Why is this guy still in business?
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's volunteer investigation into documents pertaining to President Barack Obama's place of birth and citizenship now includes the services of a taxpayer-funded ...
The lies roll off the man's lips like music off Yo-Yo Ma's cello. Both are virtuosos - one a cellist, the other a liar.
A partial list.
Bush had nothing to do ...
Happy Friday.
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor.
"Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage. Mitt Romney doesn't even support same-sex car pools." –David Letterman
"The head of ...
Republican Rep. Mike Coffman at a Saturday afternoon fundraiser in Colorado.
I don't know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that. But I ...
Rand Paul:
Call me cynical, but I didn’t think his [Obama's] views on marriage could get any gayer.
We won't call Rand cynical. Ignorant, bigoted asshole is more fitting. An adult using ...
Happy Friday.
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor.
"President Obama came out with approval of same-sex marriage. He said that over the years, he has ...
I've never understood Log Cabin Republicans - gay conservatives who give their support to a homophobic political party that derides their sexuality and refuses to grant them equal rights under ...
Finally.
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own ...
Election roundup:
Indiana.
As polls forecast, the Tea Party's efforts to cleanse the GOP of any impure conservatives has Dick Lugar out and teabagger Richard Mourdock in. Mourdock is the new Republican ...
There are lies...and then there are lies.
My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that’s finally what ...
From the papers captured last year at Osama bin Laden's Pakistani hideout comes this.
Like any public figures, bin Laden and his advisers were mindful of the media. Adam Gadahn, one ...
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor. Happy Friday.
"Today Mitt Romney visited a firehouse here in New York City. Of course, he was disappointed ...
It happened to Kerry. Can it happen to Obama? Nope says Margaret Carlson.
Obama’s belief system -- in that hopey-changey business and the post-partisanship thing -- has been altered by reality. ...
Sullivan:
What do Republicans call a gay man with neoconservative passion, a committed relationship and personal courage?
A faggot.
Exactly right, but then could one expect anything different from a political party that ...
And they claim that atheists are immoral?
The ugly side of religion shows its face once again. The words below were spoken at a Sunday sermon by Sean Harris, a pastor ...
It's been fun watching conservatives and Romney twist themselves into pretzels trying to undo Mitt's past words on GM and bin Laden.
Romney, April 2007:
It’s not worth moving heaven and earth ...
In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, a couple of scholars from liberal and conservative think tanks, discuss the state of American politics.
We have been studying Washington politics and ...
Romney's VP-in-waiting, Marco Rubio, is perfecting the conservative sleaze play.
He has proposed his version of the Dream Act in which people who entered the country illegally as children will be ...
Beyond the rhetoric, the political BS, the lies - that is, the concerted effort by the right-wing noise machine to distort and misinform at every opportunity - is the very ...
This piece in HuffPo on ClimateGate perfectly sums up my views on this ridiculous attempt by the right to obfuscate the global warming debate.
A few weeks ago, hackers broke into the emails of one of the Climate Research Unit of The University of East Anglia, and climate skeptics have been having a field day making mountains out of molehills about what the emails contain. The verdict on global warming is in — it’s caused by humans and it is happening and nothing in the emails remotely challenges that. However, with the internet abuzz about what has been labeled “ClimateGate,” we thought we should set the record straight about the rumors, lies and insinuations about what the emails actually contain — and what they “prove” about climate change. “ClimateGate” itself is a misnomer, the nickname should be “SwiftHack” for the way people with political agendas have “swiftboated” the global warming reality. As world attention turns to the climate conference in Copenhagen this December, this email hack acts as a distraction from the huge task at hand of getting world leaders to commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As professor Richard Somerville says, “We’re facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public.”
The article goes on to point out the most glaring lies about the supposed “global warming hoax”. For a comprehensive and intelligent dissecting of ClimaGate, see SwiftHack.
The bottom line is that science does not give a damn about deniers or liars or people with hidden agendas. It marches on regardless of what is being said or written. As it should.
___
To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe.
“The bottom line is that science does not give a damn about deniers or liars or people with hidden agendas. It marches on regardless of what is being said or written. As it should.”
Ultimately,Republicans will be embarrassed on the stance taken on climate change.When it becomes official that scientists were right in their study of the earth’s convulsions due to man made events,we’ll need to be humbled by having done the right thing for the planet and obligated to allow Republicans to continue living in our democracy.
Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can’t afford the risk of inaction.
Rupert Murdoch –
Wonder why Fox employees don’t agree with the boss.
Attention, American and Canadian citizens we are so close to losing our Sovereignty and Freedom, it is barely hanging by a thread! Make your voice and your rights known, as you are the boss not the politicans you voted into power!
Time is getting short and it is coming down to the fact, that soon ( December 7 to December 18 ) I will have to pray to the good Lord to maintain our freedoms and that God will not allow our leaders to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will take away our liberties, let go and let God, this being a challenge to our Lord and Saviour? However, while there is still time to prevent the loss of a lifetime, perhaps loss of life it’s self – I will do what I am able to fight for our freedoms! The whole Climate Change agenda is a proven fraud and racketeering, but the United Nations and Globalist governments don’t care as that is just the excuse instrument they have used to ensnare us, they are going to try to push it through anyway! Has everybody out there become a tree hugger? The tree will be standing 100 years from now, but will you be looking at the tree, from inside the fence of a Concentration Camp? Anyone out there want to fight to maintain their freedom anymore? Please do all you can to preserve freedom in North America!
