Re: [RC] Global Warming

BILROJ Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:56:19 -0700

 

Ernie :
What strikes  me is how oblivious both L & R are to their motivations.
 
To simplify, the Left, highly suspicious  of corporations even while 
not-so-Left Democrats cozy up to Wall  Street, wants maximum restraints
placed on corporate America  --for  the sake of a clean environment
even at the cost of jobs and  productivity, which it cannot admit publicly.
The Right places a priority on jobs and  productivity and if this means
that if the environment is sacrificed in  the process, sobeit. Except that
the Right cannot admit this either, and  as a result creates a mythology
that global warming is all a giant  hoax.
 
Two kinds of denial are in play. Both,  since each IS a form of denial,
is intrinsically dishonest even if these  are lies each side seems to
believe in with some degree of  sincerity.
 
There is a kind of logical ( obviously  not substantive ) parallel to 
Holocaust
deniers and Holocaust  maximizers.  One says that while there were deaths,
"only" a few hundred thousand Jews  perished, or maybe one million or so.
The other side insists that a 6 million  tally is absolute truth and must 
never
be questioned no matter what the data  actually says  --which seems to be
in the 4-1/2 million to 5 million range.  That is, the actual numbers 
have been sacrificed to political  purposes.
 
Same kind of  thing with respect to  global warming maximizers vs 
minimizers.
 
 
OK, how do we come up with a Radical  Centrist position on the issue ?
 
 
Billy
 
 
======================================
 
 
 
4/23/2012 5:52:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight  Time, [email protected] 
writes:

Here is some of the computer code and links to computer code and/or
e-mails that were used to "hide the decline" that they were seeing in the
Global
Temperature data. Why?? Their vaunted Hockey stick graphics required a
continual rise. A rise that they were not getting unless they, um, "cook the
books."

ClimateGate was news in 2009. The data has moved on from then.

The best analysis I've seen (as best I can recall) is that:

a) Yes, there is some warning

b) The direct warming is only one degree or so, which isn't that big of a
deal

c) Different models predict different amounts of *indirect* warming, which
could be *up to* 10 degrees -- which would be a big deal

d) The key phrase is "up to" -- it could be that, it could be way less

e) Best hard data I've seen is that there is a 90% chance of "substantial"
global warning, with 10% chance of only "minor" warming

Given those facts, it is easy to see why both sides accuse the other of
shoddy science. The Lefts sees the 90% and says "Ha, the scientific
consensus is that the earth will get dramatically warmer." The Right sees the
10%
and says "Ha, there isn't a real consensus, it is all a hoax."

Both are crude oversimplifications. The reality is it is a crapshoot; we
don't know for sure. This makes it easy to project our ideological
preferences onto the data.

The wise response is to take prudent steps that make sense anyway -- like
increasing efficiency while reducing dependence on oil, which makes sense
for a ton of other reasons. Over time, we can develop better estimates. But
don't push for solutions that may cause more problems than they create (in
either direction) until we have the data to support them.

Alas, such data-driven nuance is foreign to our politics….

-- Ernie P.

On Apr 22, 2012, at 6:24 PM, David R. Block wrote:

_http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified
/_
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/)

So yeah, I really believe them. NOT. It looks like they took a course "How
to Destroy your Reputation 101" or maybe even the graduate level 601
course. :-)

In fact, there is a European website devoted to those trying to "hide the
decline" and serve us junk science so that we will have junk policies, that
will junk our economy and it seems as fi Obama and the EPA are very
willing to force them on us, particularly cap and trade.
_http://hidethedecline.eu/_ (http://hidethedecline.eu/)

If Cap and Trade is dead, why does the EPA have a section on it? Because
it is a policy that they are implementing without Congressional Legislation.
_http://www.epa.gov/captrade/_ (http://www.epa.gov/captrade/)

Who needs the Constitution in this day and age? WE DO. To prevent this
kind of shit.

So I would rather be a denier that a promoter of fraudulent data,
fraudulent science, and fraudulent conclusions. You get to the point (well, I
do,
anyway) where you wonder if these guys in the "scientific" community are hip
to Cloward-Piven or what? With cap and trade it seems as though they are
quite familiar with that. If not bankrupting the government, they'll just
bankrupt the people.

I could send 62 MB of zipped e-mails, program code, and documentation
showing the gyrations that had to be done to get global warming to be
classified as a crisis but they're all in one nice neat location,
_http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/_
(http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/)
where there is also excerpts from the e-mail exchanges and links to the
actual e-mail chains themselves. And this guy DOES call it a climate
conspiracy. The perps make it look like one.

I also have another 173 MB of zipped files from between 2009-2011 that
shows even more collaboration and manufacturing of data.

Russia even notes that the data from its stations were altered or
eliminated which would naturally cause temperatures to appear to rise as data
from
the coldest nation is excluded from consideration
_http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/_

(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/)

Re: [RC] Global Warming

Reply via email to