FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Dem's Global Warming Debacle





jmi256
A good read about the junk science that the Democrats have been trying to exploit for their political use and the ramifications for real science…

Quote:
Climategate: Science Is Dying


Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.

I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn't only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called "the scientific community" had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry. A Nobel Prize was bestowed (on a politician).

Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science. Because "science" said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost. Not every day does the work of scientists lead to galactic events simply called Kyoto or Copenhagen. At least not since the Manhattan Project.

What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously "unprovable" theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.

This has harsh implications for the credibility of science generally. Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies. The New England Journal of Medicine has turned into a weird weekly amalgam of straight medical-research and propaganda for the Obama redesign of U.S. medicine.

The East Anglians' mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming's claims—plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish—evokes the attempt to silence Galileo. The exchanges between Penn State's Michael Mann and East Anglia CRU director Phil Jones sound like Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition.

For three centuries Galileo has symbolized dissent in science. In our time, most scientists outside this circle have kept silent as their climatologist fellows, helped by the cardinals of the press, mocked and ostracized scientists who questioned this grand theory of global doom. Even a doubter as eminent as Princeton's Freeman Dyson was dismissed as an aging crank.

Beneath this dispute is a relatively new, very postmodern environmental idea known as "the precautionary principle." As defined by one official version: "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." The global-warming establishment says we know "enough" to impose new rules on the world's use of carbon fuels. The dissenters say this demotes science's traditional standards of evidence.

The Environmental Protection Agency's dramatic Endangerment Finding in April that greenhouse gas emissions qualify as an air pollutant—with implications for a vast new regulatory regime—used what the agency called a precautionary approach. The EPA admitted "varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues." Again, this puts hard science in the new position of saying, close enough is good enough. One hopes civil engineers never build bridges under this theory.

The Obama administration's new head of policy at EPA, Lisa Heinzerling, is an advocate of turning precaution into standard policy. In a law-review article titled "Law and Economics for a Warming World," Ms. Heinzerling wrote, "Policy formation based on prediction and calculation of expected harm is no longer relevant; the only coherent response to a situation of chaotically worsening outcomes is a precautionary policy. . . ."

If the new ethos is that "close-enough" science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.

Source = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
A good read about the junk science that the Democrats have been trying to exploit for their political use and the ramifications for real science…

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-112322.html
Quote:
Why I Parted Ways With The Right

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
A good read about the junk science that the Democrats have been trying to exploit for their political use and the ramifications for real science…

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-112322.html
Quote:
Why I Parted Ways With The Right

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)


Funny that asking that scientists actually follow scientific principles not fudge their research to bow to political pressure and bias is considered "anti-science."
liljp617
My eyes bled as I read this.
deanhills
@jmi256. I can't understand your point of the Democrats exploiting the scientists e-mail debacle. How are they doing that? What happened was wrong, and if the Republicans had been in power at the time when this happened, they might have reacted in the exact same way. The issue is one of scientific reporting and scientists allegedly colluding in providing facts that are favourable to them. How can that be exploited politically?

People are not perfect, and the discovery of a wrong by scientists (that is currently being investigated and still has to be proven), cannot make science wrong. If proven correct, the scientists responsible for the e-mails will most likely completely loose their reputation and be shunned by other scientists. Scientists are much harder and unforgiving of other scientists who act in this way than politicians could ever dream to be.

PS: This may be a duplicate thread of two in the "Earth" Forum, however the one you quoted takes a different look at it from a political point of view. The one in the Earth Forum is looking at it from a scientific point of view. So hopefully the moderators will allow both as I am interested in both points of view. I'm still hoping Indi or Chris or any of our other Frihost science experts could comment on what happened.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
@jmi256. I can't understand your point of the Democrats exploiting the scientists e-mail debacle. How are they doing that? What happened was wrong, and if the Republicans had been in power at the time when this happened, they might have reacted in the exact same way.

They would have colluded to hide global warming, instead of colluding to hide evidence against it.

Hm... perhaps scientific integrity needs to be codified and enforced... Before conclusions end up going to the highest bidder. (more than they already do today)
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
@jmi256. I can't understand your point of the Democrats exploiting the scientists e-mail debacle. How are they doing that?

I’m referring to the Democrats’ Cap & Trade tax legislation they are trying to push through. Their reasoning has been that the now debunked ‘science’ clearly showed that ‘global warming’ is a manmade phenomenon, and therefore a massive increase in taxes and regulation that would stifle the US’s (and by extension the world’s) economy was in order. It was nothing less than a power grab in the name of research that has been shown to be intentionally biased and faulty to support a political view.

deanhills wrote:

What happened was wrong, and if the Republicans had been in power at the time when this happened, they might have reacted in the exact same way. The issue is one of scientific reporting and scientists allegedly colluding in providing facts that are favourable to them.

I don’t know what Republicans would have done. The fact is, however, that Republicans are against this legislation based on faulty ‘science’ while Democrats have been exploiting the faked research. But if they are true conservatives, they would not try to fabricate yet another fake ‘crisis’ for political purposes, which liberals/Democrats/Progressives seem to be quite adept at. But let’s take the argument at face value. Is the stance that wrong doing is legitimate because you believe that [i]perhaps[i] someone else would behave similarly a valid stance?

deanhills wrote:

How can that be exploited politically?

By trying to impose yet another tax increase on the backs of taxpayers to pay for the Democrats’ pet projects.

Quote:
The Cap and Tax Fiction
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

Source = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html


deanhills wrote:

People are not perfect, and the discovery of a wrong by scientists (that is currently being investigated and still has to be proven), cannot make science wrong. If proven correct, the scientists responsible for the e-mails will most likely completely loose their reputation and be shunned by other scientists. Scientists are much harder and unforgiving of other scientists who act in this way than politicians could ever dream to be.

If the argument is about whether the research needs to be examined, and that we should not jump to conclusions, I can respect that. But the Democrats have used biased research to push their agenda forward without an honest look at real research.


deanhills wrote:

PS: This may be a duplicate thread of two in the "Earth" Forum, however the one you quoted takes a different look at it from a political point of view. The one in the Earth Forum is looking at it from a scientific point of view. So hopefully the moderators will allow both as I am interested in both points of view. I'm still hoping Indi or Chris or any of our other Frihost science experts could comment on what happened.

I haven’t been following the other topic, but I trust the focus of this thread is different enough to sustain itself. I don’t think the posters in the Earth forum would appreciate a discussion of politics in their thread. Sort of makes my point: Politics shouldn’t be injected into science.


handfleisch
Quote:
Sort of makes my point: Politics shouldn’t be injected into science.


LOL. Yes, climate change is a definitely an evil conspiracy by Democrats to push their "agenda". Which agenda was that, creating a one-world government, covering up UFO abductions, taking away our guns? Can't keep track.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Quote:
Sort of makes my point: Politics shouldn’t be injected into science.


LOL. Yes, climate change is a definitely an evil conspiracy by Democrats to push their "agenda". Which agenda was that, creating a one-world government, covering up UFO abductions, taking away our guns? Can't keep track.


You're the only one talking about conspiracies, one-world government, UFO abductions, etc. You were doing so well lately, handfleisch, but I see you've decided to dust off the old tin-foil hat. I guess old habits are hard to break, huh?

ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Quote:
Sort of makes my point: Politics shouldn’t be injected into science.


LOL. Yes, climate change is a definitely an evil conspiracy by Democrats to push their "agenda".

Much like the anti-terrorism hype was in large part, a Republican conspiracy to achieve their agenda.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Quote:
Sort of makes my point: Politics shouldn’t be injected into science.


LOL. Yes, climate change is a definitely an evil conspiracy by Democrats to push their "agenda". Which agenda was that, creating a one-world government, covering up UFO abductions, taking away our guns? Can't keep track.


You're the only one talking about conspiracies, one-world government, UFO abductions, etc. You were doing so well lately, handfleisch, but I see you've decided to dust off the old tin-foil hat. I guess old habits are hard to break, huh?


Wait a minute, Mr Science. Here are your words:

Quote:
the Democrats have used biased research to push their agenda forward


So what agenda?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:

So what agenda?


I suggest you actually read all of what I wrote above instead of trying to pull one part of one sentence out of context in a feeble attempt to salvage any kind of credibility for yourself.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

So what agenda?


I suggest you actually read all of what I wrote above instead of trying to pull one part of one sentence out of context in a feeble attempt to salvage any kind of credibility for yourself.

You can't tell us about the agenda you say Democrats have?

Cred? You're the one who cited blurry mobile phone videos as evidence of the conspiracy that Obama sent union thugs who were beating up teabaggers. It was hilarious and totally false. Your "left wing extremist media" conspiracy was blown out of the water too. And now you say Democrats somehow want there to be climate change for some nefarious "agenda" and are using rigged science results to do it. That sounds like the definition of a conspiracy and it's all yours. And now you can't even name the agenda?
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
I’m referring to the Democrats’ Cap & Trade tax legislation they are trying to push through. Their reasoning has been that the now debunked ‘science’ clearly showed that ‘global warming’ is a manmade phenomenon, and therefore a massive increase in taxes and regulation that would stifle the US’s (and by extension the world’s) economy was in order. It was nothing less than a power grab in the name of research that has been shown to be intentionally biased and faulty to support a political view.
Thanks for explaining it to me. I get it now. I guess if Obama can cheer a 0.2% decrease in unemployment from 10.2%, then using what happened with the e-mails for increasing taxes, even when collusion has not been proven yet, is a real possibility. Ocalhoun is right, one wonders exactly how accidental the release of the e-mails has been.
Voodoocat
Quote:
Ocalhoun is right, one wonders exactly how accidental the release of the e-mails has been.


I, for one, am estatic that the emails have become the Copenhagen prelude. With luck, "Climategate" will derail global policies destined to feed the escalading economic crisis with higher taxes, increased fees and other inhibitors of business.

I bet that the millions of unemployeed Americans would prefer a job to higher electric bills.
deanhills
Voodoocat wrote:
Quote:
Ocalhoun is right, one wonders exactly how accidental the release of the e-mails has been.


I, for one, am estatic that the emails have become the Copenhagen prelude. With luck, "Climategate" will derail global policies destined to feed the escalading economic crisis with higher taxes, increased fees and other inhibitors of business.

I bet that the millions of unemployeed Americans would prefer a job to higher electric bills.
OK, you've now convinced me completely. The release of e-mails can't be accidental. The timing is just too convenient for any of it to have been accidental. Especially given that some of those e-mails that are being referred to are dated years ago: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I’m referring to the Democrats’ Cap & Trade tax legislation they are trying to push through. Their reasoning has been that the now debunked ‘science’ clearly showed that ‘global warming’ is a manmade phenomenon, and therefore a massive increase in taxes and regulation that would stifle the US’s (and by extension the world’s) economy was in order. It was nothing less than a power grab in the name of research that has been shown to be intentionally biased and faulty to support a political view.
Thanks for explaining it to me. I get it now. I guess if Obama can cheer a 0.2% decrease in unemployment from 10.2%, then using what happened with the e-mails for increasing taxes, even when collusion has not been proven yet, is a real possibility. Ocalhoun is right, one wonders exactly how accidental the release of the e-mails has been.


deanhills wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:
Quote:
Ocalhoun is right, one wonders exactly how accidental the release of the e-mails has been.


