Climate Denialists Still Lying About CRU Emails - The CRU Responds

Your point remains clear, David. Those unconvinced by now are unlikely to change.

I wouldn't expect them to. Denialists choose their conclusion first (they don't like the possible policy options, which is likely to include some sort of regulation)....then they backtrack to see what they can deny in order to delay and discussion of policy options.

They don't like the taste of the medicine, so they deny the disease. Unfortunately, all of us are the ones getting sick.

Wow - a coven of AGW-ist's !!
You should more correctly refer to "Deniers" as Objectivists - you would find that most do believe that we should control CO2 emissions, reduce pollution, conserve the environment etc. but want to see an objective and open debate based on open access to the original (raw) data. For example, the above article talks about the availability of GHCN "raw" data - from the GHCN web site:-

"Both historical and near-real-time GHCN data undergo rigorous quality assurance reviews. These reviews include preprocessing checks on source data, time series checks that identify spurious changes in the mean and variance, spatial comparisons that verify the accuracy of the climatological mean and the seasonal cycle, and neighbor checks that identify outliers from both a serial and a spatial perspective."

Sounds good - but it is not raw data

BTW Ruth - if temperatures drop to ice-age levels then won't the sea level drop to ice age levels (creating even more, but rather chilly, sea front)?

Mebbe so, Alan. but if it does, our global warming climate change will have swapped ends and become a glaciation climate change. People are gonna die by hundreds of millions either way. And that is gonna mean war... really BAD war.

Frankly, I'll be surprised if technological civilization survives this century.

jDoes that mean you believe in the Maya's? :-)

Let's focus on reaching an agreement in Copenhagen that will make each nation cut emissions dramatically.

Reaching and complying are unfortunately not always solidly linked.

It's likely that an agreement will include sanctions against nations that fail to reduce emissions. In Europe, there have been calls for years for tariffs. The Boxer-Kerry bill also includes provisions for this.

Great info, Sam. Thanks.

I saw documents, ready to go allowing auctions of CARBON CREDITS. Get out the ration books! I can't believe they would try to put us under international authority, with all who died to make us free. Really guys, what are you thinking? Copenhagen is a civil trap, not an answer!

Thanks, David. Of course, there is evidence that climate cynics were also the deniers of tobacco induced cancers. It is very interesting that many of the cynics' "stories" about this describe the emails as "leaked". They were stolen - hacked. Do the cynics ever stop lying?

Seems not.

Seeing is believing. How about the satellite recorded chart of Sea ice in November 2009, which are nearly as low as the record setting year of 2007?

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

doesn't look like it's getting colder, does it?

Kind of wet and rainy here today. Guess the sun winked out.

No, is not getting colder, but with the melt, and fresh water intrusion into the Gulf Stream, some places are going to get very cold. Put the blame where it belongs, deforestation and paving!

Well, I don't understand how being better to the earth can be a bad thing. I can't imagine why the conspiracy theorists would argue that. Of course, many of them do.

I think they mostly argue that there isn't any need to be better to the earth. That humans are too inconsequential to affect such a big thing. Of course, history has proved that point wrong many times (e.g., killer London fogs).

I see arguing with the denialist cult is futile. They are almost like children covering up their ears and screaming to block out the truth.
They remind me of Norman Bates who thought his strong willed mother was still alive. He had more proof his delusions were real than they do.

An interesting observation, Rude.

You know when Toto pulled the curtain from where the man behind the “Wizard of Oz” was standing he too tried to deny that there was anything behind the curtain. It comes as no surprise that the ones caught would continue to decry their innocence. Let’s face it, greater men have sold themselves for the almighty research dollar. But I suppose to the worshipers of the great Global Warming no amount of real evidence will convince you!

"no amount of real evidence will convince you!"

spend much time looking at mirrors, Christopher?

Actually, it's more a case of denialists extracting a few tidbits and creating a story line consistent with their preconceived belief that the policy options are not acceptable.

Christopher I really have to question your ability to make rational decisions. You do not seem to have the ability to decern fact from fiction.

In other words, Christopher, in a contest of, "Are you smarter than a hammer?"... you'd lose.

Chuck, Christopher is clearly smarter than a hammer. I appreciate his coherent comments even when I disagree. We should encourage more articulate discussion, not less.

I love the typical response from the Global Warming Faithful; blame the denialists and question the intelligence and sanity of those who question their holy decrees. You want everything in black and white, with absolutes for your unquestionable loyalty and who can really blame you. So that when some con artist comes in and tells you what you want to hear you fall down in worship.

Life is never that easy, and those who think it is should be the ones who should have their intelligence and sanity questioned. The fact is that global warming as a sole cause of man-made CO2 emissions is questionable at best; the models are already failing to predict the present never mind the future. But you don’t care, you “know” it is has been proven and you won’t hear anyone else showing you that you have been lied to.

The emperor is naked. Not only that; he’s nude.

I love the typical response from the Global Warming Faithful; blame the denialists and question the intelligence and sanity of those who question their holy decrees.

Actually, the typical response is to question why the denialists think it is okay to cherry pick a few lines and out of context emails, and then create a story line consistent with their own predetermined viewpoint.

You want everything in black and white, with absolutes for your unquestionable loyalty and who can really blame you.

I have no idea what you mean by this. If anything, the scientists are bound by everything being gray while the denialists paint everything as either black or white. You seem to have gotten this backwards. Can you expound?

So that when some con artist comes in and tells you what you want to hear you fall down in worship.

Again, this seems not to make any sense. What con artist? And who is worshiping?

Life is never that easy, and those who think it is should be the ones who should have their intelligence and sanity questioned.

Again, this seems to make no sense in the current context. Please expound.

The fact is that global warming as a sole cause of man-made CO2 emissions is questionable at best;

First off, you have it backwards. CO2 causes global warming, not global warming causes CO2 emissions. I assume you just got linguistically confused. But then, nobody has said that man-made CO2 is the sole cause of global warming; just that it is the primary cause and something we can do something about.

the models are already failing to predict the present never mind the future.

Actually, they are underestimating the speed and magnitude of the effect. So things are getting worse, faster, than we expected.

But you don’t care, you “know” it is has been proven and you won’t hear anyone else showing you that you have been lied to.

The scientists who study climate change are constantly challenging each other's findings. You seem to be confused into thinking that every mining executive or office manager or Heartland Institute-hired writer can offer an informed opinion on the matter. Why would you expect that someone associated with a non-science free market lobbying group, especially those that aren't even scientists (or were scientists decades ago that retired before the current research) would be viable sources of information?

The emperor is naked. Not only that; he’s nude.

Is there a difference between being naked and being nude? Is that from a blog?

Let’s consider the major points and arguments of global warming:

CO2 is the major (if the only significant) factor in global warming. There is considerable doubt on this argument, which is simply taken as Gospel by global warning conspiracists. This is not to say that CO2 is not a factor and it is not to say that under certain conditions it could become a tipping point factor but it is not Q.E.D. that it is the only factor driving global temperatures.

The basic argument of those who are against the CO2 is the major factor in global warming is that there is considerable “reasonable doubt.” It is the absolute nature that CO2 must be the only cause of global warming which reasonable minds reject.

Remember it was Robert S. who said, “Christopher I really have to question your ability to make rational decisions.” He is not the only Global Warning person to directly question my sanity because I directly dare to question his assumption that the emperor has beautiful clothes. I see a naked emperor.

Meanwhile; which comes first, CO2 or global warming? Remember Al Gore’s “inconvenient truth?” His “correlation” of CO2 and temperature had a small problem. Anyone who looked carefully at the graph noticed there was a 500 year lag in the CO2 data. One major and plausible theory is that the oceans cannot hold as much CO2 when it is warmer. Since the major oceans of the world constitute a considerable heat sink the ocean temperatures at the depths of the ocean would probably lag by a considerable amount of time. Thus, and yes this does come as a surprise CO2 lags behind global warming. (Another inconvenient problem to Gore’s inconvenient truth.)

The scientists who study the data are not as you say “constantly challenging each other's findings.” Anyone who challenges the data is considered to be a denialists and the community dedicated to the cause of CO2 as the sole cause of Global Warming is actively working to suppress their voices. That was the evidence of those emails that you seem to want to dismiss out of hand.

“Is there a difference between being naked and being nude?”

