[G_R__E_G]

I just read this entire thread. I can save any new readers some time, here it is in brief.

- Climate change is not bad, in fact it's good.
- No, it's bad.
- No, it's pretty good.
- Actually it's great!!
- No, it's bad. Really, really bad.
- Blah, blah, blah.
- Al is a troll.
- Blah, blah, blah.
- Blah, blah, blah.

Okay, I may not have read every post but I stand by my rendition.

[Al_U_Card]

hotShot, on 2011-July-07, 06:10, said:

You are basically right, but why don't you put AL on your forum ignore list?

I 've just done that, so I don't have to see them any more.


And he might have accidentally made a bridge related post here, but that would definitely be his only one.

Well, out of my over 4,000 posts in here, at least 2,000 were non-Water Cooler related. (When I was actively playing on a regular basis.) Then they started this section which was more fun to post in, for the most part. Feeling free to go wherever current events and speculation led, there were lots of topics that were enjoyable to exchange in. Some people didn't agree or like some of the topics and stayed away from those. Other topics seemed to draw outrage like flies to %@*!

Aside from the banking/financial crisis that is enveloping the world, the issue of CAGW was, for me, also quite interesting. Diverse views that oppose the recently installed status-quo appear, however, to be much less acceptable. As far as the mendacity and veracity of the official record as it stands currently, I suppose that only time will tell. I will always be willing to change my mind, should the situation warrant, as I started out a warmist initially until I delved into the subject, whether rightly or wrongly.

As for being a troll, if I qualify then it doesn't pay at all. (If you know of sources, please send contact info for who to see about receiving compensation as I can use the income supplement in retirement.) Perhaps based on one of the above studies concerning funding, I should change back to the warm side and see about getting a paycheque?

[G_R__E_G]

I think the main point that you're missing Al is that this is the Watercooler. It's called that for a reason. The watercooler is a place for light discussion. We come here for a brief respite from reading about compound squeezes and esoteric bidding systems to read about types of cheese and to possibly share a fart joke. If you'd like to discuss the effects of farting on global warming then I'm sure the audience would be more receptive.

[Al_U_Card]

G_R__E_G, on 2011-July-08, 14:46, said:

I think the main point that you're missing Al is that this is the Watercooler. It's called that for a reason. The watercooler is a place for light discussion. We come here for a brief respite from reading about compound squeezes and esoteric bidding systems to read about types of cheese and to possibly share a fart joke. If you'd like to discuss the effects of farting on global warming then I'm sure the audience would be more receptive.

Ya, I tend to do that, despite having seen the results of the numerous religion/evolution/politics threads in here.

Mea maxima culpa, but I learn.

[Winstonm]

The problem I have with the skeptics reminds me of the scene from Dark Knight were Morgan Freeman has just been told by an accountant who is auditing Wayne Industry's books that he knows that money is being diverted and that he wants $10 million a year for life for not revealing who Batman really is, and Morgan Freeman responds by saying along the lines of "you are accusing one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful men of being a vigilante who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands and your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck with that."

The skeptic seems willing to accuse the entirety of climate scientists worldwide and the associated sciences with conspiring to falsify the data in order to increase the net worth of Al Gore, and the data they produce as evidence of their claims is provided to them via the energy industry who earns billions of dollars annually by selling products that increase greenhouse gasses.

As Morgan Freeman might have said, "And your plan is to get the world to believe that climate scientists are evil and the Energy Industialists are white knights out to save us? Good luck with that."

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on 2011-July-10, 16:01, said:

As Morgan Freeman might have said, "And your plan is to get the world to believe that climate scientists are evil and the Energy Industialists are white knights out to save us? Good luck with that."

Don't forget the tobacco lobbyists.

http://www.sourcewat...ute_and_tobacco

It's worth pointing out that the right wing noise machine has a well documented habit of attacking its enemies in areas where the right is most vulnerable trying to create false equivalence; hence the constant attempt portray academics as trying to benefit financially from the great warming conspiracy.

