Hammes: Coal Fires & Groupthink

63 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Phaedrus on December 03 at 10:05 a.m.

  he Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily have reported repeatedly on the story

  No surprise there.

• 

  BlueinIdaho on December 03 at 10:12 a.m.

  I love it when people throw around fraud and all other sorts of charged words in an effort to make their point. For cripessakes, its on CNN, its not buried. But is it really that significant?? Not really. Emails don’t prove or disprove scientific theory. Neither do blowhards on TV and radio.

  Until its undeniably proven or disproven it would still be great if Americans would actively seek out alternative energy resources so that we can break our reliance upon the Middle East. Wouldn’t all of us secretly cheer if the crazy fundamentalists in the ME weren’t even relevant anymore?? Their relevance relies mostly upon their grip on the world’s oil supply.

  So global warming or not, leaked emails or not, discussion. progress and dialogue should not be thwarted by those who seek only to discredit those with whom they disagree.

• 

  hmoffsuite on December 03 at 10:20 a.m.

  Of course, the main stream media is avoiding this item. The emails reveal that misrepresentaion and perhaps a fraud have been thrust upon the world regarding global warming. But, talk about spin! Barb Boxer thinks the real problem here isn’t the horrendous misrepresentation upon the worlds people (at great cost, I might add) but the actual hacking of the emails. What a crime! Rather than calling this issue “Climategate”, she prefers to call it “email theft gate”.

  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70249-boxer-hacked-climategate-emails-may-face-criminal-probe

• 

  Sisyphus on December 03 at 10:20 a.m.

  Agreed Blue. But every flat earther, ignorant of the scientific process, ala Jim Inhofe, will use this as CONCLUSIVE evidence that its a hoax. Its quite funny at the lack of controversy in the scientific community, not to be confused with the lack of skepticism, with regard to man caused climate change, but in the media it rages with full force. Even from a common sense standpoint, I find it unfathomable how people can conclude that the historically unprecedented human population on the planet utilizing machines whose impact can be observed from space, wouldn’t have consequences on the thin layer we call an atmosphere.

• 

  hmoffsuite on December 03 at 10:27 a.m.

  Sis >> ” Its quite funny at the lack of controversy in the scientific community, not to be confused with the lack of skepticism,”

  You got to be kidding, right? There is terrible controversy over global warming and just as many credible scientists belive it to be non existent as those that do. The earth works in cycles. You know that. The fact that information was manipulated and misrepresented, in itself, creates concern regarding the validity of the agument.

• 

  Cis on December 03 at 10:29 a.m.

  does mean that Al Gore has to give back his awards? lol

• 

  BlueinIdaho on December 03 at 10:30 a.m.

  How long did it take you to learn how to fly that black helicopter, hmoffsuite? Have you read the emails? They are rather insignificant and generally give personal assessments on presentations. Whoooopdeeedooo. But, while the black helicopter crowd is busy with this, given their recent lack of success proving that our president was never born, the rest of us will continue with progress.

• 

  OfCoffee on December 03 at 10:37 a.m.

  We don’t have to believe that this revelation is proof that climate change is a hoax. What is important is that this revelation shakes the confidence of the American people in everything for which we rely on data to make informed decisions. That to me is huge.

  More to this specific issue - the global warming proponents have been saying for years that there is no more debate. The issue is decided. And from this (erronious) conclusion has spawned Cap and Trade legislation that could potentially cost Americans billions or even trillions of dollars in lost wages and other costs. And our legislators are going to vote on this using falsified data?

  I agree with Blue in that we need to continue to discuss and research other energy sources and work on energy independence. This development doesn’t affect that effort. But the fact that the scientific community, as well as the rest of us, have been being lied to by the very “scientists” that are supposed to be objectively guiding our decision making throws the whole idea that “the debate is over” out the window, and the legislation that goes with it.