Oh you caught me there, the use of parallel redundancy in order to stress a point. I confess; it’s a bit rude to claim he’s nude. Indeed it’s quite crude to use the word nude.

Let’s consider the major points and arguments of global warming:

Do you study climate science? If not, how can you have enough specific expertise to legitimately challenge any of the assumptions, data, interpretation, and models? Of course not. You have enough knowledge and intelligence to fairly articulately offer an opinion biased by your political leanings. That's it. But you start with your conclusion - you don't like regulations - and then you question with the intent of rationalizing that conclusion. Which causes you to presume things that are not actually true and then argue against these presumptions rather than the facts.

Case in point:

CO2 is the major (if the only significant) factor in global warming. There is considerable doubt on this argument, which is simply taken as Gospel by global warning conspiracists.

As I've already noted, this is a faulty premise. Of course there are other factors, including other greenhouse gases, but scientists who study the science have determined that CO2 is a major contributor and something we can easily do something about.

But the premise is faulty on another level. You say that "there is considerable 'reasonable doubt'." That's not true. There is, in fact, considerable confidence by the scientific community. It is only a handful of scientists who disagree, and then a well-oiled lobbyist machine and blogger network that saturates the internet with dissenting comments and blogs, thus giving the impression (as intended) that there is "considerable" doubt. That simply isn't true. The evidence is overwhelming and there is very high confidence in the scientific community.

He is not the only Global Warning person to directly question my sanity because I directly dare to question his assumption that the emperor has beautiful clothes.

Individuals tend to react in their own way, and here on Gather there is a tendency toward hyperboly. But the point is what expertise do you have that makes you're questioning valid? Especially when your assumptions are faulty. For example, your use of the "naked emperor" phrase is an assumption that you ascribe to others when in fact it is merely a rhetorical device you have employed to set your straw man for attack.

Meanwhile; which comes first, CO2 or global warming? Remember Al Gore’s “inconvenient truth?” His “correlation” of CO2 and temperature had a small problem.

Remember, suggesting that Gore is somehow the science is a sign of a failed argument. Gore is a guy who did a slide show and movie a couple of years ago. He based it on the science built up over decades. Some details in his slide show he seems to have gotten wrong. So what. He's not a scientist and the science doesn't really care what Gore says. That said, scientists who do study the science say that Gore got is mostly right, and that his overall message is absolutely accurate and supported by the science. By focusing on Gore you are attempting to deflect from the science. It's like blaming the kid who delivers your newspaper for starting a war in Afghanistan because that paper has a front page article about it.

Anyone who looked carefully at the graph noticed there was a 500 year lag in the CO2 data.

Really? So write a peer-reviewed paper about it. Discuss it at scientific meetings. Defend the science with data. That's how science is done. Not by people drawing an uninformed, or at best semi-informed, conclusion based on one graph.

The scientists who study the data are not as you say “constantly challenging each other's findings.”

Of course they are. Have you ever attended a scientific conference? They just do so in the scientific literature and meetings, not on the blogosphere "debating" with people who "know all and see all" despite having no training or expertise. Does your brain surgeon debate brain surgery techniques with his barber?

Anyone who challenges the data is considered to be a denialists and the community dedicated to the cause of CO2 as the sole cause of Global Warming is actively working to suppress their voices. That was the evidence of those emails that you seem to want to dismiss out of hand.

Not true. The emails show a handful of scientists who clearly are stressed from being constantly besieged by mostly non-scientists claiming to see fault in their work but really just cherry picking and putting false analysis out on the blogosphere. If a man calls another man a thief when he is not a thief, it puts the other man in the position of constantly defending himself against lies. And most of the time the denialists are wrong. That doesn't seem to matter because by the time it is shown they are wrong the falsehood is spread all over the internet and people predisposed to believe will believe. In fact, they will accuse any proof that the denialists were wrong as simply "attacking dissenting voices." That's exactly the plan. That is what lobbyists do, and they are very good at it. It's cynically using the uncertainties and the lack of expertise of the public and flooding the non-scientific airwaves with misinformation solely to obfuscate the reality and delay any action. Which is what they want...delay in devising and implementing any policy option that might result in regulation. It has nothing to do with the science.

The emails are a perfect example of this. Out of more than 1000 emails stolen, only a handful are being cited. And then those cherry picked handful are further cherry picked for dodgy-sounding lines that can be reinterpreted, not from the perspective of the scientist and the context and the time it was written, but through the lens of the preconceived conclusion in search of support. So "support" is seen where there isn't any. And finally, a few emails are then extrapolated into some universal conclusion that has no basis in reality. It's like claiming the entire planet is one big desert just because your kid has a sandbox in the back yard.

Oh you caught me there, the use of parallel redundancy in order to stress a point. I confess; it’s a bit rude to claim he’s nude. Indeed it’s quite crude to use the word nude.

No, you were trying to reinforce your underlying premise, which is meaningless to begin with but sets your mindset for everything else you say. You intended to leave on a bumper sticker that you felt would make your point. And you just botched it. Why? Because the premise is so ingrained in your thinking that you couldn't even see the inconsistency in your tag line.

And your Dr. Suess bit at the very end of the comment is also a defensive mechanism to deflect from your logical lapse with humor. That's fine. Just don't think it went unnoticed.

Happy Thanksgiving, Christopher.

It is the absolute nature that CO2 must be the only cause of global warming which reasonable minds reject.
I'm with you Christopher. Many times in ice core and even micro bacterial history high co2 levels have existed without man. Always was because something changed in PLANTS. Not a new phenomena. Deforestation is the culprit, and paving soaking up heat hurts too, both more than CO2 emissions, which actually shade the earth and slow warming. I'm convinced of it!

I'm convinced of it!

Scientists who study climate change actually look at all of the data and follow where it leads. They tend not to set up absolute and utterly ridiculous straw men like "absolute nature that CO2 must be the only cause." In fact, they understand the natural cycles and the man-made contributions better than those who don't have any training at all and yet are convinced of one thing or another.

Climate denialists?

I don't believe "global warming" is a crisis. Or should I now say "climate change" since the alarmists are using this term now that we are going through a cooling trend.

But I can't say that I or anyone I know of believes there is no climate. The climate has existed since the beginning of time without the help or hinderance of man. Can anyone point me to people who believe there is no climate?

Citing the IPCC as an authority on "global warming" is like quoting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an authority on Jewish history.

While you dittoheads continue to repeat little slogans, like "Or should I now say "climate change" since the alarmists are using this term now...," the U.S. is fast falling behind China, Japan and South Korea in investment in renewable energy.

U.S. Losing the New Energy Race

Go ahead - try keeping the public distracted by these non-issues. You can help the U.S. become the world's next France.

Citing the IPCC as an authority on "global warming" is like quoting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an authority on Jewish history.

How so? The logic doesn't follow at all. Perhaps you can explain.

Lee C. you may not considerate it a crisis but when scientific data shows us that the atmosphere is drifting to the point where it will not support life of earth I am a little concerned. Is it too expensive to change our ways and keep the earth liveable? Screw the next generation, let them figure it out right?

"How so? The logic doesn't follow at all."

It's a limpbaugh slogan. It doesn't have to be logical or even make sense. All it has to do is excite people. As with the tobacco wars, the cynics have lost. All they can now hope to influence is public opinion.

Steve,

I am all for renewable energy that is econimically feasible. Does China, Japan or South Korea have biomass ethonal plants up and running? The US is not far from it. Hopefully, it will become economically feasiable to use biomass for ethonal prduction. There is plant not 15 miles from my house that has received 80 million dollars in funding from the government to produce biomass ethonal. It's experimenting with it, but it just isn't cost effective yet.

I don't know about SK or Japan, but China relies heavily on nuclear energy. But because of enviromental alarmists here in the US, development of new nuclear plants in the US have been stopped. The US is missing out on cheap energy not only on the nuclear front but by not using it's own resources in Alaska and off-shore drilling that other countries are doing.

I believe the enviromentalists will make the US the world's next France.

"Screw the next generation, let them figure it out right?"

I have actually seen cynics write such a thing. One cynic actually said that we had solved our problems - his children and grandchildren will have to solve theirs. Kind of freaky - ain't it?

"It's a limpbaugh slogan."

It is? When did he say that?

I'd be amazed if Limbaugh was quoting me.

I don't know about SK or Japan, but China relies heavily on nuclear energy.

