Home › Blogs › Ironman's blog ›

Why is the President going to Copenhagen?

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 07:39
in

The President will be going to Copenhagen for a "climate change summit"

Why?

It's not like we don't have pressing issues in the United States that need immediate attention, like double-digit unemployment and the dithering over Afghanistan. But it seems running multiple pots on the stove and finishing nothing is the "Chicago Way". Maybe the way to avoid wasting a crisis is to never resolve any of them.

And what is the President going to do in Copenhagen? He doesn't have signed "cap and trade" legislation to present to the "international community".  He has only his presence and his promises.  Are they worth the thousands of tons of carbon emissions Air Force One is going to produce crisscrossing the Atlantic?

Moreover, why is President Obama endorsing the climate change gurus right when their underpinning---the East Anglia CRU data---now has all the credibility of Mike Huckabee's Arkansas parole board?

I've thought about the proper parallel and it seems to be this is going to go down as the OJ Simpson case of scientific research.  Everyone of course "knew" OJ killed his ex-wife. But when the L.A. prosecutors delivered their case, we we presented with tapes demonstrating a key witness appeared biased against blacks, and of course, the infamous "bloody glove" demonstration.  The evidence presented was simply so compromized that Johnny Cochran and F. Lee Bailey had a field day.

I dunno about you , but "hide the decline" seems like an awful lot like a  bloody glove to me, and if it doesn't fit, you must acquit.    For President Obama to go to Copenhagen now to endorse a treaty based on this underpinning would be like President Clinton using Mark Fuhrman as the model for international criminal justice procedures--after OJ's acquittal.

I'm a skeptic about AGW, not a denier.  I believe a) the world has gotten warmer over the past few decades (at least until 2000) and b) humans had some impact on it. But the world got a lot warmer in the past when we weren't doing much of anything, considering that 10,000 years ago my keyboard here in CT would be under a kilometer of ice.  So whether the human impact is all than substantial is unclear to me. And you don't improve your argument for spending trillions of dollars by throwing out your original research.

After all, if I can't produce an original note ---or an authentic copy with a convincing "lost note" affidavit-- in court, I can't complete a foreclosure. And if I can't prove I ever had the note I've got huge problems.  So why are we willing to extend greater leniency to those who want to reorder western civilization than those who just want to foreclose on a condo in West Hartford?

Michael Barone and Megan McArdle have noted the "garbage in, garbage out" issue of the CRU models.  Isn;t this like the Chinese whiz kid who solved all the problems of pricing derivatives? Worked great on Wall Street , didn't it.  Do we really want to promulgate another economic collapse based on faulty mathematics?

If there ever was a time for an American President to stand up, demand a "do over"and make sure he got this right, the time is now. Endorsing any product emanating from Copenhagen will just result in a humiliating Congressional defeat for the President if he has the temerity to submit it for approval. It's not like the environment is that pressing an issue for the ordinary voter of late.

I'm not usually a fan of the President, but that's one "carbon footprint" he should not step in.

Unless he is just doing this for a foreign sideshow. Unfortunately, the audience isn;t buying it anymore.

Maybe the Republicans ought to save the President from his own folly and demand this whole sorry spectacle be called off until the scientific community gets its house back into order.

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Comments

Time for a bit of education for a gullible partisan nut

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 08:21.

 

The Science Museum has examined the evidence. We're convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.

This December, 192 countries will meet in Copenhagen to agree a global plan for tackling climate change. The UK government claim they're serious about climate change. Will they prove it?

PROVE IT! is your chance to check out the evidence and decide if you want to back a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.

Visit PROVE IT! the Science Museum's exciting new project, to find out more about climate change... Why it's happening. Why time is running out. What the world is planning to do about it at the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen this December.

 

When Megan McArdle of the Atlantic

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 08:39.

amends her position, I'll pay this more mind.  Is she too a "gullible, partisan nut"?

Methinks the "proof" aint all that 

So you get your science from Meghan McArdle

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 09:12.

 

Good luck with that. Next time try Ann Coulter.