[blackshoe]

Some niggling little memory in the back of my mind suggests that the left has the same habit.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-10, 17:51, said:

Some niggling little memory in the back of my mind suggests that the left has the same habit.

Actually, this is considered to be one of Karl Rove's real innovations in the whole campaign game...

[cloa513]

[quote name='Winstonm' timestamp='1310335265' post='560153']
The problem I have with the skeptics reminds me of the scene from Dark Knight were Morgan Freeman has just been told by an accountant who is auditing Wayne Industry's books that he knows that money is being diverted and that he wants $10 million a year for life for not revealing who Batman really is, and Morgan Freeman responds by saying along the lines of "you are accusing one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful men of being a vigilante who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands and your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck with that."

The skeptic seems willing to accuse the entirety of climate scientists worldwide and the associated sciences with conspiring to falsify the data in order to increase the net worth of Al Gore, and the data they produce as evidence of their claims is provided to them via the energy industry who earns billions of dollars annually by selling products that increase greenhouse gasses.

As Morgan Freeman might have said, "And your plan is to get the world to believe that climate scientists are evil and the Energy Industialists are white knights out to save us? Good luck with that."
[/quote/]
Not the entirety of climate sientists -there is at five hundred that aren't global warming/ climate change fanatics. Most of the falsified/ corrupted data really comes down to only a few organisations and individuals which comes back to very few people- with great attempts at secrecy to protect the poor data. AGW scientists are mostly either lazy and/or green fanatic (who believe changing the world is important no matter how unethically they do that) or modelling fanatics (who don't care if their models don't match empirical measurements) or main streamers ( who are just desparate to avoid being on the wrong side of the powerful corrupters and to keep the special funds coming which are better and easier to get than the normal scientific funding). Some very rich people including carbon credit traders and treaty beaucrats are making big bucks from climate change industry.

Not true about getting the data from energy companies, its mostly ordinary individuals with very little money behind them who do the hard yards to get the evidence. Some get a few million dollars from the energy industry which is nothing compared to the billions spent by green fanatics who are corporate funded, massive government funds directed at scientists and organisations to support the climate catalysm hypothesis, which are mostly directed by politically driven bucreacrats- more funds to climate departments. The energy industry mostly prefers to directly lobby politicians.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Some very rich people including carbon credit traders and treaty beaucrats are making big bucks from climate change industry.

Not true about getting the data from energy companies, its mostly ordinary individuals with very little money behind them who do the hard yards to get the evidence. Some get a few million dollars from the energy industry which is nothing compared to the billions spent by green fanatics

Quote

As Morgan Freeman might have said, "And your plan is to get the world to believe that climate scientists are evil and the Energy Industialists are white knights out to save us? Good luck with that."

[Al_U_Card]

Either way, J. Gillard, PM of Australia has enacted a carbon tax (due to start in a year) despite the fact that she promised not to do so during her campaign... (oh no! a politician that reversed course? unheard of!)

Since they are to guarantee a price of $13/tonne, FOR 3 YEARS, it should be interesting to see how that works in the "free" markets. Who knows, maybe the CCX (Chicago Carbon Exchange) will rise from its (final value for carbon of $0.05/tonne) ashes and provide another avenue for speculation and fraud....errr investment... just like the European Carbon Exchange.






But it is for a good cause, saving the earth from us by transferring our money to those that know better.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2011-July-11, 06:38, said:

"And your plan is to get the world to believe that climate scientists are evil and the Energy Industialists are white knights out to save us? Good luck with that."

Yep. Those rich fat-cat scientists are out to ruin our public-spirited energy companies, just as they tanned the hides of those gosh-darned honest cigarette companies in years gone by. What is the world coming to?

[Al_U_Card]

Hopefully, the world is coming to the realization that "The love of money is the root of all evil." Profligate profits, gravy-train grants, taxes on simply breathing and speculative "investment" included.

