as example of a "forced emergency") just so the same old "powers that be" can continue to use our supposed "emergency" to propagate nuclear power plants and other "hidden agendas".

I agree completely.

There is pro-nuclear power generating entities that would have us believe that there are not enough other technologies developed to “replace” the fossil-fuels that we now use except nuclear.
So both they & the fossil-fuel power generation are in some cases one in the same (company). That consortium of “business intrests” has a lot at stake financially.

It is important to have some idea of the individual scientist’s main field of study and also who is PAYING for the particular study and also what outcome of that particular conclusion is.

Agreed as well. That's one reason I find a number of the scientists in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" more believable than the many voices on the teat of the billions now flooding into global warming research - they have so much less to gain from coming out publicly against it - it seems they do so at great risk to their careers and personal safety.


Here is one of (10 of) the denier’s claims with a rebuttal to that claim:
(1.) IS TEMPERATURE OF EARTH GETTING WARMER?
...

That article here: BBC News - The arguments made by climate change sceptics

First, and not insignificantly, I find the term "denier" EXTERMELY offensive, and dangerous. There may be some who are cynical, but most are sincere. This is science, and even if they are wrong, those with opposing views do not deserve to be labelled this way. Scientists JOB is to doubt and challenge interpretations and data. Opposing views are a part of ALL scientific progress - it's how the progress is made. This pernicious trick of calling them "deniers" echoes deliberately the term "Holocaust Denier", and is evidence of the hysteria and railroading going on. Galileo would surely have been called a "flat earth denier", just before they arrested him for herasy. This has no place in civilized discourse.

The problem with your excerpt above is that the agrument that small warming is occuring says nothing to validate that it is CAUSED by manmade Co2, or that there is a significant danger of the predicteed consequences. From what I've seen so far, these are the biggest weaknesses. Most of the predictions come from these computer models they are throwing millions at, rarely if ever from historical precedents. And there ARE historical precedents of warming (and cooling) which did NOT produce the dire consequences we are hearing about. Computer models are notoriously suceptible to manipulation - they need to be practically told the desired result befor running, and can be re-run until you see what you are looking for. I just don't buy that they are accurate predictors, and this is well appreciated in scientific circles, and discussed openly where individuals are not invested in them for funding reasons.

As to the contribution of manmade Co2, I have yet to see credible rebuttals to the theory that warming is driven by the sun, based on superior data matches, and an answer to the FACT that manmade Co2 emission is dwarfed by natural sources.

I remain more suspicious of the power structures that have jumped on board with this, than I do of the scientists and professors who lose research money, tenure, and peace of mind by pointing to holes in the official science.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Inconvenient Truth is now banned from British public schools by their courts based on MANY factual errors. This IS deliberate deception. Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (link below), and check your sources.

I care about the truth

If you care about the truth you should especially care about the truth of relatively easy to check claims.

Inconvenient Truth, the 2006 documentary film by Davis Guggenheim, about Al Gore's campaign to educate citizens about global warming via a slide show that was NOT banned from British public schools by their courts.

Climate change film to stay in the classroom | Education | Education Guardian

[David8]

If you care about the truth you should especially care about the truth of relatively easy to check claims.

Why the character attack here? Am I a heretic to want facts?

Inconvenient Truth, the 2006 documentary film by Davis Guggenheim, about Al Gore's campaign to educate citizens about global warming via a slide show that was NOT banned from British public schools by their courts.

Climate change film to stay in the classroom | Education | Education Guardian

Sorry about that - it's not banned, just amended with "guidance notes" before it can be seen. Monckton claims this document is 75 pages long. Can anyone verify the length and content? Are there factual corrections?

After the IPCC report it's a lost cause to think the courts would uphold on the conclusions - but what about the details?

EcoWorld.com says "In October 2007, a British judge ruled the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” had nine inaccuracies. And shortly thereafter, in reference to this movie, another British person, Chris Monckton, wrote “35 Inconvenient Truths,” republished with permission by EcoWorld here. Not nine, but 35 inaccuracies. In reading this compilation you have to wonder whether we aren’t getting carried away. How many sweeping political and economic mandates will come of this? How many civil suits? How many regulations, subsidies, taxes, and trades?"

So the court ruled there are 9 scientific errors at least - multiple articles say 20 or more were presented, but the court only ruled on 9 as a representative sample for the purposes of the case.

Here's the courts 9 admitted errors, with a link to full transcripts.

Here's Monckton's report of 35 errors in the movie.

Gore refuses to debate Monckton.

Here's a Canadian CBC documentary with a lot of real science.

I'm genuinely interested in specific rebuttals to the scientific issues here. Maybe we'll all learn something. Does anyone have credible data sources that refute Monckton or the sources in Great Global Warming Swindle? I'd love to see them.