Canadians: To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom, email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca
Any lawyers want to help out by filing this Copenhagen Treaty be classified as an illegal Treaty, in order to, help save Freedom in North America? ( Unlimited Promotion Opportunity Here For a Law firm to Gain a favorable high profile credibility! )
I just read a report that said Jon Stewart reported on climategate for the first time last night, and that ABC, CBS and NBC have yet to mention it. Comments anyone?
Yes, Tommy, because it’s a non-story. Are you falling for the right’s BS too? If you think there is something here, then you did not follow the links in this post. Do you think that the media should get excited every time the right starts one of their distorion/lying campaigns of misinformation?
If you think ClimateGate has teeth, then why don’t you inform us. If you haven’t really looked into this story (as I suspect you haven’t) then you’re just blowing hot air and doing the right’s dirty work by asking the question you did.
Mario, why are you so invested in dismissing this information? I think you are in denial. There is adequate reason to at least step back and further question and re-evaluate the “consensus of scientific opinion” you crow about.
And yes, I have looked into it on several occasions and while I’m sure my conclusions aren’t as good as your (they never are) I think there is enough there that we should at least slow down and consider if the information that has been revealed has any real impact on the rush to action.
So here, very, very simply, is a quick idiot’s guide to why Climategate does matter.
“1. A bunch of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have been caught out cheating. They distorted evidence, hid or lost inconvenient raw data, manipulated the science towards a particular end, and set out to silence hard-working, decent, honest scientists who disagreed with them.
2. Those climate scientists aren’t just any old bunch of scientists. They work at the very heart of the IPCC process. They – and their friends: for this is a small and tight cabal, comprising around 43 scientists – are the ‘lead authors’ on the IPCC’s reports. They also supply the most important of the four data records used by the IPCC. They are the people telling our political leaders that the world is suffering from catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – caused largely by the growth in CO2 emissions – and that urgent action needs to be taken to prevent it.
3. According to one estimate – by the International Energy Agency – the global cost of dealing with AGW will be $45 trillion (that’s 2/3 of the world’s current entire economic). This will mean our energy bills will rise by perhaps a factor of ten; that we will be subject to more and more pettifogging rules on what kind of lightbulbs we use and how we dispose of our trash – perhaps even how often we’re allowed to fly; it will mean governance by unelected “experts” and technocrats from the UN; it will cripple industry; it will mean higher taxes; it will take money from the middle classes in the Western world and hand them over in the form of “compensation” to kleptocrat dictators in the Third World; it will almost certainly send the global economy diving into a double dip depression. We are, in other words, about to be presented with the biggest bill in the history of mankind.
4. Given what we now know about the reliability of 2 and the basis of 1, are we really sure that with 3 we’re getting our money’s worth?”
Get a grip, TN…and don’t bother linking to wingnut blogs which say nothing. If you looked at this matter in an objective manner, you would know that there is no ClimateGate. There is no information which is being suppressed and more to the point, due respect or not, you are clueless on this subject. You’re choosing to take on the beliefs of the ignorant. Have fun with it.
Okay. So. You think I’m ignorant. I think you’re ignorant…And rude.
Great discussion. Accomplished much.
Why don’t you devote some effort to explaining why the world should follow the Piperni Platform of totally dismissing this information? Explain to us why, upon learning the data has been manipulated, we should not at least question?
We know what your personal opinion is. We just haven’t observed you substantiating that we should accept it as anything more than just that. You’re personal opinion that you believe Science is infallible.
It seems to me the “grip” needs to be gotten by you. You seem somewhat hysterical that some holes have been poked in your Global Warming Balloon.
I think you know where I stand on this issue, but just in case, I’ll restate it.
I believe climate changes naturally. Man is egotistical to think that he can “destroy the planet”.
I believe we should reduce the use of fossil fuels, but if that was really the goal of the progressives, they wouldn’t have blocked the use of nuclear energy.
I believe “climate change” is an effort to bring the industrialized nations of this planet under one governance.
I believe progressives will do and say anything to bring about the changes that they think are better for us. I believe they hold opinions of themselves that they are better and smarter than the average person, and that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot to be crushed.
Does that sound like right wing BS Mario? I don’t blow anyone’s hot air, unlike progressive blogs that just keep repeating the stories that Media Matters and Huffington post. I hold you to a higher standard of independent thought Mario. You show it most of the time, but every now and then you slip back into a progressive chant that gets just as old as a far right hymn.
Mario, may I ask which of the 4 points made by the Telegraph you designate as “Wingnut”? And why? Why should those points be so summarily dismissed?
Most of the information that I have NOT found while I was NOT doing a little research on the matter seems to indicate that while this does not mean AGW is not real, or is not a concern, it is sufficient cause to slow down and do a little questioning. I’m not sure the Wingnut points articulated by the Telegraph say anything differently.
Tommy Pane says: “I believe we should reduce the use of fossil fuels, but if that was really the goal of the progressives, they wouldn’t have blocked the use of nuclear energy.”
To test the logic of your statement, I’ve paraphrased it: If progressives don’t support the use of nuclear energy, then they don’t want to reduce the use of fossil fuel.
It fails. The conclusion doesn’t logically follow the condition. It would have had to be preceded with a proven statement of fact that using nuclear energy is the only way to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Tommy Pane, not for bombing people and not for energy as it is implemented and managed in the US.
We each cannot work on the premise that solar, wind or nuclear technology won’t change. Of course, it’s hard for something to progress when it is neglected.
Tommy Pane, France has demonstrated improvements to nuclear technology that could be implemented here.