 

Lets all recall the last time Ironman relied on Meghan

Submitted by John Smith on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 09:17.

McArdle for a post: www.thenextright.com/ironman/the-brilliance-of-nobel-laureate-paul-krugman

Ironman: sorry that he could never afford a CT beach house, but glad that his children will inherit one in-waiting - his suburban bungalow in East Hartford.

Give me a break, Ironman. East Anglia CRU proves little...

Submitted by mlindroo on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 09:28.

...except that climate scientists in England sexed up their graphs a bit in November 1999. Big deal! Unethical? Yes, but scientists are only human after all (unlike Republicans who never play fast and loose with the facts:-)

---

Sorry Bjorn Lomborg, George Will et all, but the case for global warming remains rock solid. For example, looks like 2009 is going to end up as the fifth warmest...check out these NASA charts ( http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ ).  

Reasonable people may disagree about how to combat global warming, though. Conservatives could make a valuable contribution to the discussion as soon as they accept the basic premise.

 

MARCU$

Nuts, nuts everywhere!

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 09:57.

 

..check out these NASA charts

 

The right wing* is suing NASA, INREF to the already stupid CRU-gate. LOL:

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f

 

*These are the folks at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who are spreading the latest lie that the climate scientists "destroyed data", and have--like other anti-AGW groups--connections to tobacco and energy industries.

PS. I also see that the creationist nuts (IDiots) at the Disocvery Institute have also joined in with glee into the phony climate scandal:

There's no getting around it. I often hear creationists protest "Oh, we love science!", but then the weird process they describe after that looks nothing like science, and resembles something more like church with lab coats. At least Michael Egnor of the Discovery Institute doesn't hide his loathing in a rant that has to be read to be believed. Prompted by the hacking of an email server that revealed that climate scientists tend to be rude and crude in their private communications (a fact that does not diminish the science of climate change at all), Egnor goes on a tear, cussing out climatologists and us wicked Darwinists, declaring "war", demanding a purge, accusing all the various prestigious academies of science of committing fraud, suggesting that science be defunded, and comparing scientists to Mafia dons.

Don't hold back, Michael. The crazy thoughts will make your cranium explode if you try to bottle them up.

You needed your dose of Sunday morning irony, didn't you? The sight of a deranged shill for a right-wing propaganda organ complaining about institutionalized biases, and crying out against bad science while supporting creationism, ought to give you your full weekly dosage.

 [my emphasis]

 

Too bad Obama is not going to a summit on the whole of 'Science'

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 09:35.

It would have been more fun to watch the anti-science crowd trying to sabotage the 'Science' summit meeting....

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ‘thinking’.

If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.

When you read some of these letters, you realise just why Newton and his collaborators might have preferred to keep them confidential. This scandal could well be the biggest in Renaissance science. These alleged letters – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists behind really hard math lessons – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in covering up the truth, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

But perhaps the most damaging revelations are those concerning the way these math nerd scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. They suggest dubious practices such as: [...]

Read the rest....

 

Newtongate was a real scandal

Submitted by Joseph Hertzlinger on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 01:50.

The similarities between Climategate and Newtongate might mean the AGW advocates are doing something similar to the suppression of Leibniz's calculus notation that set English mathematics back decades. I won't more than mention the suppression of achromatic lenses or the wave theory of light...

The smell of liberal fear is overwhelming

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 10:42.

This is hilarious!

It would have been more fun to watch the anti-science crowd trying to sabotage the 'Science' summit meeting....

Anti-science is begining with a conclusion and then building a concensus regardless of what the data shows.

Who's the "anti science crowd"? The liberals who are saying "pay no attention to the fraud that has been uncovered", the data thats been dumped, the e-mails saying "delete these e-mails"!

The liberal champions of truth proven by science have just given the world the "MY DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK" excuse, but want everyone to trust them anyway.

If liberals truely respected science, they would be DEMANDING answers from East Anglia, not defending, deflecting, and redefining.

 

the fear

Submitted by cr on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:02.

Yeah, they do have a fear, that this incident will be taken out of context and blown up to distract from corrobarated evidence.