I, for one, am estatic that the emails have become the Copenhagen prelude. With luck, "Climategate" will derail global policies destined to feed the escalading economic crisis with higher taxes, increased fees and other inhibitors of business.

I bet that the millions of unemployeed Americans would prefer a job to higher electric bills.
OK, you've now convinced me completely. The release of e-mails can't be accidental. The timing is just too convenient for any of it to have been accidental. Especially given that some of those e-mails that are being referred to are dated years ago: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html


Honestly, I am trying to figure out the basics of this conspiracy theory. As far as I can tell from these posts, it goes like this:

Climate Change is a hoax that the Democrats are using to push through their agenda, which is to intentionally worsen the financial crisis. With the excuse of Climate Change, the Democrats want large increases in taxes and regulation to sabotage the American and world economy, in order to have more power to rule the country and the world. These hacked emails from the scientists either prove that Climate Change is a hoax, or they were intentionally released by the conspirators for some reason (that part I don't quite get.)

But how's that? Is that a good summary of this conspiracy, or is there more to it?
deanhills
@handfleisch. When I asked jmi for clarification, he was able to give me some facts that convinced me. I am completely open to a different opinion, but one that is also factually based. Exactly why would you differ with his statement below?

Quote:
I’m referring to the Democrats’ Cap & Trade tax legislation they are trying to push through. Their reasoning has been that the now debunked ‘science’ clearly showed that ‘global warming’ is a manmade phenomenon, and therefore a massive increase in taxes and regulation that would stifle the US’s (and by extension the world’s) economy was in order. It was nothing less than a power grab in the name of research that has been shown to be intentionally biased and faulty to support a political view.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
@handfleisch. When I asked jmi for clarification, he was able to give me some facts that convinced me. I am completely open to a different opinion, but one that is also factually based. Exactly why would you differ with his statement below?

Quote:
I’m referring to the Democrats’ Cap & Trade tax legislation they are trying to push through. Their reasoning has been that the now debunked ‘science’ clearly showed that ‘global warming’ is a manmade phenomenon, and therefore a massive increase in taxes and regulation that would stifle the US’s (and by extension the world’s) economy was in order. It was nothing less than a power grab in the name of research that has been shown to be intentionally biased and faulty to support a political view.


I summarized this statement and others in my post about the basics of your conspiracy, which I will rework below. Exactly how is it wrong? Is it a good summary of the plot, or could you get one of your co-conspiracy theorists to fill me in?

The Plot: Climate Change is a hoax ("the now debunked ‘science’") that the Democrats are using to push through their agenda, which is to intentionally worsen the financial crisis. With the excuse of Climate Change, the Democrats want "a massive increase in taxes and regulation" to sabotage the American and world economy ("stifle the US’s [and by extension the world’s] economy"), in order to have more power to rule the country and the world ("a power grab"). These hacked emails from the scientists either prove that Climate Change is a hoax, or they were intentionally released by the conspirators for some reason (that part I don't quite get.)
deanhills
Indi gave a very good analysis of the reliability of information regarding "Global Warming" and how political it has become. Maybe you would like to read some of the threads on global warming in the science forums, and specifically Indi's postings in the above linked thread about:"Global Warming Proof (Secrets Unveiled)". Bottomline is that it is completely politicized instead of focussing on the real problem:

Quote:
i'll be honest when i say that this whole "global warming controversy" infuriates me. The science is over and done with, and there is no dispute about the results. Everything about this controversy is political, and the dishonesty is abhorrent: the only question being debated is "what should we do about climate change?", not "is climate change happening?" as the politicians pretend. They just don't have the courage to stand up in front of their constituents and state their argument honestly: "Yes, we know that climate change is happening, but frankly, it's going to hurt the poor equatorial countries, really, not us, so... ****** them. And sure, we could change our economy to a non-fossil fuel-based economy, and we could even use our current economic strength to do it first thus giving our country the jump on the world economy for decades to come, but... eh, that's just too much work. Most of us industrial leaders will be dead within the next 30 or so years, before the major problems start, so... ****** the next generation, too."

Both the Republicans and Democrats have been interpreting Global Warming to suit their own political agendas. That is fact, not fiction.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Indi gave a very good analysis of the reliability of information regarding "Global Warming" and how political it has become. Maybe you would like to read some of the threads on global warming in the science forums, and specifically Indi's postings in the above linked thread about:"Global Warming Proof (Secrets Unveiled)". Bottomline is that it is completely politicized instead of focussing on the real problem:

Quote:
i'll be honest when i say that this whole "global warming controversy" infuriates me. The science is over and done with, and there is no dispute about the results. Everything about this controversy is political, and the dishonesty is abhorrent: the only question being debated is "what should we do about climate change?", not "is climate change happening?" as the politicians pretend. They just don't have the courage to stand up in front of their constituents and state their argument honestly: "Yes, we know that climate change is happening, but frankly, it's going to hurt the poor equatorial countries, really, not us, so... ****** them. And sure, we could change our economy to a non-fossil fuel-based economy, and we could even use our current economic strength to do it first thus giving our country the jump on the world economy for decades to come, but... eh, that's just too much work. Most of us industrial leaders will be dead within the next 30 or so years, before the major problems start, so... ****** the next generation, too."


Now you've confused me further. This post you have quoted states that Climate Change definitely is happening, and first-world politicians are pretending that it might not be, and refusing to turn to alternative energy because the climate problems will mainly hurt third world countries and the major problems won't start til a few decades from now.

In other words, this post contradicts the idea of this thread, that Climate Change is a hoax and a conspiracy. So which one is it?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:

Now you've confused me further. This post you have quoted states that Climate Change definitely is happening, and first-world politicians are pretending that it might not be, and refusing to turn to alternative energy because the climate problems will mainly hurt third world countries and the major problems won't start til a few decades from now.

In other words, this post contradicts the idea of this thread, that Climate Change is a hoax and a conspiracy. So which one is it?


Again, please read the thread above. But to make it easier for you, I'll recap. The idea of this thread is that the research commonly cited by Democrats to support their call for increased regulations, taxes, etc. has been at the very least shown to be faulty/biased. The programs and policies (Cap & Trade/Tax is one example) they wish to implement due the the 'evidence' of the research would mean a lot of new and devastating taxes on families and workers, and would have very negative effects on the economy. A lot of people have been questioning the phenomenon of Global Warming and its link to human activities for some time now, and the emails that have come to light seem to support those points of view. The question now is that since the 'evidence' Democrats have tried to exploit to justify their policies has been shown to be questionable, will they still try to force their programs and policies through. It's as simple as that, and the only one who introduced "conspiracies" and "hoaxes" has been you.

On a side note handfleisch, you really need to stop trying to muck up each and every thread with your conspiracy theory nonsense. When you are unable to debate the merits of the argument at hand you revert to name calling (How many times are you going to throw around the derogatory terms "wingnut," "teabagger," "sicko," etc? You even dedicate entire threads to it.), accusing anyone who disagrees or has an opposing point of view a conspiracy theorist, etc. I try to ignore you as much as I can, but there are times where I actually believe you are interested in honest debate. Sadly it mostly gets bogged down into this type of back and forth.

I do acknowledge my own part in this because I don't think handfleisch and I will ever agree 100% on anything as it's clear our worldviews are quite different. But I had hoped that regardless, we could engage in meaningful debate. For example Ophois/Solon and I hold very different views, but I think we have a good back and forth, and my debates with him have sometimes made me reassess my own opinions, causing some to strengthen and some to be modified. I enjoyed our debates and I hope he returns soon. With handfleisch, though, it seems to just get into a shouting match.

So I do want to apologize for my part. I would rather stick to logical discussions (this is Politics, however, so there will always be a hint of passion), so I will do my best just to ignore handfleisch in the future.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Now you've confused me further. This post you have quoted states that Climate Change definitely is happening, and first-world politicians are pretending that it might not be, and refusing to turn to alternative energy because the climate problems will mainly hurt third world countries and the major problems won't start til a few decades from now.

In other words, this post contradicts the idea of this thread, that Climate Change is a hoax and a conspiracy. So which one is it?


Again, please read the thread above. But to make it easier for you, I'll recap. The idea of this thread is that the research commonly cited by Democrats to support their call for increased regulations, taxes, etc. has been at the very least shown to be faulty/biased. The programs and policies (Cap & Trade/Tax is one example) they wish to implement due the the 'evidence' of the research would mean a lot of new and devastating taxes on families and workers, and would have very negative effects on the economy. A lot of people have been questioning the phenomenon of Global Warming and its link to human activities for some time now, and the emails that have come to light seem to support those points of view. The question now is that since the 'evidence' Democrats have tried to exploit to justify their policies has been shown to be questionable, will they still try to force their programs and policies through. It's as simple as that, and the only one who introduced "conspiracies" and "hoaxes" has been you.

On a side note handfleisch, you really need to stop trying to muck up each and every thread with your conspiracy theory nonsense. When you are unable to debate the merits of the argument at hand you revert to name calling (How many times are you going to throw around the derogatory terms "wingnut," "teabagger," "sicko," etc? You even dedicate entire threads to it.), accusing anyone who disagrees or has an opposing point of view a conspiracy theorist, etc. I try to ignore you as much as I can, but there are times where I actually believe you are interested in honest debate. Sadly it mostly gets bogged down into this type of back and forth.

I do acknowledge my own part in this because I don't think handfleisch and I will ever agree 100% on anything as it's clear our worldviews are quite different. But I had hoped that regardless, we could engage in meaningful debate. For example Ophois/Solon and I hold very different views, but I think we have a good back and forth, and my debates with him have sometimes made me reassess my own opinions, causing some to strengthen and some to be modified. I enjoyed our debates and I hope he returns soon. With handfleisch, though, it seems to just get into a shouting match.

So I do want to apologize for my part. I would rather stick to logical discussions (this is Politics, however, so there will always be a hint of passion), so I will do my best just to ignore handfleisch in the future.


Well, that's all fine. I think I have been very logical in the posts above, and so far it hasn't got very far. It's true I have less patience for the complete nonsense that runs amuck in US political debate than does Bikerman, Orphois, and others, but what of it?

1. On terms:

Wingnut is shorthand for a right winger with irrational, unscientific arguments and beliefs. It is a observed national phenomenon in the USA, and I don't see the harm in using the term. But what would you prefer? Faith-based right winger? Neocon? A good way to avoid the term, by the way, is to avoid being one.

Teabagger = Tea Partier, after Tea Party, the term by the organizers for their fake grassroots right wing demonstrations recently. What's the problem with the term? The Tea Partiers were sending tea bags to Congress and dumping them in the rivers, hence Teabaggers.

"Sicko" means an ill person, and I used in a subject line to refer to Ayn Rand as being mentally ill. Again, what's the problem?

2. I agree the term "conspiracy theory" is problematic, but I often use it with right wingers in terms of fighting fire with fire.