I don’t buy that the largest source of energy in the Solar System cannot be harnessed efficiently and effectively. I’m not looking at a static model though.
The thing about doing hard things is that it isn’t easy.
nuclear tech might be a viable alternative to fossil fuels but it brings with it it’s own problems such as nuclear waste. The UK is a perfect example. Sellafield has polluted the ocean and nearby waterways such that no fish can survive any longer in that area
I believe that when something is meant to happen, it’s easy. I view the existence of “hard” as a sign of something being wrong. I question the “need” of things that are hard. We don’t force nature, or what’s natural.
in a perfect world, sure we don’t force nature. Civilization forces nature every day. What’s easy about drilling for oil? it’s hard to do, hard to refine. What’s easy about that?
Again, you question the “need” of things that are hard and I posit what is ‘hard’ to you may be ‘easy’ for others and right
Oh, sorry. By saying “none of us should”, when referring to living life for others, I’m actually telling you what to do. Do I have that straight now Janine? And just how is mocking someone contributing to the conversation?
For anyone that is interested in a USGS report on one of the largest contributors to climate change. They produce massive amounts of CO2 and cause tremendous damage to the ozone in the atmosphere. Does anyone quite know how to stop this pollution from occuring? http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html
Tommy Pane, I don’t believe that we can solve our energy problems without it impacting our lifestyles. In fact our lifestyle is the main thing that is wrong with the world. We eat consumer goods and poop plastic and toxic substances when we’re through with them. We generally don’t work where we live or live where we work. Nearly everything we do in our daily lives has a negative impact on the earth – either fouling the ground, the water or the air.
Humans are becoming chronically ill for some reason and we don’t know why? Have you been in a cardiac intensive care hospital room lately? It’s like the Starship Enterprise – and 80% of the attachments are used once and disposed of. We are supposed to be thankful to plastic and chemicals for saving our lives, but could they also be what is making us sick?
What happens when you simultaneously cut down trees and pump up CO2 emissions? Why are we clearing woodlands to build strip malls when we should be clearing derelict strip malls and building woodlands? Why do we kill off predators and then complain when their prey propagates into our yards and eats our azaleas?
I’m surprised that a Libertarian wouldn’t be fully behind wind and solar power development. It promotes self-reliance. I’m pretty sure that if the do-it-yourselfer tried to build his own nuclear plant, there would be trouble.
In fact, going by the logic of one of your previous comments, I could say, “If it was really the goal of the Libertarians to be self-sufficient, they would fully support the development and use of solar and wind technology and would enjoy seeing their power meters run backwards.” But that is not any more logical than your version.
Is it easier to bake bread or buy it at the store? Is it easier to fix up an old house or buy a new (cheaply built) one? Is it easier to play a cd of piano music or learn to play the piano? I find that truly worthwhile things are worked for.
@Lee, (in my best Mom voice) just because volcanoes do it doesn’t make it right for us to do it. If a volcano jumped off a cliff, would you do it too? :D
And the answer to your question is to offset the CO2 emissions by increasing oxygen production. In other words, plant a lot of trees and grasses that will take up the CO2 and put out oxygen.
Mr. Tommy Pane writes: “Man is egotistical to think that he can “destroy the planet”.”
Really? You think that a planet with almost 7 billion people which has seen amazing progress since the Industrial Revolution is incapable of destroying itself? And what do you base your opinion on? It surely isn’t science.
Because you cannot conceive man having the ability to destroy the planet does not make it any less so. You are not a scientist and you cannot interpret the data used in climatology so you base your opinion on nothing more than your lack of understanding and your political views.
Here’s an analogy for you and any other Denier. Say you get ill. You visit a doctor who orders a complete battery of tests; urine, blood, MRIs and a myriad of x-rays. The data comes in from all the tests and you, a non-doctor, decide you’re going to get the opinion of 100 doctors. Good.
Ninety-five of the doctors come to the same conclusion: you have a disease brought on by your diet which will kill you if immediate action is not taken. The other five doctors say it’s nothing more than a minor disorder brought on by natural causes and there is nothing you need to do. Just keep on doing your thing.
I could further add to this analogy by pointing out that at least 3 of those last 5 doctors have shares in a food processing plant which makes much of the food which the other 95 doctors claim is hurting you. But we’ll ignore that fact for purposes of this analogy.
Here’s the question I have for you; who will you listen to? Keep in mind that you are not a doctor and cannot interpret the test results yourself. You are counting on the doctor’s expertise. I might also add that the mayor of the city you live in (who also has shares in the food processing plant) tells you to ignore the 95 and to follow the advice of the 5 doctors who say all is well.
Mario that egotistical remark is often used on Limbaugh’s show, if he doesn’t say egotistical he says we are arrogant to believe we can destroy the planet, he says mother nature can shrug off what we throw at her, he has been saying this for years. most likely he heard it there at one time or somewhere similar and forgot and now claims it as his own idea.
Mario – “Tell me sir, who do you listen to and why?”
I listen to myself. I follow my own judgement. Under your analogy, I still have a choice. Under global warming treaties, all of our choices will be limited, regardless of our individual levels of responsibility. Stripping a planet’s populace of choice is not a formula for teaching that populace responsible free will. It’s not the way to evolve as a species.