Actually, that's not true at all. China gets 70% of its energy from coal. You can see the air there. In fact, I have.

I believe the enviromentalists will make the US the world's next France.

France gets most of their energy from nuclear power.

Ha, David, I was about to explain those 2 things, but you beat me to it.

"I am all for renewable energy that is econimically feasible."

The Asian countries are actively making renewables "economically feasible". As they do, they will own them. That means they will own the jobs and exports.

"...biomass ethonal plants up and running?"

Corn ethanol is a flop. Cellulosic ethanol is still being developed. Algae ethanol is promising, but far from mass production.

"15 miles from my house that has received 80 million dollars in funding from the government"

China is spending $390 billion over the next 5 years, compared to U.S. $180 billion.

"But because of enviromental alarmists here in the US, development of new nuclear plants in the US have been stopped."

Good!!! You might also be interested in knowing that First Solar - only one solar company - has the production capacity of an average size nuclear plant per year. It's cheaper and faster to build solar power plants than nuclear. And you avoid the controversy.

"The US is missing out on cheap energy not only on the nuclear front..."

Nuclear is not cheap - not by any means.

"...but by not using it's own resources in Alaska and off-shore drilling...."

Folks - this is exactly why the U.S. is headed for ex-superpower status. Too many are stuck in oil (and coal), and cannot see that isn't where the world is headed in the 21st century. You cannot imagine how damned happy I am that I do not have children!!!

Hell - I don't know why I waste time with Lee. He's not interested in real information - he has his slogans.

Thanks David. I stand corrected. I should not have said "China relies heavily on nuclear energy", but they are making plans to.

"China will start constructing five nuclear power plants (NPPs) this year, part of an effort to dramatically expand its nuclear power capacity by 2020, officials said Monday." http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-04/21/content_7697913.htm

Does anyone know if there any plans for more nuculear plants in the US?

"The Asian countries are actively making renewables "economically feasible". As they do, they will own them. That means they will own the jobs and exports."

Tell me more specifics. What countries and how are they making renewables more economically feasible?

I agree corn ethonal is a flop. It was a huge mistake for the government to mandate it's production and use. It has caused nothing but more problems. The livestock industry has had a hard time competing for the corn since the enthonal industry receives subsidies. This is another reason why food prices have increased. I have nothing against the goverment giving grants or loans for renewalbe energy. But mandating production and giving taxpayer money for subsidies causes many problems. Let the free market do its job.

"Good!!! You might also be interested in knowing that First Solar - only one solar company - has the production capacity of an average size nuclear plant per year. It's cheaper and faster to build solar power plants than nuclear. And you avoid the controversy."

I'm not from Missouri, but show me the money.

"Tell me more specifics. What countries and how are they making renewables more economically feasible?"

I gave you a link above. (Hint: investment)

"I'm not from Missouri, but show me the money."

First Solar Passes $1 Per Watt Industry Milestone

"Does Nuclear Power Compete With Conservation, Wind, Solar and Biomass?"

I am not saying there isn't a place for wind, solar, and other renewable energies, but that they are not a long term depenable, economical solution to our needs.

"I'm not from Missouri, but show me the money."

Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?

Investing money into something does not guarantee results.

Even if we become dependant on renewable energy from Asian countries which I highly doubt, is this worse than being depandent on Middle East countries who want to see the destruction of the US?

We could become less dependant on oil from the ME if we would invest more in infrastucture for our own oil and nuclear resouces that we know are dependable. We already know they work. Investing some into wind and solar energy is fine, but we can depend on them. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't shine 24/7.

Sorry, meant to say we can NOT depend on wind and solar power.

An interesting discussion. Please continue.

Twelve Principles to Guide U.S. Energy Policy

"Americans harbor misunder­standings and myths about energy and market forces. They want low energy prices and plentiful supply but resist the steps that energy companies must take to achieve these goals. This confusion leads their repre­sentatives in Congress to enact conflicting policies that harm America's ability to meet its energy needs. This has to change.

Sound national energy policies must enable Amer­ica to obtain energy supplies from a wide range of sources in a way that is best for the economy and at the same time addresses homeland and national secu­rity considerations. An abundant, diverse energy sup­ply is central to America's freedom and prosperity."

"The guiding principles for an energy strategy that advances freedom and prosperity should emphasize three themes:

Unleashing free enterprise,
Protecting America's energy interests, and
Advancing free global energy markets. "

Thanks for the link, Lee. To be honest, the boilerplate sounds good, but it's just that, boilerplate designed to sound good. But their ways of supposedly implementing this philosophy is, frankly, the same old same old.

Take this part:

"The guiding principles for an energy strategy that advances freedom and prosperity should emphasize three themes:

Unleashing free enterprise,
Protecting America's energy interests, and
Advancing free global energy markets. "

In other words, exactly the way it's being done right now. "Unleashing free enterprise" sounds good but how is that going to lead to sustainable energy? It isn't. Companies have zero incentive to go into new business areas because the initial costs of any new technology are always higher than the mostly profit they make off the current technology. So they will continue to use the current technology until the costs rise enough to warrant shifting money into innovation. It's a basic business principle. So suggesting that somehow "unleashing free enterprise" will lead to development of a sustainable energy policy is nothing but smoke and mirrors. And transparent mirrors at that.

Ditto for the other two. They just aren't any different than what we're doing now, and what we're doing now is not helping us get to a sustainable energy future.

The only thing that will change our energy direction is a system of positive and negative incentives that reset the economic conditions to the point where there is a benefit to the companies to go in the new direction, either with new research or implementation of "new" technologies we already have available.

Mandating ethonal production and giving taxpayer money to support ethonal production subsidies are not unleashing free enterprise. It has damaged the livestock industry, increased food prices and allowed Big Oil to buy up and control the ethonal industry. The government needs to stay out of it. Good intentions by bueurocrats usually end up making things worse.

"Avoid costly environmental regulatory man­dates that will achieve little environmental gain. Numerous costly regulations have been proposed or implemented to address various environmental goals, from water quality to glo­bal warming. However, past experience—such as with the morass of gasoline regulations that push up the price at the pump and the require­ments that have stopped construction of any new coal-fired power plants for the past 15 years—shows that mandates can be expensive and economically harmful while making only marginal progress toward environmental goals. The full cost of current and proposed regula­tions and mandates, including the economic and security impact, should be evaluated and compared with the likely environmental gain."

"Rely on the private sector's research and development capabilities. The competitive pri­vate sector is best able to improve fuel efficiency and develop the next generation of fuels. There are many guesses as to what the “new oil” might be, but no one knows for certain—least of all the federal government. We do know, however, that finding and commercializing these new fuels is crucially important to our economic future. The best way to secure abundant energy sources in the future is to encourage entrepreneurs to dis­cover them, not for agencies and congressional committees to try to pick winners with directed research, regulations, mandates, and subsidies. Entrepreneurs need a regulatory, trade, and tax system that creates the best climate for private-sector innovation."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2046.cfm

Mandating ethonal production and giving taxpayer money to support ethonal production subsidies are not unleashing free enterprise.

I agree. That was pretty much my point. And I agree that the government policy attempts don't always get it right. In large part because they cater to this special interest or that special interest without thinking the interconnectedness through.

Numerous costly regulations have been proposed or implemented to address various environmental goals, from water quality to glo­bal warming.

Here I think is the epitome of the problem with the concept of "let free enterprise do it." Free enterprise will always maximize the value to the company. Historically this has been to the detriment of society. Companies polluted the water and the air because those were costs they could externalize (just dump it down the drain and the toxin flows downstream and someone else has to deal with it). Only when the government stepped in were those costs considered by the company. Up until then it was us, the taxpayers, that paid for the cost in taxes and in adverse effects on our health. The point is that free enterprise will always push as much of the cost outside the company. Always. That is how they maximize their short term competitiveness, and short term really is what rules the day.

Secondly, society has an interest in this game as well. Government regulation is the mechanism by which society gets to keep itself from being harmed by free enterprise. That is why we don't have little children working 18 hours in coal mines.

The competitive pri­vate sector is best able to improve fuel efficiency and develop the next generation of fuels.

But they won't. That's the point. The car companies and the oil companies have a co-dependent relationship. Both benefit from maximizing their profit, which means putting as much of the cost onto society. Add to that our general national affluence (relative to most countries) and we as consumers want the big SUVs, etc. But that isn't in the best interest in long term sustainable energy or national security or a myriad of other societal values. Again, regulations drive policy. That doesn't mean that "free enterprise" can't still reign. It can. But they now are incentivized to innovate rather than rely on what they've been doing that seems to work for them, even as it isn't in the best interests of the American society.