A conspiracy is secret plan to enact an agenda, so if you allege such a thing, you are alleging a conspiracy. It doesn't matter if you don't use the term. You have claimed such conspiracies as Obama sending union "thugs" who were beating up Tea Party demonstrators, and that there is a "left wing extremist media". Both these allegations were debunked in these forums. Now you are alleging a secret plan by Democrats to use faulty Climate Change data to further their "agenda" to get more political power.

3. Back on topic, without commenting on the accuracy of the points made, I am just trying to find out what your allegation is.

You claimed that the scientists "fudge their research", meaning to mislead or lie. Hence it's not just faulty data but an intentional fabrication, which means a hoax. Are you backing away from that now? Do you no longer claim that Climate Change scientists are intentionally misleading the public?

You also claimed that Democrats were using Climate Change in an "agenda" to ""stifle the US’s (and by extension the world’s) economy" in a "power grab". Are you backing away from that part also? Do you no longer claim the Democratic Party wants to stifle the world economy to somehow get more political power for themselves?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Honestly, I am trying to figure out the basics of this conspiracy theory. As far as I can tell from these posts, it goes like this:

Climate Change is a hoax that the Democrats are using to push through their agenda, which is to intentionally worsen the financial crisis. With the excuse of Climate Change, the Democrats want large increases in taxes and regulation to sabotage the American and world economy, in order to have more power to rule the country and the world. These hacked emails from the scientists either prove that Climate Change is a hoax, or they were intentionally released by the conspirators for some reason (that part I don't quite get.)

But how's that? Is that a good summary of this conspiracy, or is there more to it?


Climate Change is a hoax that the Democrats are using to push through their agenda, which is to acquire more money and power. With the excuse of Climate Change, the Democrats want large increases in taxes and regulation to make more money and have more power to rule the country and the world. These hacked emails from the scientists either prove that Climate Change is a hoax, or they were intentionally released by a defector from the collusion or a 'spy' within their midst for some reason.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And by the way, the emails aren't conclusive proof. They just provide a good example of the very shady 'science' involved.

Personally, I don't think they're really conspiring to perpetrate a hoax.

At first, people honestly thought we were causing a global warming phenomenon that must be stopped.
By now, however, there are two more groups in addition to the honest ones:
A) Those who have argued for it so much, and invested so much into it that they can't afford the financial and credibility blow that would happen if it were proved wrong. Therefore, they'll fight tooth and nail to keep climate change as an issue, no matter what evidence comes up.
B) A darker variety of honest ones... They believe that it is so important to stop global warming that setting aside the normal rules of morality and honesty is acceptable. They've come to believe that 'the ends justify the means', and will do pretty much anything to stop global warming.

So, you have your three categories:
1- Honest ones
2- The profiteers and demagogues
3- The 'ends justify the means' crowd

The emails in question were mostly written by the #2 and #3 crowds.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Honestly, I am trying to figure out the basics of this conspiracy theory. As far as I can tell from these posts, it goes like this:

Climate Change is a hoax that the Democrats are using to push through their agenda, which is to intentionally worsen the financial crisis. With the excuse of Climate Change, the Democrats want large increases in taxes and regulation to sabotage the American and world economy, in order to have more power to rule the country and the world. These hacked emails from the scientists either prove that Climate Change is a hoax, or they were intentionally released by the conspirators for some reason (that part I don't quite get.)

But how's that? Is that a good summary of this conspiracy, or is there more to it?


Climate Change is a hoax that the Democrats are using to push through their agenda, which is to acquire more money and power. With the excuse of Climate Change, the Democrats want large increases in taxes and regulation to make more money and have more power to rule the country and the world. These hacked emails from the scientists either prove that Climate Change is a hoax, or they were intentionally released by a defector from the collusion or a 'spy' within their midst for some reason.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And by the way, the emails aren't conclusive proof. They just provide a good example of the very shady 'science' involved.

Personally, I don't think they're really conspiring to perpetrate a hoax.

At first, people honestly thought we were causing a global warming phenomenon that must be stopped.
By now, however, there are two more groups in addition to the honest ones:
A) Those who have argued for it so much, and invested so much into it that they can't afford the financial and credibility blow that would happen if it were proved wrong. Therefore, they'll fight tooth and nail to keep climate change as an issue, no matter what evidence comes up.
B) A darker variety of honest ones... They believe that it is so important to stop global warming that setting aside the normal rules of morality and honesty is acceptable. They've come to believe that 'the ends justify the means', and will do pretty much anything to stop global warming.

So, you have your three categories:
1- Honest ones
2- The profiteers and demagogues
3- The 'ends justify the means' crowd

The emails in question were mostly written by the #2 and #3 crowds.


I don't understand the point of your red text. Is that your summation of the allegation?

You say there is no hoax. But there isn't even any email debacle. From a responsible conservative website, quoting New Scientist magazine:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35274_Theres_No_Conspiracy_in_the_Climategate_Emails
Quote:
There's No Conspiracy in the 'Climategate' Emails

Environment | Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:50:43 pm PST

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

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


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

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

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


I don't understand the point of your red text. Is that your summation of the allegation?



Well, the first part is a correction of the motivations of the politicians. When you say they are intending to cause havoc, of course it sounds ludicrous. But, as politicians on all sides all too often do, they may likely be trying to get more money and power, and dismissing any havoc that ensues as just a side effect.

The second half deals with the motivations of the scientists.
And some of the emails that speak of boycotting journals that include any climate change skepticism definitely point towards the group #3 I mentioned.
When you're actively trying to silence the competition, you've deviated pretty seriously from the standards of acceptable scientific behavior.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:


I don't understand the point of your red text. Is that your summation of the allegation?



Well, the first part is a correction of the motivations of the politicians. When you say they are intending to cause havoc, of course it sounds ludicrous. But, as politicians on all sides all too often do, they may likely be trying to get more money and power, and dismissing any havoc that ensues as just a side effect.

The second half deals with the motivations of the scientists.
And some of the emails that speak of boycotting journals that include any climate change skepticism definitely point towards the group #3 I mentioned.
When you're actively trying to silence the competition, you've deviated pretty seriously from the standards of acceptable scientific behavior.


I agree with you, it sounds ludicrous. Not just that but the whole thing.

How exactly does the Democratic Party get more money and power by continuing the supposed hoax? The majority of Democrats get their money from the same place as Republicans, lobbyists from large corporations that don't want more regulations and have a financial interest in blocking them, and the megarich who don't want more taxes.

Are you saying you actually believe your summation of this plot? I thought you didn't believe in the hoax. Do you reject the accepted analysis of the hacked emails that says the supposed scandal is just from taking things out of context, and do you actually believe scientists are "trying to silence the competition"?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Now you've confused me further. This post you have quoted states that Climate Change definitely is happening, and first-world politicians are pretending that it might not be, and refusing to turn to alternative energy because the climate problems will mainly hurt third world countries and the major problems won't start til a few decades from now.

In other words, this post contradicts the idea of this thread, that Climate Change is a hoax and a conspiracy. So which one is it?
Jmi put it in nuts and bolts that I agree with. As far as I can understand of what Indi said is that politicians are using "global warming" facts and figures (that may or may not be that accurate), insincerely as they don't really care. All they are interested in is the appearance of doing something good for the environment selling pieces of legislation and making eloquent speeches without a solid grasp exactly of what global warming means for the world scientifically. The Democrats are not alone in this, the Republicans are doing it too, as well as politicians all over the world. They would interpret anything in any way to get what they want.

As far as I can see votes for legislation are virtually up for sale, either in cash or kind, and fought for tooth and nail, no holds barred. When legislation is being promoted people will go to any lengths to convince those who are eligible for voting of how misleading science really is if that suited them, or how fantastic science is if that suited them. I still think that the leaking of those e-mails "accidentally" just before the Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen cannot be that much of a coincidence. Especially since some of the e-mails are dated 2003, 2007 and 2008.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Now you've confused me further. This post you have quoted states that Climate Change definitely is happening, and first-world politicians are pretending that it might not be, and refusing to turn to alternative energy because the climate problems will mainly hurt third world countries and the major problems won't start til a few decades from now.

In other words, this post contradicts the idea of this thread, that Climate Change is a hoax and a conspiracy. So which one is it?
Jmi put it in nuts and bolts that I agree with. As far as I can understand of what Indi said is that politicians are using "global warming" facts and figures (that may or may not be that accurate), insincerely as they don't really care. All they are interested in is the appearance of doing something good for the environment selling pieces of legislation and making eloquent speeches without a solid grasp exactly of what global warming means for the world scientifically. The Democrats are not alone in this, the Republicans are doing it too, as well as politicians all over the world. They would interpret anything in any way to get what they want.


Still, Indi and Jmi's posts are in contradiction. Either you think Climate Change is real or it's not. Indi says it is real and it's being delayed by politicians who don't really care. Jmi says it's not, it's being "fudged", and used by Democrats to further an agenda.
handfleisch
[quote="jmi256"]
Quote:
The Cap and Tax Fiction
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.


A load of malarkey. The right wing Heritage institute lies, and the editorial pages of the WSJ borders on FOX-level ludicrousness.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

How exactly does the Democratic Party get more money and power by continuing the supposed hoax? The majority of Democrats get their money from the same place as Republicans, lobbyists from large corporations that don't want more regulations and have a financial interest in blocking them, and the megarich who don't want more taxes.

Are you saying you actually believe your summation of this plot? I thought you didn't believe in the hoax. Do you reject the accepted analysis of the hacked emails that says the supposed scandal is just from taking things out of context, and do you actually believe scientists are "trying to silence the competition"?

They get more money through the added taxes, and more power through expansion of government influence.

Is it actually a hoax? It doesn't matter, actually. They are using global warming for their own ends be it a hoax or not.


Personally, I know there has been a warming trend recently... But all the evidence I've seen for it being man-made is pretty sketchy.
Will it continue, or stop? Who knows? The unpredictable variations in the past don't make predictions of future variations seem likely to be reliable, and we've only been studying it for a few decades, while if climate changes within the space of centuries, it is moving very fast; usually it takes millennia.

If you want to make a climate change model I'll take seriously, just make one that can take only the data from 2000BC, and predict the climate in 1000BC.
Then, when you apply the same model to 2000AD, I'll believe your predictions about 3000AD.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Still, Indi and Jmi's posts are in contradiction. Either you think Climate Change is real or it's not. Indi says it is real and it's being delayed by politicians who don't really care. Jmi says it's not, it's being "fudged", and used by Democrats to further an agenda.
The way I read Indi's e-mails was that she thought politicians in general mucked everything up to do with global warming. That possibly global warming is not an accurate term to use.
Quote:
The Earth's climate is not a simple beast, and global temperature increase can, does and will result in areas of decreased temperature. It is a delicately balanced nonlinear dynamic system, and when you upset the balance, you are going to see things swinging both ways, not just always increasing in temperature.

