CR4 - The Engineer's Place for News and Discussion®


Engineering News

Latest news of interest to engineers. Sourced from GlobalSpec's Engineering News

Previous in Blog: Solar Impulse Plane Flies For First Time in Switzerland [Plane]   Next in Blog: Sony to offer soccer World Cup in 3D
Close

Comments Format:






Close

Subscribe to Discussion:

CR4 allows you to "subscribe" to a discussion
so that you can be notified of new comments to
the discussion via email.

Close

Rating Vote:







Page 1 of 2: « First 1 2 Next > Last »

Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

Posted December 04, 2009 10:08 AM

From CNN.com - Technology:

The director of a U.K. research unit that has been at the center of a row over climate change data has said he is standing down from his post while an independent review is conducted. Professor Phil Jones, director of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit said he stands by the science produced at the center but while the investigation takes place it was important that the CRU "continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible." His decision, which has received the full backing of the University's Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton, to stand down came after hundreds of private e-mails were published on the Internet when a computer hacker breached the security of the CRU database in November. The stolen material has since made its way onto numerous Web sites that are skeptical about climate change. The leaks have led to claims that the files were stolen in an attempt to undermine the climate talks which start next week in Copenhagen, Denmark. "One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this e-mail correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks." Jones said in a statement on the University's Web site.

Read the whole article

Reply

Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 11664
Good Answers: 155
#1

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 11:46 AM

This was one of the biggest problems, I had initially about global warming. what to believe, each side were basically trying to shove it down ones throat with nothing more than "trust me" or bury you with facts and figures.

Was any of the emails altered?

I think things would have been alot better if the topic didn't get politicized, i.e. politicians get involved for their own benefit under the pretense of making poeple "aware" and rather just leave it up to the science community that have no political agenda's. With nothing more than speeches of "Do as I say, and not as I do"

I feel they are more dependable.

p911

__________________
phoenix911
Reply
8
Anonymous Poster
#5
In reply to #1

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 4:06 PM

Obviously, the scientists have been politicized when they are fudging the data. It was obvious to me before that came to light, because the problem is way too complex to be deterministically predicted. Scientists are no different than anyone else. They follow the money. If grant money means producing science that says man is changing the environment, then that is the science that will get produced.

Next question: why does the grant money push climate change, instead of the opposite, or just random results? The answer is another question: Where does the grant money come from?

As I have said before, this is precisely why we need a separation of gov't and science, just as we have (in the USA) a separation of gov't and religion. Gov't is power, and power corrupts everything it touches. Religion wasn't immune - look at the Middle Ages in Europe, the Reformation, the Inquisition. And modern day Islamic states. Science is every bit as corruptible as was/is religion, because scientists are people, just like popes and pastors and imams. The reason that the USA is the most religious Christian country (in terms of church goers as a proportion of population) is because from the very beginning of the republic, people were free to worship as they chose, and the churches had to fulfill a real need, as opposed to forcing people to tithe and support the church.

Roger Pink has lamented on this very forum the loss in prestige of science, why people don't accept scientists at their word. Of course Roger Pink is blind to the fact that his very cause is one of the major self-inflicted wounds that science has endured.

Science was highly respected when it produced new wonders that made life better and/or more interesting. Gov't science has done just the opposite for most of my life (50+ years). It's one scare tactic after another, with the last one exploded by new science just a few years later. Second hand smoke killing people, lasagna being a "heart attack on a plate", you've heard it all before.

Lastly, gov't foists this climate change because it is a route to more money and more power. They attack big business (oil), they attack individual rights (choosing the auto you want to drive, the light bulb you want to buy), the income you want to keep (ever higher taxes). The whole point is to tilt the balance of power from the individual to the gov't, and never forget that each incremental right given up just makes the next right that much more precariously held. They are pushing us as hard and fast as they can down the slippery slope.

emc_c

Reply Good Answer (Score 8)
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 11664
Good Answers: 155
#16
In reply to #5

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 8:24 PM

GA emc_c

Its complicated one, esspecially climate change, guess thats a softer and more unbias term than Global Warming, but the sad part is if you want to find the answers these crusaders either the left or right of the issues, can over kill and be the biggest detriment to their own cause.

A good example is this original discussion,...... you remember,.... about the leaked, stolen or hi-jacked email. This topic has been basically hi-jacked again for a soap box agenda on the topic itself.

It is interesting though.

p911

ps

too bad you didn't sign in for the ga

__________________
phoenix911
Reply
2
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hannover, Germany and Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 141
Good Answers: 8
#50
In reply to #1

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 12:15 PM

Seems to me that this science is all about facts... the owners of the Emails are not saying that any emails were altered... And the main point is the "Hide the decline" remark... and now Barbra Boxer wants to hunt down and prosecute the leakers or hackers... And Al Gore has set up businesses to sell and trade carbon credits...

