ATTN Al Gore

[Gary M]

Yup, you're still wrong. But then again you don't care so there it is. Sound bites are fun.

 

A group of "scientists" discussed changing data and prevented other scientists from publishing contratary data. They also discussed contacting others to not let data be know.

 

Sounds to me like a conspiracy.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy

 

Hey, check this out a liberal calling people names.

 

"The CRU’s supporters have protested bitterly about the attention paid to this message. In the course of an extraordinary BBC interview in which he called an American critic an ‘****hole’ live on air, Jones’s colleague Professor Andrew Watson insisted that the fuss was completely unjustified, because all Jones had been talking about was ‘tweaking a diagram’. "

[/dev/null]

A group of "scientists" discussed changing data and prevented other scientists from publishing contratary data. They also discussed contacting others to not let data be know.

 

Yeah but that was just an email

 

An email isn't quite the definitive proof as a Power Point Presentation

[Gary M]

Yeah but that was just an email

 

An email isn't quite the definitive proof as a Power Point Presentation

 

Or an episode of "Bill Nye the science guy"

[DC Tom]

A group of "scientists" discussed changing data and prevented other scientists from publishing contratary data. They also discussed contacting others to not let data be know.

 

Sounds to me like a conspiracy.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy

 

Hey, check this out a liberal calling people names.

 

"The CRU’s supporters have protested bitterly about the attention paid to this message. In the course of an extraordinary BBC interview in which he called an American critic an ‘****hole’ live on air, Jones’s colleague Professor Andrew Watson insisted that the fuss was completely unjustified, because all Jones had been talking about was ‘tweaking a diagram’. "

 

Sounds like science to me.

 

That's generally how research is.

[Gene Frenkle]

Sounds like science to me.

 

That's generally how research is.

Leave him alone. He's trying to win an argument.

[Gary M]

Sounds like science to me.

 

That's generally how research is.

 

I thought research was to discover things, not hide them.

[DC Tom]

I thought research was to discover things, not hide them.

 

That's why research is done.

 

Not how. "How" usually involves figuring out what is and is not valid data (which is often a BS procedure that, despite being BS, does not indicate a grand conspiracy to defraud) - and also involves tenure tracks and "publish or perish" pressure. Hence, it tends to be insanely competitive, and frequently biased towards the preconceived notions of whoever's doing the research.

 

And that's really all those emails represent. There's no great conspiracy, just a lot of little social factors that go into research that most people aren't aware of. Note also that I'm not saying it's right, just that it's not a conspiracy.

[Magox]

Note also that I'm not saying it's right, just that it's not a conspiracy.

I disagree. The emails in question shows that there were more than one alleged source looking to distort or hide temperature data to fit their conclusion. I would consider that wrongful, so by definition, that would be a conspiracy.

[Adam]

While the email situation looks very bad, I wouldn't call it a deciding factor. As I said before, there is a lot of convincing evidence both ways and I don't have the scientific background to decipher a lot of it. I do, however, think that it would benefit our economy to shift away from overusing limited resources and importing foreign oil and shift towards resources that have far fewer limits. I would like to see a mandate on reducing imported oil, to force this shift. The money could be better used elsewhere- ANYWHERE!

[Magox]

While the email situation looks very bad, I wouldn't call it a deciding factor. As I said before, there is a lot of convincing evidence both ways and I don't have the scientific background to decipher a lot of it. I do, however, think that it would benefit our economy to shift away from overusing limited resources and importing foreign oil and shift towards resources that have far fewer limits. I would like to see a mandate on reducing imported oil, to force this shift. The money could be better used elsewhere- ANYWHERE!

It certaintly isn't a deciding factor either way, thats for sure.

 

And yes, it would benefit our country to lessen our dependency off of Foreign oil. The issue is in how to do that. The idea of funding foreign countries $100 Billion a year in my view is ludicrous. The Cap and trade legislation is another reform that in my view is reckless economic policy. The EIA ran 9 different scenarios, and in each one of those scenarios we will lose jobs, and in some cases millions of jobs. There have also been many independent studies that suggest that people will have to pay anywhere from $150-$2000 a year more in home energy costs.

 

There have also been many independent reports that suggest that a few gasoline refineries would have to shut down as a result, which of course means higher gasoline prices.