Or to put it another way, nothing about decreasing temperatures in certain areas of the Antarctic contradicts global warming... and, in fact, some of these things were predicted (although i don't know if that in particular was predicted). That's one of the reasons scientists have stopped using the phrase "global warming" - because half-wits keep failing to understand that global warming means on average and over time, and that in specific areas, in the short term, you will see much more severe winters. But the general trend will be an increase in the average global temperature... which is very real.

http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-108865.html&sid=72ac04603f4bee9400486c3cfabc8f3f

We probably need to get Indi to comment as the context of this thread may be completely different from the one where she did her postings in. She may agree with either of us, both of us or differ with both of us.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

How exactly does the Democratic Party get more money and power by continuing the supposed hoax? The majority of Democrats get their money from the same place as Republicans, lobbyists from large corporations that don't want more regulations and have a financial interest in blocking them, and the megarich who don't want more taxes.

Are you saying you actually believe your summation of this plot? I thought you didn't believe in the hoax. Do you reject the accepted analysis of the hacked emails that says the supposed scandal is just from taking things out of context, and do you actually believe scientists are "trying to silence the competition"?

They get more money through the added taxes, and more power through expansion of government influence.

Is it actually a hoax? It doesn't matter, actually. They are using global warming for their own ends be it a hoax or not.


Personally, I know there has been a warming trend recently... But all the evidence I've seen for it being man-made is pretty sketchy.
Will it continue, or stop? Who knows? The unpredictable variations in the past don't make predictions of future variations seem likely to be reliable, and we've only been studying it for a few decades, while if climate changes within the space of centuries, it is moving very fast; usually it takes millennia.

If you want to make a climate change model I'll take seriously, just make one that can take only the data from 2000BC, and predict the climate in 1000BC.
Then, when you apply the same model to 2000AD, I'll believe your predictions about 3000AD.


Point one about the Democratic Party doesn't make much sense to me. The US gov't gets the tax revenue, not the Democratic Party. Gov't expansion gives Repubs more power when they are in office. And what substantial expansion of gov't influence in terms of Climate Change are you talking about? Pollution laws have always been with us. Stronger limits on carbon emissions are long overdue. You're actually worried about too much gov't influence on pollution?

About point two, well your opinion is very interesting but I take the larger scientific community's reports, their publications and their already existing models, a bit more seriously than posted opinions on internet chatrooms or hack jobs in the WSJ oped page.

You didn't answer if you actually believe scientists are "trying to silence the competition" as you wrote earlier.

Frankly anyone who believes in this "Climategate" fake scandal (which is itself the only actual hoax involved here) has some very sketchy judgment skills.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
You're actually worried about too much gov't influence on pollution?

Yes, of course. I'm quite worried about all increases in government influence...
Why?
A gradual increase in government influence is the slow road to fascism.
Quote:

You didn't answer if you actually believe scientists are "trying to silence the competition" as you wrote earlier.

Trying to silence the competition is the one thing that the emails make abundantly clear.
Several of them discussed how to prevent dissenting views from being published.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
Several of them discussed how to prevent dissenting views from being published.


I haven't seen the emails myself, but some of the commentary on them I've read said they discussed deleting emails, but the context of the emails that were to be deleted is unknown. They could have included any kind of embarrassing information, not necessarily climate data.

Also, the data that this organization published matches up with data from other separate organizations, doesn't it?

Again, speaking from a position of ignorance since I haven't had a chance to catch the emails myself.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Several of them discussed how to prevent dissenting views from being published.


I haven't seen the emails myself, but some of the commentary on them I've read said they discussed deleting emails, but the context of the emails that were to be deleted is unknown. They could have included any kind of embarrassing information, not necessarily climate data.

Also, the data that this organization published matches up with data from other separate organizations, doesn't it?

Again, speaking from a position of ignorance since I haven't had a chance to catch the emails myself.
If you are interested, there is a good summary of the e-mails on the Wall Street Journal Website for quick and easy reading:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Several of them discussed how to prevent dissenting views from being published.


I haven't seen the emails myself, but some of the commentary on them I've read said they discussed deleting emails, but the context of the emails that were to be deleted is unknown. They could have included any kind of embarrassing information, not necessarily climate data.

Also, the data that this organization published matches up with data from other separate organizations, doesn't it?

Again, speaking from a position of ignorance since I haven't had a chance to catch the emails myself.


Please see articles cited above-- It's not necessary to read the entire voluminous amount of hacked emails to know this is another fake scandal (ACORN, anybody?) for partisan political purposes. It's enough to read some good analysis from responsible conservatives and other disinterested parties, which all prove that there is no scandal, no cover up. This is simply corporate / right wing Republican propaganda, with the only ones yelling scandal being discredited, fake newsmen like Beck and Hannity at the Fox PR agency, the flailing oped pages of the WSJ, and joke websites like Newsmax, who are trying to target the Democratic party.
ocalhoun
Besides any emails that seem to suggest changing data, hiding data, and one that suggests that any disagreeable data must be from 'inadequate measurement systems', the real crime is the attempt to suppress dissent:

Quote:
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Of course. Doubting the 'truth' is 'bad behavior'. Anybody who does so deserves to be 'ousted'.
Quote:
"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?"

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"

A journal actually let a few papers by skeptics get through without being censored? Big no-no. Boycott that journal until they get rid of the editor that allowed skeptic papers to be published!


Oh yeah... and a link to the file with all the emails, in case you want to actually read them yourself, rather than take others at their word:
http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
Besides any ...
Oh yeah... and a link to the file with all the emails, in case you want to actually read them yourself, rather than take others at their word:
http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009


Sorry, but a few sentences taken out of context do not trump the opinion of more reputable voices that give the full context.

I didn't "take others at their word," but learned what is the general impression of the overwhelmingly majority of reputable voices -- conservative, scientific, etc., who did cite plenty of passages in their analysis. Obviously you want to believe there is a secret plan among scientists "to silence the competition", which, respectfully, is as ludicrous replying to anti-pollution law with "A gradual increase in government influence is the slow road to fascism".
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Please see articles cited above-- It's not necessary to read the entire voluminous amount of hacked emails to know this is another fake scandal (ACORN, anybody?) for partisan political purposes. It's enough to read some good analysis from responsible conservatives and other disinterested parties, which all prove that there is no scandal, no cover up. This is simply corporate / right wing Republican propaganda, with the only ones yelling scandal being discredited, fake newsmen like Beck and Hannity at the Fox PR agency, the flailing oped pages of the WSJ, and joke websites like Newsmax, who are trying to target the Democratic party.
I don't think the Republicans are the only politicians who know how to use "scandals" to their own advantage, the Democrats are just as good at it.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Please see articles cited above-- It's not necessary to read the entire voluminous amount of hacked emails to know this is another fake scandal (ACORN, anybody?) for partisan political purposes. It's enough to read some good analysis from responsible conservatives and other disinterested parties, which all prove that there is no scandal, no cover up. This is simply corporate / right wing Republican propaganda, with the only ones yelling scandal being discredited, fake newsmen like Beck and Hannity at the Fox PR agency, the flailing oped pages of the WSJ, and joke websites like Newsmax, who are trying to target the Democratic party.
I don't think the Republicans are the only politicians who know how to use "scandals" to their own advantage, the Democrats are just as good at it.

For example?

Can you show me another totally fake scandal like this by the Democratic side that received major attention on a national TV network or major newspapers? I am not talking about some muttering on a website somewhere (it's easy to find some loon on a blog who claims GW Bush was member of the Nazi Party or something). C'mon, anything like the tons of fake scandals of "death panels", Global Warming is a hoax, ACORN is a crime gang that will steal elections, Obama thugs beating Tea Partiers, Climategate, Obama birth certificate scandal, William Ayers wrote Obama's books, Health Reform will force you to buy coverage or go to jail... back to under Clinton with Whitewater, Vincent Foster killing, etc etc... a deluge of fake scandals, several of which have appeared on this website.

I can think of maybe one from the other side, the silly charge about GW Bush wearing a radio receiver during the pres. debates of 2004. That received some exposure on TV, but mostly to laugh about it. Nothing to compare the the waves of lies that have come from the right wing, constantly, for years and years.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Please see articles cited above-- It's not necessary to read the entire voluminous amount of hacked emails to know this is another fake scandal (ACORN, anybody?) for partisan political purposes. It's enough to read some good analysis from responsible conservatives and other disinterested parties, which all prove that there is no scandal, no cover up. This is simply corporate / right wing Republican propaganda, with the only ones yelling scandal being discredited, fake newsmen like Beck and Hannity at the Fox PR agency, the flailing oped pages of the WSJ, and joke websites like Newsmax, who are trying to target the Democratic party.
I don't think the Republicans are the only politicians who know how to use "scandals" to their own advantage, the Democrats are just as good at it.

For example?

Can you show me another totally fake scandal like this by the Democratic side that received major attention on a national TV network or major newspapers? I am not talking about some muttering on a website somewhere (it's easy to find some loon on a blog who claims GW Bush was member of the Nazi Party or something). C'mon, anything like the tons of fake scandals of "death panels", Global Warming is a hoax, ACORN is a crime gang that will steal elections, Obama thugs beating Tea Partiers, Climategate, Obama birth certificate scandal, William Ayers wrote Obama's books, Health Reform will force you to buy coverage or go to jail... back to under Clinton with Whitewater, Vincent Foster killing, etc etc... a deluge of fake scandals, several of which have appeared on this website.

I can think of maybe one from the other side, the silly charge about GW Bush wearing a radio receiver during the pres. debates of 2004. That received some exposure on TV, but mostly to laugh about it. Nothing to compare the the waves of lies that have come from the right wing, constantly, for years and years.
All of the above, a conspiracy of conspiracies. Every person that is not a Democrat or an Obama supporter is either a conspirator or unpatriotic or both. All of the conspiracies that you mentioned above are in the eye of the beholder i.e. the Democrats, and vice and versa the Republicans or Right Wing zealots.

With particular reference to this thread, the belief that big businesses are environmentally destructive, greedy, evil and driven by short-term profits.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Can you show me another totally fake scandal like this by the Democratic side that received major attention on a national TV network or major newspapers? I am not talking about some muttering on a website somewhere (it's easy to find some loon on a blog who claims GW Bush was member of the Nazi Party or something). C'mon, anything like the tons of fake scandals of "death panels", Global Warming is a hoax, ACORN is a crime gang that will steal elections, Obama thugs beating Tea Partiers, Climategate, Obama birth certificate scandal, William Ayers wrote Obama's books, Health Reform will force you to buy coverage or go to jail... back to under Clinton with Whitewater, Vincent Foster killing, etc etc... a deluge of fake scandals, several of which have appeared on this website.


The whole 'the government was behind 9/11' thing comes to mind...
And then there was that time when Cheny shot somebody with a shotgun. ^.^
Oh, and the scandal of the anti-gay-marriage republicans who were caught, well, being gay.

It really is amazing how you seem to believe that only one side of American politics is capable of propaganda...
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Can you show me another totally fake scandal like this by the Democratic side that received major attention on a national TV network or major newspapers? I am not talking about some muttering on a website somewhere (it's easy to find some loon on a blog who claims GW Bush was member of the Nazi Party or something). C'mon, anything like the tons of fake scandals of "death panels", Global Warming is a hoax, ACORN is a crime gang that will steal elections, Obama thugs beating Tea Partiers, Climategate, Obama birth certificate scandal, William Ayers wrote Obama's books, Health Reform will force you to buy coverage or go to jail... back to under Clinton with Whitewater, Vincent Foster killing, etc etc... a deluge of fake scandals, several of which have appeared on this website.


