You don't agree that when it comes to procedures covered by "universal health care", fewer is better? Fewer covered procedures = lower cost. Granted, it's politics and not spending discipline, but it still costs taxpayers less.
You don't agree that when it comes to procedures covered by "universal health care", fewer is better? Fewer covered procedures = lower cost.
But of course! "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." Operations to remove tumors are so expensive!
My point, of course, was that abortion-on-demand is a keystone of the Left, but the Democrats in the Senate are willing to yank that keystone (temporarily) in order to get enough votes to pass. You don't honestly think it's going to stay out of such legislation more than a few months at most, do you?
They've been there for quite some time, it's all a matter of degree at this point.
Turn it all to 11, as far as I'm concerned. It's the ONLY way to get the masses to wake the fuck up. Incrementalism works, and anyone on the Left who is smart knows this. Our only hope is that the HopenChange gets enough steam for a sincere radicalization of most everything. This includes healthcare. Once people get to see what the whole mess actually looks like, we can sit back and enjoy the unraveling of it all.
The situation is that now, the Donks have their perfect storm, they know it and they can smell the blood, so they've moved in for they kill. They can't resist doing what is within their grasp, because it's what they want.
"Universal" care, as you note, is a far more important concern, for now, than alienating, albeit temporarily, a smaller constiuent demographic.
Power, as is said, is addictive, and corrupting. In already corrupt hands, it should all begin falling down shortly.
It's something we keep coming back to with the Left. They really do believe, unconsciously for a lot of them, that wealth belongs to "society". Which means government. You hear it whenever they say that tax cuts are government spending. We've heard it for a year now talking about healthcare. Total healthcare costs are a red herring, what matters is who pays and who receives the services.
This is that vast gulf again. Prices are determined by costs, and costs are determined by supply and demand. Attempting to control prices is crap, because the costs are still there. If you really wanted to lower health care costs, you would allow insurance companies to compete across state borders, you'd institute tort reform, you'd shorten the approval time on new drugs, you'd get the government out of things. The only sectors of medicine where quality has increased alongside dropping costs are cosmetic surgery and veterinary care because the government doesn't regulate either of them. Freedom works, competition works.
As usual the statists took over some of a formerly free sector of the economy, and now they blame the problems, all which are caused by the regulation and interference, on the free part. It's how socialists think. Their theories cannot be wrong, so it must be the people who refuse to go along that are causing all the problems. Lenin had the kulaks, Stalin had the wreckers, and Mao had the reactionaries. I don't know what the Democrats will do when things get worse in healthcare. I don't know who they will blame when their perfect theoretical model again breaks down in the real world. I do know they will find someone, because they know they cannot be wrong. They are the anointed, and the anointed are never wrong.
"long train of abuses and usurpations" has already happened for me, but not yet for enough people to have the Revolution and expect a chance of success.
Wait until you fill our your first feddle income tax form after ObamamateurPelosiReidCare passes, and then you need medical care after it takes effect.
Well, I'm afraid I'm at a loss here. I don't see an analysis of the science of the EPA report. Just comments that it must be wrong. Here's the report...
Remember, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that CO2 emissions are warming the Earth. It seems likely but I think there needs to be more data gathered. I also think, as George Carlin does, that it's pretty arrogant to think that WE can destroy the planet. I do think, however, that we can certainly make life miserable for ourselves which is what this report states. I also think that there is a potential economic impact in doing nothing...the least problematic of which is that the Chinese will have opened up a can on us in the new energy market.
I find it quite ridiculous that a group of scientists essentially lead with their emotional minds first and allow that mind to convince their rational mind of what is fact (thanks Mastiff. In fact, I don't think I can ever thank you enough:)) To many of you, climate change and CO2 danger is not happening. Any data contrary to this is liberal bias aimed at taking away wealth. How grounded in logic and unemotionally biased of you...
Yet mountains of this data exists and you ignore it. And with the East Anglia debacle laid bare you scream this as proof that it was ALL made up. Huh?
The Bush White House covered up climate change data but that didn't convince me that AGW was then absolutely false.
The AAAS is completely in the tank for AGW. They aren't even close to "unbiased". If you think they're "dispassionate scientists", you're just fooling yourself. 'Course, we already knew that, Marxy.
"Which of the two sides insists, despite vigorous dissent, that there is no debate; uses intimidation and ridicule to suppress and discredit this dissent; refuses to hold itself accountable for repeated false alarms (e.g., Paul Ehrlich, Ted Danson, Al Gore, etc.); has often been caught manufacturing data to fit its predetermined conclusions; has an economic and political agenda driving its science; has been tainted by millions of dollars in corrupting research grants; and is recommending policies that are objectively imprudent and to the manifest detriment of the United States?"
When one side is willing to openly and baldly lie like this, I will not trust them. Period.
Here's another excellent article from American Thinker which I thought was exceptionally good: Global warming's new clothes
Hansen's data was wrong. That hasn't stopped him from demonstrating his bias, not to mention teaming up with other well known "dispassionate scientists" such as Darryl Hannah to push his pet fake theory of AGW.
"I find it quite ridiculous that a group of scientists essentially lead with their emotional minds first and allow that mind to convince their rational mind of what is fact ..."
There you go again with yet another instance of your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other guy is what you don't like yourself being accused of.
Damn, sack boy, but your hypocrisy is as boundless as it is predictable.
"How can you look at something like this...and still say that there is NO possibility that the theory is valid?"
There you go again with yet another instance of your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. You deliberately miss the point, laying on yet another straw man.
Damn, sack boy, but you are really over the wall with this one. We have not stated that there is NO possibility that the theory is valid, rather we have stated that the global warmenerists have NOT proven their case.
If you're gonna complain about what we write, then why the HELL can't you have the common decency to not misrepresent it? Your dishonesty is as boundless as your hypocrisy, and it is just as predictable.
For the gazillionth time, little boy, if you're right, you don't need this horseshit, and if you're wrong, it won't make you right. You're dealing with grownups here, and you can't handle it.
I liked your attempts to bowdlerize Copenhagen. Still, you may approve of my offering.
As I'd attended both the first Anti-Nam Teach-in and the first Eco Teach-in, this reflects my observation of the character of many members in the SINISTER Wing then and now: bitching, piggishness, and hypocrisy. (I bet you never met any Lefties who fit that description. [/s])
And I still don't see any serious analysis by any of you of the data..just someone else's (see: right wing tool box) analysis. And no critical thought at all. Anyone care to deconstruct the no climate change data? Or do we just accept that because that's where our emotional minds lead us?
Remember, I'm not completely convinced of climate change. I'm also not convinced, as many of you are, that is most certainly NOT man made and/or not happening. There seems to be plenty of data to support both sides. We need to gather more. Now I wonder what you will say if more data comes out that supports the climate change theory...will you listen objectively as scientists? Or will there be a pile on of bias and accusations of liberals taking over everything?
"And I still don't see any serious analysis by any of you of the data..just someone else's (see: right wing tool box) analysis. And no critical thought at all. Anyone care to deconstruct the no climate change data?"