  The fact that the main stream media has not driven this story as it should simply reinforces what we have all known for a long time - it is no more objective than the “scientists” at University of East Anglia. It is still disturbing, but at least we know about them.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 03 at 10:42 a.m.

  “just as many credible scientists belive it to be non existent as those that do.”—Like a large majority of your comments, this is false. There is some debate over the extent of the consequences, but no real debate that it exists. Really why do you think the captains of industry are already on board hmoff? We just had a report from your regional utilities coming on board. The smart people get it.

  But please get me that list of meteorologists again, that’s always good for a laugh.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 03 at 10:45 a.m.

  “But every flat earther, ignorant of the scientific process, ala Jim Inhofe, will use this as CONCLUSIVE evidence that its a hoax.”

  Ah yes case in point:

  “But the fact that the scientific community, as well as the rest of us, have been being lied to by the very “scientists” that are supposed to be objectively guiding our decision making throws the whole idea that “the debate is over” out the window, and the legislation that goes with it.”

  Baby’s still in the bathwater.

• 

  hmoffsuite on December 03 at 10:46 a.m.

  Sis. I would hope that Bent weighs in on the issue. His knowledge of this subject is likely the best on the board. I think it is a hoax and many others do as well.

• 

  marmitetoasty on December 03 at 10:55 a.m.

  I have a huge open log fire in my little house, and I burn coal as well as logs, and yes we still have the coalman come a calling with sacks (proper sacks) of coal, and many have still got their coal bunkers in their back gardens (not me though)…. so we still have a coalman and a milkman and a postman… but we do not have old uncle tom cobbly and all :) or tom dick and harry calling,,,,

  x

• 

  TerryHarris on December 03 at 11:08 a.m.

  The hacked emails are certainly a problem for those of us who think that climate change is real, it’s a problem, and we need to do something about it. It forces us to provide technical explanations for what is unguarded and bad behavior by some scientists.

  But the underlying data remains unrefuted (The statement that any data was “falsified” is false) and the consequences of not doing anything remain severe. As a friend of mine puts it, those emails are not what’s melting the icecaps.

• 

  Joker on December 03 at 11:14 a.m.

  I am going to get on my high horse and proclaim that the global warming debate itself is nothing more than a massive red herring

  The issue is about morality vs. corporate profits.

  We should protect our planet for generations to come because it’s the right thing to do. Our children and our grandchildren deserve to have clean air to breath and water to drink. Boosting corporate shares shouldn’t be the priority.

  Common sense dictates that trashing the planet is a bad idea. Primarily because we only have one Earth..We don’t have starships to wisk us away to another one once this place becomes too polluted to support human life.

  It’s also a moral imperative to leave the Earth in better condition than we started. The real discussion should be about rules and regulations for industry and how their practices and products impact the environment and whether we’re willing to pay for doing the right thing.

  It’s not an easy discussion, but one we need to resolve.

• 

  Bent on December 03 at 11:25 a.m.

  I wish I had time to jump into this today, but it will have to wait until late this afternoon or this evening…so have it Sis, but be careful what you call facts, though, because I am already fired up after reading some of your so called facts…

• 

  BillH on December 03 at 11:31 a.m.

  Perhaps the captains of industry are “on board” not because they have been converted to the truth of global warming but because they can see which way the political wind is currently blowing? When the President promises to bankrupt the coal industry? Come on Sis, you know the game and you’re smarter than that.

  I find it interesting that scientists who are most responsible for the current state of global warming wisdom, both at East Anglia and at NASA, have been ignoring FOIA requests for quite some time. Yes, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt. But don’t you think it’s passing odd that if this is truly the biggest threat to face mankind since we came out of caves, those who can prove it have somehow conveniently “accidently deleted” their data?

  The data seems to be melting faster than the icecaps.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 03 at 11:36 a.m.

  “The hacked emails are certainly a problem for those of us who think that climate change is real, it’s a problem, and we need to do something about it.”—but they are doing something about it. Heads are rolling. But the consequences don’t need to be exaggerated.