The whole 'the government was behind 9/11' thing comes to mind...
And then there was that time when Cheny shot somebody with a shotgun. ^.^
Oh, and the scandal of the anti-gay-marriage republicans who were caught, well, being gay.

It really is amazing how you seem to believe that only one side of American politics is capable of propaganda...

well it's no surprise you're easily amazed, but I do not think only one side is capable of propaganda. I clearly said something very different, that the vast amount of baseless, fake scandals seriously launched through the media come from the right wing targeted at the Dems and progressives. You did not come up with even one good example of a baseless, fake scandal against the Repubs, that would help the Dems, that received serious consideration on TV networks and major news outlets. (I am not even saying they don't exist, but point is there aren't many if we can't even remember one.) About your lousy examples, the Dems kept far away from the 9/11 allegations, and given that the allegations were seen as kooky and anti-American, it would only have hurt the Dems to use such a thing. The scandal of anti-gay repubs being gay and Cheney's remarkable hunting accident surely do not fit the bill either -- both of these are sensational events of the type that the media eats up. Also, they are not baseless allegations or fake events, as in things that simply did not happen or are plainly untrue.
jmi256
A good read on how the government, with the help of some scientists, tried to push Global Cooling as an impending disaster back in the 70s. Now we're being told that Gloabl Warming is the real disaster that must be stopped.

Quote:
The Fiction Of Climate Science

Why the climatologists get it wrong.



Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.

Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.

Sorry, I noticed.

It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.

Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.

His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.

The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.

While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.

Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to "relatively cool August and September temperatures." And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that "An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops."

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we'd forestall the next ice age?

I can ask "outrageous" questions like that because I'm not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.

Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That's another inconvenient fact.

Source = http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html




It looks like one Democrat is profiting nicely from the Global Warming hysteria.


Quote:
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire
Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.


Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy as Mr Gore. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming sceptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has claimed that Mr Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

Mr Gore had said that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" Mr. Gore said. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

Source = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
handfleisch
Jmi, you haven't replied so I figure you missed it. Here it is again so you can answer the questions.
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

Again, please read the thread above. But to make it easier for you, I'll recap. The idea of this thread is that the research commonly cited by Democrats to support their call for increased regulations, taxes, etc. has been at the very least shown to be faulty/biased. The programs and policies (Cap & Trade/Tax is one example) they wish to implement due the the 'evidence' of the research would mean a lot of new and devastating taxes on families and workers, and would have very negative effects on the economy. A lot of people have been questioning the phenomenon of Global Warming and its link to human activities for some time now, and the emails that have come to light seem to support those points of view. The question now is that since the 'evidence' Democrats have tried to exploit to justify their policies has been shown to be questionable, will they still try to force their programs and policies through. It's as simple as that, and the only one who introduced "conspiracies" and "hoaxes" has been you.

On a side note handfleisch, you really need to stop trying to muck up each and every thread with your conspiracy theory nonsense. When you are unable to debate the merits of the argument at hand you revert to name calling (How many times are you going to throw around the derogatory terms "wingnut," "teabagger," "sicko," etc? You even dedicate entire threads to it.), accusing anyone who disagrees or has an opposing point of view a conspiracy theorist, etc. I try to ignore you as much as I can, but there are times where I actually believe you are interested in honest debate. Sadly it mostly gets bogged down into this type of back and forth.

I do acknowledge my own part in this because I don't think handfleisch and I will ever agree 100% on anything as it's clear our worldviews are quite different. But I had hoped that regardless, we could engage in meaningful debate. For example Ophois/Solon and I hold very different views, but I think we have a good back and forth, and my debates with him have sometimes made me reassess my own opinions, causing some to strengthen and some to be modified. I enjoyed our debates and I hope he returns soon. With handfleisch, though, it seems to just get into a shouting match.

So I do want to apologize for my part. I would rather stick to logical discussions (this is Politics, however, so there will always be a hint of passion), so I will do my best just to ignore handfleisch in the future.


Well, that's all fine. I think I have been very logical in the posts above, and so far it hasn't got very far. It's true I have less patience for the complete nonsense that runs amuck in US political debate than does Bikerman, Orphois, and others, but what of it?

1. On terms:

Wingnut is shorthand for a right winger with irrational, unscientific arguments and beliefs. It is a observed national phenomenon in the USA, and I don't see the harm in using the term. But what would you prefer? Faith-based right winger? Neocon? A good way to avoid the term, by the way, is to avoid being one.

Teabagger = Tea Partier, after Tea Party, the term by the organizers for their fake grassroots right wing demonstrations recently. What's the problem with the term? The Tea Partiers were sending tea bags to Congress and dumping them in the rivers, hence Teabaggers.

"Sicko" means an ill person, and I used in a subject line to refer to Ayn Rand as being mentally ill. Again, what's the problem?

2. I agree the term "conspiracy theory" is problematic, but I often use it with right wingers in terms of fighting fire with fire.

A conspiracy is secret plan to enact an agenda, so if you allege such a thing, you are alleging a conspiracy. It doesn't matter if you don't use the term. You have claimed such conspiracies as Obama sending union "thugs" who were beating up Tea Party demonstrators, and that there is a "left wing extremist media". Both these allegations were debunked in these forums. Now you are alleging a secret plan by Democrats to use faulty Climate Change data to further their "agenda" to get more political power.

3. Back on topic, without commenting on the accuracy of the points made, I am just trying to find out what your allegation is.

You claimed that the scientists "fudge their research", meaning to mislead or lie. Hence it's not just faulty data but an intentional fabrication, which means a hoax. Are you backing away from that now? Do you no longer claim that Climate Change scientists are intentionally misleading the public?

You also claimed that Democrats were using Climate Change in an "agenda" to ""stifle the US’s (and by extension the world’s) economy" in a "power grab". Are you backing away from that part also? Do you no longer claim the Democratic Party wants to stifle the world economy to somehow get more political power for themselves?
jmi256
jmi256 wrote:
A good read on how the government, with the help of some scientists, tried to push Global Cooling as an impending disaster back in the 70s. Now we're being told that Gloabl Warming is the real disaster that must be stopped.

Quote:
The Fiction Of Climate Science

Why the climatologists get it wrong.



Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.

Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.

Sorry, I noticed.

It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.

Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.

His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.

The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.

While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.

Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to "relatively cool August and September temperatures." And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that "An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops."

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we'd forestall the next ice age?

I can ask "outrageous" questions like that because I'm not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.

Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That's another inconvenient fact.

Source = http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html




It looks like one Democrat is profiting nicely from the Global Warming hysteria.


Quote:
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire
Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.


Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy as Mr Gore. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

Critics, mostly on the political right and among global warming sceptics, say Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has claimed that Mr Gore stood to benefit personally from the energy and climate policies he was urging Congress to adopt.

Mr Gore had said that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" Mr. Gore said. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

Source = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html



It seems that most Americans aren't buying that scientists are in agreement that humans are responsible for Global Warming. I would think the emails that have come to light would have influenced this, but most Americans are saying that they haven't been following that story much. Probably because it's not getting much press in the main-stream media. It also looks like Al Gore isn't regarded as much of an expert despite being portrayed as one by the media.

Quote:
Americans Skeptical of Science Behind Global Warming

Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.

While many advocates of aggressive policy responses to global warming say a consensus exists, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% of adults think most scientists agree on the topic. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.

But just in the last few days, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs seemed to reject any such disagreement in a response to a question about global warming, “I don't think … [global warming] is quite, frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.”

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely.

That’s a lower level of interest than has been shown about the White House party crashers and suggests that Americans have had their doubts about the science of global warming for some time.

One reason for this skepticism may be the role the United Nations has played in promoting the global warming issue. Only 22% of Americans consider the UN to be a reliable source of information on global warming. Forty-nine percent (49%) disagree and say the international organization is not reliable on that topic. Twenty-nine percent (29%) aren’t sure.

Still, 46% of Americans say global warming is a major problem. However, 36% disagree, and 18% remain undecided.

President Obama and other U.S. officials are planning to attend a UN summit in Copenhagen, Denmark next week intended to further advance a proposed international treaty on global warming. Obama recently committed the United States to a 17 percent emissions cut by 2020 if Congress agrees, but critics say such a cut would seriously hurt the U.S. economy.

But then Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are more likely than Democrats to see disagreement in the scientific community over global warming and to suspect that data has been falsified.

Even as Obama and senior members of Congress are pushing major anti-global warming initiatives, Americans overwhelmingly believe they should focus on the economy instead. Seventy-one percent (71%) say the bigger priority for U.S. national leaders is stimulating the economy to create jobs. Only 15% say they should focus instead on stopping global warming to save the environment.

The emphasis on jobs is understandable when just 14% of workers report that their firms are hiring. Data from the Rasmussen Employment Index shows that 29% now report that their employers are laying people off.

Interestingly, Republicans feel more strongly than Democrats and unaffiliateds that national leaders should focus on job creation. But recent data shows that Democrats and unaffiliated adults are more likely than Republicans to be unemployed right now.

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters see a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection, although 31% disagree. Forty-seven percent (47%) say global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary trends, not human activity. Obama, Vice President Al Gore and other climate change activists believe human activity is the chief culprit.

Twenty-nine percent (29%) of adults think their fellow Americans are selfish for putting economic concerns ahead of the fight against global warming, but 47% reject that charge.

Voters express mixed feeling about the bill aimed at fighting global warming that is now working its way through Congress, but by more than two-to-one they say it will hurt the economy rather than help it.
Most voters also think the news media makes global warming look worse than it really is.

As for Gore, despite winning both the Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award for his advocacy of efforts to fight global warming, only 31% of Americans consider him an expert on the topic.

The UN is another leading advocate for major anti-global warming initiatives, but just 29% of voters see that organization as an ally of the United States, while 15% regard it as an enemy. For 47%, the UN falls somewhere in between.

Source = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:


Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.

Respectfully, these Rasmussen polls are pretty stupid. Polling what people believe on a scientific issue of fact proves only that they have been ill-informed. If 52% believed the moon landings were fake, that wouldn't prove the moon landings were fake. It would prove that people are being ill-educated, maybe by choice. Same goes for Rasmussen polls that say people "believe" health care reform will raise their health care bills. Given that Rasmussen polls are pro-Republican biased, I wonder if the people they poll get most of the info from the FOX PR agency, the Washington Times, fake news sites like Newsmax, or spam emails, and that is why they believe things that are just not true. And then Rasmussen publishes the "beliefs" as a form of propaganda.

You still haven't clarified your positions re my previous post above.


On edit, here's a responsible conservative view:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35303_Climate_Deniers_and_Saudi_Arabia_Agree_on_Climategate
Quote:
Climate Deniers and Saudi Arabia Agree on 'Climategate'

Environment | Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:02:39 pm PST

Right wingers screaming for investigations into “Climategate” are on the same side as the apartheid theocracy of Saudi Arabia.