Does anyone remember the Riddler played by Jim Carrey, sucking down all of those thoughts from the “box” as he slowly goes insane? Sorry for the lame pop culture but dang…I love these chains. Okay, add ingredients, then stir the pot:
TN-fair points, especially in light of the facts about source data, if the data is fixed, the theory is fixed. There are a couple of monkeys in your wrench however. 10 years of hacked emails and we have a couple of very unspecific statements (i.e. they don’t say what decline they are hiding or when it was ocurring). Nate Silver at 538 has an interesting post (and comment chain) on this topic…yes he is a liberal, but he is rock-solid analytically and not given to partisanship. The fact that East Anglia does not have original raw data is troubling (sloppy academic work at a minimu, and why Phil Jones is on suspension). NASA and NOAA do, however have intact raw data on surface temps, tropospheric and stratespheric temps, et. al. Multiple competing research universities have raw data from ice cores (for CO2 atmospheric ppm over time). The national ice center has detailed raw data for the decline of polar ice caps (what Frances et. al. would call wingnut sites typically can’t seem to understand the difference between ice area and ice volume…I know you can). I still feel that anthropogenic climate change is very much settled science. Of course I also firmly believe that there are compelling commercial and national security reasons to move aggresively away from fossil fuels…but that is another post (Mario?). One more thought TN…and I pose this is a logical “challenge”. I am often ammused at the notion that thousands of for-profit media organizations with the freedom to operate of their own volition would cooperate in a plot to bring Marxism/Communism into the norm in the United States. I guess I need to see motive to believe in “vast conspiracies” from either wing. What is the motive for a theoretical climate change hoax. Supporters cross so many boundaries in so many countries as to have competing interests. There are also easier ways to gain political power in most countries. In the United States in particular, climate change seems more about losing power than anything else. A very large, and ever-expanding range of Fortune 500 firms and other businesses are embracing the reversal of climate change and sustainability in their mission statements and corporate structures. And be careful here, if you say those businesses have a profit motive…well, you know. Anyway…could not resist jumping feet first into this one!
Frances – I’m for any alternative energy source that can be funded through private enterprise, in other words, is supported by consumers who buy the product. Wind and solar do not meet that criteria. Both are heavily subsidized by tax dollars, money that’s taken from us forcibly.
I can see solar panels on commercial rooftops being made viable. Wind power, in my opinion, is something pushed by the companies producing the turbines and the landowners who are being paid for the use of their land.
I’ve just spent the last 1/2 hour trying to find a link to an article I read about a year ago, which gave me the first glimmer of hope for a sustainable, renewable energy production system that could be scaled to apply to a single family home. If involved using solar panels to produce hydrogen gas, which is stored and used to run a fuel cell that then produces the home’s electricity. I can envision a unit the size of refrigerator sitting next to everyone’s home, making each of us energy independent.
Michael, I’ll have to go simple on my answer. (I know. I can hear you all giggling all the way over here.)
All I have said is this information should give us cause to slow down for a minute and re-evaluate if this “revelation” impacts the known and accepted data.
I’m for point #4:
“4. Given what we now know about the reliability of 2 and the basis of 1, are we really sure that with 3 we’re getting our money’s worth?”
defolts, you mean someone else says this? I have been saying this for years and have NEVER heard Limbaugh, O’Reilly or anyone else say the same.
Similar, my comments on Life on other planets. I feel man is either egotistical or arrogant to think that in something as vast as the universe, we are the only intelligent life form in existence.
You can think I heard it somewhere else if it makes you feel more secure.
TN…point taken and (largely) agreed/no giggling…ok ok, maybe a little giggling. Tommy, Ms. Bachman aside, can I be a little hypercritical?
“Wind power, in my opinion, is something pushed by the companies producing the turbines and the landowners who are being paid for the use of their land.”
Tommy…that sounds remarkably like…business. Oil and Coal power are pushed by the companies and landowners in their value chains, and both are HEAVILY subsidized products. Wind and Solar are largely infant industries, and as such are dealing with the tight margins that define young capital-intensive industry. Nuclear, which I am growing more and more comfortable with, is even less “cost-effective” when you ONLY look at on sheet capital expense. The trick, if I may suggest, is to properly value the external costs to the economy of all of the various sources of energy. Ultimately, it will take smart investments in a diversified energy portfolio to meet the needs. Those investments require TAX dollars (I know, I said it). The marketplace is not (and can’t be) structured to make large paradigm shifts without the help of the people. It is simply a question of scale. Externalities are a touchy subject, but they exist outside of the realm of nature geeks and polar bear lovers. I would suggest looking up “hot, flat, and crowded powerpoints”. Friedman puts out an interesting graph (they are country-specific in the book) regarding what he sees as an inverse relationship between the price of oil, and freedom. It is not completely quantitative, but the premise is easily cross-checked and very convincing. If we can lower international demand for oil, then we can choke off the funds to what Friedman calls “Petrodictatorships”; you know, our buddies Ahkmadenajad, Chavez, Putin, and whoever the heck is in charge of Nigeria. As those funds are choked off, the pinheads become amazingly open to reason. National security represents an enormous externality, and is very difficult to do present value costing on.
Frances, I’m glad to see that George, Rush and Bill agree with me. (If I have to pick which of the 3 makes me the most proud, it would be George!) And this guy seems to agree with me also:
““We must also be alert to the danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 Farewell Address
Frances,
Planting trees are a wonderful suggestion. Thank you for the idea. I believe that it is reasonalbe to assume that if just 10 percent of the worlds population planted 10 trees that we could make a tremendous difference. Arbor day is a wonderful reminder of this noble act of environmental responsibility.
I am curious though, do you always react so indignantly to facts?
