Nov
29
2009
How It All Ends
By admin
“What’s the Worst That Could Happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate.” Available from Amazon and others through the links at www.gregcraven.org. Author Bill McKibben said “This book trumps most of our accounts of the global warming crisis,” the former Commander-in-Chief of US CENTCOM Gen. Anthony Zinni called it “innovative and intelligent…. superbly crafted…. A must read,” and the New Scientist said “If Craven could get everybody who has weighed in on this debate to …
The sierra club was probably doing its job when it was first created. They probably did a lot of good too. Sadly this is not the case today. No longer are they protecting catfish, People in large cities will hear green reports of all the things and land they have protected. Living in a rural area, I have seen what their actual protection has done. I recommend watching “mine your own business” to see what the green movement is involved with today. Even the founder of Greenpeace left his org.
Also what kind of revenue was generated from an inconvient truth??? I’ll tell you Al Gore ain’t going broke anytime soon. And the Sierra club is managing to bribe just as effectively as oil. Where do they get that money????? Again quit acting like greedy people don’t exist in your eco world. Money is money no matter whos holding it, and greed always finds a place to rest its head.
So in your translation Kevin is the one who decides what qualifies as “real scientific opinion” that doesn’t soud very peer review to me. That sounds like if he don’t like what the data says he nickes it.
And there you go again tring to seperate the eco lobbyist from the oil lobbiest. Same thing. Both are doing whats in there best intrest. By the way if there is no money in this as you say…. How profits from all the Global warming books i see on the shelfs at barns and noble???
Re: “And the peer reviewed process is going to finally going to be contested after this email”
Oh, that’s just fucking great. Industry propaganda campaigns, via their right wing media outlets, (and here, criminal behavior), have marshaled an army of befuddled rightwing know-nothing half-wits (who’ve astutely figured out how science is broken and the scientists are all crooks!) to bring political pressure for a major intrusion into normal scientific practice.
Yep – that’s just fuckin’ great
(cont)
Re: “The difference between you and me is that I know that a green energy will do the same to me as them, I will always be overpaying, its just the matter of who my money goes to.”
No, the difference is I understand the distinction between science and the political-economy. Do you get how insane it is to attack SCIENCE because you’re afraid of what it says? It like saying “I like smoking, and I don’t want cancer, therefore, I’ll attack any science saying that smoking causes cancer.”
(cont)
Re: “Now this statement very much makes me want to know whats in those papers he didn’t let anyone see. ”
“didn’t let”? The papers he was referring to WERE PUBLISHED!! He didn’t keep anyone from seeing anything! By his words, he DID INTEND to work to keep “garbage” science from making its way into the IPCC report – and that is EXACTLY his duty as a responsible scientist.
FYI – Peer review is NOT a guarantee of good science. It just gets you in the door and into the conversation.
(cont)
Email’s chit chat immediately prior to those “sinister” sentences:
“… The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sondeobs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice. The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it.”
(cont)
Re: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow. Even if we have to redefine what peer reviewed literature is!”
Translation: “Those papers were so flawed that the IPCC will surely ignore them. If they try to include them, Kevin and I will argue that peer reviewed failed in its due diligence to correct or reject them. As far as I’m concerned, they weren’t properly peer reviewed at all.”
Sinister Implication: None.
(cont)
You just compared money for scientific research with industry money for public/political advocacy. Need I point out how absurd that is? Further, tenured academics and civil servants don’t make money off of their research grants, and their job security is second only to life-time judicial appointments. Thus that research money doesn’t translate into EITHER job security or personal financial gain. The situation with INDUSTRY’S motivation to distort, however, is a wee bit different…
12Joeneu,
Your valid point: Yes, the Sierra Club has lobbyists too. Thank God. Those concerned about the environment, unlike the energy industry, don’t get secret strategy meetings with Vice Presidents that the VP will go through many court appeals to keep secret. If there were no “eco nuts” to counter Industry lobbies, 100 million American morons would be parroting things like “Catfish and algae love the muck created by paper mills dumping refuse into rivers – so please, think of the catfish!”
new from AP
In multiple reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, scientists didn’t anticipate ice sheet loss in Antarctica, Weaver said. And the rate of those losses is accelerating, so that Greenland’s ice sheets are melting twice as fast now as they were just seven years ago, increasing sea level rise.