Just a few thoughts of mine that seem to point to something stinking in Demark... and it ain't the cheese...

__________________
Johannes
Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#52
In reply to #50

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 5:40 PM

Johann, right on man!

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 730
Good Answers: 70
#84
In reply to #50

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 11:53 AM

Seems to me that this is a great gift for the global warming deniers side: it eliminates all that messy 'science stuff' which makes most people uncomfortable, and brings it down to the level of debating 'Octomom', Brittany Spears' weight, or Tiger Wood's affairs, where every opinion is equally valid.

Many religious people make absurd and disingenuous arguments based on their religious beliefs. Do we take that as proof that God doesn't exist? I haven't taken the time to wade through all the leaked documents, and I'll bet that is true for most of us posting here, but I am certainly troubled by what they are reported to have said and done. That doesn't mean that I have decided that the absorption spectrum of CO2 or any of the other greenhouse gasses has changed, or that glaciers have started to grow again.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 730
Good Answers: 70
#141
In reply to #1

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/09/2009 11:17 AM

This might be interesting fodder. I know AP is part of the 'liberal media elite', the UN is a communist plot, and NASA is full of incompetent liars, but:

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/News-UN-warmest-decade-on-record-120909.aspx?xmlmenuid=51

Reply
5
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#145
In reply to #141

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/09/2009 2:11 PM

Just to put things in context, how about the big picture?

I think that people get a little too excited when they see a little shift in temperature. Earth has seen greater temperature rises at greater rates before. And not that far into our past, either.

Additionally, the last 10 years has seen a temperature decline (or at least flat). No one predicted that (certainly non of Gore's friends) nor does anyone understand why.

The problem is that we are human and our perception of time is a little off compared to that of the Earth's life. It's hard to wrap your brain around millions of years when taking a constipated poop can seem like an eternity.

So believe what you will, but all the evidence so far tells a compelling story that we don't understand what is happening, why it is happening, or if anything is really happening (beside hysteria) at all.

Couple that with the documented facts that prove that the issue is a huge political football, I would be very, very hesitant to endorse any affirmative action. The evidence is not there, only the emotion.

Reply Good Answer (Score 5)
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#148
In reply to #145

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/09/2009 2:44 PM

Anonymous Hero,

Ok thats a good graph and GA to ya, but I don't see a source at the bottom of it so I can get a copy.

Spacecannon

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4296
Good Answers: 213
#153
In reply to #145

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/09/2009 7:48 PM

This pretty much says it all...

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#2

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 12:07 PM

I truly don't want to initiate a heated debate and hope that any following discussion can remain both civil and confined to logic. And please be aware that I'm asking this with good intent.

I've always wondered something about that those who argue against man-made global warming. One of the most oft-repeated statements is that the whole thing is a sham because scientists & environmentalists want to exert some kind of nebulous "control" on people.

Perhaps it's just my low intelligence, but I've never quite understood what that control would be exactly nor how they stood to gain from it.

A little help, please?

Reply
4
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#3
In reply to #2

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 1:49 PM

It's all about political power over their subjects (i.e., Keeping the Prince in Power).

Yes, there may be an impact on world climate by humans. The problem is, to what degree? I don't think we stand a very good chance to answer that question given the political takeover of the subject.

The politicalization of climate change is only one arm of many to control populations. The environmental movement was hijacked by communism a long, long time ago, and you will find the same in just about every other movement on earth.

This is truly a tragedy because some of these movements are valuable public issues.

As far as what type of control that would be; simply think in terms of all the freedoms that represent a threat to tyranny. Historically we can look back thousands of years and see what events caused democracies to fail in the past and you can get a pretty good idea from what direction modern day attacks will come from. I don't think that the type of control that "they" want to implement is at all nebulous. "They" will rob us of every liberty we are willing to surrender.

Why would people do this? Again, look at history for those answers. Some people love the job of tyrant and will stop at nothing to get it. Perhaps a better question would be, "What can we do to keep and safeguard our liberties?"

Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Anonymous Poster
#4
In reply to #3

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 3:02 PM

Anonymous Hero,

Thank you very much for your response. But the explanations offered seem to me to still be very vague. I understand you're saying that there will be a repeal of "freedoms that represent a threat to tyranny" - but that doesn't tell me anything about which freedoms nor the specifics on how they will be repealed. Precisely how are they going to rob us of exactly which liberties? And again, what's in it for them personally? The altruistic motive of keeping someone else in power doesn't seem a viable motivation.

To me what you've put forth is just another way of saying - and I beg you to please pardon my language - that "the bogeyman is coming to get you".

I promise you I'm trying to understand. Not trolling at all. But I'm really looking for some solid information.

Reply
4
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#7
In reply to #4

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 5:49 PM

This is not a simple 5 minute explanation. You really need to look at history in a little more depth to see what I am trying to say. That is why I am vague. You can't explain world history in a simple post of a few hundred words.