I've pointed out a simple part of it to you, teacher boy, and you've ignored it.
The global warmerists' claim is that CO2 is rising, thereby heating the earth up, and man is to blame for creating the CO2. Well, CO2 in the atmosphere is easily measured, has been measured for a long time, and has been rising for a long time.
Temperature is easily measured, too, but it has fallen, net, during this century.
Thus, their prediction is wrong. Something else that is much more significant than CO2 is affecting global temperatures, and they are ignoring it.
Absent better analysis than that, I see no need to stampede the worlds' economies into panic. Do you?
"Remember, I'm not completely convinced of climate change."
Remember, I'm not completely convinced of climate change either.
"I'm also not convinced, as many of you are, that is most certainly NOT man made and/or not happening."
You miserable, lying little pissant.
Every time I think your dishonesty hits rock bottom, you dig it deeper.
M, I am more than willing to let the scientists do the science, as long as the doomsayers make like good lemmings and go jump off a cliff.
Now, even though you don't understand science, you might consider the absurdity of the EPA treating CO2, the waste product of animal respiration, and an essential input to photosynthesis as a grave threat to the planet.
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering how the author of "US Public Schools Teaching Pro Islamic Propaganda" should be taken seriously as a source on climatology. Is he a scientist? Is he an expert on climatology?
Moreover, the American Thinker? Really? Well, I suppose they are grounded in facts and logic and not biased at all:)
"And I still don't see any serious analysis by any of you of the data.."
Hey, lookit! A new version of the ChickenHawk argument: "If you don't do … then you can't have a valid opinion."
So let me guess, Marxy. You have done "serious analysis" of the data. Right? Considering, of course, that you're actually getting data from sources which haven't deliberately adulterated the data (Mann, Hansen, CRU) then disposed of the original data to hide their manipulation.
So tell me, Marxy. Have you done your own data collection and analysis to make sure you get clean data, which has not been adjusted to introduce a bias? If not, then you've failed your own "standard".
"I'm not completely convinced of climate change."
Does this mean you OPPOSE driving our economy into the tank based on an idea which even you think is questionable?
"Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering how the author of "US Public Schools Teaching Pro Islamic Propaganda" should be taken seriously as a source on climatology."
Your "right-wing toolbox" was much more honest. We're well aware that your only reason for pretending that someone "doesn't know what they're talking about" is nothing more than simply daring to disagree with You. Pathetic attempts to hide your raw partisanship by coming up with lame excuses for ignoring what your prejudice dictates must be ignored only highlights your basic dishonesty.
He has to answer mine before he can ignore yours."
Since when has that stopped Marxy? His massive ignorance can only be maintained by ignoring as much as possible—especially if it exposes cognitive dissonance.
I'm still waiting for him to answer a question from 2 years ago!
As I've said before, I'm not a scientist. I don't have a single degree in anything. But I must ask, how much of a scientist do you need to be?
Note that
Al Gore
Michael Moore
A long list of Hollywood actors
Jimmy Carter
Nancy Pelosi
etc, etc...
Note that pretty much all these people are multimillionaires. We have people in space for months at a stretch, we can do 100% recycling. Yes, it's expensive.
And you'll note that not a single fucking one of the multimillionaires who carp about how we all must "make sacrifices" to "save the planet" are willing to commit theirfortunes to saving it.
So.... how much of a scientist do you have to be to spot someone telling you how vital something is (but is unwilling to commit his own money to it) as the sales pitch that it is?
And as noted above by others, regardless of how likely it is to be true, how sensible is it to remake the economy of the globe based on the assumption that it is 100% true if you can't prove it?
"So.... how much of a scientist do you have to be to spot someone telling you how vital something is (but is unwilling to commit his own money to it) as the sales pitch that it is?"
Even a moronic halfwit can do it. A simple question suffices to illustrate their hypocrisy: Do they live their lives as if they believe what they preach?
As I noted before, go see OwlGore's house in Tennessee.
The smoking gun may have finally been discovered for the "adjustment(s)" made that produce the hockey stick. If the Climate Geniuses cannot make a defensible explanation for the adjustments, this may actually turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud of our time.
Have you noticed that when someone asks you why you are skeptical of AGW, if you answer, "Because I'm old enough to remember polywater and Piltdown Man," it only confuses them?
juris, that is a fascinating analysis. It illustrates neatly why the warmeners are loath to publish the raw data they start with and the methodology by which they analyze it.
I did a little link-following from one of the "hand-wavers" and found that the researchers noted that the adjustment wrt to the trend was disturbingly large, but they validated it with Mann (1994).
Well, I just feel so full of scientifical goodness now.
The "homogenisation" work is basically an open-loop process. Cook to desired consistency!
"Have you done your own data collection and analysis to make sure you get clean data, which has not been adjusted to introduce a bias? If not, then you've failed your own "standard"."
But Ed, you are the scientist, not me. I rely on people like you, DJ , Kevin, and others to be objective. You aren't. You have drummed into my head repeatedly that you follow logic, facts, and the scientific method. And yet when it comes to climate change, you do not. It's all a liberal hoax made up by millionaires who are after a power grab. Can you see how this might seem a tad biased?
From my analysis of the data, I think there needs to be more research to support either claim.
"Does this mean you OPPOSE driving our economy into the tank based on an idea which even you think is questionable?"
"how sensible is it to remake the economy of the globe based on the assumption that it is 100% true if you can't prove it?"
Until more research is done, I don't think we should "remake" the world economy based on the research. The problem, however, is that you and I have different views of what "remake" means. We should be going balls deep on green energy simply because of the fact that the Chinese are going to beat us in the market. And take a look at this...
If climate change is happening (man made or not), don't you think the economic impact might be somewhat measurable? In other words, doing nothing (is that what you are advocating btw?) may cause greater damage than any economic changes that may need to occur.
Most (if not all) of you suffer from one basic problem here. This problem contains a distinct advantage, however. Your problem is that you are not unbiased. In fact, most of you suffer from confirmation bias as you do with many other issues. You look only at the data that supports your point. And you try desperately to marginalize any data that does not. The East Anglia emails must be like a giant steak dinner for many of you because, in your logic and fact based minds (not), you can dance with glee and say that AGW is all fake even though there is plenty of other data to support its validity.
All of this offers you a distinct advantage over someone like myself. If you are proved incorrect or further data comes out which supports climate change, your ideology allows you to pretend it doesn't exist. You can make up whatever you want and go merrily along. I don't have the luxury of doing that. I tend to look at issues more critically and explore alternatives. In some ways, I wish I could be as clear and settled as many of you are. It's just not how the world works, though.
The East Anglia emails must be like a giant steak dinner for many
Actually M, that is the least interesting bit. What is most interesting to me is gaining some insight into the climate researchers "homogenisation" techniques (which is where the warming trend occurs - not in the raw data). Unless someone can make a cogent explanation of what adjustments were necessary and why, everyone involved in the field is suffering from confirmation bias to Mann's original work.