And the peer reviewed process is going to finally going to be contested after this email:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow. Even if we have to redefine what peer reviewed literature is!”
From Phil Jones to Micheal Mann
Now this statement very much makes me want to know whats in those papers he didn’t let anyone see.
PettingZoo, Your listening to the true corporate machine, realise it. How can you not overstand the mechanics of society?
And again look at the monies that were recevied by the republicans for cap and trade to pass the house. They all got money from eco groups. So don’t sit there and tell me your so honest about the way you do business and its me who’s in the wrong. I have no love for oil companies, they fuck me over all the time. The difference between you and me is that I know that a green energy will do the same to me as them, I will always be overpaying, its just the matter of who my money goes to.
Okay here we go,
First off what the hell are you talking about? You are acting like Global Wamers like yourself have no money in this. Let me inform you that the funding for global warming research is at 2 billion dollar a year. kind of make 100 million look like petty cash. Second stop acting like a lobbist for the oil companies is doing anything different than a lobbyist for the eco nuts. They are both special intrest groups who for some reason has caught the ear of washington.
(cont)
By contrast, I stand with EVERY major scientific org on planet Earth, with the overwhelming majority of the peer-reviewed literature, and listening to the scientists WHO KNOW A HELLUVA LOT MORE ABOUT THIS than I do – and certainly than you do. I’ve read the abstracts of dozens of papers, the IPCC reports, GISS and Hadley data, understand the scientific world, etc..
Yet you’ve got the cheek to say that I’m the one whose belief is akin to religious faith?
12Joeneu,
The denial machine you’re listening to is, as a matter of public record, funded by HUGE industries (to the tune of over $100 million annually) that oppose anything threatening to cut into their profits. Their efforts are based on crime (the email thefts), misrepresentation, personal attacks on scientists, bullshit arguments that can’t cut it in the halls of science – and so end up on the WSJ op-ed page or on Fox, and especially peoples fears of the unknown, taxes, government, etc.
Hi Douch
whats it like to believe in something to the point that its a religion? I mean does this pay your bills or get you laid? It must suck to have to defend this. Your a good solider and all but it will only be a matter of time before you leave the now sunk ship.
I assume you also bought your significant other an “I’m with stupid” t-shirt.
First thing the scientist are going to do is throw there peers under the bus. But it will only be a matter of time before they are fried as well.
I just bought a t shirt at the I love CO2 website. It says “hide the decline”. Its awesome.
(cont)
Now let’s think about the denier machine in the USA. It disputes the global scientific consensus – but why? Listening to the endless stream of people disputing AGW, it’s not hard to discern their motivations (and it’s got NOTHING to due with science):
1) Wishful Thinking (they don’t like like the bad news that science is revealing about our CO2 emissions)
2) (Paranoid) Free Market Ideology (fear of taxes, regulations, NWO)
The parallels are pretty much perfect – and terrifying.
bobcrunch,
Excellent example. The Soviets elevated Lysenko’s pet theories over the scientifically accepted Darwinian theory of evolution. The consequence was catastrophic – crop failures and starvation. That’s to be expected when you ignore science (i.e. REALITY). Why were the Soviets be so stupid as to listen to him while ignoring the global scientific consensus?
1) Wishful Thinking (they didn’t like the actual constraints of reality)
2) Communist Ideology (it favored peasant collectives)
Ignorance on display. EVEN IF tomorrow some currently unknown process were discovered to be driving the recent global warming (lol), and CO2 was learned to be irrelevant (lol), essentially no research scientists would lose their jobs. Climate research would continue, and scientists would simply shift their studies to different aspects of nature (including the hypothetical newly discovered one!). This denier “the scientists are being deceptive for jobs and grants” denier crap is just that – crap.
1) We’ve found out the science is bogus? Hahahaha – please try to RATIONALLY defend that.
2) You very clearly are completely clueless about how science works, so why do you even open your mouth?