'The Prince' is a book written by Niccolò Machiavelli in 1513 AD. It is where the term Machiavellian comes from.

It is not altruism that propels underlings to serve the "prince". It is power, albeit less than the prince, it is still much more power than those that are subjects of the prince and his cronies. The Third Reich is a good historical example where people fell in line with a horrible regime. The psychology of that event is amazing and again, it can't be summed up in a few paragraphs. You will also see how liberties were stripped from the populace to reach the ends that the Nazis did.

I am not suggesting that the world is falling into Nazism, but many of the tools used to subvert the populace then are still at work today. We need to be careful about what parallels we draw, but also be wary at the same time.

Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
The Engineer
Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Physics... United States - Member - NY Popular Science - Genetics - Organic Chemistry... Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 4395
Good Answers: 109
#8
In reply to #7

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 6:02 PM

You Wrote:"I am not suggesting that the world is falling into Nazism, but many of the tools used to subvert the populace then are still at work today."

You mean like inventing a vast conspiracy to create fear and anger.

Biased Liberal Media
Biased Science
Biased and Evil Communitee Groups

You guys have gone completely off the deep end.

__________________
"The energy of the mind is the essence of life" - Aristotle
Reply Score 2 for Off Topic
2
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#10
In reply to #8

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 6:12 PM

You feel that the media is unbiased?

You feel that scientists are not biased?

You feel that there are no evil community groups?

Well, maybe the third is too vague to argue, but the first two have been documented ad nausium and are not figments of ones imagination, they are known facts and do not support your argument.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
The Engineer
Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Physics... United States - Member - NY Popular Science - Genetics - Organic Chemistry... Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 4395
Good Answers: 109
#11
In reply to #10

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 6:58 PM

Documented? Sure, Ad Nauseam? No way

What fascinates me is the source of these conspiracy theories are:

1. A media figure who just signed for $400 million dollars
2. A network that every other network says is biased
3. Politicians

And yet somehow these seem like reliable, non-manipulative, non-biased sources to you guys. In other words, from where I'm sitting, the things they are getting you all worked up about about the left is exactly what they are doing to you. And you guys take it hook line and sinker.

You've even turned on moderates in your own party now.

__________________
"The energy of the mind is the essence of life" - Aristotle
Reply
5
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#13
In reply to #11

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 7:30 PM

I agree that the right tries to stir up emotions about the left. I am surprised that you didn't mention the emotional attacks from the left. Seems biased to not mention both sides of the story, no?

Something like 80% of employees of the media vote democrat. You could make the argument that 80% is i the norm, but the national average of the population is closer to 40%. It should be obvious by observation that there is going to be bias in any group that has a disproportionate number of individual viewpoints.

Again, there are plenty of non-partisan studies to back this up. Even the media admits they are biased! It's obvious by observation alone.

Fascinating how you appear to be caught up with the "left's" rhetoric as much (if not more) than you claim about the people you call "you guys" on the right.

Bias knows no borders, left or right. At one time we needed both parties to fly the eagle straight and level. With the extreme craziness of politics in the last few decades it would appear that both wings have been jettisoned, while the eagle is left to plunge into an abyss.

So which is worse - a party whose core leadership has swung so far left as to be indistinguishable from socialists and marxists? Or, a party that has no leadership (or core principles)?

I contend that we have problems, serious problems, with both.

Reply Good Answer (Score 5)
The Engineer
Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Physics... United States - Member - NY Popular Science - Genetics - Organic Chemistry... Popular Science - Cosmology - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 4395
Good Answers: 109
#17
In reply to #13

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 9:41 PM

You've lost all perspective. The suggestion of Marxism or Socialism is comically absurd. There is no rational discussion to be had with your side. You have become a bunch of irrational screaming people. I'm going to leave this thread before I get in trouble with Chris Leonard for being in a political rather than scientific (global warming) discussion. I won't respond to the others as there is no point.

__________________
"The energy of the mind is the essence of life" - Aristotle
Reply Off Topic (Score 7)
Anonymous Poster
#23
In reply to #17

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/05/2009 1:05 PM

Go ahead, run with your tail between your legs as usual. Obviously you cannot talk rationally on this subject.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
2
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hannover, Germany and Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 141
Good Answers: 8
#73
In reply to #17

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 3:12 AM

seems like a typical liberal response when the shaky ground starts to slip away under foot...

__________________
Johannes
Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
2
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#74
In reply to #73

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 8:11 AM

I think not. Roger is both highly intelligent and very passionate in what he believes and he recognizes that his passion can overwhelm him in some instances.

While this may be Roger's fault and he is dealing with it in the best way he can, I would not go so far as to pin Roger as a typical liberal nor use his decision to exit as a club to prove his argument wrong.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 11664
Good Answers: 155
#78
In reply to #74

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 10:13 AM

Roger is both highly intelligent and very passionate in what he believes and he recognizes that his passion can overwhelm him in some instances.