If climate change is happening (man made or not), don't you think the economic impact might be somewhat measurable?
If it's actually getting warmer, then crop yields should improve, for one thing.
In other words, doing nothing (is that what you are advocating btw?) may cause greater damage than any economic changes that may need to occur.
The operative word there being "may". This assumes that a mild increase in temperatures will, in actuality, result in any "damage" at all - a point insufficiently proven. Certainly insufficiently proven to a level necessary to impose restrictions on the emission of carbon dioxide.
...you can dance with glee and say that AGW is all fake even though there is plenty of other data to support its validity.
Really? You have access to raw data that hasn't been homogenized by the CRU or its members? Because what I've seen so far coming out of New Zealand and Australia looks like it works against your assertion.
Who holds the raw data databases? Why haven't they been made publicly accessible?
I tend to look at issues more critically and explore alternatives.
"From my analysis of the data, I think there needs to be more research to support either claim."
So give it a try, teacher boy. I've pointed the following out to you twice, including only yesterday:
"The global warmerists' claim is that CO2 is rising, thereby heating the earth up, and man is to blame for creating the CO2. Well, CO2 in the atmosphere is easily measured, has been measured for a long time, and has been rising for a long time.
"Temperature is easily measured, too, but it has fallen, net, during this century.
"Thus, their prediction is wrong. Something else that is much more significant than CO2 is affecting global temperatures, and they are ignoring it."
ANY analysis of the issue has to take this into account. YOU persistently ignore it.
Why?
Oh, yeah, it's because
"All of this offers you a distinct advantage over someone like myself."
You are not capable of commenting intelligently on it, but you keep on commenting on it.
Here we find a dead-on statement of the significance of the Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero (emphasis added):
"Is the Earth warming? Yes, since 1650, as Eschenbach reports. Is that warming trend natural? Perhaps, perhaps not. In order to make that determination, we need a completely transparent data set, one that is free of “adjustments” from advocates masquerading as scientists. As long as the current set of alchemists remain in control of the raw data, their work should be considered completely unreliable."
Indeed, as long as the current set of alchemists remain in control of the raw data, it is politics, not science.
"the more emotionally involved we are with a belief the more likely it is that we will manage to ignore whatever facts or arguments might tend to undermine it."
This would be true not only of climate change but also of proving me wrong...which would, of course, mean that I am wrong about EVERYTHING (dum dum dah!!!!) :)
"the more emotionally involved we are with a belief the more likely it is that we will manage to ignore whatever facts or arguments might tend to undermine it."
Thanks for that PERFECT description of your normal M.O.
We are well aware that some scientists honestly think that AGW is real. We're also well aware of of where they get their data.
But here's where the data YOU are ignoring comes in: evidence that the data from those sources has been adulterated (meaning no one can reach any valid conclusions based on that data), that there is sound evidence that the data has been deliberately manipulated, that some scientists are knowingly lying, that there is powerful evidence that humans are not causing warming (such as warming on Mars), that China is NOT beating us at "green energy" but are building far more polluting energy plants than we build, and the economic destructiveness of a "balls to the wall" green energy "policy". And that's just for starters.
You've also once again demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the scientific method, specifically the part about invalidating a theory.
It boils down to this: I keep thinking that you cannot be real. I simply cannot imagine how anyone could possibly be so intellectually bankrupt that even the simplest concepts of logic escape you. As a result, I both despise and pity you. Pity because the ability to recognize truth completely eludes you. Despise because you are working to shove your diseased ideology down everyone's throats.
(BTW, One of my great fears in life is that I'll develop Altzheimer's. I'm terrified of losing my ability to think. I don't want to be like Marxy.)
Until more research is done, I don't think we should "remake" the world economy based on the research. The problem, however, is that you and I have different views of what "remake" means. We should be going balls deep on green energy simply because of the fact that the Chinese are going to beat us in the market.
No doubt we do have different views on what "remake" means. Personally, I think a stated intention to bankrupt an entire industry (coal) qualifies.
But okay, let's reduce it to simplest terms.
Once again, the only tools any government has at its disposal:
1.Confiscation of property from citizens (in other words, stealing).
2. Incarceration (in other words, kidnapping and holding hostages).
3. Assault.
If climate change is happening (man made or not), don't you think the economic impact might be somewhat measurable? In other words, doing nothing (is that what you are advocating btw?) may cause greater damage than any economic changes that may need to occur.
If you can't unequivocally prove it, can't unequivocally prove people are causing it, and can't unequivocally prove a particular course of action will solve it, what justifies taking even one of the above actions against even one citizen?
And for that matter, how do you know your "solution" isn't in fact adding to the problem, absent such unequivocal proof?
My other question concerns the 'economic opportunity' represented here, that you keep touting. My question is this: In your estimation, if "green energy" is so potentially profitable, why does it apparently require taxpayer money in addition to product sales, and wholesale government-led destruction of its competition in the market, in order for "the greedy rich" to be willing to invest in it? I mean, "the greedy rich" became rich by correctly spotting investment opportunities, did they not?
You have drummed into my head repeatedly that you follow logic, facts, and the scientific method.
No, we haven't. We've said it, you've ignored it. We've explained in graphic detail, and you continue on your same course, unaltered.
And yet when it comes to climate change, you do not.
Woah. Wait. Hold on up there, Bullshit Sack Boy who can't nut up, put up, or shut up.
That's a mighty high claim. Either you've got some evidence there... Or you're an ignoramus, and don't understand what we've "pounded into your head". I know which I'd bet on.
It's all a liberal hoax made up by millionaires who are after a power grab. Can you see how this might seem a tad biased?
Gee, you're right.
Of course, that's not what anybody here has said, it's a ridicolus strawman made up by the king of strawman-burning.
As usual, you've missed what we're actually saying in favor of a parody where somehow you're smarter, more compassionate, and more educated than the people around you. Of course you come out well there. It's just not reality.
If you are proved incorrect or further data comes out which supports climate change, your ideology allows you to pretend it doesn't exist. You can make up whatever you want and go merrily along.
...
Says the guy who, as proof of corporate control, cites his local gas company following federal law (ie, government power (to protect him) and threatening civil court action if their required inspection is not allowed. (Or else they'll be punished by government power) And thinks he's proven his point.
Dude, what you just said there is what you do all day long. And then think you're winning the argument.
Just like:
Until more research is done, I don't think we should "remake" the world economy based on the research.
...
We should be going balls deep on green energy simply because of the fact that the Chinese are going to beat us in the market.
So you don't think we should remake the world economy, we just should remake the world economy.
Do you even read your own comments?
There isn't really a market for "Green Power" internationally. It's "power". Usually electrons. And "going green" means that your power costs more. And you keep accepting, at face value the Chinese claims.
Mark, care to go look at the claims the USSR made, versus the realities? Why are you taking the word of a massively repressive government?
More importantly, why are you holding them up as a example to emulate, then screaming that you're not in any way to be connected to Communism/Fascism/Socialism?
