The Emperor Has No Clothes.. maybe because it's getting hot???

[heyhey]

Scientists allege White House pressure (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsone&storyID=2007-01-30T210856Z_01_N30346494_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-WARMING.xml&WTmodLoc=SportsNewsHome_R1_newsone-1)

[Computer Hobby]

In Bush's market place of ideas, facts are not nearly as important as ideology, especially ideology tied to profits for the oil industry.

[jedi_knight01]

This should have not surprised anyone, who care about the global warming affects of our planet..

[drisley]

This is such a politically tainted topic that it can barely be debated now. While I don't doubt oil company influence in the White House, the fact still remains that the topic of global warming is one which is used by people with political motives to wield a political hammer on the US. All you have to do is take one look at Kyoto to know that is true. So, any of these guys trying to hammer on the US of the administration rings kinda hollow to me because its just more of the same political shit we always get from these guys.

I just with this topic could be dealt with without the politics. It is a real phenomenon, but unfortunately you can't really talk about it without various political agendas getting in the way.

[heyhey]

While I don't doubt oil company influence in the White House, ....


HAHAHAHHA

Is the Pope Catholic?

If you agree it is a "real phenomenon"

isn't it about time you start electing leaders whose policy isn't driven by Exxon Mobil?

you may want to pay attention to a HUGE story in today's news. The IPPC has unequivically accepted the reality of climate change and that humans are the cause of it.

instead of hiding beyond the excuse of politics why not accept the fact that it is your responsbility to do something about it.... which does involve getting involved to a minimum at least of where you cast your vote. Sure it is a politcal topic but it is up to you to chose the lesser evil in solving it and by the actions of this adminstration that choice is pretty clear.

[Computer Hobby]

Here is a link to the New York Times article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/science/earth/02cnd-climate.html?hp&ex=1170478800&en=7f0ce59ee7d312e5&ei=5094&partner=homepage) Here is a link to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Website. (http://www.ipcc.ch/) It gives you access to the reports.

I suggest you read them before you cry politics. By the way Kyoto was 10 years ago. I agreed then that it was flawed. The world has moved way beyond Kyoto in the last ten years.

[heyhey]

Yes Kyoto is long ago . But today the US isn't signing up with 46 other nations to combat the clearly identified problem. (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2847081)


One must think that someone who has brought much needed mainstream attention to the problem (http://www.climatecrisis.net/) and has devoted much if not all his work of late to the issue .... and wins an academy award and further publicity is brought to his film and this cause.... is a very possible candidate for a shared Nobel Peace Prize (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20070202-121911-4722r) this year...

at least someone who was elected to POTUS is trying to do something on the issue :D

[drisley]

Excuse of politics? Are either of you ACTUALLY disagreeing with me that this is a politically tainted subject, with people with STRONG political motivations hijacking the issue?

Fuck, if you guys (mainly heyhey) can't simply see that, then you guys are both proving my point. I am not arguing to the truth or falsity of global warming, I am simply pointing out that it has now turned into an issue where one has to question the motives of everybody involved in the debate.

As long as the knee-jerk reaction on this issue is such as heyhey just did to me, then this issue will never be resolved. Which is probably the case.

[mbossman2]

these are interesting reads:

Statistical Flaws in the research (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0)

It's not all bad news (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0)

he hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0)

Polar scientists on thin ice (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0)

The original denier: into the cold (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0)

The sun moves climate change (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0)

Will the sun cool us? (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=17fad0e2-6f6b-41f3-bdd8-8e9eeb015777&k=0)

The limits of predictability (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0)

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0)

Limited role for C02 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0)

Altho I doubt that anyone in the "it's already settled" camp will bother...each of these articles bring up excellent points by some educated folks.

[Computer Hobby]

bossman

How much did the AEI "belieftank" pay for those articles? According to an article in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11) the going rate is $10,000 each.

Oh, you know what a "belieftank" is, don't you bossman? It is a thinktank without the doubt.

[jessho]

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

How terrible. The U.N. is using a supposed threat to promote their agenda and there are people that want to expose this.


Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."

The only thing left out of this brilliant statement is Hitler. The guardian is failing to keep up it's biased standard. Who is Ben Stewart? Good question. I found him on the U.K. Greenpeace site as a volunteer. This must make him an expert.

As usual, the peanut gallery uses personal attacks when facts are presented that contradict their personal beliefs.

[mbossman2]

bossman

How much did the AEI "belieftank" pay for those articles? According to an article in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11) the going rate is $10,000 each.

Oh, you know what a "belieftank" is, don't you bossman? It is a thinktank without the doubt.


i don't know...do you? do you have even specific evidence pointing to these specific articles?

but I can tell you that:

Reports of solar output increases have been noted and published since 1999 (well before Bush)

the shrinking Mars ice caps have been recorded and measured since 2001 (a 50% decrease since 1999)

I will continue to review the other articles as time permits.

I have a question tho: what makes the Guardian's report so much more credible than National Post's series? Is it just because one supports your point of view and the other doesn't?

of course the Guardian article could just be part of a coordinated effort to undermine their opposition positions and reporting

[Computer Hobby]

bossman

Follow the money. Who stands to gain if we keep our head in the sand and ignore the problem?