Don't want to pigeon hole him like that. But that is very true. Any discussion he does do, he does to win.

He is just being held back right now, which is usually done only with this topic.....thats all. Check out his blog, Roger's Equations

p911

__________________
phoenix911
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Anonymous Poster
#15
In reply to #7

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/04/2009 7:58 PM

Thank you for your continued response. I appreciate your time on this.

I've got to say that I'm somewhat disturbed that you can't seem to articulate one concrete example or motivation. I understand that it's a very complex subject, but simply to dismiss it away repeatedly under a blanket statement of "the proof is all there in history" gives one the impression that you're only desirous of a dark parallel between past and present events rather than being able to actually identify one.

Forgive me for asking again, but in this specific instance what personal power is weilded by those who supposedly serve?

I'm all for being wary of abuses of power, but in the apparent absence of any (since none are thus far cited) I can't help but think that some are swinging madly at ghosts in some misplaced urge to fight just for fighting's sake.

Reply
5
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#19
In reply to #15

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/05/2009 12:29 AM

Dear guest,

RE: personal power and why, what your asking is to really understand human behavior.

This type of behavior is seen when humans adopt a belief and try to force or convince their belief onto someone else. Its seen in sports fans, "my team is better than your team", and when their team wins it instills a sence of satisfaction, a feeling that "I was right my team is better". It is seen in religion, I was a religious person and understand the fanatacisim of proving the rightness of ones beliefs. Its seen in environmentalism banning DDT saved the lives of millions of birds and cost the lives of millions people. When people force their beliefs on others politically its called Facism. Here in California it started out small, everyone has to wear a helmit when riding a motorcycle, then have to wear seatbelts in a car, no talking on cellphones, Must have head lights on if windsheild wipers are on, it starts out small then moves onto more personal things and or rediculus, now they want to ban plasma TVs that use too much electricity, and there is talk about putting regulators on our electrical meters so they can regulate how much electricity you use. Politicians find a pet belief they can get behind and create funding for, grants and whole political beaurocracies, this increases their political power, the committies they can be on, makes them look good and get reelected. Politicians may not actually believe what they are behind as long as it gets them reelected and more money. Study history the proof is there, when politicians get out of controll governments fall, Rome, USSR,...America is not to big too fail and many of the countries of the world would like to see us shoot ourselves in the foot with cap and tax. Study Economics and History, the road we are going down will ruin us. Scientists are supposed to be above all this and live by logic and scientific principals, but they are human and just like priests can and will do what they want and not what is right.

On the other hand If the earth is warming this could be a really good thing, millions of acres of land that couldn't be farmed would now be available to save the lives of all the starving all over the planet. Given the choice I'd trade a polar bear for a human anyday. Oceans would rise slow enough that people could move, and anyone that stays and drowns its their own fault.

The Earth goes through climate changes, Change Happens, and we adapt.

People who live in glass houses will through rocks, because of the concept of piety, "I am better than you because I don't smoke", "you think you are better than me cause your yard is nicely mowed and you think i should be forced to keep it better", people get feelings of superiority from these thoughts and beliefs and it makes them feel good about themselves and increases their self esteam. the truth is most people dont know the truth and long term consequences of their actions, and the best thing we could all do is stay out of each others business.

Guest, I hope this answers your question of "why", If not let us know and we will enlighten you, just the facts and the truth, history and economics.

Personally I find Engineers to be some of the honest people in the world, they have to be in the habit of telling the truth, cause everyone knows when they are lieing...1+1=3...nope he's lieing. Dont get me wrong, they do make mistakes, things crash, sink and suffer catistrophic structual failure.

I wish our politicians had been Engineers instead of Lawyers, I think that says it all.

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply Good Answer (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 11664
Good Answers: 155
#20
In reply to #19

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/05/2009 8:54 AM

oh yeah, well take this

it starts out small then moves onto more personal things and or rediculus, now they want to ban plasma TVs that use too much electricity, and there is talk about putting regulators on our electrical meters so they can regulate how much electricity you use.

Don't forget about the low water toilets to save water... a boon for water usage ............ and still not get the job done.

I'd would give you a ga...but it would have to be under another topic

p911

__________________
phoenix911
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#36
In reply to #19

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/05/2009 11:29 PM

you say " everyone has to wear a helmit when riding a motorcycle, then have to wear seat belts in a car, no talking on cell phones, Must have head lights on if windshield wipers are on, it starts out small then moves onto more personal things and or ridiculous"

While I agree with much of your response there is a vast difference between rules for basic safety require to engage in an activity that involves other people. If you want to be able to drive on a highway, you have to abide by the rules. If you want to pave your own personal property with streets and ride around without head lights or windshield wipers, you are free to do so, even in California.