You know, it's even possible the Chinese aren't lying through their teeth (all the history and evidence to the contrary notwithstanding). Because when you're A REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT you get to do things. And when people don't do them, you shoot them. Or run them over with a tank. TADA. It's not a model I support, and it's telling that it's one you do.
This would be true not only of climate change but also of proving me wrong...which would, of course, mean that I am wrong about EVERYTHING (dum dum dah!!!!)
First, pick a side. Warming, or cooling. Stop it with the "climate change" nonsense. Either it's getting warmer (due to us) or it's getting cooler (due to us). "Climate Change" is an weaseling admission that your entire "AGW" (which is a specific claim) is already scientifically defunct.
Second, It's not a dramatic horn crash. It's the BAH duh bah rimshot from the drummer.
... because like a bad comic who's not paying attention to the audience, it's regular, unsurprising, and ongoing. Again with the hero reference. Again completely wrong and self-refuting.
So we have cooked books, tossed original data, actively breaking the law, each member at the center lying for the other, fraud, embezzlement, etc, etc.
Does RICO apply here because it sounds like a mob operation!
N.B. For the humor impaired, this is (mostly) tongue in cheek.
For Marxy, do shut up. Yes, we are all amazed you can string words together to form sentences, but no, no one cares that you can. Yes, we are all amazed you are wrong every time you post something, but no, no one is surprised any more.
That's not true. Every time I assume he's hit rock bottom, couldn't possibly say something dumber, or make even more of an ass of himself, he proves my assumptions incorrect.
It's not at all like watching someone digging a hole and making guesses at far down he can dig only to be proven wrong. Instead, it's like watching such a person dig all the way through the Earth, rationally concluding there's no further he can dig in that direction, and then finding he's somehow attached another planet to his point of exit and is now digging through THAT one.
Mark has now dug through an entire solar system of idiocy.
"It boils down to this: I keep thinking that you cannot be real. I simply cannot imagine how anyone could possibly be so intellectually bankrupt that even the simplest concepts of logic escape you."
He's real, Ed. He is not intelligent enough to post what he posts without it being real. What drives him is that he cannot admit significant error. He continues to double down, day after day after day, because he knows he is not at risk by doing so.
I have stated this many times, and he has never disputed it. Why not? Because to dispute it would bring endless challenges to demonstrate it. He won't do that before the sun goes nova, and he knows it.
"As a result, I both despise and pity you. Pity because the ability to recognize truth completely eludes you."
pity
n. Sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another.
Nope. His misfortune and suffering are intentional and self-inflicted. He does not deserve sympathy.
"the more emotionally involved we are with a belief the more likely it is that we will manage to ignore whatever facts or arguments might tend to undermine it."
That's YOU, sack boy, but you don't have the sack to admit it.
"The one problem with your little notion here, DJ, is that as soon as a scientist says that climate change is happening then it becomes politics."
There you go again, sack boy, with your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response, by which you deliberately miss the point, laying on one straw man after another.
So, let's try it again, teacher boy, and see if you fail the class yet again.
If a person declares that the climate is warming because of human-generated CO2 but that person refuses to release the data he reasons from and/or the methodology by which he reasons from it, then that person is not engaging in the methodology of science. The methodology of science requires that both raw data and analysis therefrom be laid open for review by all so that errors might be discovered. Such is the core of the scientific method. If that person then further declares that the economies of the world ought to be hammered into reducing CO2 emissions, then that person is engaging in politics.
The problem here is that, yet again, you cannot admit that someone who comments in Kevin's parlor is correct about anything significant. It is simply beyond you.
No, I think Ed is wrong. You deserve nothing but the scorn that we heap on you and the contempt in which we hold you. You have earned nothing less, and nothing more.
You'd think, since Al Gore Has Told Him So And So He Knows It that the inside of the earth is millions of degrees, that digging toward that would be very, very bad.
"the more emotionally involved we are with a belief the more likely it is that we will manage to ignore whatever facts or arguments might tend to undermine it."
You mean like the belief in evil mankind causing AGW despite the fact that the raw data in Australia shows absolutely no trend of rising temperature? You only get such a result by "homogenisation" of the data (i.e. cooking it until it accords with belief).
It amazes me that you keep describing yourself without knowing it.
"Nope. His misfortune and suffering are intentional and self-inflicted. He does not deserve sympathy."
Yes it is self-inflicted. But he is still a human being who will suffer, however willingly. That's why I pity him. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Likely so, Ed. I cut him no slack because, self-inflicted or not, his suffering is intentional. It doesn't have to be; he can cure it at any time, but he won't.
Ah, but this is interesting. The money quote is (emphasis added):
"In other words, we’re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history. But the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still. It doesn’t even stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.
"Does this mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? No.
"Does it mean that it isn’t warming? No.
"Does it mean that we shouldn’t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels? Of course not. We should do all those things for many reasons — but there’s plenty of time to do them the right way, by developing nanotech. (There’s plenty of money, too, but it’s all going to climate science at the moment. :-) ) And that will be a very good thing to have done if we do fall back into an ice age, believe me.
"For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock."
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/12/hopenchangen-hopenhagen-carbonhagen.html (67 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
You don't agree that when it comes to procedures covered by "universal health care", fewer is better? Fewer covered procedures = lower cost. Granted, it's politics and not spending discipline, but it still costs taxpayers less.
You don't agree that when it comes to procedures covered by "universal health care", fewer is better? Fewer covered procedures = lower cost.
But of course! "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." Operations to remove tumors are so expensive!
My point, of course, was that abortion-on-demand is a keystone of the Left, but the Democrats in the Senate are willing to yank that keystone (temporarily) in order to get enough votes to pass. You don't honestly think it's going to stay out of such legislation more than a few months at most, do you?
(HaloScan really needs a SARCASM smiley.)
Nathaniel - Private citizens making healthcare decisions with their doctors and insurance carriers cost taxpayers nothing.
When do those actions fall into that category?
They've been there for quite some time, it's all a matter of degree at this point.
Turn it all to 11, as far as I'm concerned. It's the ONLY way to get the masses to wake the fuck up. Incrementalism works, and anyone on the Left who is smart knows this. Our only hope is that the HopenChange gets enough steam for a sincere radicalization of most everything. This includes healthcare. Once people get to see what the whole mess actually looks like, we can sit back and enjoy the unraveling of it all.
The situation is that now, the Donks have their perfect storm, they know it and they can smell the blood, so they've moved in for they kill. They can't resist doing what is within their grasp, because it's what they want.
"Universal" care, as you note, is a far more important concern, for now, than alienating, albeit temporarily, a smaller constiuent demographic.
Power, as is said, is addictive, and corrupting. In already corrupt hands, it should all begin falling down shortly.
That cannibal pot sure is bubbling, ain't it?
It's something we keep coming back to with the Left. They really do believe, unconsciously for a lot of them, that wealth belongs to "society". Which means government. You hear it whenever they say that tax cuts are government spending. We've heard it for a year now talking about healthcare. Total healthcare costs are a red herring, what matters is who pays and who receives the services.