 

Going back to jobs again, you've got states like West Virginia that are in the coal industry that employs well over 30,000 workers, with this legislation it will decimate that economy.

 

So I don't support this sort of sweeping change that most likely will have an overall negative effect on our economy. It's just insane.

[Adam]

It certaintly isn't a deciding factor either way, thats for sure.

 

And yes, it would benefit our country to lessen our dependency off of Foreign oil. The issue is in how to do that. The idea of funding foreign countries $100 Billion a year in my view is ludicrous. The Cap and trade legislation is another reform that in my view is reckless economic policy. The EIA ran 9 different scenarios, and in each one of those scenarios we will lose jobs, and in some cases millions of jobs. There have also been many independent studies that suggest that people will have to pay anywhere from $150-$2000 a year more in home energy costs.

 

There have also been many independent reports that suggest that a few gasoline refineries would have to shut down as a result, which of course means higher gasoline prices.

 

Going back to jobs again, you've got states like West Virginia that are in the coal industry that employs well over 30,000 workers, with this legislation it will decimate that economy.

 

So I don't support this sort of sweeping change that most likely will have an overall negative effect on our economy. It's just insane.

I think its a matter of biting the bullet and taking short term losses, to cut our long term losses. Its just a matter of what is more important- getting re-elected or fixing the economy. Doing the right thing, probably means not getting re-elected

[Magox]

I think its a matter of biting the bullet and taking short term losses, to cut our long term losses. Its just a matter of what is more important- getting re-elected or fixing the economy. Doing the right thing, probably means not getting re-elected

ok

[Adam]

ok

Its true- the majority of americans just look at how things are now and can't think long term. Being angry is the american way- why else would talk radio ratings be so high- in my line of work "If it bleeds, it leads" is a way of life.

[Magox]

Its true- the majority of americans just look at how things are now and can't think long term. Being angry is the american way- why else would talk radio ratings be so high- in my line of work "If it bleeds, it leads" is a way of life.

I'm all for looking for long term solutions, but blindly supporting something under the moniker of finding a "long term solution" is just stupid.

[Adam]

I'm all for looking for long term solutions, but blindly supporting something under the moniker of finding a "long term solution" is just stupid.

Nuclear, solar, wind and water power are all far less limited than fossil fuels. I laugh at the democrats that want to use "clean coal" since there is no such thing. Why the transition to nuclear energy didn't begin years ago is beyond me.

[Chef Jim]

Nuclear, solar, wind and water power are all far less limited than fossil fuels. I laugh at the democrats that want to use "clean coal" since there is no such thing. Why the transition to nuclear energy didn't begin years ago is beyond me.

 

Three words.

 

Three

Mile

Island

[Gene Frenkle]

Three words.

 

Three

Mile

Island

Remember when being an environmentalist meant protesting nuclear power?

[Adam]

Three words.

 

Three

Mile

Island

How long ago was that?

[Nanker]

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97...ologists_ag.php

2005 .

"If we just look at the historical data, there is a scientific consensus that the global mean temperature has risen modestly during the twentieth century," said Myron Ebell, director of global warming and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "The impacts have been small and probably beneficial in aggregate. This historical data puts the onus of demonstration on those who think this gradual warming trend will accelerate and lead to dire consequences."

 

The controlling driver of global temperature fluctuations, according to Dr. Benny Peiser of England's John Moore's University, is solar ray activity. "Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world's leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth's climate," Peiser was quoted as saying in the May 17 National Post.

 

Moreover, reports Peiser, Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top earth scientists, published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded, "empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."

 

Added Peiser, "In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the 'consensus' is not restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished scientific organizations such as the Russian Academy of Science and the U.S. Association of State Climatologists, both of which are highly skeptical of the whole idea."

[keepthefaith]

Remember when being an environmentalist meant protesting nuclear power?

 

Yeah and still many do. From the reports of the Copenhagen meetings, one thing should be clear to Obama - he needs to focus on domestic issues plus the 2 wars and back burner all the climate crap. China and India don't care, poor nations want money and the likes of Chavez and others can't be reasoned with. Man made global warming is in question. This thing drops way down the prority list IMO but I'm more inclined to doubt Obama will see it that way.