Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

That's really damning because, as we all know, Newsweek is a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Slow down there, turbo. I think you're jumping to conclusions.

Newsweek may not be an accredited and peer-reviewed scientific journal, but that is no reason to discount the findings of scientists it interviewed. In fact, we should look at the findings of the dissenters more carefully than those of the majority.

Think about it. How often has humanity been mislead by the scientific majority? I think that you will find that it has done so more than you may realize.

Scientists are people, just like any others. As people, they are subject to the biological programming they were born with. Like anyone else, they seek wealth, prosperity, peer respect, and certain associated benefits on some level. Given the nature of their profession, it is only natural that they might seek to support findings most inclined towards their own benefit. Scientists who identify problems are given grants or payed to find a solution, especially when support from a fiat power with fiat funding and a vested interest in public opinion is involved. Scientists who identify non-problems are given very little. The free market is at work even when monetary gain is not a purported goal.

Ask yourself how often it has been that the scientific majority ever discovered anything of significance. It is always the few and the brilliant that have dicovered and invented things that changed the views and the lifestyles of the multitudes. The rest are simply "on the bandwagon" so to speak, and they are often associated with "backwards" ideas. Do you suppose that the theory of climate change has heralded a complete reversal of this tendency?

Of course, there are a number of scientists who refuse to compromise their beliefs for the promise of influence and wealth, but most of them do not make headlines. They continually strive to make a better life for everyone, despite the fact that they are largely ignored by the press and therefore the people and the government, but you don't hear about them very often as a result. They also get less funding.



Anthropoligic climate change is a myth, and those who support the silly, misguided, and plutocratic agenda of somehow managing to control the Earth's climate to any significant degree have been fooled by the time-tested practice of witch-doctery. Do you not see how politicians and corporations alike are taking advantage of this belief? Are you so blind as to suppose that their vested interest is due to concern for future generations or the rest of the planet's inhabitants? Can you point to an example of anything, ever, that suggests that the entities in question might act in an altruistic fashion?

Can you imagine the drastic measures it would take to reverse anthropologic climate change if it were real? I hate to break it to you, but the average human exhales 22lbs of carbon dioxide per day, to say nothing else of every other oxygen-breathing lifeform on this planet. That amounts to more CO2 than all machines on the planet can produce.... every day.

I find it ironic that so many atheists support the theory of climate change and actually think there is something we could do to prevent it. The idea of beliefs based upon faith comes to mind.

The fact of the matter is that there is no realistic solution to global climate change, even if it was caused by humans. What are we going to do? Kill a bunch of people? Reverse or hinder industrial and therefore technological progress by letting the government, of all things, dictate economic policy? I laugh at the thought.

Our best bet is to stay the course and simply allow industry to become cleaner and more efficient through satisfying consumer demand. Has it ever done otherwise? I have no problem with environmental awareness; In fact, I think environmental awareness is a good thing and I think that consumers often reflect that desire in their purchase choices, but where I draw the line is at letting a state-business complex design and appropriate funds for an imaginary climate-saving agenda. That's a recipe for disaster and I can't make it any more simple than that.

How silly would you have to be to believe the promises of politicians that we all know lie to us, financed by businesses seeking state-enforced monopoly, based upon the predictions of a scientific majority with demonstrable self-interest, as opposed to free-market businesses that literally beg for our patronage and that are more than happy to emulate our values and interests so long as we trade with them -Businesses that spend untold billions on consumer research every year, just to engage in mutually beneficial trade with consumers and employees?


Fight for the anti-climate change agenda or environmentalism or whatever you want, but for the love of God do not co-opt the state in your efforts. There is no surer path to abuse, mismanagement and waste than to freely give power to anyone or anything.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Fight for the anti-climate change agenda or environmentalism or whatever you want, but for the love of God do not co-opt the state in your efforts. There is no surer path to abuse, mismanagement and waste than to freely give power to anyone or anything.

As always I ask the inevitable question: does this include or exclude economic lobbies?

You are dealing with two devils: unregulated market propagators, and politicians. Why you declare the one a devil and the other a saint, probably always will escape me. All I see is two devils both doing a maximum ammount of damage.