The best way to secure abundant energy sources in the future is to encourage entrepreneurs to dis­cover them,

Again, this is more PR than it is meaningful. The oil companies all have substantial unused offshore oil leases, and yet last year we were chanting "drill, baby, drill." Well, they have the leases to drill on now. They can start any day. But they don't. Why? Because that costs money and with less supply the costs are higher so they make more profit. Again, companies will always maximize their profit. They can't be expected to do it any other way. So regulations are needed to create the economic conditions necessary to make it economically feasible for companies to exploit what they already have. Free enterprise again works against the long term benefits of society.

Entrepreneurs need a regulatory, trade, and tax system that creates the best climate for private-sector innovation."

Agreed. Absolutely. But everything else they said up to that point contradicts exactly that belief. They want to be left alone and yet be given tax breaks and other incentives to do things, that they then don't do.

"Investing money into something does not guarantee results...."

As I said above, First Solar presently has production capacity of a gigawatt annually, and is growing. So what's this about "not guarantee(ing) results"? Of course, this doesn't even take into consideration wind energy and geothermal. (Btw, geothermal potential in the U.S. is only 50,000 times the demand).

"Even if we become dependant on renewable energy from Asian countries which I highly doubt...."

So you doubt that Asian countries are outspending the U.S. on renewable energy investments by a 3 to 1 margin? The basis of your doubt is....

"We could become less dependant on oil from the ME if we would invest more in infrastucture for our own oil and nuclear resouces that we know are dependable."

No - that's what's being questioned. We might have the domestic coal resources, but "clean coal" is little more than a PR campaign, and without it being "clean", there's no point in using it. The U.S. has 3% of the world's known oil reserves - hardly enough to make us energy independent. Nuclear is hype. It is an industry that is notorious for promising large and under-performing.

"http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment"

Heritage - why am I not surprised? Another "free-market, (so-called) 'think' tank."

"Here I think is the epitome of the problem with the concept of 'let free enterprise do it.'"

Of course, that's only the ideological/political problem with it. And one need not mention that "free market" ideology has been the dominant position in American politics for the past 25 years - and look where we are....

I remember seeing "concept cars" in the early 1980s, that were predicted to attain 85 mpg. They were never produced by American companies.

"But everything else they said up to that point contradicts exactly that belief."

WHAAAAT?!?!?? The "free market" ain't "free"?!?!??

"Again, this is more PR than it is meaningful. The oil companies all have substantial unused offshore oil leases, and yet last year we were chanting "drill, baby, drill." Well, they have the leases to drill on now. They can start any day. But they don't. Why?"

This is exactly what Sarah Palin was dealing with in Alaska. She was doing everything should could to get Oil companies with leases to drill. She was somewhat successful with Exxon Mobil in one such lease. Oil companies have been sitting on their leases instead of drilling to artifically inflate prices. We need to terminate leases with oil companes that don't drill. But what does that have to do with offshore drilling. Nothing. Enviromentlists in powerful postions are doing everything to keep that from happening. Yet, other countries are doing just that only a few 100 miles off our own costs.

"It is an industry that is notorious for promising large and under-performing."

For example?

"Of course, that's only the ideological/political problem with it. And one need not mention that "free market" ideology has been the dominant position in American politics for the past 25 years - and look where we are...."

Uhhhh...would you say industries are more regulated now or more regulated 25 years ago?

Numerous costly regulations have been proposed or implemented to address various environmental goals, from water quality to glo­bal warming.

Here I think is the epitome of the problem with the concept of "let free enterprise do it." Free enterprise will always maximize the value to the company. Historically this has been to the detriment of society....

Free enterprise does not always maximze the value to the company. Some do. Not all. Companies are made up of people who have families and want to see the enviroment protected. Making up blanket statement like that is just unfounded.

The bottom line is regulations are costly and this is one of the main reasons companies have moved production to other countries. And I am not saying all regulations are bad but they are out of control. Many times there is no science behind them.

Here in Iowa regulations keep tightening on both commercial and natural fertilzer applications (mostly just livestock waste) in an attempt to decrease nitrates in the Raccon River and Des Moines River. We are seeing more and more regulations concerning when farmers can and cannot applicate, how fertilizer can be stockpiled, how close to wells, rivers and other bodies of water they can be applied.

And what have the studies shown since these regulations have been in place? The nitrate levels in the rivers have increased. They can find no correlation between when ferterlizer is applied and when they see an increase of nitrates in the water. NONE.

What is the solution to the problem according to the powers that be? More regulations. Regulations that will require farmers to build more storage structures for animal waste. The science behind all this? Doesn't exist. But it makes a few people in power feel important. This feeling of euphoria will costs farmers millions of dollars and once again will increase the cost of food production. Who gets to pay for it? We all do. Or we import more food from countries like China who we know has a great record in food safety. NOT.

And what to we here from the global warming alarmists?

There is a consenses among scientists that global warming is an undeniable fact. Which in of itself is a blatant lie. The consenses is only among global warming alarmists.

Those of us who questioned the "science" of these alarmists are seeing the organic fed, anti-biotic free, free-range chickens come home to roost. The CRU email cover-up is the smoking-hatchet. Now we see the chickens with their heads cut off running around trying to cover their chicken tracks.

"For example?"

Plenty of examples here....

Energy Autonomy: The Economic, Social and Technological Case for Renewable Energy

"Here in Iowa regulations keep tightening on both commercial and natural fertilzer applications (mostly just livestock waste) in an attempt to decrease nitrates in the Raccon River and Des Moines River."

Of course, there are very good reasons for that. They're called oceans.

"Dead Zones" Multiplying Fast, Coastal Water Study Says

"The science behind all this?"

Try here. You're not going to find it at the Heritage website.

"They can find no correlation between when ferterlizer is applied and when they see an increase of nitrates in the water."

Funny how climate cynics rarely post references unless they are specifically asked to do so. Often it turns out to be that the sources are suspect.

"The science behind all this? Doesn't exist."

Really. See the link above. Or try this one:

Fertilizer Runoff Overwhelms Streams and Rivers--Creating Vast "Dead Zones"

"And what to we here from the global warming alarmists?//There is a consenses among scientists that global warming is an undeniable fact. Which in of itself is a blatant lie."

You will not find a major scientific organization in the world that disputes the IPCC Reports. None. Of course, you don't believe there is any science re: fertilizer run-off and pollution, either.

"Those of us who questioned the "science" of these alarmists are seeing the organic fed, anti-biotic free, free-range chickens come home to roost."

You're also not a fan of organic farming? I guess your preference for harmones, antibiotics, fertilizers and pesticides in the food supply says alot about how you think (or don't). Btw, what do you think soil is, and is it worth conserving/building? How would you go about it? (Hint: the answer ain't fertilizers, antibiotics, growth harmones and pesticides).

Great news!!! Farming in Iowa is not lost!!!

Your link to "It is an industry that is notorious for promising large and under-performing." points to one book that makes that claim that I don't think I will be purchasing anytime soon.

"Here in Iowa regulations keep tightening on both commercial and natural fertilzer applications (mostly just livestock waste) in an attempt to decrease nitrates in the Raccon River and Des Moines River."

Of course, there are very good reasons for that. They're called oceans.

Iowa is not near an Ocean. It does have rivers and streams that flow to the Gulf. However, it is not the Federal Government that is making these regulations. It is the state of Iowa because it is concerned about nitrates in Iowa rivers and streams.

You seem to miss my point (ignorantly or facisously I don't know). I have an understanding what nitrogen does to harm rivers and streams. I don't question that science. However science does not support the regulations placed upon farmers that is SUPPOSE to keep nitrogen fertilizer from entering rivers and streams. They have not helped reduce nitrates in Iowa rivers. There is no correlation between the timing of fertilizer applications and the timing of finding higher nitrate levels in Iowa rivers. Yet more regulation of fetilizer application is coming down the pike. More costly regulations that have no scientific basis for correcting a problem will cause higher grocery bills.

It is interesting how one of your links mentioned sewage as a source of pollution. Hmmmm. Maybe something should be done about municipal waste water treatment plants paying fines rather than meeting the nitrate levels in the "clean" water they release back into Iowa rivers. Why are'nt more regulations placed on water treatment plants?