Certainly those scientist need to be taken to task for professionalism and are now learning the lesson to scrub their emails of any kind of humor or ambigous statements that will used politically against them.

The science remains the same, just now the stupid people have just been given a self-percieved boost.

 

  "The liberal champions of

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:10.

 

"The liberal champions of truth proven by science have just given the world the "MY DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK" excuse, but want everyone to trust them anyway."

 

Oh, go away, you useless twit.

Denier!

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:23.

Do you not see the delicious irony of the Glabal Warming camp saying "take it on faith"? The data is gone, but trust us?

Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of sciencehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

We conservatives will demand the highest standards of science. You keep denying there's a problem.

Did you even read what you linked?

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 13:50.

"We conservatives will demand the highest standards of science."

Joke of the century. Thanks. I wonder though if you even read the whole Guardian piece(or knew about the author, George Monbiot's previous excellent work debunking the consevative climate deniers). From the article you linked, read this part and give yourself an applause:

The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline. They appear to have no idea what they're up against or how to confront it. Their opponents might be scumbags, but their media strategy is exemplary.

The greatest tragedy here is that despite many years of outright fabrication, fraud and deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, documented in James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore's brilliant new book Climate Cover-up, it is now the climate scientists who look bad. By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how fossil fuel industries have employed "experts" to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The revelations in their book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat Is On) are 100 times graver than anything contained in these emails.

But the deniers' campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way.[...]

[my emphasis]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/10/climate-change-de...

 

You crack me up, Reamains of the Brains . . .

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:03.

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

Of course I read it. Who did you think I would link, Fox News or Rush Limbaugh? This is one of your own, admitting that damage has been done.

You, on the other hand, are a denier!

 

By those standards,

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:40.

 

you should have long committed suicide seeing the climate change denialism on the right.

None of what you linked say that the controvesy debunks climate science consensus, there is some "damage" to reputations of the scientists involved of course, no one's denying it. But there is even more damage done to the climate change deniers with their out of bounds outrage at the phony scandal of the century. And your "high standards" hypocrisy is laughable.

How can one debunk something

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:01.

How can one debunk something that is "settled science"?

The funny thing is that even after it has been shown that the very scientists who are being relied upon to provide the conclusions on the existance of "climate change" or "global warming" have a distinct political bias, the left is not questioning them.The leaked emails do not show a determination to follow the facts wherever they may lead, but attempts to obfuscate anything that may demonstrate that the science is anything but settled. That should be of concern, regardless of which side of the debate one is on.

But if you want to talk "hypocrisy" look no further than liberals defending this:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Is this the new "scientific method"? Where is the outrage? Where is the demand for explainations? Whatever happened to the skeptical left?

CPA, White papers, and peer to peer science reviews

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:24.

Are in the business of checking another persons numbers, Checking their work. To insure there is no fraud involved. The emails prove there was fraud. International fraud, apart from the US the UK is investigating the fraud. Did the peer reviews uncover the fraud - um, one would need to say at a minimum that the peer reviews failed - incompetence or compliant?

Should Al Gore go to jail. I do not think so, I think he has CHA and can claim that he was a victim. Did environmentalist buy data that was flawed, yes they did. Was this politicized science used by globalists to control the life styles of people, yes it was - Will they be exposed? Working on it.

Drill this into Boneless Bill's damaged brain

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 16:50.

"But it is also true that the emails are very damaging."

From the link provided by Bill, what kind of "very damaging" is that?:

They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. [...]

But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all.

 

Uh, the credibility of those who used the data.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:10.

Granted not every person who used the data is a scientist. Although some politicians and actors are hypocrites who pretend to use a scientific method. Without science they are nothing but a cult trying to use fear to manipulate people. I'll pass on the coolaid.

you want to learn high standards of climate science?

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 14:04.

 

Do not despair. There are lots of good resources out there. Realclimate remains the gold standard for popularized accounts of cutting edge climate science. Although they regretably must spend a lot of time dicing and slicing denialist crap, they also give you an insight into cutting edge research and the real controversies in climate science.