This is that vast gulf again. Prices are determined by costs, and costs are determined by supply and demand. Attempting to control prices is crap, because the costs are still there. If you really wanted to lower health care costs, you would allow insurance companies to compete across state borders, you'd institute tort reform, you'd shorten the approval time on new drugs, you'd get the government out of things. The only sectors of medicine where quality has increased alongside dropping costs are cosmetic surgery and veterinary care because the government doesn't regulate either of them. Freedom works, competition works.
As usual the statists took over some of a formerly free sector of the economy, and now they blame the problems, all which are caused by the regulation and interference, on the free part. It's how socialists think. Their theories cannot be wrong, so it must be the people who refuse to go along that are causing all the problems. Lenin had the kulaks, Stalin had the wreckers, and Mao had the reactionaries. I don't know what the Democrats will do when things get worse in healthcare. I don't know who they will blame when their perfect theoretical model again breaks down in the real world. I do know they will find someone, because they know they cannot be wrong. They are the anointed, and the anointed are never wrong.
"long train of abuses and usurpations" has already happened for me, but not yet for enough people to have the Revolution and expect a chance of success.
The Abuse & Usurpation Train's been rolling for a long time. They just keep adding boxcars to the end of the thing.
The long train line was passed long ago - it's a Long Train running now.
Evidently we as a people will put up with anything.
Wait until you fill our your first feddle income tax form after ObamamateurPelosiReidCare passes, and then you need medical care after it takes effect.
"When do ... ?"
Done deal.
EPA: "The unemployment rate just dropped 0.2%! Quick! We have to do something, or this economy might start to recover!"
Well, I'm afraid I'm at a loss here. I don't see an analysis of the science of the EPA report. Just comments that it must be wrong. Here's the report...
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
Remember, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that CO2 emissions are warming the Earth. It seems likely but I think there needs to be more data gathered. I also think, as George Carlin does, that it's pretty arrogant to think that WE can destroy the planet. I do think, however, that we can certainly make life miserable for ourselves which is what this report states. I also think that there is a potential economic impact in doing nothing...the least problematic of which is that the Chinese will have opened up a can on us in the new energy market.
I find it quite ridiculous that a group of scientists essentially lead with their emotional minds first and allow that mind to convince their rational mind of what is fact (thanks Mastiff. In fact, I don't think I can ever thank you enough:)) To many of you, climate change and CO2 danger is not happening. Any data contrary to this is liberal bias aimed at taking away wealth. How grounded in logic and unemotionally biased of you...
Yet mountains of this data exists and you ignore it. And with the East Anglia debacle laid bare you scream this as proof that it was ALL made up. Huh?
The Bush White House covered up climate change data but that didn't convince me that AGW was then absolutely false.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?_r=1
How can you look at something like this...
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1204climate_statement.shtml
and still say that there is NO possibility that the theory is valid? Zero percent? Really?
Your street cred as dispassionate scientists sucks, dudes (and dudettes).
"How can you look at something like this...
http://www.aaas.org/news/ release...statement.shtml
and still say that there is NO possibility that the theory is valid? Zero percent? Really?"
How fascinating that you post this just after I read this:
Donald Kennedy and the Corruption of Science Magazine
The AAAS is completely in the tank for AGW. They aren't even close to "unbiased". If you think they're "dispassionate scientists", you're just fooling yourself. 'Course, we already knew that, Marxy.
I think David Limbaugh said it best:
"Which of the two sides insists, despite vigorous dissent, that there is no debate; uses intimidation and ridicule to suppress and discredit this dissent; refuses to hold itself accountable for repeated false alarms (e.g., Paul Ehrlich, Ted Danson, Al Gore, etc.); has often been caught manufacturing data to fit its predetermined conclusions; has an economic and political agenda driving its science; has been tainted by millions of dollars in corrupting research grants; and is recommending policies that are objectively imprudent and to the manifest detriment of the United States?"
When one side is willing to openly and baldly lie like this, I will not trust them. Period.
Here's another excellent article from American Thinker which I thought was exceptionally good: Global warming's new clothes
Hansen's data was wrong. That hasn't stopped him from demonstrating his bias, not to mention teaming up with other well known "dispassionate scientists" such as Darryl Hannah to push his pet fake theory of AGW.
Furthermore, he's been wildly wrong for 20 YEARS!
"I find it quite ridiculous that a group of scientists essentially lead with their emotional minds first and allow that mind to convince their rational mind of what is fact ..."
There you go again with yet another instance of your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other guy is what you don't like yourself being accused of.
Damn, sack boy, but your hypocrisy is as boundless as it is predictable.
"How can you look at something like this...and still say that there is NO possibility that the theory is valid?"
There you go again with yet another instance of your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. You deliberately miss the point, laying on yet another straw man.
Damn, sack boy, but you are really over the wall with this one. We have not stated that there is NO possibility that the theory is valid, rather we have stated that the global warmenerists have NOT proven their case.
If you're gonna complain about what we write, then why the HELL can't you have the common decency to not misrepresent it? Your dishonesty is as boundless as your hypocrisy, and it is just as predictable.
For the gazillionth time, little boy, if you're right, you don't need this horseshit, and if you're wrong, it won't make you right. You're dealing with grownups here, and you can't handle it.
I liked your attempts to bowdlerize Copenhagen. Still, you may approve of my offering.
As I'd attended both the first Anti-Nam Teach-in and the first Eco Teach-in, this reflects my observation of the character of many members in the SINISTER Wing then and now: bitching, piggishness, and hypocrisy. (I bet you never met any Lefties who fit that description. [/s])
It's Rat Eat Rat at Carp & Hog-in
And I still don't see any serious analysis by any of you of the data..just someone else's (see: right wing tool box) analysis. And no critical thought at all. Anyone care to deconstruct the no climate change data? Or do we just accept that because that's where our emotional minds lead us?
Remember, I'm not completely convinced of climate change. I'm also not convinced, as many of you are, that is most certainly NOT man made and/or not happening. There seems to be plenty of data to support both sides. We need to gather more. Now I wonder what you will say if more data comes out that supports the climate change theory...will you listen objectively as scientists? Or will there be a pile on of bias and accusations of liberals taking over everything?
"And I still don't see any serious analysis by any of you of the data..just someone else's (see: right wing tool box) analysis. And no critical thought at all. Anyone care to deconstruct the no climate change data?"
I've pointed out a simple part of it to you, teacher boy, and you've ignored it.
The global warmerists' claim is that CO2 is rising, thereby heating the earth up, and man is to blame for creating the CO2. Well, CO2 in the atmosphere is easily measured, has been measured for a long time, and has been rising for a long time.
Temperature is easily measured, too, but it has fallen, net, during this century.
Thus, their prediction is wrong. Something else that is much more significant than CO2 is affecting global temperatures, and they are ignoring it.
Absent better analysis than that, I see no need to stampede the worlds' economies into panic. Do you?
"Remember, I'm not completely convinced of climate change."