You're also not a fan of organic farming?

Are you kidding? I'm all for organic farming. If uninformed or misinformed consumers want to pay more for a product because it is labeled "organic" farmers are more than willing to accomadate when consumers are willing to pay more. Farmers will grow crops and raise livestock pretty much anyway the consumers want. They just have to be willing to pay the cost of doing so.

Free enterprise does not always maximze the value to the company.

Of course it does. Shareholders and stockholders demand it. Why put resources into not polluting when there is no law against it and none of your competitors are doing it? The costs are simply externalized. Pollution was only reduced after government regulations moved the costs from society back onto the companies that created the pollution. Otherwise they would simply have continued to pollute like anyone else. That is "free enterprise."

The bottom line is regulations are costly and this is one of the main reasons companies have moved production to other countries. And I am not saying all regulations are bad but they are out of control. Many times there is no science behind them.

You've come at this statement purely from the industry perspective. Yes, it costs a company more to not just dump its toxic waste in the nearest stream. Yes, it costs the company more to have to provide safer working conditions for its employees. But prior to the regulations those costs still existed (in cleanup costs and health costs), they just were foisted on society and the taxpayers. Is that fair? To require the taxpayers to clean up the mess being made by companies who are in business to make a profit and thus externalize as many costs as possible? Doesn't it make more sense not to create those cleanup and health costs in the first place, even if there is some up front cost to the company (which they pass on to the consumer)? It is generally cheaper to avoid a mess than to clean it up.

There is a consenses among scientists that global warming is an undeniable fact. Which in of itself is a blatant lie. The consenses is only among global warming alarmists.

Not true. There is overwhelming evidence that led to the scientific consensus. Only a handful of denialists disagree, and many of them aren't even climate scientists. Others are simply old men who stopped doing research decades ago and just pick up consulting fees. All seem to be associating themselves with non-science free market lobbying groups.


Those of us who questioned the "science" of these alarmists are seeing the organic fed, anti-biotic free, free-range chickens come home to roost. The CRU email cover-up is the smoking-hatchet. Now we see the chickens with their heads cut off running around trying to cover their chicken tracks.

Not true. Denialists cherry picked a handful of emails (out of more than 1000 stolen), reinterpreted a few dodgy lines from their own biased perspective rather than the perspective of the scientists writing at the time they wrote within the context in which they wrote. Then those handful of reinterpreted lines are extrapolated into some grandiose conspiracy. It's a denialist shell game. Which, of course, is what they are good at doing. It's exactly this kind of "desert from a sandbox" gameplaying that likely made the CRU scientists feel harangued and defensive.

"...points to one book that makes that claim that I don't think I will be purchasing anytime soon."

Then you can't claim that there aren't any examples of "...an industry (nuclear) that is notorious for promising large and under-performing." You just refuse to read about it.

"Iowa is not near an Ocean."

This is a great example of how myopic (narrow) the climate cynics' perspective is.

"I have an understanding what nitrogen does to harm rivers and streams. I don't question that science."

Of course, THAT is the point, isn't it? If the regulations aren't working to address that problem, then change the damned regulations - but don't pretend that "the market solves all problems."

"Maybe something should be done about municipal waste water treatment plants paying fines rather than meeting the nitrate levels in the "clean" water they release back into Iowa rivers. Why are'nt more regulations placed on water treatment plants?"

I have no allegiance to regulations that don't work. Change them. There are great solutions to sewage plants. But "the market" is not interested in changing such things unless the "rules of the game" are changed. That is the point that David makes above: "Free enterprise will always maximize the value to the company. Historically this has been to the detriment of society. Companies polluted the water and the air because those were costs they could externalize (just dump it down the drain and the toxin flows downstream and someone else has to deal with it). Only when the government stepped in were those costs considered by the company. Up until then it was us, the taxpayers, that paid for the cost in taxes and in adverse effects on our health. The point is that free enterprise will always push as much of the cost outside the company. Always. That is how they maximize their short term competitiveness, and short term really is what rules the day.

Also here: Yes, it costs a company more to not just dump its toxic waste in the nearest stream. Yes, it costs the company more to have to provide safer working conditions for its employees. But prior to the regulations those costs still existed (in cleanup costs and health costs), they just were foisted on society and the taxpayers. Is that fair? To require the taxpayers to clean up the mess being made by companies who are in business to make a profit and thus externalize as many costs as possible?

"Doesn't it make more sense not to create those cleanup and health costs in the first place, even if there is some up front cost to the company (which they pass on to the consumer)? It is generally cheaper to avoid a mess than to clean it up."

David - I didn't realize you are such a conservative!!!

"...society has an interest in this game as well."

Or are you a socialist?!?!??

A conservative socialist?!?!??

"I'm all for organic farming. If uninformed or misinformed consumers want to pay more for a product because it is labeled "organic" farmers are more than willing to accomadate when consumers are willing to pay more. Farmers will grow crops and raise livestock pretty much anyway the consumers want. They just have to be willing to pay the cost of doing so."

So are you saying there's really no such thing as "organic" farming? It's just a "label"? I do know that industry has repeatedly tried to create loopholes that would render the label meaningless. That requires continual monitering by such groups as theOrganic Consumers Association.

But you bring up another example of how there is no such thing as a free market. Organic products are more expensive, in part, because unhealthy food is subsidized. Get rid of the corn subsidies. Making high fructose corn syrup less cheap will also go a long way in reducing costs of health care in tis country.

A conservative socialist?!?!??

I've been called every label in the book. Which is why I'm not big on labels.

Just goes to show you how dumb labels are. Seriously - preventing problems instead of treating them remedially IS conservative. Understanding that there is such an entity as "society" does not imply "socialism". After all, the whole IS greater than the sum of its parts. If we want to avoid the CHAOS that the so-called "free market" really is, then there has to be a PLAN - and there has to be LEADERSHIP.

Anyway, it looks like Elvis has left the building.....

I'm not sure where to start so I guess I should just end it.

"Why put resources into not polluting when there is no law against it and none of your competitors are doing it?"

When none of the competitors are doing it this is a good time to do it when the customer is wanting it. If the customer is asking for it fee enterprise will figure out a way to do it. Organic farming is a perfect example there are no regulations forcing farmers to produce "organic" products. But when their are consumers willing to pay for it they become creative to find ways to make it happen.

I said it before and I guess I have to say it again. I am not against all regulations. I am for regulations that have actual scientific data to support the need for the regualtions and studies that show that the regulations will actually help the situation.

"Not true. Denialists cherry picked a handful of emails (out of more than 1000 stolen), reinterpreted a few dodgy lines from their own biased perspective rather than the perspective of the scientists writing at the time they wrote within the context in which they wrote."

And you call ME a denialist?

If feel the need to defend the CRU on these emails, there is really no need of us discussing this issue any further. You have faith in people who have been caught cooking their data. That's your right. I have faith in the 31,000 plus scientists who don't agree with the global warming doomsdayers.

Steve,

"If the regulations aren't working to address that problem, then change the damned regulations - but don't pretend that "the market solves all problems."

If the regulations aren't working they should REMOVE them. But that is not what usually happens and this not what is happening in Iowa. I said it before and I guess I have to say it again. I am not against all regulations. I am for regulations that have actual scientific data to support the need for the regualtions and studies that show that the regulations will actually help the situation.

And I don't think we should base regulations on the "religous" beliefs of scientists who have been caught cooking thier data which is the case in "global warming".

BTW, "Organic" food has not been found to be more healthy than "normal" food. This is just a public image label used to promote food items grown using certain guidlines. But in the end turkey is turkey, ham is ham, chicken is chicken, and beef is beef. Can the difference be detectd by the consumer or even a lab? I bet if two items were place in front of you one being "organic" and the other "normal" you couldn't tell the difference.

One of these days I am going to go to a resturant that serves "Angus" beef and tell them my burger taste like Hereford and see if I can get my money back. It's all about image.

Scientist calls nation's biggest solar plant a toy
Researcher's report claims advocates inflating numbers to hide cost

"It is an industry that is notorious for promising large and under-performing."

Sounds like the "solar" industry falls into this category.

"I have faith in the 31,000 plus scientists who don't agree with the global warming doomsdayers."