 

Removing the biased data from the climate hockey stick

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 15:46.

Bill Damaged prods,"Who's the "anti science crowd"?

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:06.

 

I think Ron Chusid at Liberal Values sums it up perfectly:

Josh Marshall wonders why people believe what they believe. He begins with the common tendency among conservatives to deny climate change:

There’s been a lot of recent evidence not only that Republicans disproportionately disbelieve the evidence for man-made global warming but that their skepticism is growing. I think that trend is fairly classed under the general heading of Republican/conservative hostility to science.

He misses a step here. The fundamental problem is not that conservatives desire to oppose science but that they are willing to ignore scientific evidence when it conflicts with their views. If there was a commonly held belief in global warming but the scientists came out against global warming, then conservatives would agree with the scientists.

Conservatives primarily reject the scientific consensus on climate change for two reasons. It is preferable that global warming not be true since it leads to undesirable real world consequences, and conservatives exhibit a strong tendency to ignore facts when they conflict with what they want. Secondly, climate change is a problem which can only be solved with government coordination. As conservatives oppose government action which does not involve invading other countries or torture, it is simpler for them to deny the science than to concede there is a problem which where government coordination is necessary. [...]

[my emphasis]

You are blinded by your liberalism

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:20.

The fundamental problem is not that conservatives desire to oppose science but that they are willing to ignore scientific evidence when it conflicts with their views.

Climategate is about liberals embracing flawed or manufactured science. Ignoring scientific evidencewhen it conflicts with their views.

Even with this knowlege, you do not question the source, but mock those who seek to hold these "scientists" responsible.

You are a lock step Obama drone- following the lemmings off the cliff. Inspiring really.

Again

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:26.

 

Climategate is about liberals embracing flawed or manufactured science. Ignoring scientific evidencewhen it conflicts with their views.

Drill this into your brain: The “scandals” have been greatly exaggerated by denialists to fit their own views. They do not affect the scientific consensus on climate change and they do not change the reality of the situation.

 

The reality of the situation

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:32.

The reality of the situation has changed. Credibility has been lost. Not enough to sink the whole global warming industry, but a significant and eye opening view of the ulgly politics behind what should be pure, clean science.

Time to cowboy up! Your side has taken a significant blow. Deal with it for what it is.

uh, where is the science?

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:24.

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/04/report_democrat.php

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/breaking_news_sunspots_may_c...

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200904214450/editorial/the-absurdity-that-c... http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2009/03/08/censored-the-fact-that-av...

http://drivethrupolitics.blogspot.com/2009/03/telling-co2-lies-to-destro...

http://theblackkettle.blogspot.com/2009/04/no-wonder-climate-alarmists-r...

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/09/number-one-cause-of-global-warmin...

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/07/al-gore-if-you-question-global-warm... http://www.rightsidenews.com/200901103262/editorial/global-warming-conse...

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/06/29/polar-bear-expert-censored-by-warm...

 

I could go on there is a preponderance of evidence that science does not show either that man has the ability to change the weather of the planet - CO2 levels do not cause warming of the earth ...

Relax, Wayne

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 17:51.

I could go on there is a preponderance of evidence that science does not show either that man has the ability to change the weather of the planet - CO2 levels do not cause warming of the earth ...

Gee...i wonder why there is no scientific consensus on that then.

Maybe this explains: A deeper look at global warming denialist attacks

 

 

Did you read any of the emails.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:11.

Real scientist have been trying to get to the real science for years ... you may be shocked to read  the emails regarding the scheming to block and prevent descent.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868

[...]According to McIntyre, when he began downloading data from NASA’s website to compare the adjusted and the raw data from the polling stations, “this led to a bit of a fight with NASA in May. As I started downloading the data in sequence they cut off my access to the data.”

“They blocked my IP address,” McIntyre said.

[...]“After I was blocked and I explained myself they still didn’t want to let me have access to the data,” McIntyre lamented.

He continued: “They just said go look at the original data. And I said no, I want to see the data you used. I know what the original data looks like. I want to see the data that you used. But one of the nice things about having a blog that gets a million and half hits a month is that I then was able to publicize this block in real-time and they very quickly withdrew their position and allowed me to have access.”