Remember, I'm not completely convinced of climate change either.
"I'm also not convinced, as many of you are, that is most certainly NOT man made and/or not happening."
You miserable, lying little pissant.
Every time I think your dishonesty hits rock bottom, you dig it deeper.
Can't you get ANYTHING you read here correct?
if you re-arrange the letters in "World Leaders" you get "Orwell's Dread"
M, I am more than willing to let the scientists do the science, as long as the doomsayers make like good lemmings and go jump off a cliff.
Now, even though you don't understand science, you might consider the absurdity of the EPA treating CO2, the waste product of animal respiration, and an essential input to photosynthesis as a grave threat to the planet.
I know the Awakened Gigantic Minnesota Thimblewit won't read this, but someone might:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
Of course not, Ken! That's a "right-wing tool box"! But thanks, that was interesting reading.
Not surprising, but interesting.
Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering how the author of "US Public Schools Teaching Pro Islamic Propaganda" should be taken seriously as a source on climatology. Is he a scientist? Is he an expert on climatology?
Moreover, the American Thinker? Really? Well, I suppose they are grounded in facts and logic and not biased at all:)
^Hey, lookit! The monkey's typing again.
"And I still don't see any serious analysis by any of you of the data.."
Hey, lookit! A new version of the ChickenHawk argument: "If you don't do … then you can't have a valid opinion."
So let me guess, Marxy. You have done "serious analysis" of the data. Right? Considering, of course, that you're actually getting data from sources which haven't deliberately adulterated the data (Mann, Hansen, CRU) then disposed of the original data to hide their manipulation.
So tell me, Marxy. Have you done your own data collection and analysis to make sure you get clean data, which has not been adjusted to introduce a bias? If not, then you've failed your own "standard".
"I'm not completely convinced of climate change."
Does this mean you OPPOSE driving our economy into the tank based on an idea which even you think is questionable?
"Does this mean you OPPOSE driving our economy into the tank based on an idea which even you think is questionable?
Not fair, Ed. I asked him first, and he's ignoring my question. He has to answer mine before he can ignore yours.
You can get a Starbucks in Boulder in the morning, go frolic among bristlecone pines all day, and be back for a late pizza.
"Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering how the author of "US Public Schools Teaching Pro Islamic Propaganda" should be taken seriously as a source on climatology."
Your "right-wing toolbox" was much more honest. We're well aware that your only reason for pretending that someone "doesn't know what they're talking about" is nothing more than simply daring to disagree with You. Pathetic attempts to hide your raw partisanship by coming up with lame excuses for ignoring what your prejudice dictates must be ignored only highlights your basic dishonesty.
He has to answer mine before he can ignore yours."
Since when has that stopped Marxy? His massive ignorance can only be maintained by ignoring as much as possible—especially if it exposes cognitive dissonance.
I'm still waiting for him to answer a question from 2 years ago!
Aww, lookie, Marky thinks he's people!
As I've said before, I'm not a scientist. I don't have a single degree in anything. But I must ask, how much of a scientist do you need to be?
Note that
Al Gore
Michael Moore
A long list of Hollywood actors
Jimmy Carter
Nancy Pelosi
etc, etc...
Note that pretty much all these people are multimillionaires. We have people in space for months at a stretch, we can do 100% recycling. Yes, it's expensive.
And you'll note that not a single fucking one of the multimillionaires who carp about how we all must "make sacrifices" to "save the planet" are willing to commit their fortunes to saving it.
So.... how much of a scientist do you have to be to spot someone telling you how vital something is (but is unwilling to commit his own money to it) as the sales pitch that it is?
And as noted above by others, regardless of how likely it is to be true, how sensible is it to remake the economy of the globe based on the assumption that it is 100% true if you can't prove it?
"Since when has that stopped Marxy?"
I'm gonna have to stop attempts at sarcastic humor. It just doesn't work well.
"So.... how much of a scientist do you have to be to spot someone telling you how vital something is (but is unwilling to commit his own money to it) as the sales pitch that it is?"
Even a moronic halfwit can do it. A simple question suffices to illustrate their hypocrisy: Do they live their lives as if they believe what they preach?
As I noted before, go see OwlGore's house in Tennessee.
"I'm gonna have to stop attempts at sarcastic humor. It just doesn't work well."
I got it. I was just playing off it to carry it a bit further.
Well, that clinches it. If I can't detect my own humor ...
The smoking gun may have finally been discovered for the "adjustment(s)" made that produce the hockey stick. If the Climate Geniuses cannot make a defensible explanation for the adjustments, this may actually turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud of our time.
Have you noticed that when someone asks you why you are skeptical of AGW, if you answer, "Because I'm old enough to remember polywater and Piltdown Man," it only confuses them?
Or to put it the simplest terms I can, what does it say about your product if your salesmen refuse to use it?
juris, that is a fascinating analysis. It illustrates neatly why the warmeners are loath to publish the raw data they start with and the methodology by which they analyze it.
I did a little link-following from one of the "hand-wavers" and found that the researchers noted that the adjustment wrt to the trend was disturbingly large, but they validated it with Mann (1994).
Well, I just feel so full of scientifical goodness now.
The "homogenisation" work is basically an open-loop process. Cook to desired consistency!
"Have you done your own data collection and analysis to make sure you get clean data, which has not been adjusted to introduce a bias? If not, then you've failed your own "standard"."
But Ed, you are the scientist, not me. I rely on people like you, DJ , Kevin, and others to be objective. You aren't. You have drummed into my head repeatedly that you follow logic, facts, and the scientific method. And yet when it comes to climate change, you do not. It's all a liberal hoax made up by millionaires who are after a power grab. Can you see how this might seem a tad biased?
From my analysis of the data, I think there needs to be more research to support either claim.
"Does this mean you OPPOSE driving our economy into the tank based on an idea which even you think is questionable?"
"how sensible is it to remake the economy of the globe based on the assumption that it is 100% true if you can't prove it?"
Until more research is done, I don't think we should "remake" the world economy based on the research. The problem, however, is that you and I have different views of what "remake" means. We should be going balls deep on green energy simply because of the fact that the Chinese are going to beat us in the market. And take a look at this...
http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=55327
and this
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401209.html
If climate change is happening (man made or not), don't you think the economic impact might be somewhat measurable? In other words, doing nothing (is that what you are advocating btw?) may cause greater damage than any economic changes that may need to occur.
Most (if not all) of you suffer from one basic problem here. This problem contains a distinct advantage, however. Your problem is that you are not unbiased. In fact, most of you suffer from confirmation bias as you do with many other issues. You look only at the data that supports your point. And you try desperately to marginalize any data that does not. The East Anglia emails must be like a giant steak dinner for many of you because, in your logic and fact based minds (not), you can dance with glee and say that AGW is all fake even though there is plenty of other data to support its validity.
All of this offers you a distinct advantage over someone like myself. If you are proved incorrect or further data comes out which supports climate change, your ideology allows you to pretend it doesn't exist. You can make up whatever you want and go merrily along. I don't have the luxury of doing that. I tend to look at issues more critically and explore alternatives. In some ways, I wish I could be as clear and settled as many of you are. It's just not how the world works, though.