Your image of sciences, btw, is not really unbiased, is it. While there are problems in the academic business routines, you put them to extremes, declare them a rule, and by that diffame everything they produce. listening to you makes me wonder why we should even want to have any science done independently from business interests anymore at all. and that results in what we have with the pharmacuetical industry: just inventing something that promises profit, and then inventing a fictional wide spread public suffering or disease that needs this drug. Or to add a non-effective meaningless substance to a drug that is short before loosing patent protection so that cheaper generica can be produced, by that new addition making it in legal context a new drug that enjoys full time patent protection again. And this is what is called science in business context. I hear no criticism of that, nor criticism on the fabrications in which the email "scandal" is basing on despite its now more and more obvious distortions and manipulative misquotes.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

As always I ask the inevitable question: does this include or exclude economic lobbies?

And as always, I prodvide the same answer. If there is very little state power to seek, who would waste their time lobbying?

You are dealing with two devils: unregulated market propagators, and politicians. Why you declare the one a devil and the other a saint, probably always will escape me. All I see is two devils both doing a maximum ammount of damage.

I have never advocated an unregulated market, and you know that, Sky. I am not an anarchist or an anarcho-capitalist, and I've said on numerous occassions that I think a reasonable tax on industrial effluents would be in order, not to mention stiff state penalties for fraud.

Until you produce a third form of government that doesn't involve handing fiat power over to people and trusting them to do what is right, or transforming basic human nature, I'll stick with minimally-regulated capitalism.

Your image of sciences, btw, is not really unbiased, is it. While there are problems in the academic business routines, you put them to extremes, declare them a rule, and by that diffame everything they produce.

I neither attributed a rule to science nor defamed it in any way that was not already apparent. Given your prediliction for questioning spoon-fed state propaganda, I would have thought that you have arrived at the same conclusions I have.

You know as well as I do that scientists are people, Sky. They do not magically transcend human nature in the process of obtaining their degree. As a student of psychology, no matter what school you follow, you should know that.

listening to you makes me wonder why we should even want to have any science done independently from business interests anymore at all and that results in what we have with the pharmacuetical industry: just inventing something that promises profit, and then inventing a fictional wide spread public suffering or disease that needs this drug.

You're thinking backwards, my friend.

What you should be asking yourself is why pharmaceutical companies get away with that kind of crap. The answer is simple; there is not enough competition. The reason for the lack of competition is the state-mandated tax and licensure requirements that make the pharmaceutical market a "closed shop", so to speak.

We see this phenomenon everywhere, but we rarely recognize it. Licensures, labor unions, regulations...etc etc - all are presented in the guise of protecting the consumer or the worker, but their actual purpose is to defeat market mechanisms. Established business and labor do not like having to compete, and who does, really? Thus, they simply outlaw the competition.

Pharmaceutical companies are no different. It takes nearly a decade to get a drug approved by the FDA and it takes millions of dollars. Entrepeneurs cannot compete with that. They often have to get investment just to develop their drugs, and their investors often want to see a return on their investment in fairly short order. They often end up selling their formulas to companies that can finance development.

Only the rich can develop and market drugs, so it is no surprise that the pharmaceutical market is less than efficient. Even so, people get killed by bad medicine all the time. The FDA does nothing to help that, other than to serve as a buffer between consumers and the indutsry. Where consumer outrage and litigation should provide a rapid and furious end to bad drug companies, the FDA simply serves to provide a legal barrier to natural market processes, especially when the bad drug in question has been FDA approved.

Or to add a non-effective meaningless substance to a drug that is short before loosing patent protection so that cheaper generica can be produced, by that new addition making it in legal context a new drug that enjoys full time patent protection again. And this is what is called science in business context. I hear no criticism of that, nor criticism on the fabrications in which the email "scandal" is basing on despite its now more and more obvious distortions and manipulative misquotes.

No, that is not science in business context. Business expects profits, and it gains profits by satisfying consumers. Thus, it expects real results from the researchers it selects in the form of marketable and effective products and solutions. If the researchers fail to deliver, they are a waste of capital and they are fired.

Government science, on the other hand, gets funding by presenting problems. If there are no problems, there is no funding, see?

Sure, marketing does present people with goods they do not need from time to time. Hell, let's assume that everything private industry produces is not actually needed by anyone. Nonetheless, that model sure beats the crap out of the state's modus operandi of supplying funding to people who invent problems. At least the private model produces real and usable economic benefit, rather than pages upon pages of worthless justification for continued funding.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Of course, there are a number of scientists who refuse to compromise their beliefs for the promise of influence and wealth, but most of them do not make headlines. They continually strive to make a better life for everyone, despite the fact that they are largely ignored by the press and therefore the people and the government, but you don't hear about them very often as a result. They also get less funding.

Good point!

I find it ironic that so many atheists support the theory of climate change and actually think there is something we could do to prevent it. The idea of beliefs based upon faith comes to mind.

Anthropoligic climate change is a myth, and those who support the silly, misguided, and plutocratic agenda of somehow managing to control the Earth's climate to any significant degree have been fooled by the time-tested practice of witch-doctery. Do you not see how politicians and corporations alike are taking advantage of this belief? Are you so blind as to suppose that their vested interest is due to concern for future generations or the rest of the planet's inhabitants? Can you point to an example of anything, ever, that suggests that the entities in question might act in an altruistic fashion?

Can you imagine the drastic measures it would take to reverse anthropologic climate change if it were real? I hate to break it to you, but the average human exhales 22lbs of carbon dioxide per day, to say nothing else of every other oxygen-breathing lifeform on this planet. That amounts to more CO2 than all machines on the planet can produce.... every day.


The fact of the matter is that there is no realistic solution to global climate change, even if it was caused by humans. What are we going to do? Kill a bunch of people? Reverse or hinder industrial and therefore technological progress by letting the government, of all things, dictate economic policy? I laugh at the thought.

Exactly, that's something that always comes to mind for me; how many GW believers will actually take proactive steps in their own lives to "reduce GH gasses"? Some do, but most just want govts to mandate changes for everyone. I tell ya, if GW is man-made and real (and despite some misguided people who think I am prejudiced and biased, I do not claim it is or is not real), and if we have to take steps to reverse it, they won't be easy fixes. How many people here are willing to limit themselves to 1 day on the Internet a week to save electricty?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Exactly, that's something that always comes to mind for me; how many GW believers will actually take proactive steps in their own lives to "reduce GH gasses"? Some do, but most just want govts to mandate changes for everyone. I tell ya, if GW is man-made and real (and despite some misguided people who think I am prejudiced and biased, I do not claim it is or is not real), and if we have to take steps to reverse it, they won't be easy fixes. How many people here are willing to limit themselves to 1 day on the Internet a week to save electricty?

Here is the thing, people have not been forced to change. Car manufactures have been forced to change as well as factories. Cars of 20 years ago were belching CO2 like no tomorrow. The manufactures were advised that CO2 belching cars can not happen anymore. So the air pump/catalytic convertor were invented. Great, reduced emissions. But that was not good enough. Big government wanted more reduction. Computers (ROM) are jammed under the dash. MAF, MAP, coolent, throttle position sensors are created reducing emissions even further. The infamouse 'check engine' light! Then to get to the ultimate 14:1 air/fuel mixture, that magic number, carbs were tossed and fuel injection inserted. Now direct injection is used...20% more efficent and cleaner. The cars today are just about spitting only water out of the tailpipe. Yet we still warm!?! What gives? So, some only changed by purchasing a better more efficient car. In reality, all new cars are more efficient the cars of yester-year. We therefore are not told to change a thing. We are only beaten into submission over an ever warming climate and told we are the cause yet the cars and factories are much more efficient. We are ASKED to recycle but never forced. Do we continue on that path without reduction and or a temp that is staying constant? Does anyone really think the warming would stop if every car on the road was kept from running?

[Respenus]

You would be to remember that there are other people in the world than the USA and/or Europe. There are billions in Asia and they are getting more consumer good by the day. Goods that need to be made. Resources which have to be mined and smelter. It is the whole process which emits, not just the cars, although transportation plays an important part in human CO2 emissions.

I have the answer for you free-market loving American. Technological singularity. Then we let it decide what to do. Hopefully it will understand that reason is more than 2+2=4 (if that is even true in the first place). Otherwise, it will do what we will have to do to ourselves in due time. Malthus is rolling in his grave, laughing at the idiots who did not take him seriously.

Something extra to sink you mind into.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Respenus

You would be to remember that there are other people in the world than the USA and/or Europe. There are billions in Asia and they are getting more consumer good by the day. Goods that need to be made. Resources which have to be mined and smelter. It is the whole process which emits, not just the cars, although transportation plays an important part in human CO2 emissions.

I have the answer for you free-market loving American. Technological singularity. Then we let it decide what to do. Hopefully it will understand that reason is more than 2+2=4 (if that is even true in the first place). Otherwise, it will do what we will have to do to ourselves in due time. Malthus is rolling in his grave, laughing at the idiots who did not take him seriously.

Something extra to sink you mind into.

Well, us fun loving free market American purchase cars from foreign manufactures that are required to meet the emission requirements set by the US government. Others need to follow suit. Why do I get the feeling the GW is being dropped in the USA lap soley as the cause for the problem? Why do I get the feeling in the very thread other around the globe believe this is the fault of the USA?

[Respenus]

If you misunderstood, I apologise. It was newer my intention to claim that it is America's fault. It is primarily Europe's for it is Europe that developed that train of though that lead to industrialisation. Yet the difference between Europe and the USA, is that Europe and its people are more willing to accept change, even if that borders on self-destruction than remain in one single spot and newer move away.

Now, this was again an over-generalisation for which I apologise. Yet the argument, when reduced to individuals and maybe even society proper is the same. Who's populace is most against climate change and the actions that have been taken to fight it (although I agree that they are far from being the most efficient ones)? The anglo-saxons and their former American colonies. Free-market. I am not saying that you are the only ones. Far from it. You're just the most entrenched ones.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Respenus

If you misunderstood, I apologise. It was newer my intention to claim that it is America's fault. It is primarily Europe's for it is Europe that developed that train of though that lead to industrialisation. Yet the difference between Europe and the USA, is that Europe and its people are more willing to accept change, even if that borders on self-destruction than remain in one single spot and newer move away.

Now, this was again an over-generalisation for which I apologise. Yet the argument, when reduced to individuals and maybe even society proper is the same. Who's populace is most against climate change and the actions that have been taken to fight it (although I agree that they are far from being the most efficient ones)? The anglo-saxons and their former American colonies. Free-market. I am not saying that you are the only ones. Far from it. You're just the most entrenched ones.

No, it was only your post that spurned the thought that this thread leans towards the US as the sole provider of this GW issue. I was not suggesting you did. May I inquire as to why you say the US is the most entrenched?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Think about it. How often has humanity been mislead by the scientific majority? I think that you will find that it has done so more than you may realize.

'Hi Underseal, you think?
When knowing, care to share it with us?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Fish

'Hi Underseal, you think?

I do think, therefore I am

Originally Posted by Fish

When knowing, care to share it with us?

Sure, where shall I begin? The nature of Earth and the Solar system? Mathematics? Magnetism? Human anatomy? Newtonian Physics? Psychology? Electromagnetic theory? Relativistic theory? Waveform propogatation? Atomic theory? Gene theory?

Pick one of the above or select any field you choose and I will show you how one (or a few) brilliant minds succeeded in changing the world's view forever.

[SteamWake]

Overheard a story about a picture being presented to the Summit.

Its a rather graphic portrayal of a Polar bear with the dead carcass of a young bear firmly clamped in its mouth. A grisly portrayal to say the least.

They then went on to say that Polar Bears natural diet has been disrupted by climate change and have turned to canabilisim.

Hey Mr. Scientist you may want to do a little research into the behaviour of adult male polar bears. They do tend to eat their young given half a chance.. global climate change or not.

The point is that there is alot of blatent falsehoods being presented as factual.

Added link to avoid the inevatible

http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2009/...urns-cannibal/

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Overheard a story about a picture being presented to the Summit.

Its a rather graphic portrayal of a Polar bear with the dead carcass of a young bear firmly clamped in its mouth. A grisly portrayal to say the least.

They then went on to say that Polar Bears natural diet has been disrupted by climate change and have turned to canabilisim.

Hey Mr. Scientist you may want to do a little research into the behaviour of adult male polar bears. They do tend to eat their young given half a chance.. global climate change or not.

The point is that there is alot of blatent falsehoods being presented as factual.

Lions eat their young also. Been going on for centuries. The more the climate peddlers talk the more ridiculas this seems.