You wouldn't be referring to the "Oregon Petition", would you? Find a major scientific organization (like the AGU, or AAAS, or NAS) that disputes the IPCC. Then you'll have a point.

"I am not against all regulations. I am for regulations that have actual scientific data to support the need for the regualtions and studies that show that the regulations will actually help the situation."

Then I expect you'll support policies recommended by scientists at Copenhagen. Here's a summary, since you appear to be completely unfamiliar with the scientific view.

"I don't think we should base regulations on the "religous" beliefs of scientists who have been caught cooking thier data which is the case in 'global warming'."

Great sounding accusation. Too bad it's not factual. But I know you wouldn't be interested in facts. You have slogans, e.g., "cooking thier data...."

"And you call ME a denialist?"

No. I call you a cynic. Even if there were real controversy about the science of climate change, I would expect you to think that it's not worth the risk to future generations to continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But no. Even when every major scientific organization in the world endorses the IPCC Reports (which are also criticized as being too conservative - which subsequent research has apparently born out), you - because of your delusional "free market" ideology - are willing to take that risk. Cynical - that's what I call you.

"'Organic' food has not been found to be more healthy than 'normal' food."

"Normal"?!?!?? LOL!!! You mean chemical food, full of growth harmones, antibiotics, pesticides and artificial fertilizer. "Normal"?!?!?? ROFLMAO!!!

Actually, industry sponsored studies that claim organic food is no healthier than chemical food leave out many variables, like growth harmones, antibiotics, pesticides and artificial fertilizers. But if you prefer eating crap that is produced on CAFOs, go right ahead. It's your health. (To bad for me, though, that I'll have to help pay for your medical treatments)

"...turkey is turkey, ham is ham, chicken is chicken, and beef is beef...."

You really should try reading. For example, In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto . Then you might not make such foolish statements.

"One of these days I am going to go to a resturant that serves "Angus" beef and tell them my burger taste like Hereford and see if I can get my money back. It's all about image."

Actually, it could be both - as well as a small bit of their manure (nuked, of course, so you don't get e-coli).

"Scientist calls nation's biggest solar plant a toy"

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - same fraud as your "31,000 scientists. What a joke!!!

First Solar (one solar company) presently has production capacity of a gigawatt annually and growing. That's about the size of an average nuclear plant. So why are their main manufacturing facilities in Germany? Because of cynics like you, who insist on polluting and dangerous sources of energy - all in the name of the delusion of "free markets". Ridiculous.

First Solar Produces 1 Gigawatt of Clean Solar Electricity

"Sounds like the 'solar' industry falls into this category."

Is that like "organic"? Is it really all just image to you? Sad. I did, however, cite references re: the nuclear industry under performing. Got any references for your little quip, here.

What flavor of Kool-Aid did you drink Steve?

No Kool-Aid, Lee. Enjoy your burger....

Sorry, Steve.

The Kool-aid quip is used on me quite often by those who disagree with me.

That's no excuse for using it on you. I respect your views even though I disagree with them.

personally, I do not know.
Both sides claim to have proof, but I do not know how to interpret the data.

No scientific organization in the world disputes the IPCC Reports. None. If you understand scientific method, you will know that if there were any truth to the allegations made by the hackers (hackers - get it? - hackers), then the scientific "fraud" would have been exposed years ago - by scientists (as opposed to hackers).

And even if there were any credibility to the hackers' hackings - which there is not - only one of the (26) scientists implicated in this fake "scandal" co-authored the summary of scientific findings since the 2007 IPCC Report.

So if you're looking for whom to believe, these facts should be helpful.

New Report Updates Climate Science Since the 2007 IPCC Report

I guess that's the point, Ed. The general public doesn't have any way of knowing, no more than I would know how to interpret accrual accounting. But that's exactly what the denialists try to do.

So the choices are to rely on the people who actually study the science, and the entire body of knowledge built up by thousands of researchers going back 30 or 40 years....versus a handful of non-scientists and free-market lobbying group-associated scientists, most of whom don't actually study climate science.

It's no different than relying on a brain surgeon for advice when you have a brain tumor versus calling your plumber.

Thanks for the link to the report, Steve.

David K, IF I needed a brain surgeon, I would see one. INSULTING my intelligence does not help your cause.
I know scientific theory and testing. IF process a, causes product z to be made every time, that is what to expect.
Yet, it seems that the "high tide's" have not gone up.
IF global warming was raising the ocean level's; they why has it not increased one inch over historical records?
Process a, (global warming makes the seas rise) to make product z seems to me, not to have happened yet.
Both sides have their own "list of fact's."
I remember seeing icebergs breaking off from both poles since I can remember. (born 1955)
And please remember, when personal attacks are made, they show me that I really can not trust what is said because personal attacks are that of the desperate one's. Either the truth shows your side of the issue to be true, or it will not.

and I would not believe anyone that "hacks" an e-mail account.
Like a burglar who stole "papers/documents" from a home or office, I would not believe their validity.

David K, IF I needed a brain surgeon, I would see one. INSULTING my intelligence does not help your cause.

I wasn't insulting your intelligence. In fact, I was counting on it and asking for you to see this from a purely logical position. As you say, IF you needed a brain surgeon you would call a brain surgeon, IF you needed a plumber you would call a plumber. You rely on those with the training and expertise to do what you need done. Climate scientists are trained in how to study climate, whereas most of the denialists have no such training.

I know scientific theory and testing. IF process a, causes product z to be made every time, that is what to expect.

Good, but then the examples you gave are not correct. Ocean levels have already gone up. The amount is small and not noticeable yet to those seeing the tides roll in and out. But as the ice melts the rise will be more dramatic. It's also uneven. The effects will be seen in some places long before others.

And please remember, when personal attacks are made, they show me that I really can not trust what is said because personal attacks are that of the desperate one's.

Please reread my comment, Ed. I in no way attacked you personally at all. I said that we can either rely on the scientists who study the science, or the non-science free market lobbyists whose mission statements essentially require them to fight the science because it might lead to regulations. This is pure logic.

Either the truth shows your side of the issue to be true, or it will not.

And that really is the point. The evidence is overwhelming. Climate change is happening now, is largely caused by the excessive CO2 we emit to the atmosphere, and is getting worse, faster, than we had predicted. But people can lose a debate even if the facts are on their side just because the other side are better trained in public relations and have no qualms about sticking to the truth. Scientists are used to communicating with scientists but not so good communicating with the general public. Free market lobbying groups like Heartland Institute and their front groups and stable of bloggers, on the other hand, are set up exactly for the purpose of pushing their particular viewpoint. And they have a long history of denying anything scientific that might lead to regulations.

This is the difficulty scientists face. The science is clear. Communicating that to the public when others are intentionally trying to confuse the issue is another.

I am seeing the results of high tide at Sarasota Florida.
so far, I do not see an increase.
Even during the years I lived there, there was an occasional record new levle high tide.

Thank you for posting to our group; http://civilrights4all.gather.com/
Please keep posting to our group and ask others to join.

You're welcome, Ed.

Until the era of climate friendly living is universal these type of denialists will continue to gain a platform from which to be heard. I have no rational for what they think they might gain from their wrong-mindedness.

Just as the personal computer was shunned by many it is a necessity now, acceptance is difficult for some personality types who may also hold a degree or three. Humans are complicated.

I have no rational for what they think they might gain from their wrong-mindedness.

Delay. It's pretty much just a game to them. Well, and the companies that are most climate un-friendly get to continue to collect record quarterly profits while charging all the costs of cleanup, planetary damage, etc. to the taxpayers.

The dumb thing is that the smart companies are doing what smart companies always do...they are innovating and finding ways to make money doing the right thing. They will leave behind all the old industries that refuse to adapt.

That was my basic thought David, I simply compare it to that which was previously slow to be embraced. I recall folks in the lab where I worked laughing at the PC craze in the late 80s saying it is crazy and all they (women) are doing is recording their cookbooks!

I would like to believe that even the Oil companies are taking alternative and renewal energy seriously. I hear them (Exxon) discussing their investment in these sources to Congress, Exxon is invested in Greenland and or Icelands' geothermal vents and they have a project underway for storage of hydrogen and or Methane.

All things will convert eventually, it will never be fast enough for believers.

"...the companies that are most climate un-friendly get to continue to collect record quarterly profits while charging all the costs of cleanup, planetary damage, etc. to the taxpayers."