Quote:
COPENHAGEN — Saudi Arabia called for an independent investigation into “climategate” Monday, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations beginning here.

“We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the ‘climategate’ scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations,” the Saudi Arabian negotiator said.


Now, why would one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world want to promote “Climategate” as a crisis of confidence for global warming? Hmm. It’s a head-scratcher, all right.

The very last thing the Saudis want is for the western world to get serious about alternate sources of energy.

And climate change deniers are playing right into their hands.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:


Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.

Respectfully, these Rasmussen polls are pretty stupid. Polling what people believe on a scientific issue of fact proves only that they have been ill-informed. If 52% believed the moon landings were fake, that wouldn't prove the moon landings were fake.

It does, however, prove that the heavy-handed, 'The science is certain. The debate is over' line isn't being accepted very well.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:


Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.

Respectfully, these Rasmussen polls are pretty stupid. Polling what people believe on a scientific issue of fact proves only that they have been ill-informed. If 52% believed the moon landings were fake, that wouldn't prove the moon landings were fake.

It does, however, prove that the heavy-handed, 'The science is certain. The debate is over' line isn't being accepted very well.

So you think the debate on whether the moon landings were real or not is still open. Okay...
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

So you think the debate on whether the moon landings were real or not is still open. Okay...


I'm just saying that discounting the doubts of others, especially in the light of new controversy over your own methods, is not the way to win converts.

Saying things like 'the debate is over, whether you like it or not' will only make people feel that their government is acting against them. It will make enemies, not friends.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

So you think the debate on whether the moon landings were real or not is still open. Okay...


I'm just saying that discounting the doubts of others, especially in the light of new controversy over your own methods, is not the way to win converts.

Saying things like 'the debate is over, whether you like it or not' will only make people feel that their government is acting against them. It will make enemies, not friends.
Totally agreed. It is almost the equivalent of saying: Shut up! We're right, now forget that any of this happened and let's move on. That does not really sound scientific either. But it does sound typical of Government.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

So you think the debate on whether the moon landings were real or not is still open. Okay...


I'm just saying that discounting the doubts of others, especially in the light of new controversy over your own methods, is not the way to win converts.

Saying things like 'the debate is over, whether you like it or not' will only make people feel that their government is acting against them. It will make enemies, not friends.
Totally agreed. It is almost the equivalent of saying: Shut up! We're right, now forget that any of this happened and let's move on. That does not really sound scientific either. But it does sound typical of Government.


OMG. Would you both mind presenting your actual, uh, opinion on the veracity of the claim that the moon landings were fake? Thanks. Would like to know what we're dealing with here.

By the way, the "debate is over, whether you like it or not" claim is just another fallacious straw man argument. No legitimate scientist talks this way about Climate Change, since there are many aspects of it that are still being worked out. None of the scientists I have seen in debates or in articles argues this way. There is, however, an overwhelming consensus of scientists around the globe.
handfleisch
Republican's Climate Denialism Debacle:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-climatepoll_10int.ART.State.Edition1.4ba6383.html
Quote:
Poll: Most Americans support climate change bill if it creates jobs

12:00 AM CST on Thursday, December 10, 2009

WASHINGTON – As President Barack Obama prepares to attend a world summit on climate change, a McClatchy-Ipsos poll released Wednesday finds that a majority of Americans are willing to pay for a solution if it creates "green" jobs in the United States.

70% think global warming is real, though 28 percent say it isn't.

61% think that it's happening because of the burning of fossil fuels, while 34 percent say it's mostly a natural phenomenon.

52% support "cap-and-trade" legislation, pending in Congress, aimed at cutting U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases.

69% support the legislation, even if it costs them $10 a month, if it creates a "significant" number of American jobs.

50% support the legislation if it costs them $10 a month but there is no mention of jobs.

The poll was based on interviews with 1,120 people 18 and older across the United States Dec. 3 through Sunday. It has a margin of error of 2.93 percentage points.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Republican's Climate Denialism Debacle:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-climatepoll_10int.ART.State.Edition1.4ba6383.html
Can you explain what you are trying to get to here as the content of the article does not match your one-liner intro. I have not seen a single reference to the Republican Party in the article, nor climate or denialism. The article reports on the results of a poll that has been conducted that says most Americans support climate change if it can provide green jobs. I thought you liked polls?
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Republican's Climate Denialism Debacle:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-climatepoll_10int.ART.State.Edition1.4ba6383.html
Can you explain what you are trying to get to here as the content of the article does not match your one-liner intro. I have not seen a single reference to the Republican Party in the article, nor climate or denialism. The article reports on the results of a poll that has been conducted that says most Americans support climate change if it can provide green jobs. I thought you liked polls?


The point is to answer the title of this thread, which uses biased poll results and some lying propaganda (the fake scandal of "Climategate") and tie it all to the Democratic party. So, in that way, this poll would be a debacle for the Republicans. Turnabout is fair play.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Republican's Climate Denialism Debacle:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-climatepoll_10int.ART.State.Edition1.4ba6383.html
Quote:
Poll: Most Americans support climate change bill if it creates jobs


Interesting that polls are ok when they support the left-wing ideological slant, but when they counter that slant (like the fact that most Americans are against Obama’s government-run healthcare scheme, that most Americans do not believe the debate is over whether ‘Global Warming’ is a manmade phenomenon, etc), those polls are attacked. I guess only some polls are full of “biased poll results and some lying propaganda”? Too bad the policies that Obama and the Democrats are pushing, like the tax-raising, job-killing ‘Cap & Tax’ Bill, and the actions of other liberals such as nuisance lawsuits are already destroying jobs and the families that rely on them. Some can complain all they want that it's a coal company that is forced to cut jobs due to the liberals, but these jobs represent a living for these 500 families and the community that relies on them. Good job liberals.

Quote:

Coal company cuts 500 jobs, blames environmentalists

Chalk up another 500 to the list of jobs President Obama will need to create or save.


A Pittsburgh-based coal company, CONSOL Energy, will lay off nearly 500 of its West Virginia workers next year and its CEO blames environmentalists dead-set against mountaintop mining who have waged “nuisance” lawsuits for the job loss.

But CONSOL Energy’s political problems are not unique to the mining industry, which has suffered under the Obama Administration. The Environmental Protection Agency is already holding 79 surface mining permits in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. The EPA says these permits could violate the Clean Water Act and warrant "enhanced" review. And, agency went even further in October, announcing plans to revoke a permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in West Virginia.

The latest setback for the coal industry was announced on Tuesday when CONSOL Energy said close to 500 workers would lose jobs at their Fola Operations location near Bickmore, West Virginia in February 2010.

CEO Nicholas J. DeIuliis said the poor economy compounded by legal challenges by environmental activists forced CONSOL to slash jobs.

"It is challenging enough to operate our coal and gas assets in the current economic downturn without having to contend with a constant stream of activism in rehashing and reinterpreting permit applications that have already been approved or in the inequitable oversight of our operations,” he said in a statement. “Customers will grow reluctant to deal with energy producers they perceive are unable to guarantee a reliable supply due to regulatory uncertainty. It inhibits the ability to remain competitive."

The Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the Sierra Club, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and the Coal River Mountain Watch were the various groups active on the legal challenge CONSOL Energy refers.

OVEC’s Executive Director Janet Keating told the Washington Times she believes CONSOL Energy is using the lawsuit as an excuse to layoff workers, although she says "we don't hide the fact we don't like mountaintop mining."

“The price of coal has dropped in half and I think we are a convenient target, a convenient scapegoat,” she said.

“This ruling does not even go into effect for 60 more days so doesn’t that tell you something?” Ms. Keating added. “Suddenly, all the sudden they are issuing these layoff notices as if the world is ending.”

District Judge Robert C. Chambers handed down the ruling in question on Nov. 24. He said the Army Corps of Engineers violated the law by not giving the public enough information during the public comment period for permits issued by the government, although he wrote the error “did not stem from any wrong-doing on the part of the mining companies.”

Even though the court said not enough information was given to the public, the permit application process for the Fola mine consumed nearly a year and a half, according to court papers. But, environmentalists say they weren’t given the enough specific information during the 30-day public comment period. “How can we make substantial comment if they only give us general information?” Ms. Keating asked.

Judge Chambers said requiring the mining companies to go back through the public approval process would provide the public “meaningful opportunity” to weigh in on the permits as well as “force the Corps to reconsider these permits, possibly with new information.”

“To put it into human terms, we are talking about the jobs of nearly 500 of our employees at the Fola Operations, and the impact such legal interpretations will have on their quality of life and that of their families," CONSOL CEO Mr. DeIuliis said.

But OVEC maintains CONSOL Energy is putting blame in the wrong place.

“We’re in a recession right now and utilities are using less coal and using more natural gas,” Ms. Keating said. “The manufacturing sector isn’t using the same levels of coal so there are these stockpiles and they are going to wait until the price of coal goes up.”

Source = http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/dec/09/coal-company-cuts-500-jobs-blames-environmentalist/
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
Interesting that polls are ok when they support the left-wing ideological slant, but when they counter that slant (like the fact that most Americans are against Obama’s government-run healthcare scheme, that most Americans do not believe the debate is over whether ‘Global Warming’ is a manmade phenomenon, etc), those polls are attacked. I guess only some polls are full of “biased poll results and some lying propaganda”?
I could not have said this better. If Handfleisch had come with specifics why in his opinion the poll had been biased, how and why it was biased, and why it should be rejected, then it may have given some substance to his debate.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
blah blah seethe bluster harrumph


jmi256, previously you pretended for a moment to ask for logical debate (pretty funny, really, for someone who starts entire thread based on total falsehoods like "Obama and Dems Using Unions to Attack" not to mention this one.) and accused me of using questionable terms. I responded with calm explanations and arguments and then asked you to clarify your position, quoting your own words and asking if you stand by them. You haven't done it yet, despite reminders. It seems pretty fair, since I am just asking you about your own words on the subject.

So, one more chance for you. I will even make it easy by reposting it here:

    1. On terms:

    Wingnut is shorthand for a right winger with irrational, unscientific arguments and beliefs. It is a observed national phenomenon in the USA, and I don't see the harm in using the term. But what would you prefer? Faith-based right winger? Neocon? A good way to avoid the term, by the way, is to avoid being one.

    Teabagger = Tea Partier, after Tea Party, the term by the organizers for their fake grassroots right wing demonstrations recently. What's the problem with the term? The Tea Partiers were sending tea bags to Congress and dumping them in the rivers, hence Teabaggers.

    "Sicko" means an ill person, and I used in a subject line to refer to Ayn Rand as being mentally ill. Again, what's the problem?

    2. I agree the term "conspiracy theory" is problematic, but I often use it with right wingers in terms of fighting fire with fire.

    A conspiracy is secret plan to enact an agenda, so if you allege such a thing, you are alleging a conspiracy. It doesn't matter if you don't use the term. You have claimed such conspiracies as Obama sending union "thugs" who were beating up Tea Party demonstrators, and that there is a "left wing extremist media". Both these allegations were debunked in these forums. Now you are alleging a secret plan by Democrats to use faulty Climate Change data to further their "agenda" to get more political power.