I simply put forth a USGS report and commented on their findings. It is not my opinion that each single volcanic eruption does more damage to the ozone and produces more CO2 than humanity has in totality. Then, multiply that fact times 70(average number of eruptions per year). Again I have not put forth an opinion. I have simply mentioned facts that are easily available to the public.
By the way, How many trees have you planted in the last 12 months?
@Lee, I wouldn’t call my response indignant. I was just saying that the fact that volcanoes emit huge amounts of CO2 is not an argument for not trying to reduce carbon emissions from human-controlled sources. I did not see in that USGS article where it said specifically that volcanic gasses had such an impact on the atmosphere that it rendered the human contribution inconsequential.
How does whether I’ve planted trees in the last 12 months effect the fact that trees absorb CO2 and emit oxygen? Our family plants a tree every year, if you really want to know. 5000 years ago, 46% of the Earth’s surface was forest. Now it is about 29.6%. 16.4% may seem like a small decrease for such a long period of time, but it plays a significant role when coupled with the Earth’s naturally-produced climate effectors.
“The bottom line is that science does not give a damn about deniers or liars or people with hidden agendas. It marches on regardless of what is being said or written. As it should.”
I totally agree.
Ultimately,Republicans will be embarrassed on the stance taken on climate change.When it becomes official that scientists were right in their study of the earth’s convulsions due to man made events,we’ll need to be humbled by having done the right thing for the planet and obligated to allow Republicans to continue living in our democracy.
Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can’t afford the risk of inaction.
Rupert Murdoch –
Wonder why Fox employees don’t agree with the boss.
Attention, American and Canadian citizens we are so close to losing our Sovereignty and Freedom, it is barely hanging by a thread! Make your voice and your rights known, as you are the boss not the politicans you voted into power!
Time is getting short and it is coming down to the fact, that soon ( December 7 to December 18 ) I will have to pray to the good Lord to maintain our freedoms and that God will not allow our leaders to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will take away our liberties, let go and let God, this being a challenge to our Lord and Saviour? However, while there is still time to prevent the loss of a lifetime, perhaps loss of life it’s self – I will do what I am able to fight for our freedoms! The whole Climate Change agenda is a proven fraud and racketeering, but the United Nations and Globalist governments don’t care as that is just the excuse instrument they have used to ensnare us, they are going to try to push it through anyway! Has everybody out there become a tree hugger? The tree will be standing 100 years from now, but will you be looking at the tree, from inside the fence of a Concentration Camp? Anyone out there want to fight to maintain their freedom anymore? Please do all you can to preserve freedom in North America!
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
Canadians: To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom, email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca
Any lawyers want to help out by filing this Copenhagen Treaty be classified as an illegal Treaty, in order to, help save Freedom in North America? ( Unlimited Promotion Opportunity Here For a Law firm to Gain a favorable high profile credibility! )
I just read a report that said Jon Stewart reported on climategate for the first time last night, and that ABC, CBS and NBC have yet to mention it. Comments anyone?
Yes, Tommy, because it’s a non-story. Are you falling for the right’s BS too? If you think there is something here, then you did not follow the links in this post. Do you think that the media should get excited every time the right starts one of their distorion/lying campaigns of misinformation?
If you think ClimateGate has teeth, then why don’t you inform us. If you haven’t really looked into this story (as I suspect you haven’t) then you’re just blowing hot air and doing the right’s dirty work by asking the question you did.
Mario, why are you so invested in dismissing this information? I think you are in denial. There is adequate reason to at least step back and further question and re-evaluate the “consensus of scientific opinion” you crow about.
And yes, I have looked into it on several occasions and while I’m sure my conclusions aren’t as good as your (they never are) I think there is enough there that we should at least slow down and consider if the information that has been revealed has any real impact on the rush to action.
Not everyone shares your dismissive nature.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018696/climategate-which-part-of-over-dont-these-people-understand/
So here, very, very simply, is a quick idiot’s guide to why Climategate does matter.
“1. A bunch of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have been caught out cheating. They distorted evidence, hid or lost inconvenient raw data, manipulated the science towards a particular end, and set out to silence hard-working, decent, honest scientists who disagreed with them.
2. Those climate scientists aren’t just any old bunch of scientists. They work at the very heart of the IPCC process. They – and their friends: for this is a small and tight cabal, comprising around 43 scientists – are the ‘lead authors’ on the IPCC’s reports. They also supply the most important of the four data records used by the IPCC. They are the people telling our political leaders that the world is suffering from catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – caused largely by the growth in CO2 emissions – and that urgent action needs to be taken to prevent it.
3. According to one estimate – by the International Energy Agency – the global cost of dealing with AGW will be $45 trillion (that’s 2/3 of the world’s current entire economic). This will mean our energy bills will rise by perhaps a factor of ten; that we will be subject to more and more pettifogging rules on what kind of lightbulbs we use and how we dispose of our trash – perhaps even how often we’re allowed to fly; it will mean governance by unelected “experts” and technocrats from the UN; it will cripple industry; it will mean higher taxes; it will take money from the middle classes in the Western world and hand them over in the form of “compensation” to kleptocrat dictators in the Third World; it will almost certainly send the global economy diving into a double dip depression. We are, in other words, about to be presented with the biggest bill in the history of mankind.
4. Given what we now know about the reliability of 2 and the basis of 1, are we really sure that with 3 we’re getting our money’s worth?”
Get a grip, TN…and don’t bother linking to wingnut blogs which say nothing. If you looked at this matter in an objective manner, you would know that there is no ClimateGate. There is no information which is being suppressed and more to the point, due respect or not, you are clueless on this subject. You’re choosing to take on the beliefs of the ignorant. Have fun with it.