[mbossman2]

CH,

follow the money: who gets the huge government grants to study and investigate the looming "disaster"? also would that money be there if this were just a "minor" or "natural" event?

Both sides have huge financial gains to be made on this issue...beleiving anything else is naive.

BTW, this little cartoon sums up one side's stance on the matter (and they HATE having it pointed out to them):

http://www.cagle.com/working/070122/ramirez.jpg

[Computer Hobby]

What hugh Government Grants?

Anyway the debate is over, bossman. Exxon-Mobil and the AEI lost.

[mbossman2]

What hugh Government Grants?

your short and narrow view gets in your way.

1) Do you think that ALL research $$$ is American in origin? if you do that is unbelievably arrogant.

2) it is only a matter of time before the folks portrayed in the cartoon return to power.

remember these are the same group who decided that the ice age was coming in the mid 70's (didn't happen), deleted the medival warming period (cuz it didn't fit their paradigm), decided that non-existent reserach indicated that global warming was going to drive a huge increase in hurricane intensity (it didn't but they also are hoping that every one misses the fact that this is the beginning of the normal 30 year hurrican cycle) and finally suggesting (and acting upon) the idea those who don't toe the line be cast out and ostracized.

I am not sure that the argument was truly lost as much as hijacked by certain economic/political factions for their own agenda.

[Computer Hobby]

The inquisition was an invention of the Catholic Church. If you didn't believe the earth was the center of the universe at best you were put under house arrest or at worst tortured and burned at the stake. The Catholics were very anti-science and very conserative, just like the AEI and the religious right.

[Computer Hobby]

bossman,

Here is a story from The Street. Com (http://www.thestreet.com/funds/fundmorning/10336832.html) about a conservative who didn't get $10,000 from the American Enterprise Institute. Jeremy Grantham is so well respected Dick Cheney has invested at least 1.6 million with him.

Grantham reminds us of an old logical principle known as Pascal's Paradox. It may be better known as the "what if we're wrong?" argument. If we act to stop global warming and we're wrong, well, we could waste some money. If we don't act, and we're wrong ... you get the picture.

Actually, by not working hard toward fuel efficiency we are putting our economy at a disadvantage. You don't want to disadvantage our economy do you bossman?

As for the alleged economic costs of going "green," Grantham says that industrialized countries with better fuel efficiency have, on average, enjoyed faster economic growth over the past 50 years than the U.S.

Grantham says that other industrialized countries have far better energy productivity than the U.S. The GDP produced per unit of energy in Italy is 50% higher. Fifty percent. Japan: 60%.

And China "already has auto fuel efficiency standards well ahead of the U.S.!" he adds. You've probably heard about China's slow economic growth.


You might want to read it. It is from a conservative economic site about a very conservative reality based fund manager who has had it with people who put ideology ahead of facts.

[David M]

The inquisition was an invention of the Catholic Church. If you didn't believe the earth was the center of the universe at best you were put under house arrest or at worst tortured and burned at the stake. The Catholics were very anti-science and very conserative, just like the AEI and the religious right.

Copernicus, was the first to model a heliocentric (sun at center) solar system and was a Catholic cleric at the same time. He was never attacked by the church. It is a complete fabrication to imply that the man who came up with the concept of the heliocentric solar system was ever put under house arrest and burned at the stake. Copernicus died of natural causes.

I challenge you to document you're statement. I also challenge you to find any point in time where the Catholic church was not conducting science or supporting science. Can you find any names of people the Catholic church burned at the stake for espousing the Copernican system?

There have been plenty of catholic scientists and mathematicians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Not to mention one of my favorites, Father Secchi who was director of the Vatican Observatory and who mapped canal on Mars. He is also considered the father of modern astronomy. I captain a research vessel where to this day we still use one of his inventions, the Secchi Disk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Secchi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secchi_disk

Also, the Earths temperatures has always been in a state of change. For the Earth to NOT change temperature would be a state of abnormalcy.

The Earths temperature is going to change regardless of human activity. Temperature readings are being documented in polar ice cores using the ratio of two different carbon isotopes, where the ratio varies with the temperature at that time in history...and these readings go back tens of thousands of years. They document that the Earth is in a constant state of temperature change.

It is very obvious that the Earth's temperature change is being used as a tool to control human behavior.

You're questionable interpretation of "Pascal's Paradox" reminds me of ancient tribes who when they saw a comet would pray to the comet gods to make the evil spirits go away. Since they prayed and the evil spirits never showed up, it must mean their prayers worked. This is the same logic that many are using to justify changing mans behavior because global warming "might" be caused by mans activities.

If someone says the Earth is coming to an end unless we all do the Hokey Pokey. Should we all do the Hokey Pokey? Even if some scientists say it is necessary? Is that what it's all about? :)

Pascals Paradox actually has to do with fluid pressure at depth. What on Earth does it have to do with philosophy? Explain.

[Computer Hobby]

Copernicus, was the first to model a heliocentric (sun at center) solar system and was a Catholic cleric at the same time. He was never attacked by the church. It is a complete fabrication to imply that the man who came up with the concept of the heliocentric solar system was ever put under house arrest and burned at the stake. Copernicus died of natural causes.