    3. Back on topic, without commenting on the accuracy of the points made, I am just trying to find out what your allegation is.

    You claimed that the scientists "fudge their research", meaning to mislead or lie. Hence it's not just faulty data but an intentional fabrication, which means a hoax. Are you backing away from that now? Do you no longer claim that Climate Change scientists are intentionally misleading the public?

    You also claimed that Democrats were using Climate Change in an "agenda" to ""stifle the US’s (and by extension the world’s) economy" in a "power grab". Are you backing away from that part also? Do you no longer claim the Democratic Party wants to stifle the world economy to somehow get more political power for themselves?
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Interesting that polls are ok when they support the left-wing ideological slant, but when they counter that slant (like the fact that most Americans are against Obama’s government-run healthcare scheme, that most Americans do not believe the debate is over whether ‘Global Warming’ is a manmade phenomenon, etc), those polls are attacked. I guess only some polls are full of “biased poll results and some lying propaganda”?

I could not have said this better. If Handfleisch had come with specifics why in his opinion the poll had been biased, how and why it was biased, and why it should be rejected, then it may have given some substance to his debate.


All polls/research are going to be biased to some degree, and there have been loads of research done on the topic. This isn’t limited to just political polls, but also in the fields of marketing, medicine, etc., and some of that is unavoidable. What I was referring to was the assertion that a poll is biased solely based on what the results are, which seems silly to me. Here’s more about bias in research:
http://www.umdnj.edu/idsweb/shared/biases.htm


handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
blah blah seethe bluster harrumph


jmi256, previously you pretended for a moment to ask for logical debate (pretty funny, really, for someone who starts entire thread based on total falsehoods like "Obama and Dems Using Unions to Attack" not to mention this one.) and accused me of using questionable terms. I responded with calm explanations and arguments and then asked you to clarify your position, quoting your own words and asking if you stand by them. You haven't done it yet, despite reminders. It seems pretty fair, since I am just asking you about your own words on the subject.

So, one more chance for you. I will even make it easy by reposting it here:


I’ve seen your repeated attempts at trying to draw me into a flame war, which I refuse to get into. You can try to justify your use of derogatory terms all you want, but I am not going to get into a back and forth with you about these. And if you really want to delve into your conspiracy theories, I suggest you knock yourself out in the thread you dedicated to your conspiracy theories instead of trying to devolve every other thread down that road.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-112429.html


If you are truly having difficulty understand what I have said concerning the subject of this thread, I suggest you reread what I have written, which I have summarized for you previously, but you can find below. I really don’t know how to be any clearer, but if your goal is to start a flame war by insisting on pulling a single word or sentence out of context, that’s your right. I would just rather not take part. Like I said before, I’ll just try to ignore your attempts at that the best I can.

Quote:

Again, please read the thread above. But to make it easier for you, I'll recap. The idea of this thread is that the research commonly cited by Democrats to support their call for increased regulations, taxes, etc. has been at the very least shown to be faulty/biased. The programs and policies (Cap & Trade/Tax is one example) they wish to implement due the the 'evidence' of the research would mean a lot of new and devastating taxes on families and workers, and would have very negative effects on the economy. A lot of people have been questioning the phenomenon of Global Warming and its link to human activities for some time now, and the emails that have come to light seem to support those points of view. The question now is that since the 'evidence' Democrats have tried to exploit to justify their policies has been shown to be questionable, will they still try to force their programs and policies through. It's as simple as that, and the only one who introduced "conspiracies" and "hoaxes" has been you.





Back on topic...

A nice read. Reminds me of the saying that seems to epitomize liberal thought on this subject: “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Quote:
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.


On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen's clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth".

The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.

At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.

Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.

Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.

And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.

In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. "Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys."

As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.

In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.

Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from Copenhagen itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.

And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.

The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.

The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.

Source = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:


I’ve seen your repeated attempts at trying to draw me into a flame war, which I refuse to get into. You can try to justify your use of derogatory terms all you want, but I am not going to get into a back and forth with you about these. And if you really want to delve into your conspiracy theories, I suggest you knock yourself out in the thread you dedicated to your conspiracy theories instead of trying to devolve every other thread down that road.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-112429.html


If you are truly having difficulty understand what I have said concerning the subject of this thread, I suggest you reread what I have written, which I have summarized for you previously, but you can find below. I really don’t know how to be any clearer, but if your goal is to start a flame war by insisting on pulling a single word or sentence out of context, that’s your right. I would just rather not take part. Like I said before, I’ll just try to ignore your attempts at that the best I can.

Quote:

Again, please read the thread above. But to make it easier for you, I'll recap. The idea of this thread is that the research commonly cited by Democrats to support their call for increased regulations, taxes, etc. has been at the very least shown to be faulty/biased. The programs and policies (Cap & Trade/Tax is one example) they wish to implement due the the 'evidence' of the research would mean a lot of new and devastating taxes on families and workers, and would have very negative effects on the economy. A lot of people have been questioning the phenomenon of Global Warming and its link to human activities for some time now, and the emails that have come to light seem to support those points of view. The question now is that since the 'evidence' Democrats have tried to exploit to justify their policies has been shown to be questionable, will they still try to force their programs and policies through. It's as simple as that, and the only one who introduced "conspiracies" and "hoaxes" has been you.


Sorry, but words have meaning. Holding someone accountable to them is not a flame war, but it's funny you would think so. I understand that you don't want to acknowledge this complete post of yours, where you say the majority of climate change scientists are intentionally misleading the public for political reasons:

Quote:
Funny that asking that scientists actually follow scientific principles not fudge their research to bow to political pressure and bias is considered "anti-science."


Likewise, here is the full context of your other post, where you called the entire science "debunked" and "intentionally biased" and Democrats were only pursuing it in a bid for power.
Quote:
I’m referring to the Democrats’ Cap & Trade tax legislation they are trying to push through. Their reasoning has been that the now debunked ‘science’ clearly showed that ‘global warming’ is a manmade phenomenon, and therefore a massive increase in taxes and regulation that would stifle the US’s (and by extension the world’s) economy was in order. It was nothing less than a power grab in the name of research that has been shown to be intentionally biased and faulty to support a political view


If you want to take back your words, and say that scientists are not intentionally issuing misleading data, or that the science is not debunked, go ahead. But otherwise, you're just all over the map, saying one thing one moment, then changing it when challenged. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you do that?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:


I’ve seen your repeated attempts at trying to draw me into a flame war, which I refuse to get into. You can try to justify your use of derogatory terms all you want, but I am not going to get into a back and forth with you about these. And if you really want to delve into your conspiracy theories, I suggest you knock yourself out in the thread you dedicated to your conspiracy theories instead of trying to devolve every other thread down that road.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-112429.html


If you are truly having difficulty understand what I have said concerning the subject of this thread, I suggest you reread what I have written, which I have summarized for you previously, but you can find below. I really don’t know how to be any clearer, but if your goal is to start a flame war by insisting on pulling a single word or sentence out of context, that’s your right. I would just rather not take part. Like I said before, I’ll just try to ignore your attempts at that the best I can.

Quote:

Again, please read the thread above. But to make it easier for you, I'll recap. The idea of this thread is that the research commonly cited by Democrats to support their call for increased regulations, taxes, etc. has been at the very least shown to be faulty/biased. The programs and policies (Cap & Trade/Tax is one example) they wish to implement due the the 'evidence' of the research would mean a lot of new and devastating taxes on families and workers, and would have very negative effects on the economy. A lot of people have been questioning the phenomenon of Global Warming and its link to human activities for some time now, and the emails that have come to light seem to support those points of view. The question now is that since the 'evidence' Democrats have tried to exploit to justify their policies has been shown to be questionable, will they still try to force their programs and policies through. It's as simple as that, and the only one who introduced "conspiracies" and "hoaxes" has been you.


Sorry, but words have meaning. Holding someone accountable to them is not a flame war, but it's funny you would think so. I understand that you don't want to acknowledge this complete post of yours, where you say the majority of climate change scientists are intentionally misleading the public for political reasons:

Quote:
Funny that asking that scientists actually follow scientific principles not fudge their research to bow to political pressure and bias is considered "anti-science."


Likewise, here is the full context of your other post, where you called the entire science "debunked" and "intentionally biased" and Democrats were only pursuing it in a bid for power.
Quote:
I’m referring to the Democrats’ Cap & Trade tax legislation they are trying to push through. Their reasoning has been that the now debunked ‘science’ clearly showed that ‘global warming’ is a manmade phenomenon, and therefore a massive increase in taxes and regulation that would stifle the US’s (and by extension the world’s) economy was in order. It was nothing less than a power grab in the name of research that has been shown to be intentionally biased and faulty to support a political view



Actually, here is the “full context” of my other post where I address each of DH's questions/comments point by point. I hate to have to repost, but it seems neccessary at this point. I think it’s pretty clear.
jmi256 wrote:

deanhills wrote:
@jmi256. I can't understand your point of the Democrats exploiting the scientists e-mail debacle. How are they doing that?

I’m referring to the Democrats’ Cap & Trade tax legislation they are trying to push through. Their reasoning has been that the now debunked ‘science’ clearly showed that ‘global warming’ is a manmade phenomenon, and therefore a massive increase in taxes and regulation that would stifle the US’s (and by extension the world’s) economy was in order. It was nothing less than a power grab in the name of research that has been shown to be intentionally biased and faulty to support a political view.

deanhills wrote:

What happened was wrong, and if the Republicans had been in power at the time when this happened, they might have reacted in the exact same way. The issue is one of scientific reporting and scientists allegedly colluding in providing facts that are favourable to them.

I don’t know what Republicans would have done. The fact is, however, that Republicans are against this legislation based on faulty ‘science’ while Democrats have been exploiting the faked research. But if they are true conservatives, they would not try to fabricate yet another fake ‘crisis’ for political purposes, which liberals/Democrats/Progressives seem to be quite adept at. But let’s take the argument at face value. Is the stance that wrong doing is legitimate because you believe that [i]perhaps[i] someone else would behave similarly a valid stance?

deanhills wrote:

How can that be exploited politically?

By trying to impose yet another tax increase on the backs of taxpayers to pay for the Democrats’ pet projects.

Quote:
The Cap and Tax Fiction
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

Source = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html


deanhills wrote:

People are not perfect, and the discovery of a wrong by scientists (that is currently being investigated and still has to be proven), cannot make science wrong. If proven correct, the scientists responsible for the e-mails will most likely completely loose their reputation and be shunned by other scientists. Scientists are much harder and unforgiving of other scientists who act in this way than politicians could ever dream to be.

If the argument is about whether the research needs to be examined, and that we should not jump to conclusions, I can respect that. But the Democrats have used biased research to push their agenda forward without an honest look at real research.


deanhills wrote:

PS: This may be a duplicate thread of two in the "Earth" Forum, however the one you quoted takes a different look at it from a political point of view. The one in the Earth Forum is looking at it from a scientific point of view. So hopefully the moderators will allow both as I am interested in both points of view. I'm still hoping Indi or Chris or any of our other Frihost science experts could comment on what happened.