Okay. So. You think I’m ignorant. I think you’re ignorant…And rude.
Great discussion. Accomplished much.
Why don’t you devote some effort to explaining why the world should follow the Piperni Platform of totally dismissing this information? Explain to us why, upon learning the data has been manipulated, we should not at least question?
We know what your personal opinion is. We just haven’t observed you substantiating that we should accept it as anything more than just that. You’re personal opinion that you believe Science is infallible.
It seems to me the “grip” needs to be gotten by you. You seem somewhat hysterical that some holes have been poked in your Global Warming Balloon.
I think you know where I stand on this issue, but just in case, I’ll restate it.
I believe climate changes naturally. Man is egotistical to think that he can “destroy the planet”.
I believe we should reduce the use of fossil fuels, but if that was really the goal of the progressives, they wouldn’t have blocked the use of nuclear energy.
I believe “climate change” is an effort to bring the industrialized nations of this planet under one governance.
I believe progressives will do and say anything to bring about the changes that they think are better for us. I believe they hold opinions of themselves that they are better and smarter than the average person, and that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot to be crushed.
Does that sound like right wing BS Mario? I don’t blow anyone’s hot air, unlike progressive blogs that just keep repeating the stories that Media Matters and Huffington post. I hold you to a higher standard of independent thought Mario. You show it most of the time, but every now and then you slip back into a progressive chant that gets just as old as a far right hymn.
I agree with you Mario – one cannot have a valid argument that is based on invalid data.
Mario, may I ask which of the 4 points made by the Telegraph you designate as “Wingnut”? And why? Why should those points be so summarily dismissed?
Most of the information that I have NOT found while I was NOT doing a little research on the matter seems to indicate that while this does not mean AGW is not real, or is not a concern, it is sufficient cause to slow down and do a little questioning. I’m not sure the Wingnut points articulated by the Telegraph say anything differently.
Okay Frances, then same question to you. Do you believe the information that has been uncovered is “invalid” and why?
Tommy Pane says: “I believe we should reduce the use of fossil fuels, but if that was really the goal of the progressives, they wouldn’t have blocked the use of nuclear energy.”
To test the logic of your statement, I’ve paraphrased it: If progressives don’t support the use of nuclear energy, then they don’t want to reduce the use of fossil fuel.
It fails. The conclusion doesn’t logically follow the condition. It would have had to be preceded with a proven statement of fact that using nuclear energy is the only way to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
TN, I believe that the release of these emails does not disprove Global Climate Change Theory.
Frances – Let’s get personal. Do you support the use of nukes?
Tommy Pane, not for bombing people and not for energy as it is implemented and managed in the US.
We each cannot work on the premise that solar, wind or nuclear technology won’t change. Of course, it’s hard for something to progress when it is neglected.
Solar and wind are not viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is, as demonstrated by the French.
Tommy Pane, France has demonstrated improvements to nuclear technology that could be implemented here.
I don’t buy that the largest source of energy in the Solar System cannot be harnessed efficiently and effectively. I’m not looking at a static model though.
The thing about doing hard things is that it isn’t easy.
The thing about doing what’s right is it’s easy. Forcing wrong change is hard.
@Tommy Pane
nuclear tech might be a viable alternative to fossil fuels but it brings with it it’s own problems such as nuclear waste. The UK is a perfect example. Sellafield has polluted the ocean and nearby waterways such that no fish can survive any longer in that area
@Tommy Pane, it’s ironic that you would take issue with my statement.
@Tommy Pane
one person’s wrong change is another person’s right
I believe that when something is meant to happen, it’s easy. I view the existence of “hard” as a sign of something being wrong. I question the “need” of things that are hard. We don’t force nature, or what’s natural.
@Tommy Pane
in a perfect world, sure we don’t force nature. Civilization forces nature every day. What’s easy about drilling for oil? it’s hard to do, hard to refine. What’s easy about that?
Again, you question the “need” of things that are hard and I posit what is ‘hard’ to you may be ‘easy’ for others and right
I can’t live life for others, Janine. None of us should. But progressives love to think that humans need to be regulated.
@Tommy Pane
you crack me up. Your posts are full of regulations for others
@janine: I do believe we’ve struck bullshit in PaneLand.
@Frances
ha! who is going to drill?
Oh, sorry. By saying “none of us should”, when referring to living life for others, I’m actually telling you what to do. Do I have that straight now Janine? And just how is mocking someone contributing to the conversation?
@Tommy Pane
I wasn’t mocking you, Tommy, I was merely pointing out that, in my humble opinion, your comments often times are full of regulations for others
I do not know how that statement is mocking you.
If you are addressing my comment to Frances, she made a joke, I laughed. Again, not mocking — just a joke
Thanks for the explanation Janine. I respect your opinion.
For anyone that is interested in a USGS report on one of the largest contributors to climate change. They produce massive amounts of CO2 and cause tremendous damage to the ozone in the atmosphere. Does anyone quite know how to stop this pollution from occuring? http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html
Tommy Pane, I don’t believe that we can solve our energy problems without it impacting our lifestyles. In fact our lifestyle is the main thing that is wrong with the world. We eat consumer goods and poop plastic and toxic substances when we’re through with them. We generally don’t work where we live or live where we work. Nearly everything we do in our daily lives has a negative impact on the earth – either fouling the ground, the water or the air.
Humans are becoming chronically ill for some reason and we don’t know why? Have you been in a cardiac intensive care hospital room lately? It’s like the Starship Enterprise – and 80% of the attachments are used once and disposed of. We are supposed to be thankful to plastic and chemicals for saving our lives, but could they also be what is making us sick?