When he got the data, McIntyre then compared the raw and adjusted data sets for all 1200 U.S. weather stations. “Probably 75 percent of the stations had jumps of at least a quarter degree in the year 2000,” he said.

....

Enjoy, save me some wayne pain...

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:42.

Guardian: Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/10/climate-change-de...

 

Denialism blog has identified five tactics for spotting climate deniers that should set pseudo-science alarm bells ringing

 

In a previous post on this blog, James Randerson recognised the similarity between creationists and climate change denialists and their tactics of sowing confusion and doubt about established science.

But the similarities are not just with creationists. The same tactics are used by those who deny the link between HIV and Aids and those who subscribe to any number of bizarre conspiracy theories from 9/11 conspiracies to lizard people.

At denialism blog we have identified five routine tactics that should set your pseudo-science alarm bells ringing. Spotting them doesn't guarantee an argument is incorrect – you can argue for true things badly – but when these are the arguments you hear, be on your guard.

• First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. This conspiracy invariably fails to address or explain the data or observation but only generates more unexplained questions.

But let us think about such conspiracies for a moment. Do they stand up to even a cursory evaluation? Is it really possible to make thousands of scientists, from over 100 countries, and every national academy of every country toe the same line, falsify data, and suppress this alleged dissent? I certainly didn't get the memo. At the heart of all denialism are these absurd conspiracy theories that require a superhuman level of control of individuals that simply defies reality.

• The second tactic is selectivity, or cherry-picking the data. Creationists classically would quote scientists out of context to suggest they disagreed with evolution. Global warming denialists similarly engage in this tactic, harping on about long discredited theories and the medieval warming period ad nauseum. But these instances are too numerous and tedious to go into in depth.

• Instead, let's talk about the third tactic, the use of fake experts, where both creationists and global warming denialists truly shine. Creationists have their Dissent from Darwin list of questionable provenance. Similarly, global warming denialist extraordinaire has his list of climate scientists who disagree with global warming.

But don't look too close! Lots of his big names are the same hacks who used to deny that cigarettes cause cancer for the tobacco companies, others are scientists who are wrongly included because they said something that was quoted out of context, others simply have no credibility as experts on climate like TV weathermen. But the desire of denialists to gain legitimacy by the numbers of scientists (or whoever they can find with letters after their name) used remains despite their contempt for the science they disagree with.

• The fourth tactic – moving goalposts or impossible expectations – is the tendency to refuse to accept when denialists' challenges to the science have been addressed. Instead, they just come up with new challenges for you to prove before they say they'll believe the theory. Worse, they just repeat their challenges over and over again ad nauseum.

This may be their most frustrating tactic because every time you think you've satisfied a challenge, they just invent a new one. The joke in evolutionary biology is that every time you find a transitional fossil all you do is create two new gaps on the fossil record, one on either side of the discovery. Similarly with global warming denialism, there is no end to the challenges that denialists claim they need to have satisfied before they'll come on board.

It's important to recognise that you shouldn't play their game. They'll never be satisfied because they simply don't want to believe the science – for ideological reasons. In the US, global warming denialism usually stems from free-market fundamentalism that is terrified of regulation and any suggestion there should be control of business.

• Finally, the fifth tactic is the catch-all of logical fallacies. You know you've heard them. Al Gore is fat! His house uses lots of energy! Evolutionary biologists are mean! God of the gaps, reasoning by analogy, ad hominem, you name it, these arguments, while emotionally appealing, have no impact on the validity of the science.

It is important to filter information so that scientific discourse and debate can stay within the confines of rational argument and reason. Otherwise we get sidetracked and paralysed by denialists who are not honest brokers in a debate. Their goal isn't to promote science, or truth, or human knowledge, but to delay and deny.

• Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and contributes to denialism blog.

 

Vindication: Global Alarmist losing Scientists.

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 20:27.

The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side "deniers". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6690110/Leake...

Isn't the Economist one of your favorite publications?