  Joker you seem to be channeling Al. That’s right out of the movie. And you’re correct.

  For the longest time we conducted business without concern for long term consequences, even when they had immediate costs. The more immediate costs eventually had to be recouped when the consequences became grave, like the mercury poisoning in Japan, DDT in the west, and the Cayahoga burning river for example. You live among the biggest toxic waste cleanup in the hemisphere the consequences of which are far from over. Polluting the air and water required cleanup and the question becomes who is gonna pay for that. Certainly the fairest way is to internalize those costs into whatever product is being produced to that those actual costs are realized. That’s what cap and trade is fundamentally about.

  But we can’t do it by ourselves. China and India have been exploiting the cost savings of avoiding environmental regulations making those countries like us and European nations less able to compete in certain industrial sectors, but we get a clean place to live hopefully. Yet China and India signed on to the Kyoto Accord and we reneged which is reprehensible given the vast amount of greenhouse gasses we produce comparatively. Finding a comprehensive solution will be vexing as a result. Piecemeal solutions will fail.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on December 03 at 11:36 a.m.

  OfCoffee
  “More to this specific issue - the global warming proponents have been saying for years that there is no more debate. The issue is decided.”

  The urgency with which they were trying to squelch the critics showed they knew their lies were about to be exposed. It was never about science for them, it was about politics. And money.

  I love listening to the Global warming scam deniers now. They are scrambling.

  Conservation is always a good idea. I recycle, but it isn’t a religion for me. I grew up learning to care for the land because that is where our livelihood came from. People that use the land know much, much more about conservation than the urban dwelling, littering, earth day crowd. And they do something about it rather than having a rally and trashing the place.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 03 at 11:38 a.m.

  Oh now Bent. I know you have an axe to grind. But fair enough. Another time Highlander.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 03 at 11:41 a.m.

  “People that use the land know much, much more about conservation than the urban dwelling, littering, earth day crowd.”—some pretty pointless stereotyping going on. As someone whose family has been farming for generations your pigeonholing doesn’t seem to fit.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 03 at 11:42 a.m.

  We can thank the brilliant (in terms of propaganda) Republican media consultant Frank Luntz for the spin:

  “The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.”

  http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/pr-versus-science-the-luntz-memo/

  The evidence for AGW is stronger than ever, yet the moronic public has (largely) bought into the same propaganda that said smoking cigarettes is actually good for you.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 03 at 11:49 a.m.

  Oh, and it’s really cold today. Obviously global warming is a myth and a gigantic conspiracy theory. And the sun revolves around the (flat) earth, and God whispered everything into being 7000 years ago, and put those fossils there to test our faith.

• 

  Charlie on December 03 at 11:52 a.m.

  Global warming/cooling has been going on for millions of years, mankind has only been here for a few minutes in that time span and has had a small part in atmospherics, pollution mainly. The SUN is the cause of the majority of our warming. It has been hotter and colder in eons past and man didn’t cause any of it. If the sun were to go out tomorrow, The Earth would become an ice cube in short order devoid of life.
  What should be going on is near total recycling and cleanup of our own backyard.

• 

  Phaedrus on December 03 at 11:54 a.m.

  I think it is a hoax and many others do as well.

  Why, what has led you to believe this?

• 

  Phaedrus on December 03 at 11:58 a.m.

  If the sun were to go out tomorrow, The Earth would become an ice cube in short order devoid of life.—Charlie

  And what does that have to do with the topic?

• 

  spokelooneh on December 03 at 11:59 a.m.

  “If the sun were to go out tomorrow, The Earth would become an ice cube in short order devoid of life.”

  Wow, that’s brilliant man. So relevant.

• 

  Cindy_H on December 03 at 12:10 p.m.

  Here are my deep thoughts on this thread:
  Bent is totally going to school, Sis, which doesn’t happen often and is very entertaining.
  And if Joker’s channeling Al Gore, is he using Nancy Reagan’s medium?
  And I wish OfCoffee would comment more frequently.
  That about sums it up.