[Winstonm]

The documentary Blue Gold argues a better case for water wars than the skeptics do for green greed.

[Al_U_Card]

There is agreement with the evil done by corporations, in the name of profit, especially when you see how they have adopted the green agenda. Previous references in this thread are clear that climate change is just the latest bogey-man.
Just look at the latest explanation for the recent lack of warming in the PNAS. Sulfate aerosols from China... what, they stopped burning coal from 1980 to 2000? Any excuse is good, as long as the cash is handed over. Green energy has more to do with the color of the cash involved than it does with the saving of the planet and its denizens.

[Al_U_Card]

OTOH that corporate influence has spread far and deeply into academia. Some climate scientists are less than happy viz Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. (from his blog):

The IPCC is now one train wreck after another. After being embarrassed by the spectacle of a Greenpeace energy scenario being elevated to top level prominence in a recent report on renewable energy by an IPCC author from Greenpeace, the IPCC compounds that error by trying to explain it away with information that is at best misleading if not just untrue.

In a letter to the Economist this week Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III (which produced the recent report on renewables) dresses down the magazine for not recognizing that the IPCC has procedures in place to deal with the possibility that authors might impose their biases:
The IPCC has now approved a formal policy on conflicts of interest as recommended by the InterAcademy Council, a network of national science councils. This is an already endorsed increment in a pervasive system and is not a first step in a whole new area. Our new special report on renewables continues the tradition of balanced, thorough assessments at the IPCC.
What Edenhofer does not mention is that the IPCC conflict of interest policy is not being implemented until some time after 2014, after the current (fifth) assessment report is done (of course, nor did it apply to the recent renewables report). The yet-to-be-implemented COI policy is completely irrelevant to any discussion of the renewables report.

The IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri explained the reason for the delayed implementation recently to the Economist:
Of course if you look at conflict of interest with respect to authors who are there in the 5th Assessment Report we’ve already selected them and therefore it wouldn’t be fair to impose anything that sort of applies retrospectively.
If you think about it, fairness to IPCC authors who have conflicts of interest (most notably Pachauri himself) is an interesting concept. One might argue that the legitimacy of the organization outweighs a need for such fairness to conflicted authors, but I digress.

The IPCC involves many sincere people who put forth a lot of effort. It is a shame to see that effort repeatedly scuppered on the inability of the IPCC leadership to recognize that trust and legitimacy are essential to its job. When will the climate science community stand up and demand more effective leadership?

[Al_U_Card]

He's b-a-a-a-a-a-c-k... Viscount Monckton of Brenchley clearly demonstrates why the Australian government push for a "price" on "carbon pollution" is counter-productive in the extreme. Lots of graphs and explanations of the ineffectiveness of policy, using the government's own numbers. I wouldn't want to be an Aussie tax-payer, should this scheme come to fruition. A 7 part video series but it is well worth the watch.

[luke warm]

damn australians have always been troublemakers... they're too damn independent for my one-world, buffetesque tastes

[Al_U_Card]

As the potential poster-child for the greening of a national economy, (Spain is a sort of one-dimensional experiment but not really conclusive, as they are only a bit deeper in their hole because of it.) perhaps Australia will be the test case that provides the proof of just how viable the precautionary principle is and, either way, provide a cautionary tale for all those interested in learning that particular lesson.

[PassedOut]

"Climategate" Scientists Cleared of Wrongdoing - Again

Quote

Once again, Dr. Michael Mann and other climate scientists have been investigated by a third party to see if there was any wrongdoing in the “Climategate” scandal. And once again, they were cleared of any wrongdoing. They had been previously cleared by an International Panel of Scientists last year, by a panel at Penn State, and have been cleared by various other agencies as well. This time, the investigation was conducted by the National Science Foundation, and you can read the report in full here. Like the other investigations, the NSF found no evidence of falsifying data, manipulation of data, or destruction of data by Dr. Michael Mann or any of the climate research scientists based at the University of East Anglia.

Was waiting for Al to point this out.

Next?