I do agree that the rules and laws have gone from what's practical to the absurd in many cases, especially with what is being proposed with the current health care legislation essentially forcing people to buy insurance.

Many want to equate the such a law to the requirement for automobile owners to have auto insurance. But again, it goes back to the privilege of driving. If you don't want to buy auto insurance, then you don't have to...it just means you are not able to drive. The reason for requiring it is primarily to protect others in case you have an accident. Whereas in healthcare, requiring me to purchase health insurance doesn't give me any choice unless you consider making me pay a fine (is that really a choice?) or moving out of the country a reasonable choice.

__________________
J B
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Anonymous Poster
#37
In reply to #36

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/05/2009 11:38 PM

How do helmet and seat belt laws protect anyone besides the person who has to comply with the law? Granted these are good safety tips, but what is the rationale for having them imposed by law?

I had no problem with auto insurance companies giving discounts to those who wear helmets and seat belts, that's just good business, and the element of choice isn't lost.

But when the gov't tells you have to do something for your own good, something is wrong.

emc_c

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#38
In reply to #37

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 12:01 AM

I'm kind of on the fence about the seat belt and helmet laws. In the case of seat belts since it's been shown to save lives, I suppose one argument is that if you choose not to wear one and die in an accident leaving behind children, society has to then take over care for those children. The other argument is that it increases automobile insurance costs for others. I don't see how an insurance company is going to give a discount for whether or not you wear a helmet or your seat belt. Do they monitor you all day and as soon as you don't wear it, your rate goes up? It's not practical. Even if they change your rate after you have an accident and it's discovered you were not wearing a seat belt or helmet, what do they do? change your rates? If you are dead, they may not pay out I suppose. Still seems to me to be difficult to implement.

Personally, I think people should be able to make those choices without it being against the law...but this is one area that to me is a little grey due to significant costs to others. If insurers required it as a condition of insurance coverage and it's determined that the person in the accident wasn't wearing a safety device so the insurer would not be liable, then I would be comfortable with those laws going away. There is also the issue of those not able to make such choices on their own (children, special needs individuals, etc.). If there is no law requiring a child to wear a seat belt, then the parent is making the choice for that child. Unfortunately there are too many irresponsible parents driving who endanger their children even with seat belt laws.

You say "But when the gov't tells you have to do something for your own good, something is wrong"

Yes, I agree. I do not trust them to know what's best for me. Look at how many congressmen run their own lives. The thought of them deciding what is best for me is laughable.

__________________
J B
Reply
Anonymous Poster
#39
In reply to #38

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 12:15 AM

"I'm kind of on the fence about the seat belt and helmet laws. In the case of seat belts since it's been shown to save lives, I suppose one argument is that if you choose not to wear one and die in an accident leaving behind children, society has to then take over care for those children."

If you accept that argument at face value, then anyone with dependents (how about elderly parents) can be ordered to follow any set of rules deemed by the Nanny State to improve your life expectancy. Stop smoking. No alcohol. No wait, one glass of wine lowers your blood pressure, so you must drink one glass of wine. No wait, if you have a history of liver disease in the family, disregard the wine-drinking requirement. And on and on.

"The other argument is that it increases automobile insurance costs for others. I don't see how an insurance company is going to give a discount for whether or not you wear a helmet or your seat belt. Do they monitor you all day and as soon as you don't wear it, your rate goes up? It's not practical. Even if they change your rate after you have an accident and it's discovered you were not wearing a seat belt or helmet, what do they do? change your rates? If you are dead, they may not pay out I suppose. Still seems to me to be difficult to implement."

Simplicity itself. If it turns out you weren't wearing a helmet or seat belts when you had an accident, the insurance company doesn't cover the expenses. Just like when the country started, and even before with fire fighters. Back then they weren't supported by taxes; each person paid the fire fighters just like you buy insurance today. If you didn't pay, and your house caught on fire, the fire fighters would come up to your house with their equipment, and serenely watch your property go up in smoke.

Excellent motivational value for those on the fence about buying fire protection.

emc_c

Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#40
In reply to #39

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 12:30 AM

You make a good point about the nanny state, which i am not in favor of at all. I guess I am willing to put up with some government intervention (seat belts) as it's a trivial imposition to me or anyone else for that matter. I suppose that sets the stage for the government pushing for more.

If you want to ruin your health by smoking, then go right ahead. But don't ask me to put out money to care for you later. So if society is expected to cover your medical expenses because you were too ignorant, foolish, shortsighted, or irresponsible, then should not society then have some right in how to tell you to live your life? This is the crux of the problem. Society shouldn't have to bear the cost of stupidity of someone nor the right to keep that person from being stupid. But enter the children and things change. Is it fair to society to have to take care of a person's health when they didn't smoke, but have health problems because their parents did? I suspect if we got away from the state taking care of ever yon things might get sorted out on their own with a minor burden to the state to care for those damaged by negligent parents.