• 

  hmoffsuite on December 03 at 12:22 p.m.

  Just one more thing from me. Ask the Vikings about global warming. They know all about it. They had it when they discovered Greenland and named it accordingly. Turns out that warming thing was just in passing and now, Greenland is mostly ice. That darn global warming fooled the Vikes and almost cost them their civizilation.

• 

  Me on December 03 at 12:29 p.m.

  Hey - the e-mails matter not at all - it can all be justified. It’s all about the money, I mean the earth and it doesn’t really matter how you get there - just get there.

• 

  richard on December 03 at 12:56 p.m.

  “Why do you think the captains of industry are on board . . .?”

  This question shows a lack of thinking. What governs much of human endeavor and especially industry? That’s right, green, green as in money. If captains of industry don’t get “on board” as it was claimed, then they will be left out of the trillions of dollars to be earned by the “green movement.” Ask Al Gore how many tens of billions he stands to “earn,” or GE how many hundreds of billions they stand to make due to its support of the global warming “industry” thinking and its “coziness” with Obama?

  And you would think there would be a hue and cry from all those who decried the Halliburton “scandals.” Not a peep about Gore or GE. But that’s another story.

  Ooh, I detect a bit of elitism as well … “get me a list of meteorologists as well” as if meteorology is not a “true” science in the wake of the much more elitist science called climatology. Lack of thinking, again; with a dash of elitism Meteorology, as well as many other sciences, such as geology, biology, physics, mathematics, etc are all required to understand climate … if that is even possible; given that many learned mathematicians say it is not.

  And then there is Loone, who has this belief that all he has to do is call someone a Republican or conservative, identify what they said or did … .and it thus becomes obviously discredited.

  Loone’ could you at least explain what is propagandist about Luntz’s strategy to combat what he perceives (and which may be on the cusp of being proven) to be hijacked science? He says Americans want an open debate … I guess you disagree with that. Your standard name calling just doesn’t make it with most people.

• 

  Sisyphus on December 03 at 1:04 p.m.

  Heh. Lack of thought? Let’s see. Gore conspiracy—check. Liberal elitism—check. Right wing talking points–check. Lots of parroting, not much thought.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on December 03 at 1:11 p.m.

  Spooke
  Wow, that’s brilliant man. So relevant.

  Phaed
  And what does that have to do with the topic?

  Sun doesn’t relate to warming? Why, no wonder you two are such sheep in this topic. You musta missed 3rd grade physical science.

  And Sis, if you grew up on the land and don’t recognize those simple facts, then that explains alot. You musta lost your common sense at that there big U.

• 

  idawa on December 03 at 1:36 p.m.

  There was a cover up, but I don’t think it is the smoking gun the doubters would like it to be (which might explain that outside of the far right media it isn’t getting as much play as they would like). It is sad that scientists would bow to political pressures to falsify data, but then again, we shouldn’t be surprised what money and power will drive people to do.

  Here is quote about the subject on Scientific American:
  “Sadly for the potential fate of human civilization, rumors of the demise of climate change have been much exaggerated. The past decade recorded nine of the warmest years in recent history as well as the rapid dwindling of Arctic sea ice, surely the result of imminent global cooling if climate change contrarians are to be believed.”

  While the cover up is damaging, it does not erase the independent observations by researcher at hundreds of universities and research groups charting melting ice, tree rings, core temps, etc… But what does this all mean … I’m not certain. Then again, I am beginning to think that man-kind may not even be able to fix the problem even if he has too. Thats why my plan is to teach my children to be dirty fighters and prepare for the water/food wars of 2078 ….

• 

  Phaedrus on December 03 at 1:55 p.m.

  CB it was a statement so painfully obvious as to be asinine. Not surprised you understood it.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on December 03 at 2:23 p.m.

  Well Phaed, sometime when discussing this with your type, the painfully obvious is necessary.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 03 at 2:24 p.m.