The Economist:  I am not a climate scientist. In the end I have to trust the experts. That is what we are asked to do. "Trust us, we're scientists".

I guess some people are more interested in the truth than a war.

Eduardo Zorita

 ...the mainstream of skepticism on AGW are usually somewhat educated in the disciplines of engineering, mathematics, or computer science. People who work with math daily. People who could plainly see that the numbers did not add up and resented it. Most of them do not reject the idea that CO2 causes warming, the fight, for a long time, has been over the degree of warming. The exaggerations and data obfuscation and outright destruction (apparently) have only fed this skepticism. Most of this stuff is not new. For just about every controversial email, you can google back before this revelation, and find discussion pointing to strong suspicion of the activity involved, from incestuous peer review to obstruction of FOI. For example, when Steve McIntyre's request for the raw temperature data was declined, he was working at the behest of the National Academy of Science.

 

What drivel, Brain Drain!

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:20.

First and foremost, there's the hack into climate scientists' private emails, peddled to the media and the conservative base as an "exposé".  Of course, as noted last weekend, there was nothing exposed.

Shhhhh . . .don't tell the Penn State that nothing was exposed . . .they're investigating . .

The Penn State administration plans to investigate Climategate and determine if it needs to take further action, the Daily Collegian reports. A little more than a week ago, E-mails exchanged among an English university's climate change researchers were illegally obtained from a server and posted online, the report says.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html

I wonder why? They seem more curious than you . . .unable to jump to conclusions without looking at the facts . . .

Don't use fancy terms out of context w/out knowing their meaning

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:34.

 

look up "Brain Drain" sometime.

 

in your case

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 18:47.

It means your brain is slowly draining away from reading too many liberal blogs.

THe Global Warming Cult...

Submitted by RBIII on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 23:36.

... is the modern day Liberal's religion.

Take it easy on them.  It's going to take a while for reality to sink in for them.

Focus your efforts on preventing legislation based on this hoax, the Global Warming cultists are still in the denial stage of grieving.

Global Warming....

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Mon, 11/30/2009 - 23:46.

 

"... is the modern day Liberal's religion."

 

just like science is...

 

If godbot republicans can push Bible based legislation, as in gay marriage and abortion, we can push this "hoax" just as successfully. Good luck.

Who's pushing that legislation?

Submitted by RBIII on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 09:34.

What's Obama's stance on gay marriage again?  Is he a godbot Republican?

And what legislation are the godbot republicans pushing regarding abortion?  Oh, that's right, the only federal legislation dealing with abortion recently was pushed by that godbot Republican Stupak and was merely a provision preventing Federal dollars being spent on abortions.

Hey whatever

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 09:53.

 

I am not at all optimistic of any substantial climate change related legislation to pass the US congress anytime soon anyway. The latest development down under doesn't make the situation any different:

Turmoil in Australia over Climate Change Bill Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 22:35

After a revolt by his own caucus for supporting PM Rudd's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the Opposition leader has been replaced with one (Tony Abbott) who opposes the bill.  

Due to the undemocratic nature of their Senate (sound familiar?) the governing Labor party does not have even a plurality of Senators and needed some of the Opposition to support the bill in the Senate.  Now that won't happen, as the new leader will use strict party discipline to defeat the bill in the Upper chamber.

Rudd can call a snap "double dissolution" election where both chambers of Parliament go up for re-election.  Assuming he wins (BBC says polling favours him), and the Senate defeats the bill again, he can call a joint session of Parliament, where they vote on the bill as a combined chamber (and the House's numerical advantage will mean it passes easily).

This has happened only once before.  It was what Labor had to do to get universal health care passed the conservatives in the Senate in 1974.

Down under, Senates, and conservatives, suck too.  At least the Aussies built in some kind of Lower house trump card to override them on major issues.  Oh, and they pass bills by majority vote at least.

Australia passing a Cap and Trade system ahead of Copenhagen would have added useful momentum and credibility to the effort.  It would also have bolstered efforts to get the US emissions bill passed its House of Lords.  Australian tea baggers have succeeded in hurting the chances of something meaningful coming out of Copenhagen.