__________________
J B
Reply
4
Anonymous Poster
#41
In reply to #40

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 1:49 AM

You nailed it!

At the very beginning of this thread, someone asked how climate change represents a power grab, just what rights are being trampled by the gov't.

When anything gets socialized, then it becomes the right of others to control the socialized behavior. So if my taxes cover your health insurance, then you are not going to cost me money with your silly, risky behaviors. I don't ride a motorcycle - and by God, I'm not assuming the risk of you getting hurt on yours. No more motorcycles!

And a 2000 calorie per day diet is all anyone needs. If you're fat, you will become a social pariah. And we are of course going to define fat in a gender neutral manner, because men and women aren't really different, and one body mass index will suffice for all. (While the gov't is not yet controlling your BMI, if you check BMI out: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/, you will see no difference for a man or a woman, even though anyone but the blindly politically correct will note that there are indeed differences in the physiques of men and women.) And no working out - when you increase your metabolic rate and increase your aerobic capacity, you will clearly exhale more carbon dioxide, plus eat more, which impacts the environment because more food must be produced than if you exerted a minimum of energy. I'm not making this up. Not that the gov't is mandating this yet, but I have seen this point-of-view in print.

On the other hand, political correctness will ensure that gender mis-assigned persons have free access to gender reassigning surgery. Don't believe that one? It's already mandatory in San Francisco.

Oh, yes, smoking. We can't have that! But wait - there was a study several years back that purported to show that smokers incur fewer health care costs overall because the smoking-related diseases, heart problems and lung cancer, tend to take people out quickly, instead of lingering on into old age and having numerous problems over decades.

You may find it hard to credit, but I can envision a future of socialized medicine going slowly broke and gov't ad campaigns pushing the virtues of smoking and the "cool factor" so that people can once again start kicking the bucket at an average age of 65, just like when Social Security began and the payouts were minimal...

The good old days!

emc_c

Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#45
In reply to #41

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 3:55 AM

Interesting, I hadn't heard that statistic about smokers.

__________________
J B
Reply
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#43
In reply to #40

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 3:04 AM

JBT,

You have it wrong, Society doesn't have to support all these people. Its govt mandates that requies us to treat people when they walk into emergency rooms.

How would you like to do your job for free because the govt requires it. People adapt, if everyone knew there was no free ride then everyone would cover their own A_s.

The constitution doesn't require it, and when people realize they can get a free ride they stop working, this is what happened to the USSR. Capitalism is harsh, if you don't swim you sink and die, but it is the only thing that works with humans. Socialism doesn't work, and the nanny state will ruin us.

what does this have to do with global warning? if we seek solutions by way of nanny state and loss of freedoms we will destroy America. Leave it alone and adapt.

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
2
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#44
In reply to #43

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 3:52 AM

Spacecannon,

I think you misunderstood me or perhaps I was not clear. I do not believe society SHOULD have to support...I'm saying IF we have to support...meaning that if enough of the voting public votes into office politicians that erode our freedoms and put into place social agendas requiring our taxes to go up in order to pay for medical treatment for someone who engages in risky behaviour, then I think those bearing the burden financially SHOULD have a right to demand behavioural restrictions. I am in the camp of getting the government out of our lives. However, I see bigger issues to worry about than seat belts and helmets.

I hear what you are saying about the lobbyist causing prices to escalate. Although I think there is a positive side to consider...cars are now much safer than they used to be and most houses in FL are too. However, I think there may have been other ways to accomplish those same results. For instance if insurance companies were not forced to keep their rates artificially low they could increase rates on unsafe cars (those without airbags and anti-lock brakes) more so than they do now...or increase rates on homes built in high risk areas (coast lines) or to lower quality standards. Many of these features already exist, but not at rates that reflect the true risk.

I have considered taking the position that all lobbying should be against the law (though I'm haven't thought completely through the adverse affects of this yet if there are any). The reason being that the politicians work for their constituents so the only ones who should be lobbying a congressman is someone from his/her district. If the congressman is working on legislation involving energy or transportation or commerce then they should solicit inputs from those industries. And it should be illegal for a corporation or union or other organization to give money to a candidate. I think that would eliminate a lot of the coupling between special interest groups and the elected officials. I am sure that would eliminate some special interest groups I am in favor of, too, but I would be willing to accept that.

__________________
J B
Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#49
In reply to #44

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 11:55 AM

JB, do you realize how much all those saftey features add to the price of a car or a house, do you have any idea what its like to be poor and have most of your paycheck disapear for someone eleses idea that you need. Let people choose their saftey features and pay for them. Thats free capitalism, otherwise the way we are going is socialism, cause it starts out small and creeps up and stangles productivity.