  Luntz admits that the science concludes that AGW is happening, yet proceeds to explain how and why to dispute this.

  It reminds me of the creationists recent pitch “teach the controversy”, when there is NO controversy in the scientific community about evolution. Nor is their any conflict between evolution and belief in God.

• 

  Bent on December 03 at 7:20 p.m.

  “Have you read the emails? They are rather insignificant and generally give personal assessments on presentations. ” — Blue

  Umm, Yes, I have read many of the emails and what I believe to be objective and professional analysis of the emails, and I (along with thousands reputable scientists all over the globe) disagree that these emials are insignificant.

  If nothing else they are hugely significant in politics. Look at the actions of the Australian parliment this week…

  The Australian prime minister was expected to lead the charge in Denmark next week announcing his new climate change initiative, but after this email scandal broke, the conservative party in the Australian Senate switched leadership and tanked the country’s cap and trade bill… now, the prime minister will head to Denmark empty handed…

  India clarified today that they have no intention of comitting to any carbon reductions, but they will be happy to accept cabon credits if a new international cap and trade system is built..

  Support for the US cap and trade bill has now fallen to 30 votes in the senate, which means that almost half of th democrats aren’t going there…

  And don’t even get me started on China’s so-called comitment to reducing their ” Carbon Intensity”

  So politically the emails are definately signifcant (BTW, I would link all this crap but It’s been a long day… just google it, you’ll find it.)

  Scientifically the emails are significant because… They confirm what skeptics have been saying since the AR4 report came out in 2004 with a huge (hockey stick) spike in the graph that predicts future warming. Nobody could replicate the hockey stick, so they requested data and most people couldn’t get it.

  Theory has to be replicated in order to be consider science… so the skeptics put the pressure on to get the data and in the meantime continued to show why they felt the AR4 report was in error. This is gets complex, but essentially they wanted to know how the IPCC resolved Carl Sagan’s “Young Faint Sun Paradox,” which needs explained in order to accept the hockey stick graph.

  Anyway, when the skeptics (which all scientists are supposed to be) started to bring this up, they were trashed by zelots professionally and blackballed from publishing in the journals… The emails now explain why…

  Meanwhile, the IPCC decides the criteria to review its own work(that’s not peer review) and then selects who they want to review the data. The problem is they got the “value added” data, which was manipulated — according to the emails — to make the model do what they wanted the model to do.

  Stop right here for just a moment ….

  (sidebar) Manipulating data sounds bad at first, but it’s not really bad. I have experience working with four different models and raw data is ALWAYS manipulated to make the model do what you want it to do. However, anyone who does this type of work knows that you must always document what you did to the raw data and explain why. This is done, so someone can replicate it later if it is challenged.(end sidebar)

  These emails show how they trashed the raw data and how they are only willing to allow a peer review using their “value added” data but nobody gets to know how it was manipulated …That is a HUGE foul, and if it is allowed to be swept under the rug, the cedibility of science is a stake. That sounds dramatic, but look at journalism over the past two decades…

  To me that is significant, and needs to be dealt with.

• 

  Bent on December 03 at 7:24 p.m.

  I am beat or I would try and revive this thread, but I’ll just have to let this one go.

  And before I am labled by Sis and others as a flat earther or a denier or a highlander, I will disclose my position on climate change. It is pretty close to this guy in the you-tube:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

• 

  Me on December 03 at 7:34 p.m.

  Thanks Bent - I have had a horrid day (see my blog which says closed until further notice - explanation - maybe later), but have been waiting all day for you to post on this and you did NOT disappoint!

• 

  Bent on December 03 at 7:41 p.m.

  Thanks Me!!

• 

  Cindy_H on December 03 at 7:52 p.m.

  Bent is always worth waiting for!

• 

  JeanieSpokane on December 03 at 8:28 p.m.

  Me - I hope everything is ok. Write to me at jeaniespok@gmail.com.