The East Anglia emails must be like a giant steak dinner for many
Actually M, that is the least interesting bit. What is most interesting to me is gaining some insight into the climate researchers "homogenisation" techniques (which is where the warming trend occurs - not in the raw data). Unless someone can make a cogent explanation of what adjustments were necessary and why, everyone involved in the field is suffering from confirmation bias to Mann's original work.
"You look only at the data that supports your point."
Goddamn, but your hypocrisy just hit a new high.
If climate change is happening (man made or not), don't you think the economic impact might be somewhat measurable?
If it's actually getting warmer, then crop yields should improve, for one thing.
In other words, doing nothing (is that what you are advocating btw?) may cause greater damage than any economic changes that may need to occur.
The operative word there being "may". This assumes that a mild increase in temperatures will, in actuality, result in any "damage" at all - a point insufficiently proven. Certainly insufficiently proven to a level necessary to impose restrictions on the emission of carbon dioxide.
...you can dance with glee and say that AGW is all fake even though there is plenty of other data to support its validity.
Really? You have access to raw data that hasn't been homogenized by the CRU or its members? Because what I've seen so far coming out of New Zealand and Australia looks like it works against your assertion.
Who holds the raw data databases? Why haven't they been made publicly accessible?
I tend to look at issues more critically and explore alternatives.
So says the idealist without illusions.
Damn, but that's still hilarious.
Watch your step, there Markadelphia. That pedestal you've put yourself atop is quite tall.
"That pedestal you've put yourself atop is quite tall."
And quite shaky. He exhibits scant evidence of ever actually reading the comments that he comments on here.
Counting down to "You're making us miss a great business opportunity!" in five...four...three...two...
"From my analysis of the data, I think there needs to be more research to support either claim."
So give it a try, teacher boy. I've pointed the following out to you twice, including only yesterday:
"The global warmerists' claim is that CO2 is rising, thereby heating the earth up, and man is to blame for creating the CO2. Well, CO2 in the atmosphere is easily measured, has been measured for a long time, and has been rising for a long time.
"Temperature is easily measured, too, but it has fallen, net, during this century.
"Thus, their prediction is wrong. Something else that is much more significant than CO2 is affecting global temperatures, and they are ignoring it."
ANY analysis of the issue has to take this into account. YOU persistently ignore it.
Why?
Oh, yeah, it's because
"All of this offers you a distinct advantage over someone like myself."
You are not capable of commenting intelligently on it, but you keep on commenting on it.
Have you no sense of shame at all?
Hah. I crack me up.
Here we find a dead-on statement of the significance of the Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero (emphasis added):
"Is the Earth warming? Yes, since 1650, as Eschenbach reports. Is that warming trend natural? Perhaps, perhaps not. In order to make that determination, we need a completely transparent data set, one that is free of “adjustments” from advocates masquerading as scientists. As long as the current set of alchemists remain in control of the raw data, their work should be considered completely unreliable."
Indeed, as long as the current set of alchemists remain in control of the raw data, it is politics, not science.
I agree.
The one problem with your little notion here, DJ, is that as soon as a scientist says that climate change is happening then it becomes politics.
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasoning/a/confirmation.htm
"the more emotionally involved we are with a belief the more likely it is that we will manage to ignore whatever facts or arguments might tend to undermine it."
This would be true not only of climate change but also of proving me wrong...which would, of course, mean that I am wrong about EVERYTHING (dum dum dah!!!!) :)
"the more emotionally involved we are with a belief the more likely it is that we will manage to ignore whatever facts or arguments might tend to undermine it."
Thanks for that PERFECT description of your normal M.O.
'Course, pretending that we're the ones who actually do this is classic projection and your Standard Response #9.
We are well aware that some scientists honestly think that AGW is real. We're also well aware of of where they get their data.
But here's where the data YOU are ignoring comes in: evidence that the data from those sources has been adulterated (meaning no one can reach any valid conclusions based on that data), that there is sound evidence that the data has been deliberately manipulated, that some scientists are knowingly lying, that there is powerful evidence that humans are not causing warming (such as warming on Mars), that China is NOT beating us at "green energy" but are building far more polluting energy plants than we build, and the economic destructiveness of a "balls to the wall" green energy "policy". And that's just for starters.
You've also once again demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the scientific method, specifically the part about invalidating a theory.
It boils down to this: I keep thinking that you cannot be real. I simply cannot imagine how anyone could possibly be so intellectually bankrupt that even the simplest concepts of logic escape you. As a result, I both despise and pity you. Pity because the ability to recognize truth completely eludes you. Despise because you are working to shove your diseased ideology down everyone's throats.
(BTW, One of my great fears in life is that I'll develop Altzheimer's. I'm terrified of losing my ability to think. I don't want to be like Marxy.)
Until more research is done, I don't think we should "remake" the world economy based on the research. The problem, however, is that you and I have different views of what "remake" means. We should be going balls deep on green energy simply because of the fact that the Chinese are going to beat us in the market.
No doubt we do have different views on what "remake" means. Personally, I think a stated intention to bankrupt an entire industry (coal) qualifies.
But okay, let's reduce it to simplest terms.
Once again, the only tools any government has at its disposal:
1.Confiscation of property from citizens (in other words, stealing).
2. Incarceration (in other words, kidnapping and holding hostages).
3. Assault.
If climate change is happening (man made or not), don't you think the economic impact might be somewhat measurable? In other words, doing nothing (is that what you are advocating btw?) may cause greater damage than any economic changes that may need to occur.
If you can't unequivocally prove it, can't unequivocally prove people are causing it, and can't unequivocally prove a particular course of action will solve it, what justifies taking even one of the above actions against even one citizen?
And for that matter, how do you know your "solution" isn't in fact adding to the problem, absent such unequivocal proof?
My other question concerns the 'economic opportunity' represented here, that you keep touting. My question is this: In your estimation, if "green energy" is so potentially profitable, why does it apparently require taxpayer money in addition to product sales, and wholesale government-led destruction of its competition in the market, in order for "the greedy rich" to be willing to invest in it? I mean, "the greedy rich" became rich by correctly spotting investment opportunities, did they not?
You have drummed into my head repeatedly that you follow logic, facts, and the scientific method.
No, we haven't. We've said it, you've ignored it. We've explained in graphic detail, and you continue on your same course, unaltered.
And yet when it comes to climate change, you do not.
Woah. Wait. Hold on up there, Bullshit Sack Boy who can't nut up, put up, or shut up.
That's a mighty high claim. Either you've got some evidence there... Or you're an ignoramus, and don't understand what we've "pounded into your head". I know which I'd bet on.
It's all a liberal hoax made up by millionaires who are after a power grab. Can you see how this might seem a tad biased?
Gee, you're right.
Of course, that's not what anybody here has said, it's a ridicolus strawman made up by the king of strawman-burning.