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#51
In reply to #49

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 4:43 PM

Actually, I do know what it's like to be poor. Let's take automobiles for first. The only two safety features that comes to mind which protect only the occupant are seat belts and airbags. The former is required by law the latter is not. The consumer has a choice with one of them already and insurance companies generally give a discount for those who have the latter. How much do seat belts add to the cost of a vehicle? How many of the other safety features would you like to let people have the choice to not have? Hey, I just won't drive in the rain and save myself the price of windshield wipers. Or I won't drive at night so I don't need head lights. And why have brake lights? I don't even see them when I stop. Yes, they increase the price of an automobile, but protect others. In general I am for giving people choice and taking it away from government. The point I'm trying to make is that it's not all bad. Had insurance companies not pushed for some features that save them money, perhaps you would be more in danger of being hit by someone else when going for a drive.

Regarding housing...that's more difficult for me to defend. I will give it some thought and reply later.

__________________
J B
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#54
In reply to #51

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 6:04 PM

JB, you do realize that its basically imposible to get new a car w/o airbags because the govt threatened to pass a law so the car companys rolled over. You do realize the saftey features required by the govt for crash saftey doubles the cost of a car. Give me a 68 VW bug and let me take my chances. You do realize they were still made south of the border until a few years ago and cost brand new around $5k. I'll take a steel bumper and dashboard that lasts 40+ yrs and take my chances.

Now I'm not saying saftey features are bad, just do require then and let me pay for what I want and can afford. I you know what its like to be poor then you should know that alot of your meager income is take from you w/o your choice and I'm not talking about taxes.

How does this apply to global warming? again its about politicians making money, here in California we used to have a doposite on bottles of at least 5 cents, and all us kids would collect everyone we could find and things were cleaner. Then a person did a study and found that if the deposite was lowered to something around 3 cents it wouldn't be worth peoples time they wouldn't turn them in and the govt could keep the money, and the supermarkets wouldn't have to take them back, things got messier, and until the economy got really bad most people did't bother with them.

CO2 is a scam thought up by people that want power, control, and other peoples money.

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#56
In reply to #54

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 7:05 PM

It's been awhile since I was actively shopping for a vehicle, so no, I was not aware that airbags installed in virtually all cars. But is that true? You say virtually impossible...what does that mean? Less than 10% offer no airbags? Less than 30%? Or less than 1%? And is it true that the only reasons manufacturers have made air bags standard is because they caved into politicians? Or could it be a combination of that and the fact that it simplifies there assembly line to offer less variation in their product lines so they used the excuse of government threats as a means to be more productive? Honestly, I don't know....I'm just posing some possibilities. I don't think things are always so black and white. I generally come down on the side of least government interference, however, we live in a complex environment and I am suggesting that not all government intrusion is bad.

By the way, I am fortunate to have been born to the fantastic parents that instilled a value of hard work and education which has resulted in my income is no longer being meager.

You say "CO2 is a scam thought up by people that want power, control, and other peoples money ". That's how it appears to me as well.

__________________
J B
Reply
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#58
In reply to #56

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 7:29 PM

JB, as far as I can recall thats what happened regarding airbags, and Mfgrs don't want to add anything that raises the cost to cars cause that reduces sales margins and and profits.

I agree that things are not so black and white, but I believe in less govt (Libertarian) and that if you sit on a fence you get split in half, so I endevor to choose a side and try to keep things black and white. And that all govt intrusion is bad other than basic laws and enforcement.

I was raised by a single mom, who taught me the importance of education also, however I am near 50yo and never acheived an income greater than 34k a year and that was a few years back. California sucks with its "must have lights on when ever wipers are on even in bright daylite laws", this is the nanny state, and I am tied here.

good luck

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#60
In reply to #58

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 7:58 PM

I am rapidly approach the half century mark myself....(I'm starting to rethink the desire of my youth to live to be a hundred). What keeps you stuck in California, if you don't mind me asking? I moved to Palm Springs area in 1999 from Florida. A few years later my daughter was born...wife and I had no relatives and only a few friends in CA so we were interested in moving back to FL. At that time the company I had left in 1999 was trying to get me to return....so I did. When I moved to CA, I could not believe how intrusive the CA government was there (taxes, restrictions, etc.).

Back to safety regulations in cars....and I'm playing devil's advocate here more for in intellectual exercise than trying to convince you to change your position. If you decide to buy an inexpensive car with no frills and no safety features (assuming the government regulations did not exist so crash safety allowed cars to be purchased for less $), and we worked at the same facility. One day we decide to go for lunch and you offer to drive. Since I did not buy your car and know nothing of it's safety design or how much you paid for it.... I suppose I should decline your offer and drive my own car. Is this a reasonable burden to place on individuals? Or should the safety level of the car be posted so potential passengers can make educated decisions on whether they want to get in the vehicle? And is it reasonable to expect all drivers to know what it means to their safety if the probability of surviving a 30 mph head on crash is 90% in one vehicle versus 85% in another when the vehicle they get into is doing 60 mph?