I haven’t been following the other topic, but I trust the focus of this thread is different enough to sustain itself. I don’t think the posters in the Earth forum would appreciate a discussion of politics in their thread. Sort of makes my point: Politics shouldn’t be injected into science.



handfleisch
Jmi, that changes nothing. In fact it's even worse because it includes something I missed the first time, your sentence
Quote:

The fact is, however, that Republicans are against this legislation based on faulty ‘science’ while Democrats have been exploiting the faked research. But if they are true conservatives, they would not try to fabricate yet another fake ‘crisis’ for political purposes, which liberals/Democrats/Progressives seem to be quite adept at.


Which digs your hole even deeper. Now you say it is faked research, again that means scientists are intentionally making fake data. Do you really believe that?

Again, all you have to do is say that you might have gone too far, and you would retain your credibility. Otherwise, you just seem to change what you say or deny you said it whenever challenged, which makes it hard to take you seriously.
handfleisch
The basic facts of global warming have been supported by thousands of studies, endorsed by dozens of scientific societies and the national academy of science in every first world nation.

Jmi, how many can you cite on the other side?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
scientists are intentionally making fake data. Do you really believe that?

Is that so hard to believe?
Scientists can be bought just like anyone else, and there's already a nice official bribe-system in place. We know it as 'grants'.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
scientists are intentionally making fake data. Do you really believe that?

Is that so hard to believe?
Scientists can be bought just like anyone else, and there's already a nice official bribe-system in place. We know it as 'grants'.


Please see the post above yours and reply. You're saying the national academy of science of every industrialized nation has been bribed to lie? All the thousands of studies too? All the scientific studies?

If you want to look at money and influence on dubious science, it's well known the oil companies are spending good money to fund the so-called skeptics. That's why Saudi Arabia has gotten very excited about "climategate".
jmi256
If “greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies” when talking about enforcement, how can it be argued that the same numbers they are using to base their entire argument upon are not also “difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies”?

Quote:
After climate talks, scientists worry about enforcement

COPENHAGEN — Ray Weiss looks at the chanting protesters, harried delegates and the 20,000 other people gathered here for a global warming summit and wonders: What's the fuss all about?
Weiss, a geochemist who studies atmospheric pollution at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, says the numbers at the core of the debate in Copenhagen are flawed.

Specifically, he says the cuts that countries including the USA are proposing in greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies.


"I don't see the point in doing all this if the numbers are so far off," Weiss said, shaking his head as he watched conference attendees hurry by Thursday. "When you hear politicians tell you that they can measure these things, just because they passed a deal in Copenhagen, I think you should take that with a few grains of salt."

Most of the summit's attention has focused on exactly how much countries will commit to cutting emissions of gases that data suggest are causing the earth to warm. Yet some scientists, legal experts and delegates say the hardest part of any deal in Copenhagen will be measuring — and then enforcing — whatever politicians decide.

Those two issues are "the iceberg on which the entire conference could founder," says Peter Goldmark, a program director for the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit group.

The Obama administration has proposed a 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, compared with levels in 2005. Most European countries have offered more ambitious cuts, while China has pushed a target that would allow its carbon dioxide output to continue to grow with its economy, though at a slower pace.

In a study last year, Weiss and colleagues took air samples and found that levels of nitrogen trifluoride, an industrial gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide as an atmospheric warming agent, were four times above what industry estimates had suggested.

He says that monitoring equipment must be significantly upgraded around the world to prevent similar fudging of data if a deal is reached in Copenhagen.

Todd Stern, a lead negotiator for the U.S. delegation, says he's pushing for a system that, after Copenhagen, "allows countries to look at each other and get confidence that everybody is doing what they said they were doing."

However, governments in India and China — which is the world's biggest carbon emitter — have resisted draft proposals that would allow for international verification of data.

Bjorn Lomberg, a Danish economist, says the problems reflect a "failed strategy" in the last two decades of international environmental talks.

"Conferences like Copenhagen allow the politicians to go back home and say 'We've got a deal!' but then the targets are almost never kept," says Lomberg, who advocates more research and development of clean energy sources to solve environmental problems.

Even if governments sign a legally binding treaty — which Stern says could happen "soon" after Copenhagen — there is disagreement among countries about how to enforce any deal.

The Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 framework under which many countries (not including the USA) agreed to emissions cuts, contains no financial penalties for governments that fail to meet their goals.

The Obama administration is advocating a "sunshine policy" in which countries would not face serious consequences for non-compliance with emissions goals, says Stephen Porter, an attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law .

Stern declined comment when asked about the U.S. position on Thursday.

"There's no hammer, no nothing," Porter says. He says China would be unlikely to agree to such a condition, and the U.S. may not currently be in a position to pressure its biggest creditor for more concessions.

That may not be enough to please those in the Senate, which is deliberating an energy bill that would implement whatever emissions cuts Obama promises in Copenhagen. Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., is among those who say any deal must carry strong enforcement measures as a way to protect U.S. industry from its competitors overseas.

One possibility would be "border adjustments," a provision that would allow countries to impose tariffs or other penalties on trading partners who fail to meet their environmental promises, says Duncan Hollis, a Temple University law professor and former attorney for treaty affairs at the State Dept. However, Hollis says such a provision would likely be years away.

"From a lawyer's perspective, or even as a parent, for God's sake, unless you set a set of rules, your kids won't respect them," Porter says. "This summit is no different."


Source = http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-10-copenhagen_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
scientists are intentionally making fake data. Do you really believe that?

Is that so hard to believe?
Scientists can be bought just like anyone else, and there's already a nice official bribe-system in place. We know it as 'grants'.


Please see the post above yours and reply. You're saying the national academy of science of every industrialized nation has been bribed to lie? All the thousands of studies too? All the scientific studies?

You don't have to bribe all of them! Just bribe the ones collecting and recording real data, and then also bribe a few of the more influential ones, and the rest will follow.
It doesn't hurt that a majority of scientists and intelligentsia are traditionally of a leftist political persuasion either.
Quote:

If you want to look at money and influence on dubious science, it's well known the oil companies are spending good money to fund the so-called skeptics. That's why Saudi Arabia has gotten very excited about "climategate".

Of course. The other side is also being well-funded by special interests. It doesn't really change anything, other than making everyone untrustworthy.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
scientists are intentionally making fake data. Do you really believe that?

Is that so hard to believe?
Scientists can be bought just like anyone else, and there's already a nice official bribe-system in place. We know it as 'grants'.


Please see the post above yours and reply. You're saying the national academy of science of every industrialized nation has been bribed to lie? All the thousands of studies too? All the scientific studies?

You don't have to bribe all of them! Just bribe the ones collecting and recording real data, and then also bribe a few of the more influential ones, and the rest will follow.
It doesn't hurt that a majority of scientists and intelligentsia are traditionally of a leftist political persuasion either.
Quote:

If you want to look at money and influence on dubious science, it's well known the oil companies are spending good money to fund the so-called skeptics. That's why Saudi Arabia has gotten very excited about "climategate".

Of course. The other side is also being well-funded by special interests. It doesn't really change anything, other than making everyone untrustworthy.

A perfect example of contemporary know-nothingism, the irrational, solipsistic worldview that fuels fundamentalism and intolerance. Strained logic to conclude that a worldwide scientific consensus means nothing, and that all sides of an debate, all proof, all evidence, are all untrustworthy. Into that vacuum, people put in any orthodox or arbitrary belief they want -- Creationism, climate change denialism, Obama is communist/muslim/terrorist, even the idea that there is a "War on Christmas" in the USA. Call it the new Dark Ages of thought.
jmi256 wrote:
If “greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies” when talking about enforcement, how can it be argued that the same numbers they are using to base their entire argument upon are not also “difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies”?

Quote:
After climate talks, scientists worry about enforcement

COPENHAGEN — Ray Weiss looks at the chanting protesters, harried delegates and the 20,000 other people gathered here for a global warming summit and wonders: What's the fuss all about?
Weiss, a geochemist who studies atmospheric pollution at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, says the numbers at the core of the debate in Copenhagen are flawed.
...
In a study last year, Weiss and colleagues took air samples and found that levels of nitrogen trifluoride, an industrial gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide as an atmospheric warming agent, were four times above what industry estimates had suggested.


Funny. This article says the scientist involved found the amount of dangerous global-warming pollutant to be four times worse than the polluters claim. That's your big triumph in supporting off-the-wall denialism?

Since you change your positions when challenged, how about answering this one basic thing:
The basic facts of global warming have been supported by thousands of studies, endorsed by dozens of scientific societies and the national academy of science in every first world nation.

Jmi, how many can you cite on the other side?
jmi256
ocalhoun wrote:

You don't have to bribe all of them! Just bribe the ones collecting and recording real data, and then also bribe a few of the more influential ones, and the rest will follow.
It doesn't hurt that a majority of scientists and intelligentsia are traditionally of a leftist political persuasion either.

I think the real culprits here are those who are exploiting a certain set of findings, claiming that there is no room for verification or debate and then using those findings to justify their pet projects. As shown earlier, the amount of taxes that will be levied on the taxpayers to pay for the Democrats’ pet projects will be significant, so they have to create and exploit fear to get this pushed through. This strategy has been used to force through the bailouts and the ‘stimulus’ bill, and has been used to also justify the huge government-run healthcare scheme the Democrats want to put in place, and I think Americans are opening their eyes and getting tired of it.

ocalhoun wrote:
Of course. The other side is also being well-funded by special interests. It doesn't really change anything, other than making everyone untrustworthy.

When billions and billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, you’re always going to get some special interests involved to get their ‘fair’ share of the spoils. I agree with you, too, that there are very few people who are deemed ‘trustworthy’ anymore.
handfleisch
This is a really awesome echo chamber you got going here.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
When billions and billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, you’re always going to get some special interests involved to get their ‘fair’ share of the spoils. I agree with you, too, that there are very few people who are deemed ‘trustworthy’ anymore.
Agreed. I can't get over how little attention was paid to the recent passing of the 1.1 trillion spending bill and budget increases, in relation to the medical care debates. We seem to be in the trillions now, and very little outrage by the media or public over it. Almost as though they have become enured to trillions:
Quote:
Congress must soon raise the debt ceiling, now at $12.1 trillion, so the Treasury can continue to borrow, and Democratic leaders are eyeing a new figure close to $14 trillion, pushing the issue past next November's election.

But a bipartisan group in the Senate says a higher ceiling should be tied to creation of a task force on deficit reduction, and House Democratic moderates say their votes could depend on winning a "pay-as-you-go" law requiring that new tax cuts or spending programs don't add to the deficit.

Source: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/sns-ap-us-congress-spending,0,1792746.story?track=rss
Related topics
"global warming" questions... please share your an
Cow-Made Global Warming
Global Warming Source..
Global Warming
US media finally aknowledge Global Warming
Global Warming
Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)
What did Jesus do to cause global warming??
Global warming... Is it a problem?
Global Warming
Global Warming
Apocalypse Now? Global Warming Hotspots
Global Warming
GLOBAL WARMING
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.