• 

  spokelooneh on December 03 at 9:14 p.m.

  “And before I am labled by Sis and others as a flat earther or a denier or a highlander, I will disclose my position on climate change. It is pretty close to this guy in the you-tube:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8w…”
  -Bent

  Really, REALLY good stuff there. Man are those kids in Corvallis lucky to have him as their science teacher.

  http://www.gregcraven.org/en/the-videos/approach

• 

  fortboise on December 03 at 9:16 p.m.

  Science proceeds in fits and starts with the efforts of the highly skilled, and the not-so-skilled alike. It’s all too easy to fool oneself. That’s why it’s a team effort.

  Accusations of scam and hoax strike me as interesting only for what they say about the accusers. Indeed, the “political” aspects of the story are important, and may well determine our fate. The likes of HBO readers will keep their cuffs rolled up and stay above the waterline, I’m sure. Others shan’t be so fortunate.

• 

  Charlie on December 03 at 9:18 p.m.

  Thanks Bent, makes me feel better , now I can go to bed.

• 

  Cindy_H on December 03 at 10:38 p.m.

  Me! Send me a note too! Am worried about you.

• 

  Cis on December 03 at 10:41 p.m.

  Bravo, Bent, common sense finally….thank you so very much.
  especially after having such a day and still take time to explain.. thank you..

• 

  Bent on December 03 at 11:07 p.m.

  Geez, thanks everyone… just trying to keep it real… Me, I want talk too. Both Cindy and Jeannie have my email… hope all is well…

• 

  BillH on December 04 at 5:55 a.m.

  Hey, the grid video! That looks like the grid Bush used to decide on Iraq. And Obama has one that he’s working on to decide about Iran’s nukes. It’s a good thing Osama doesn’t have one, you know, to help us decide whether becoming a Muslim is a good idea or not…

  While that gentleman makes an interesting video, and I’m sure his students love him, doesn’t he also suggest we can trust “Big Science” because, well, they’re honest scientists and they only want good for everryone? Where have we heard that before?

• 

  Bent on December 04 at 7:16 a.m.

  ” doesn’t he also suggest we can trust “Big Science”? — billh

  No, I think you missed the point Bill.

• 

  hmoffsuite on December 04 at 7:23 a.m.

  Thanks, Bent, for your input on this particular thread. Your knowledge is appreciated.

• 

  BillH on December 04 at 8:26 a.m.

  Bent, I appreciate what you had to offer last night, but I’m not sure I did miss the point. Check about 5:20 into the video
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

  The point is about integrity of the science that underlies the entire issue. That has again been called into question with reason, and evidence this time, as you calmly and ably presented. Doing something drastic about it based on a simplistic risk grid which begins from a hypothesis which is under serious challenge doesn’t seem logical to me, and I was surprised after your first post that you then linked to Greg Craven. I simply tried to poke everyone’s “skeptic” button, which by the way most everyone in here keeps close by their keyboards.

• 

  richard on December 04 at 9:05 a.m.

  “Not much thought” - Do you have a mirror? it is time take a peek.

• 

  Bent on December 04 at 11:06 a.m.

  Bill I see your point… but like I said, Craven is “close” to where I am at on this issue.

  I guess my point is this: if there is a global desire for cleaner air, let’s just decide we want cleaner air, set some goals and work toward those… As long as it is done in a realistic, rational and attainable manner.

  However, I don’t like the idea of using the IPCC’s work to create histeria and justify drastic action. .

  I agree with Craven in that I believe we are wasting a lot of time arguing over something that I seriuously doubt we can change.

  We may very well be experiencing some level of global climate change, but I am not convinced it spells catastrophe. Even if we are faced with catastrophic global warming, I am not convinced that any level of human intervention can stop it…

• 

  TerryHarris on December 04 at 11:20 a.m.