They like to throw nearly countless $Billions$ down the mideast rat hole. Are they unwitting fools for the fossil industries? Or do they really hate America?

I care not to speculate on motivation or level of greed. Capitalism is a breeding ground for unconscionable greed.

I think a lot of it is simply disconnect. We are for one thing or against another, without thinking about how all of these things are connected. Clearly there are reasons for getting away from oil that aren't related to CO2 emissions. And there are reasons to reduce emissions that aren't related to national security. Will the current bills being discussed accomplish all of the needed goals? I don't know. But we need to start doing some of the things we need to do now. And whatever motivates different groups to take those first difficult steps should be explored.

There is no argument from me! With so much to re-configure there is bound to be rebellion for whatever reason and or none at all beyond arrogance and a lack of willingness to change or adapt. It occurs in all levels of life, business is a part of life.

The trick is to get everyone honestly working toward the same goal. Only then can we honestly work out the different views of how to get there.

This is all true yet, one cannot overlook the greed factor.

I concede your point, Johnice. :)

:)

The denialists won't believe in climate change even when those living in Alaska have to wear bikinis in January to stay cool!

Or they will see that as a good thing. They forget that if Alaska is warm, the coastlines are probably under water. And more people live along the coastlines than in Alaska. Actually, more people live in Washington DC then live in the entire state of Alaska.

Ever see that movie "Waterworld"?

I am not sure
Thank you for sharing

Denialists need to learn the difference between the words "scientist," "Meteorologist," "Physicist," "Astrophysicist," "Cosmologist," "etc." and "Climatologist." They also need to learn that saying it loudly and often (and often insultingly) does not make it fact (I HATE the word "true").

Actually, I think it's more fundamental than that. It really is "if you agree with my preconceived denialist belief, you are an expert." A comment on a recent post touted the qualifications of a bunch of physicists who opposed climate change. Except that not one of them has any climate change experience at all. They were experts on nuclear weapons, lasers, etc., but not climate. One common name is touted as a "Nobel Laureate." Well, yes, in a totally different field of physics back in 1973 (for work done in the 1960s), who admitted he had to Google climate change to find out about it. But because he "didn't believe in climate change" he was considered an "expert."

It's amazing how climate change supporterss can deny the thousands of scientists who say it is not true while claiming denialists are only a small group. 31,000 Scientists had their names on a petition to stop the global warmists, as pointed out by global warmists only 6,000 if them were directly related to the dicipline of climate. Yep ONLY 6,000. That's a smill group?

How does the average guy on the street know which is lieing. Both sides of the issue claim the other is lieing. Who's word can one take, independant scientists or the word of those working for the UN? The UNs track record is not great so I'll stay with independant scientists and their ranks are growing every day, whereas the global warmists are becoming fewer and fewer. The truth is coming out and it don't look good for warmists.

It's amazing how climate change supporterss can deny the thousands of scientists who say it is not true while claiming denialists are only a small group.

It's amazing that you keep repeating this falsehood despite it being explained to you a million times. Your 31,000 number comes from a bogus "survey" in which anyone could add their name - or someone elses name - to a list and no one bothered to even check to see if they were real people, never mind the people that they claimed to be. Even still, only a handful of those listed even claim to be climate scientists (a few hundred out of the 31,000). The rest are anyone from the weather guy on TV (who has no science training), mathematicians, or other random "scientists" who have nothing to do with climate.

How does the average guy on the street know which is lieing.

It's rather easy, actually. Scientists who study climate science, along with the entire body of work from thousands of scientists worldwide going back many decades....versus a handful of non-scientists or the rare climate scientist, all of whom are associated with the free market lobbying groups whose mission it is to avoid regulations that might be needed to deal with the science.

I'll stay with independant [denialist] scientists

This is a joke, right? This has also been explained to you a million times. Try reading this again.

What amazes me it that you keep repeating the now proven lies of those sell out scientists from the UN.

"Try reading this again." Why would I want to read your cover-up for the liars hired by the UN again?

You should read to be educated. That way you don't look so silly.

Colonel George, where do you get the idea that the UN has any reason, ANY REASON AT ALL, to lie about climate change? In fact, where the hell do you or any of the other IMBECILIC DENIERS OF MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE FIND ANY MOTIVATION FOR LYING ABOUT THE SITUATION? The ONLY people with a motive for lying are the people who are GETTING FILTHY RICH ignoring the facts and delaying the changes necessary to slow or reverse the trend.

I will never cease to be amazed by the number of PEONS who are willing to take the crap dished out by the Oligarchs and Aristocrats. The only reason for slinging the Manure is to make more money off the sweat and toil of the PEONS.

David, Is that the best you have?

Karl, Read up on the UN and their ideas. Read Agenda 21 from the UN. Their entire focus is on Global Governance, A one world government and this is nothing but a scam to achieve that end.

Furthermore Karl, Did you know who is investing the most in alternative energy? OIL Companies, I guess you were not talking about them.

The UN is trying to establish a world wide Socialist Oligarch just for those Oligarchs of which you speak. They figure they will be running it for those who think they are too good to bother with the minor details of actually administering their Oligarchy.

David, Is that the best you have?

I'm sorry that honest reading and critical thinking is difficult for you.

The UN is trying to establish a world wide Socialist Oligarch just for those Oligarchs of which you speak.

Grow up. Elvis is dead.

Karl - It isn't just the peons. I recently experienced a situation in which two people whom I find to be very intelligent and very accomplished, both in science and the law, were spouting some of the same propaganda that less accomplished folks spout. It's not just about the ability to understand, it's the willingness to understand. In this case they both were simply biased by their ideological views to the point where they ascribed more weight to people and events than was deserved. And they were relying on "facts" that weren't facts at all. They had chosen not to take the time to dig behind the propaganda.

Which, of course, is what the denialist industry knows will happen. They count on it. And they have ample experience seeing the obfuscation techniques work in the past on other issues.

Going to give us another link to one of YOUR articles again David, like that is an authority for your GW bs? Face it David you've been has along with a lot of other people.

Face it David you've been has along with a lot of other people.

I always consider the source of any statement.

I know you don't believe me but that does not chang the fact that I have been right all along and you have been had.

I know you don't believe me but that does not chang the fact that I have been right all along and you have been had.

Right on what? I rarely see you get anything right. Half the time you are barely coherent.

And your expertise is in what, exactly? Can you cite some of your peer-reviewed papers?

What peer-reviewed papers do you have David?

My expertise David, I can read and recognize BS.

What peer-reviewed papers do you have David?

From your answer I can conclude you have none. And in the context of the discussion, we can conclude that you have no expertise relevant to assessing this issue, or pretty much any issue.

My expertise David, I can read and recognize BS.

Clearly not, because you keep posting it and failing to recognize it even when others document that what you have posted is BS.

From your answer I conclude you are a politician David, You didn't answer the question but attacked. That tells me you are no more qualified than I am.

I at least admit I don't know anything about climatology but I have lived long enough not to believe everything I read. I look at both sides and I pick out the defects. You have been snowed David, admit it.

That tells me you are no more qualified than I am.

Which would again make you wrong.

but I have lived long enough not to believe everything I read.

Good one, George. You believe everything you see on your blogs even after someone demonstrates that it was proven fake years ago. You believe everything that fits into your preconceived positions and comfort zone. The only thing you don't believe is the truth. You prefer your own reality. Sad, really.

"I look at both sides and I pick out the defects."

That's even funnier than the previous one. You can't even see what side you are presenting. You can't even tell how you've contradicted yourself, never mind "pick out the defects." In short, the "defects" are pretty much anything you post.

Great post David...thank you..

Wrong on all accounts, David.

I do hope you'll do some real research about this and come back and admit you were wrong. It doesn't matter if there were only 8 emails that show the fraud, but there were more. They lied to us. They manipulated data. They DID refuse to give the data to anyone to check it. There are 31,000 scientists who have disagreed with them and they were keeping many of them quiet by threats.

Obama is about to sign a treaty because of this bogus science that will change our country forever. And you're dancing in the streets thinking everything is great.

Wake up people.

I do hope you'll do some real research about this and come back and admit you were wrong.

Why don't you prove me wrong? Provide the evidence that rebuts what I've said.

It doesn't matter if there were only 8 emails that show the fraud, but there were more.

No, there were the handful only. Out of over 1000 there were a handful that were dodgy. Which the denialist industry then reinterpreted from their own biased perspective rather than the perspective of the scientists who wrote them at the time they wrote them and in the context they wrote them.

They lied to us.

There is no evidence of that at all.

They manipulated data.

There is no evidence of that at all.

They DID refuse to give the data to anyone to check it.

That is contradicted by the facts. Read the full response linked in my article. About 95% of the data have been available. The additional information that has been requested through FOI are being processed and the rights to distribute it are being obtained from the original sources. Remember that the CRU is a central repository for data but it comes from other places. Those other places need to provide their approvals for dissemination to occur. Based on my own experience with FOIA in the US, that can take time. Meanwhile, the other 95% is out there. Oh, the people requesting it aren't even climate scientists.

There are 31,000 scientists who have disagreed with them and they were keeping many of them quiet by threats.

You really have to stop citing this as if it were meaningful. This has already been shown to be a bogus list. Even the analysis of it by a scientific magazine found that there were at best no more than 200 climate scientists who at one time agreed with the statement. The rest of the 31,000 are either not scientists, not in the climate field, don't even know that someone else put their name on the uncontrolled list, or are not even real people. As for "keeping them quiet by threats," you really have to stop reading that Prison Planet conspiracy blog.

Obama is about to sign a treaty

No, he isn't. There is no treaty. No "world government." No UN conspiracy to take over the sovereignty of every country in the world. Nope, Nada, Nil.

Wake up people.

Wide awake.

I've posted quite a few posts about this that you can read - with links. No, the liberal media is not reporting on it. They prefer talking about Tiger Woods.

Oh, and Col. George just posted about the treaty and Lydia included a link to what the UN wants to do to us and the world. You really should look those up as well. Perhaps they will provide the wake up call you need.

Wrong on all accounts, David.

False

Michael Mann, one of the scientists mentioned in the stolen emails, provides his responses in this article.

David - thank you once again for being a persistent voice of science and reason. I am so tired of hearing Denialists fiddle while the planet burns that I just tune them out (irresponsible of me, I know, but I refuse to give "eartime" to obfuscation!)

I am no scientist and I confess that I sometimes don't understand the finer points of the dialog BUT I do travel the planet and I know what I see...

As of 15 months ago, there was virtually no snow left on the Kilimanjaro, I expect there is even less today. I was in Australia last winter while South Australia burned because of years of drought and parts the Northern Territories were closed to visitors because of "historic" floods (BTW - Australia does take climate change issues VERY seriously!). Last month in Botswana I saw the effect of recent heavy rains on the Kalahari. Enough said!

I am the opposite. I hope and pray g warming is NOT real.
I research their LIES.
I am fooled every time by the denialist cult. It is they who are blind to the truth. They twist every little fact to fit in their delusional world.
I would eat a ton of crow if they could prove what I want to believe, that G warming is NOT real.
So far all I get from them are LIES and spin.

Hi Josette - Always nice to see you come around. I suppose I better step up my traveling if I'm going to see the snows, the glaciers, and the rivers (and the deserts where they are now, not where they will be).

"I was in Australia last winter while South Australia burned because of years of drought...."

The drought in Australia is what convinced even Rupert Murdoch that global warming must be addressed. Despite the ranting of climate cynics, most of our corporations have been looking to the federal government for leadership. So far, there has been none.

Joe - Gotta give credit where credit is due.

Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC) Member Companies

Also, a couple of excellent websites to keep up with sustainable business news.

GreenBiz.com

SustainableBusiness.com

"...it is all about keeping profits. It has nothing to do with genuine concern for the planet."

Those are not mutually exclusive priorities. In fact, that's exactly what we want. Corporations that have developed ways to sustainably make tons of money!!!

I am with you on this, Steve. Actually, not only are the two (concern for the planet and profits) are not mutually exclusive, but they are necessary in order for sustainable progress in this area - or any other for that matter - to occur.

A total debunking of the ClimateGate brouhaha. Nicely played

Thanks Kelly.

Here's a link to Kelly's article on this subject.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!

Re: 1) The denialists are lying about not having access to the CRU data:

“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.

See this: Where’s the data?

And this: Data Sources

What are they paying you to spread false information?

What are they paying you to spread false information?

I'm going to leave this comment from you here, Marilyn M, so everyone can see you for your delusions. Of course, virtually everyone has already written you off as the obnoxious crazy woman of Gather.

Your comment is particularly bizarre given that it is coming from someone constantly cowering under the bed over "world government" takeovers and "liberal media" and "wake up calls" and "birthers" and "death panels" and "9/11 was an inside job" and a myriad of other ridiculous and false information. Every time I see your comments I think of Barney Frank, which I can tell you isn't something I prefer to do.

You even went so far as to accuse me of making up stories of people in my life that died or were directly impacted on 9/11, thus showing not only are you divorced from reality but are a despicable human being. How dare you.

If you can't offer something intelligent in your comments, or at least something honest and from the realm of reality, please don't waste any more of my time.

Good, David. I want the comment left here. Did you ever look at any of the posts that I posted about this? Or take a look at what Col. George and Lydia provided about what the UN is really up to?

Death panels are exactly what we're going to get, David. They're provided in the stimulus bill. They are the wackos who decided that women don't need mammograms until they're 50. That's what we can look forward to now, so, you know, Palin wasn't far off.

"Did you ever look at any of the posts that I posted about this?"

If you're referring to the "cut-n-pasties" you linked below - I looked at them. They are very useful. Thanks.

"Death panels are exactly what we're going to get...."

If you repeat it over and over and over and over, perhaps you will make it come true.... At least, from spinning round and round and round and roiund, you'll make yourself plenty dizzy. Oh..., so that's why you're so dizzy!!!

"They are the wackos who decided that women don't need mammograms until they're 50."

I think WebMd is a credible source on this. This is, indeed, controversial (to say the least), and I have real questions about the clinical usefulness of the new guidelines. But they are "guidelines", after all. The real question is going to be whether insurance companies and medicare use them as exclusionary criteria (more pertinent to insurance companies than medicare).

Women should understand that if they are in a "high risk" category, nothing changes for them. And "moderately risk" women will have to discuss these guidelines with their doctors. There is a big difference between research (statistics), which are very valid and useful for large numbers of women - but not for individuals, and clinical practice. ALL WOMEN SHOULD DISCUSS THEIR RISK FACTORS AND THESE GUIDELINES WITH THEIR PHYSICIANS.

That said, I have seen no evidence that there is any connection whatsoever between these guidlined, based on years of research, and the "disease management" legislation, presently limping its way through congress.

Again, WebMD is a very credible source.

The whole reason that medical task force was put together to offer "guidelines" was so that the government and insurance companies will follow the same course of action. Any time "guidelines" like this are given, they become the norm. So now, unless there is a real risk factor that is known, women are going to have to pay for their own mammograms before the age of 50. That is what's coming.

And the government has no business setting up end of life counseling either.

"The whole reason that medical task force was put together to offer "guidelines" was so that the government and insurance companies will follow the same course of action."

Guidelines are summaries of research, and they are reviewed periodically. If you're going to be suspicious of these guidelines, you might do some research. I recall a few years back that the cholesterol guidelines for people, who have had cardio-"incidents", were changed. Previously accepted LDL level was <100. It was changed to <70. As it turned out, one of the chief researchers had alot of stock in Pfizer. If you have some specific information re: these guidelines, instead of the usual sound-bytes, then present it.

"So now, unless there is a real risk factor that is known, women are going to have to pay for their own mammograms before the age of 50."

Well, that's the fear, anyway. But many organizations, e.g., the American Cancer Society, are not changing their recommendations. Insurance companies are going to have a difficult time redefining the exclusions in that light.

There is also another side to these guidelines - for women, who are low-risk, which is that group for which these guidelines were changed, there are several disadvantages for annual mammograms, starting at 40. It is not the "black and white" picture that right-wing extremists like to present. I repeat: research guidelines are not the same thing as clinical practice, though they are one variable. ALL WOMEN SHOULD DISCUSS THEIR RISK FACTORS AND THESE GUIDELINES WITH THEIR PHYSICIANS.

Death panels are exactly what we're going to get,

False.

They're provided in the stimulus bill.

False.

They are the wackos who decided that women don't need mammograms until they're 50.

False.

And you got your medical degree when, exactly?

That's what we can look forward to now, so, you know, Palin wasn't far off.

False.

You're batting .000