Re: [RC] Global Warming

[David R. Block]

Title: "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech

Gentlemen, Look, it doesn't help that in the 1970s, some of those screeching the loudest about "Global Warming" in the late 1990s and early 2000s were all stoked and screaming about the "New Ice Age" back then. I'm surprised that a mere 30 years worth of data can reverse what was then called a "centuries long trend." So, were they lying to me then or are they lying to me now?? And why should I believe them either way?? Those 180 degree turns are dangerous. Gee, I dunno...... Holocaust denial??? REALLY??? Ach mein Gott im Himmel!!!!!!!!!!!!!! David "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."—Neal Boortz   On 4/23/2012 11:56 AM, bil...@aol.com wrote:   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, ernest.prabha...@gmail.com 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: 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." 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/ 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/ 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/ 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/ More on that: http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/iearussia-hadley-center-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/ http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/08/climate_change_0 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236513/Met-Office-manipulated-climate-change-figures-say-Russian-think-tank.html Or they could have just negligently LOST the data. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data A Google Search on Climategate would help. David    "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."—Neal Boortz   On 4/22/2012 4:36 AM, bil...@aol.com wrote: If the military is taking Arctic melting seriously that is good enough for me,   However, while to the point is well taken that true-believer environmentalists overdo their claims, including making numbers of false claims to try and cause alarm, there clearly are facts that tell us to be genuinely concerned. And,  BTW,  there does seem to be a sort of psychological denial, or political denial,  at work in some of the anti-warming claims also. That is, a "bad religion" of anti-warming denial is not the answer to a bad religion of warming alarmism.       To outright deny ANY warming you would have to believe that there can be causes with no effects.  Uhhh, that isn't possible.     No idea how many man-made BTUs go into the atmosphere each and every day but it surely is well into the trillions. Not counting atmospheric dumping of aerosols and other hydrocarbon chemicals       World at Night  --energy released via artificial lighting     <F4736005-847A-41CF-AC62-11A7B2331D67.jpeg>       "Flaring" burning off natural gas, a global practice-- also there are huge numbers of coal power plants in China, etc and places around the world that use the atmosphere as a dump for heat and chemicals   <8C9F9E10-1C16-45C2-BA3A-D41A707D858B.jpeg>   Thermal map of Earth   <7E0AC7D6-0E68-403C-8180-CD7A74961192.jpeg>       OK, there are some exaggerated claims by environmentalists, and it does seem to me that reports about rates of sea-level rising are excessive, and, yes, you can poke holes in some ecological studies. All of that is granted.   But for me it is far better to err on the side of caution and do everything possible to stop polluting the atmosphere.    In fact, it escapes me entirely why anyone would not want to do so.   Why would anyone at all not want to put an end to use of the atmosphere as a heat and chemicals dump ?    What is the motivation  --what are the real reasons--   to deny global warming ? NOT talking about buying into each and every enviro claim, not talking about becoming a true-believer in the whole agenda of the Greens, but just some common sense and actual realism about what is going on in the world.   And please, don't insult my intelligence by saying that there are no effects. That kind of position is indefensible.     I am anything but certain what all the effects of such practices are, but they can't be good and the sooner they are limited or stopped altogether the better off we all will be.   Billy     -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org   -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org