  For what it’s worth, I thought the Bent-posted video was a little simplified in its reasoning, but ends up with the right result. A lot of conservatives are coming to the same conclusion. Today’s Washington Post has Rupert Murdock, of all people, supporting action on climate change. Rocky Barker at the Idaho Statesman has some excellent comments too.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on December 04 at 11:38 a.m.

  Thanks Bent. That was a massive tome for sure, but well worth your effort.

  Glad I check back today.

  DFO, front page material?

• 

  Sisyphus on December 04 at 12:22 p.m.

  “And before I am labled by Sis and others as a flat earther or a denier or a highlander, I will disclose my position on climate change.”—Hi Bent. I don’t disagree with much of what you wrote other than the severity of the scientific transgression. In fact, I posted that same video last week. I notice you spent the lion’s share of your discussion on the political debate rather than what the disclosure does on the massive amount of evidence demonstrating man caused climate change in the scientific community. Its certainly a blemish on that body of work, and the ones that produced it, but you’ve done little but argue the same point the deniers argue, that the climate change baby needs to be thrown out with the East Anglia bathwater. That conclusion hardly follows.

  I’m not sold either on the ‘tipping points’ aspect of climate change. Certainly climate change has had some significant bellweather years recently on demonstrating its existence. But whether that translates into a sudden massive dramatic storms as depicted in that ridiculous movie is something that the scientific community disagrees which I referenced previously. But there still is little doubt that man is contributing significantly to climate changes that will have major consequences we’ll have to address. And later surely might be too late. Hence the conclusion from the video.

  When I referenced “highlander” I was merely quoting the movie of the same name. It wasn’t meant to be pejorative, just that I looked forward to our next sparring.

• 

  Bent on December 04 at 2:02 p.m.

  I could go on and on about the science Sis, but I would need more room and time to do it. Here is a fairly good explaination in a guest editorial in the WSJ, which you’ll discredit because, of course, you consider the Wall Street Journal bias. (So I saved you the trouble)

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

  I would also love to get into a discussion around why cap and trade is being embraced by big business (Hint: my theroy is that it has a lot to do with the deal China is cutting in Denmark next week. If they don’t pull out altogether before then…) Man there isn’t enough time in the day though… Maybe this weekend…

• 

  Bent on December 04 at 2:06 p.m.

  “I’m not sold either on the ‘tipping points’ aspect of climate change.” — sis

  /sheesh…I almost forgot to address this…

  So you admit that you disagree with the IPCC theroy. Sweet! We are closer on this issue than I thought…

  IPCC specifically predicts the hockey stick rise in global temps within a couple of decades…

• 

  Sisyphus on December 04 at 2:18 p.m.

  “So I saved you the trouble”—that was thoughtful. Thanks. But its not just the editorial board there that’s biased but the author himself. Using that demonstrates to me that you’re still immersed in the media/political debate, not the science.

  Lindzen’s a smart guy. And perhaps corrupted. How ironic given our topic..

  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

  I love this quote about him. “Lindzen ‘clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.’”

• 

  Sisyphus on December 04 at 2:22 p.m.

  “So you admit that you disagree with the IPCC theroy. Sweet! We are closer on this issue than I thought…”—uh not quite. Please read what I wrote and try not to twist it into more than it is. Yes my point has been that you cannot conclude man caused climate change is a hoax from this if you’ll go back up and look at my original post.

  Dude your fingers got waay fat in the last couple days. Slow down.

• 

  keithincda on December 04 at 2:24 p.m.

  Good stuff Bent.

  This guys keeps things pretty simple on the complicated subject as well.

  http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

  and scroll down on this page for his top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate:

  http://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/

  Especially #9

  9. The claim that the IPCC is unbiased. The IPCC was formed for the explicit purpose of building the case for global warming being our fault, not for investigating the possibility that it is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system. Their accomplices in government have bought off the scientific community for the purpose of achieving specific policy goals.

• 

  Bent on December 04 at 6:35 p.m.

  Yeah Keith, but his last name is Spencer so he cannot credible on this blog!

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic