Saturday, November 28, 2009
Phrase from stolen emails proves science itself is a hoax
I've been
told I'm supposed to care about cherry picked, out-of-context quotes from hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. The only thing I know about the U. of E.A. is that their mascot is the Ragin Cajuns, which is pretty surprising.
Out of an immense volume of emails, it's amazing that the supposed "smoking gun" gotcha quotes which have been revealed thus far are so incredibly small and easily explainable. For the Global Warming Denialbaggers to prove some large, over-arching climate conspiracy... they're going to need a helluva lot more than some catty backchannel talk among academics. Just because some perfessor says "trick", that doesn't disprove science. And you know that the Denialbaggers are not going to sit on the best stuff-- so where is it? The
absence of truly suspicious and inexplicable statements is the real surprise here, as
RealClimate.org soberly summarized.
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’ [MWP stands for Medieval Warm Period], no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.
Domestically, I'd love to get a Venn Diagram of the number of Denialists who hold that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to Church
and that Global Warming is a liberal "hoax". It would be helpful in life if these people were publicly identified, because I really don't need to listen to hockey moms who don't accept the theory of evolution to lecture me about lack of scientific basis for the global warming temperature
'hockey stick'.
Labels: science
10 Comments:
Out of an immense volume of emails, it's amazing that the supposed "smoking gun" gotcha quotes which have been revealed thus far are so incredibly small and easily explainable... And you know that the Denialbaggers are not going to sit on the best stuff-- so where is it?
I'm almost positive that I said something similar about the emails that "proved" Stacy Head was a racist.
However, regarding the matter at hand, I'll be pleasantly shocked if liberals show that they have the slightest understanding of gamesmanship or strategy. For years conservatives denied global warming at all, yet, somehow, they managed to use the same experts who denied that global warming was occurring at all to later deny that humans were causing global warming. I noticed on McLaughlin last night that the cons were feeling cocky enough to not just deny AGW, but global warming of any sort. Seems to me that it's great opportunity to put the deniers on the record as denying global warming strongly enough to make it impossible to go back to merely denying AGW or to denying that we can do anything about it.
Of course, during the health care debate, I would have expected liberals to aggressively question conservatives about their new found support for medicare funding. Jon Stewart asked Kit Bond about it, but didn't really push it. Other than that the progressive that you see on TV haven't asked conservatives the obvious questions. Since, in almost a year, I've yet to see any conservative on TV forced to pledge his support for Medicare funding, I don't expect to see any asked whether their denying AGW or global warming. It's a shame, because they're sounding cocky enough to deny it altogether.
Take a look out the window. If the sky is blue and contains one yellow sun and one large moon, the chances are that you live on the planet where man-made global warming is real, and Republicans react to any evidence that mankind should exercise a modicum of social responsibility in the same way that a spoiled six-year-old reacts to Mommy telling him to clean up his room.
The 'trick' I used to learn my nines tables in grammar school (Soros sez, the sum of the two digits in the product will add up to nine) is as controversial as the content of the stolen emails.
Just curious as to how any of you think cap-and-trade will do anything other than increase global warming?
Throw out climategate, or the silly left/right bs.
To whit:
When manufactures of simple goods realized that they could outsource their labor and ship the product fare more cheaply and realize far greater profit margins in the process, compared to keeping production in the US, did any sort of legislation keep this from happening?
What do you think cap-and-trade is going to do to energy exploration, extraction, & refinement? Will it suddenly clean it up? Will it make things safer for us?
Or, will it simply push it somewhere else...somewhere out of your view? Somewhere your local newspaper photographer & newscasters can go and pick up file footage?
There are petrochem plants here in Louisiana right now who lost millions of dollars while paying folks low six-figure salaries here locally during the last two quarters of 2009. They could already be doing way more business overseas, far more cheaply.
I know of a certain plant in India that has really put a huge nail in Valero's coffin from that standpoint.
Do you think India or China have any interest in environmental regulation? Or protecting their environments?
Do you think that they give one red-rat's-ass about cap-and-trade?
Do you think that by moving environmentally detrimental plants from the strict guidelines they already face in America to the almost non-existent guidelines they'll face in China or India, that that's somehow better for the environment?
Cap-and-trade=out of sight, out of mind for liberals.
They have absolutely no idea of the real-world cause & effects of this legislation.
It will put Louisianians out of work, & it will hurt the environment WORSE than it currently already is.
No thought to any of that, at any point in time, is there, folks? Any of you talked to any offshore workers? Any petrochem plant employees here locally? Any of the local businesses that their salaries make possible? Any of that?
Nope? Didn't think so...
Keep lauding your cap-and-trade legislation...and enjoy the damage you're doing to 3rd world ecosystems & civilizations you only see on National Geographic & the Internet...
Foolish...Extremely foolish...
Oyster, speaking of emails, have you removed your contact information from your blog, or am I missing something?
GO - My understanding is the cap-and-trade plans under consideration use carbon consumption and not carbon production as a measure. This would require cheaper dirtier goods imported from China to buy more credits on the carbon market.
And the economics is a bit advanced for me but there are studies that show as trade increases the wealth of a poorer trading partner, that poorer partner experiences a corresponding shift to a higher environmental standard.
Sorry about that, Grandmere. Don't know how or why my email address is not on the profile. I fixed it. It's
( oystersliq at the gmail )
"because I really don't need to listen to hockey moms who don't accept the theory of evolution to lecture me about lack of scientific basis for the global warming temperature 'hockey stick'."
The guys at East Anglia threw the data away. Without data there is no scientific basis for anything. It's all anecdote at this point.
No one seriously doubts that climate changes over time. That's established in the historical record. The question then becomes the rate of change and the dangers associated with that change. This old rock we live on has been changing for a long, long time before man evolved. We're just the latest in a series of dominant animals and one day our time too will be over.
If carbon is a problem, then it might be smart for the guys like Gore to quit jet-setting all over the world, spewing carbon by the ton. I'll believe that there is a crisis when they start having meeting by teleconference.
So why did the administrator of the joint step down in light of the investigation?
Cause some of us want to get to the truth about this global warming business makes us "denialbaggers" (whatever that is)? The truth may set all of us free.