As usual, you've missed what we're actually saying in favor of a parody where somehow you're smarter, more compassionate, and more educated than the people around you. Of course you come out well there. It's just not reality.
If you are proved incorrect or further data comes out which supports climate change, your ideology allows you to pretend it doesn't exist. You can make up whatever you want and go merrily along.
...
Says the guy who, as proof of corporate control, cites his local gas company following federal law (ie, government power (to protect him) and threatening civil court action if their required inspection is not allowed. (Or else they'll be punished by government power) And thinks he's proven his point.
Dude, what you just said there is what you do all day long. And then think you're winning the argument.
Just like:
Until more research is done, I don't think we should "remake" the world economy based on the research.
...
We should be going balls deep on green energy simply because of the fact that the Chinese are going to beat us in the market.
So you don't think we should remake the world economy, we just should remake the world economy.
Do you even read your own comments?
There isn't really a market for "Green Power" internationally. It's "power". Usually electrons. And "going green" means that your power costs more. And you keep accepting, at face value the Chinese claims.
Mark, care to go look at the claims the USSR made, versus the realities? Why are you taking the word of a massively repressive government?
More importantly, why are you holding them up as a example to emulate, then screaming that you're not in any way to be connected to Communism/Fascism/Socialism?
You know, it's even possible the Chinese aren't lying through their teeth (all the history and evidence to the contrary notwithstanding). Because when you're A REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT you get to do things. And when people don't do them, you shoot them. Or run them over with a tank. TADA. It's not a model I support, and it's telling that it's one you do.
This would be true not only of climate change but also of proving me wrong...which would, of course, mean that I am wrong about EVERYTHING (dum dum dah!!!!)
First, pick a side. Warming, or cooling. Stop it with the "climate change" nonsense. Either it's getting warmer (due to us) or it's getting cooler (due to us). "Climate Change" is an weaseling admission that your entire "AGW" (which is a specific claim) is already scientifically defunct.
Second, It's not a dramatic horn crash. It's the BAH duh bah rimshot from the drummer.
... because like a bad comic who's not paying attention to the audience, it's regular, unsurprising, and ongoing. Again with the hero reference. Again completely wrong and self-refuting.
So we have cooked books, tossed original data, actively breaking the law, each member at the center lying for the other, fraud, embezzlement, etc, etc.
Does RICO apply here because it sounds like a mob operation!
N.B. For the humor impaired, this is (mostly) tongue in cheek.
For Marxy, do shut up. Yes, we are all amazed you can string words together to form sentences, but no, no one cares that you can. Yes, we are all amazed you are wrong every time you post something, but no, no one is surprised any more.
"... no one is surprised any more."
That's not true. Every time I assume he's hit rock bottom, couldn't possibly say something dumber, or make even more of an ass of himself, he proves my assumptions incorrect.
It's not at all like watching someone digging a hole and making guesses at far down he can dig only to be proven wrong. Instead, it's like watching such a person dig all the way through the Earth, rationally concluding there's no further he can dig in that direction, and then finding he's somehow attached another planet to his point of exit and is now digging through THAT one.
Mark has now dug through an entire solar system of idiocy.
"It boils down to this: I keep thinking that you cannot be real. I simply cannot imagine how anyone could possibly be so intellectually bankrupt that even the simplest concepts of logic escape you."
He's real, Ed. He is not intelligent enough to post what he posts without it being real. What drives him is that he cannot admit significant error. He continues to double down, day after day after day, because he knows he is not at risk by doing so.
I have stated this many times, and he has never disputed it. Why not? Because to dispute it would bring endless challenges to demonstrate it. He won't do that before the sun goes nova, and he knows it.
"As a result, I both despise and pity you. Pity because the ability to recognize truth completely eludes you."
pity
n. Sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another.
Nope. His misfortune and suffering are intentional and self-inflicted. He does not deserve sympathy.
"the more emotionally involved we are with a belief the more likely it is that we will manage to ignore whatever facts or arguments might tend to undermine it."
That's YOU, sack boy, but you don't have the sack to admit it.
"The one problem with your little notion here, DJ, is that as soon as a scientist says that climate change is happening then it becomes politics."
There you go again, sack boy, with your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response, by which you deliberately miss the point, laying on one straw man after another.
So, let's try it again, teacher boy, and see if you fail the class yet again.
If a person declares that the climate is warming because of human-generated CO2 but that person refuses to release the data he reasons from and/or the methodology by which he reasons from it, then that person is not engaging in the methodology of science. The methodology of science requires that both raw data and analysis therefrom be laid open for review by all so that errors might be discovered. Such is the core of the scientific method. If that person then further declares that the economies of the world ought to be hammered into reducing CO2 emissions, then that person is engaging in politics.
The problem here is that, yet again, you cannot admit that someone who comments in Kevin's parlor is correct about anything significant. It is simply beyond you.
No, I think Ed is wrong. You deserve nothing but the scorn that we heap on you and the contempt in which we hold you. You have earned nothing less, and nothing more.
Adam, too true. I'm not surprised he keeps digging, I am surprised that somehow there is another planet underneath the hole!
You'd think, since Al Gore Has Told Him So And So He Knows It that the inside of the earth is millions of degrees, that digging toward that would be very, very bad.
"the more emotionally involved we are with a belief the more likely it is that we will manage to ignore whatever facts or arguments might tend to undermine it."
You mean like the belief in evil mankind causing AGW despite the fact that the raw data in Australia shows absolutely no trend of rising temperature? You only get such a result by "homogenisation" of the data (i.e. cooking it until it accords with belief).
It amazes me that you keep describing yourself without knowing it.
"Nope. His misfortune and suffering are intentional and self-inflicted. He does not deserve sympathy."
Yes it is self-inflicted. But he is still a human being who will suffer, however willingly. That's why I pity him. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Likely so, Ed. I cut him no slack because, self-inflicted or not, his suffering is intentional. It doesn't have to be; he can cure it at any time, but he won't.
Well now. This report out of Hopenhagen is interesting. I picked up three primary points from it:
1) When you look at the session titles and literature at the conference, it becomes clear that "Climate Change" is intimately tied to socialism.
2) The "environmentalists" are hypocrites.
3) They are actively excluding journalists who they think might tell people what's actually going on there.
As Bill Whittle notes, you can't make this stuff up.
Ah, but this is interesting. The money quote is (emphasis added):
"In other words, we’re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history. But the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still. It doesn’t even stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.
"Does this mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? No.
"Does it mean that it isn’t warming? No.
"Does it mean that we shouldn’t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels? Of course not. We should do all those things for many reasons — but there’s plenty of time to do them the right way, by developing nanotech. (There’s plenty of money, too, but it’s all going to climate science at the moment. :-) ) And that will be a very good thing to have done if we do fall back into an ice age, believe me.
"For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock."
Now, read the whole thing for a proper context.
Hat tip to Ace of Spades.
Oh goody. More data for Marxy to ignore. ;)
Now this is fascinating, and its relevance is self-explanatory.
Enjoy!
"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>