What happens when you simultaneously cut down trees and pump up CO2 emissions? Why are we clearing woodlands to build strip malls when we should be clearing derelict strip malls and building woodlands? Why do we kill off predators and then complain when their prey propagates into our yards and eats our azaleas?
I’m surprised that a Libertarian wouldn’t be fully behind wind and solar power development. It promotes self-reliance. I’m pretty sure that if the do-it-yourselfer tried to build his own nuclear plant, there would be trouble.
In fact, going by the logic of one of your previous comments, I could say, “If it was really the goal of the Libertarians to be self-sufficient, they would fully support the development and use of solar and wind technology and would enjoy seeing their power meters run backwards.” But that is not any more logical than your version.
Is it easier to bake bread or buy it at the store? Is it easier to fix up an old house or buy a new (cheaply built) one? Is it easier to play a cd of piano music or learn to play the piano? I find that truly worthwhile things are worked for.
You surprise me if you really are a Libertarian.
@Lee, (in my best Mom voice) just because volcanoes do it doesn’t make it right for us to do it. If a volcano jumped off a cliff, would you do it too? :D
And the answer to your question is to offset the CO2 emissions by increasing oxygen production. In other words, plant a lot of trees and grasses that will take up the CO2 and put out oxygen.
I support the use of Nukes, I believe clean coal is an oxymoron but Nuclear energy along with, solar, wind and natural gas is the way to go.
Mr. Tommy Pane writes: “Man is egotistical to think that he can “destroy the planet”.”
Really? You think that a planet with almost 7 billion people which has seen amazing progress since the Industrial Revolution is incapable of destroying itself? And what do you base your opinion on? It surely isn’t science.
Because you cannot conceive man having the ability to destroy the planet does not make it any less so. You are not a scientist and you cannot interpret the data used in climatology so you base your opinion on nothing more than your lack of understanding and your political views.
Here’s an analogy for you and any other Denier. Say you get ill. You visit a doctor who orders a complete battery of tests; urine, blood, MRIs and a myriad of x-rays. The data comes in from all the tests and you, a non-doctor, decide you’re going to get the opinion of 100 doctors. Good.
Ninety-five of the doctors come to the same conclusion: you have a disease brought on by your diet which will kill you if immediate action is not taken. The other five doctors say it’s nothing more than a minor disorder brought on by natural causes and there is nothing you need to do. Just keep on doing your thing.
I could further add to this analogy by pointing out that at least 3 of those last 5 doctors have shares in a food processing plant which makes much of the food which the other 95 doctors claim is hurting you. But we’ll ignore that fact for purposes of this analogy.
Here’s the question I have for you; who will you listen to? Keep in mind that you are not a doctor and cannot interpret the test results yourself. You are counting on the doctor’s expertise. I might also add that the mayor of the city you live in (who also has shares in the food processing plant) tells you to ignore the 95 and to follow the advice of the 5 doctors who say all is well.
Tell me sir, who do you listen to and why?
Mario that egotistical remark is often used on Limbaugh’s show, if he doesn’t say egotistical he says we are arrogant to believe we can destroy the planet, he says mother nature can shrug off what we throw at her, he has been saying this for years. most likely he heard it there at one time or somewhere similar and forgot and now claims it as his own idea.
Mario – “Tell me sir, who do you listen to and why?”
I listen to myself. I follow my own judgement. Under your analogy, I still have a choice. Under global warming treaties, all of our choices will be limited, regardless of our individual levels of responsibility. Stripping a planet’s populace of choice is not a formula for teaching that populace responsible free will. It’s not the way to evolve as a species.
Does anyone remember the Riddler played by Jim Carrey, sucking down all of those thoughts from the “box” as he slowly goes insane? Sorry for the lame pop culture but dang…I love these chains. Okay, add ingredients, then stir the pot:
TN-fair points, especially in light of the facts about source data, if the data is fixed, the theory is fixed. There are a couple of monkeys in your wrench however. 10 years of hacked emails and we have a couple of very unspecific statements (i.e. they don’t say what decline they are hiding or when it was ocurring). Nate Silver at 538 has an interesting post (and comment chain) on this topic…yes he is a liberal, but he is rock-solid analytically and not given to partisanship. The fact that East Anglia does not have original raw data is troubling (sloppy academic work at a minimu, and why Phil Jones is on suspension). NASA and NOAA do, however have intact raw data on surface temps, tropospheric and stratespheric temps, et. al. Multiple competing research universities have raw data from ice cores (for CO2 atmospheric ppm over time). The national ice center has detailed raw data for the decline of polar ice caps (what Frances et. al. would call wingnut sites typically can’t seem to understand the difference between ice area and ice volume…I know you can). I still feel that anthropogenic climate change is very much settled science. Of course I also firmly believe that there are compelling commercial and national security reasons to move aggresively away from fossil fuels…but that is another post (Mario?). One more thought TN…and I pose this is a logical “challenge”. I am often ammused at the notion that thousands of for-profit media organizations with the freedom to operate of their own volition would cooperate in a plot to bring Marxism/Communism into the norm in the United States. I guess I need to see motive to believe in “vast conspiracies” from either wing. What is the motive for a theoretical climate change hoax. Supporters cross so many boundaries in so many countries as to have competing interests. There are also easier ways to gain political power in most countries. In the United States in particular, climate change seems more about losing power than anything else. A very large, and ever-expanding range of Fortune 500 firms and other businesses are embracing the reversal of climate change and sustainability in their mission statements and corporate structures. And be careful here, if you say those businesses have a profit motive…well, you know. Anyway…could not resist jumping feet first into this one!