Challenge accepted.

Copernicus held off publishing until after his death. He was already in heaven before the Pope found out about his position. You might want to read this little Copernicus bio. (http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Copernicus.htm)

This is taken directly from the Wikipedia entry on Galileo Galilei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei). You might have heard of him. He was kind of famous.

Psalms 93:1; 96:10; 104:5, 1Chronicles 16:30 and Ecclesiastes 1:4,5 speak of the (in some sense) "firm" and "established" position of the earth. Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth's rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.

By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. The decree did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothetically. For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy.

He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.

Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberate, Simplicius, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicius. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to explain himself.

With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." However, while there is no doubt that Pope Urban VIII and the vast majority of Church officials did not believe in heliocentrism, Catholic doctrine is defined by the pope when he speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Saint Peter) in matters of faith and morals. While Church officials did condemn Galileo, heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church.
He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

Have you ever heard of Giordano Bruno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno)? He wasn't as lucky as Galileo. The Church burned him at the stake for teaching the very same heleocentrism as Galileo.

David, did you pay any attention at all in history class?

[Computer Hobby]

Bossman,

I have a question for you. Why do conservatives have their panties in a bunch over global warming?

There are a couple of theories running around the liberal sites.

The first theory as to why those on the right who are in denial over global warming, is that they would have to acknowledge that the free market failed to police itself again, and the solution will have to come from the Government. This is purely an ideological issue for conservatives.

The second popular theory is "the role of Al Gore in all of this really can't be overstated. I can't think of any other major issue so close linked to a single person.

"Conservatives are afraid to acknowledge climate change because they know it will sound like a validation of the warnings Gore has been giving for years. It will bring up scary issues of Gore 2000 and the even scarier issues of Gore 2008. And they can't have that.

"To modern Republicans, this is a clear conflict with politics on one side and the fate of the planet on the other. And politics always comes first with these guys."

Which is it?

[mbossman2]

and you accuse conservatives of perpetuating stereotypes.

The liberals view global warming as:

1) Only caused by humans (an extension and perpetuation of their liberal guilt syndrome) and can not entertain the possibility that it is a naturally occurring phenomenon. In fact, I find it vaguely amusing that liberals take a very conservative approach (one of little or no change) as it revolves around the environment/ecology.

2) can only be controlled by government intervention, which will do nothing but strip more and more money/wealth from one place and put it in another.

as to why the republicans are worked up...I'll get to that in a bit

[WJWheels]

If someone says the Earth is coming to an end unless we all do the Hokey Pokey. Should we all do the Hokey Pokey? Even if some scientists say it is necessary? Is that what it's all about? :)I've noticed my liberal neighbor already has his right foot "in".

[Computer Hobby]

I am just trying to understand conservatives. They seem to be very religious people who seem willing to sacrifice everything for their conservative beliefs.

By the way, you are wrong on both reason 1 and reason 2.

Even if it were a naturally occuring problem, do you suggest we not take any appropriate steps to deal with it? I know conservatives are primative, but that attitude reminds me of naked chimps running around shaking their fists at the rain. Even Neanderthals took shelter in caves. In fact the whole history of mankind has been to defy nature by expanding our dominion over the world. You against protecting yourself, bossman? You against being prudent? Some might call prudence the very essence of old fashioned conservatism.

How does the market place deal with reducing the use of fossil fuels? There isn't a free market in energy. Last I looked no segment of the economy was less free. It is about as free as the spice trade on Dune.

[David M]

"David, did you pay any attention at all in history class?"

I enjoy a good debate but the personal attacks are uncalled for. If you want to debate then great but not if you are going to continue in this manner.

When someone attacks the individual it demonstrates that the attacker lacks any real substance to their argument. The strategy is to discredit the individual personally because it is much more difficult or impossible to discredit or nullify that persons argument. This is done in liberal politics all the time...I just don't think most people recognize it when it occurs.

How often does the left call Bush "stupid"...rather than stating their argument?

[Computer Hobby]

What personal attack? I need to know if you have ever had any exposure to or understanding of history. That way I will be able to shape my responses in ways you can understand.

Obviously you have no understanding of the history of the Catholic Church concerning the heliocentric earth controversy. You apparently do not have even a passing acquaintance with Galileo who along with Newton and Einstein is one of the three greatest scientists of all time.

Finally, you ascribed to me something that I didn't say or imply. I never said Copernicus was placed under house arrest or burned at the stake by the church. Every school child knows that Compernicus was dying when he gave permission to publish his work, and it wasn't distributed until after he was in the grave. I think asserting that I claimed otherwise was a personal insult.

[David M]

"What personal attack"? Since you do not recognize personal attacks then here is mine since it will not affect you: Are you blind? Did you not see my links about all the Catholic scientists or the writeup in Wikipedia about Copernicus? Do you know how links work? Did you pay any attention at all in computer class?

No harm here since you are too thick headed to recognize a personal attack. Apparently, most liberals really cannot distinguish the difference.

Lets just forget it.

[Computer Hobby]

Fine by me.