Frances – I’m for any alternative energy source that can be funded through private enterprise, in other words, is supported by consumers who buy the product. Wind and solar do not meet that criteria. Both are heavily subsidized by tax dollars, money that’s taken from us forcibly.
I can see solar panels on commercial rooftops being made viable. Wind power, in my opinion, is something pushed by the companies producing the turbines and the landowners who are being paid for the use of their land.
I’ve just spent the last 1/2 hour trying to find a link to an article I read about a year ago, which gave me the first glimmer of hope for a sustainable, renewable energy production system that could be scaled to apply to a single family home. If involved using solar panels to produce hydrogen gas, which is stored and used to run a fuel cell that then produces the home’s electricity. I can envision a unit the size of refrigerator sitting next to everyone’s home, making each of us energy independent.
Michael, I’ll have to go simple on my answer. (I know. I can hear you all giggling all the way over here.)
All I have said is this information should give us cause to slow down for a minute and re-evaluate if this “revelation” impacts the known and accepted data.
I’m for point #4:
“4. Given what we now know about the reliability of 2 and the basis of 1, are we really sure that with 3 we’re getting our money’s worth?”
Let’s take a moment to make sure we are.
defolts, you mean someone else says this? I have been saying this for years and have NEVER heard Limbaugh, O’Reilly or anyone else say the same.
Similar, my comments on Life on other planets. I feel man is either egotistical or arrogant to think that in something as vast as the universe, we are the only intelligent life form in existence.
You can think I heard it somewhere else if it makes you feel more secure.
TN…point taken and (largely) agreed/no giggling…ok ok, maybe a little giggling. Tommy, Ms. Bachman aside, can I be a little hypercritical?
“Wind power, in my opinion, is something pushed by the companies producing the turbines and the landowners who are being paid for the use of their land.”
Tommy…that sounds remarkably like…business. Oil and Coal power are pushed by the companies and landowners in their value chains, and both are HEAVILY subsidized products. Wind and Solar are largely infant industries, and as such are dealing with the tight margins that define young capital-intensive industry. Nuclear, which I am growing more and more comfortable with, is even less “cost-effective” when you ONLY look at on sheet capital expense. The trick, if I may suggest, is to properly value the external costs to the economy of all of the various sources of energy. Ultimately, it will take smart investments in a diversified energy portfolio to meet the needs. Those investments require TAX dollars (I know, I said it). The marketplace is not (and can’t be) structured to make large paradigm shifts without the help of the people. It is simply a question of scale. Externalities are a touchy subject, but they exist outside of the realm of nature geeks and polar bear lovers. I would suggest looking up “hot, flat, and crowded powerpoints”. Friedman puts out an interesting graph (they are country-specific in the book) regarding what he sees as an inverse relationship between the price of oil, and freedom. It is not completely quantitative, but the premise is easily cross-checked and very convincing. If we can lower international demand for oil, then we can choke off the funds to what Friedman calls “Petrodictatorships”; you know, our buddies Ahkmadenajad, Chavez, Putin, and whoever the heck is in charge of Nigeria. As those funds are choked off, the pinheads become amazingly open to reason. National security represents an enormous externality, and is very difficult to do present value costing on.
I heard Limbaugh say as long ago as 1995, I tune from time to time and he still says it.
the debate really should be on how much of global warming is man made,
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070908/content/01125109.guest.html
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkmI.pBhLGnMBEN5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyOTMyaGZuBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0g0NDdfNzI-/SIG=133t60q6d/EXP=1259992510/**http%3a//www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack/you_cannot_destroy_the_earth.guest.html
he has said this repeatedly over the years.
TN, George Carlin spoke of arrogance and the environment. Here he is from 1992:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4
“The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE! Pack your shit folks, we’re going away.” – GC
Frances, I’m glad to see that George, Rush and Bill agree with me. (If I have to pick which of the 3 makes me the most proud, it would be George!) And this guy seems to agree with me also:
““We must also be alert to the danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 Farewell Address
Frances,
Planting trees are a wonderful suggestion. Thank you for the idea. I believe that it is reasonalbe to assume that if just 10 percent of the worlds population planted 10 trees that we could make a tremendous difference. Arbor day is a wonderful reminder of this noble act of environmental responsibility.
I am curious though, do you always react so indignantly to facts?
I simply put forth a USGS report and commented on their findings. It is not my opinion that each single volcanic eruption does more damage to the ozone and produces more CO2 than humanity has in totality. Then, multiply that fact times 70(average number of eruptions per year). Again I have not put forth an opinion. I have simply mentioned facts that are easily available to the public.
By the way, How many trees have you planted in the last 12 months?
@Lee, I wouldn’t call my response indignant. I was just saying that the fact that volcanoes emit huge amounts of CO2 is not an argument for not trying to reduce carbon emissions from human-controlled sources. I did not see in that USGS article where it said specifically that volcanic gasses had such an impact on the atmosphere that it rendered the human contribution inconsequential.
How does whether I’ve planted trees in the last 12 months effect the fact that trees absorb CO2 and emit oxygen? Our family plants a tree every year, if you really want to know. 5000 years ago, 46% of the Earth’s surface was forest. Now it is about 29.6%. 16.4% may seem like a small decrease for such a long period of time, but it plays a significant role when coupled with the Earth’s naturally-produced climate effectors.