You mention that manufacturers don't want to add anything that will increase the cost of the vehicle. If there were no regulations for crash safety, there would be no choice for the consumer willing to pay twice as much for a safer vehicle either (similar to no choice for someone wanting to buy a bare bones vehicle for a few grand).

__________________
J B
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#61
In reply to #60

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 9:14 PM

"You mention that manufacturers don't want to add anything that will increase the cost of the vehicle. If there were no regulations for crash safety, there would be no choice for the consumer willing to pay twice as much for a safer vehicle either (similar to no choice for someone wanting to buy a bare bones vehicle for a few grand)."

Maybe not. Volvo was first to offer seat belts in the 1950s. Porsche not only made airbags standard equipment in 1988, but made dual airbags standard.

Generally, the manufactures tend to follow the market, except GM, Chrysler, and Ford. For a long time they insisted on driving the market until foreign competition forced a rethink.

The biggest reasons that government tends to step in and force change is:

a. The general population tends to expect it (been groomed to be that way)

b. People are just not proactive with their purchase power.

So, it would have happened, but perhaps slower without government mandates. This is the tact with environmentalism. Generally, the bulk of the population does not put that much concern over global warming (as far as the list of important things go), so government has only one recourse - ram it down your throats.

Same goes for health care.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#62
In reply to #61

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 9:23 PM

Good points.

"The biggest reasons that government tends to step in and force change is"

I'm not sure the points you listed are the biggest....what about politicians pushing their agenda (as in the case of health care and GW)? Or does that sort of fall under "People are just not proactive with their purchasing power"?

__________________
J B
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2972
Good Answers: 93
#63
In reply to #61

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 10:19 PM

Gee AH, what am I to argue with here?

When you get in your airplane don't you put on your seatbelt?

Who was that French girl that fell out during a loop?

Actually the bulk of the population of the world simply does not have time or resources to address problems that are not right in front of them.

Wage Slavery is common.

What Wage Slave really has the resources to address environmental change?

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#70
In reply to #63

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 12:10 AM

"When you get in your airplane don't you put on your seatbelt?"

I must be blessed with common sense.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 730
Good Answers: 70
#85
In reply to #70

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 12:06 PM

Aren't airlines required by law (nanny state) to provide seat belts and require their passengers to use them when directed? Why don't airlines sell discount tickets for people who choose not to use seat belts?

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#95
In reply to #85

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 1:35 PM

Because they don't want someone suing them because the passenger 3 seats away who purchased a discounted seat with no seat belt flew through the air and landed on the back of their head.

__________________
J B
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 730
Good Answers: 70
#107
In reply to #95

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 4:05 PM

So it's because we are all in a sense 'in the same boat'?

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4296
Good Answers: 213
#75
In reply to #63

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 8:31 AM

How many lives have been saved as a result of seatbelts in airplanes? Have you ever tried to refuse to fasten your seatbelt when travelling on a commercial airliner? I don't generally ride in airplanes executing fancy loops, so where is the real benefit for me in using a seatbelt on an airplane?

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#79
In reply to #75

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 10:19 AM

To me that seems like a silly question because I fully understand the risks. Try this recent news article to get a better understanding of why:

Seat belts

"How many lives have been saved as a result of seatbelts in airplanes?"

Three people have died in the last 24 years, but how many have been saved is not statistically easy to calculate. What is easy to calculate is that not using them can result in death or serious injury. During that same period, 266 serious injuries resulted. It seems not just silly to not protect yourself with the use of a seat belt, but stupid if you know anything about aviation and ignorant if you don't.

The airline has a right to demand you wear one. It is their aircraft and they have legally taken responsibility for your wellbeing. If you do not like their rules, you don't have to patronize them.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2972
Good Answers: 93
#86
In reply to #79

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 12:17 PM

So the Airline becomes the governing authority and it is okay with you that they tell you to put on your seatbelt.

"You don't have to patronize them."

You also do not necessarily have to live in any particular country or state.

However in the case of world wide environmental change, the problems cross borders.

I read a report about Steel and competition between the US Steel industry, and the Chinese Steel industry. Apparently a great deal of air pollution in California comes from China. Who, and what "Authority" might actually have the power to cause Chinese Steel manufacturers to operate in a manner that does not pollute California?

I have a very conservative friend who I interact with face to face, which is a bit different from some of our written interactions. While I believe in Global Warming, and Climate Change, and he is more of the same opinion you are, we are in agreement that poisoning of the planet is significant and ought to be inhibited.

By finding a way to agree, we end up not having to debate whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite, or not.

Capitalism does need to be regulated as we have seen illustrated by distortions in the Financial markets.

The history of the US is replete with instances where Corporations have taken unfair advantage and essentially benefited from what is often called Socialism for the rich.

There is a tradition of what I call Off Book Accounting, whereby Companies finagle the laws so they don't have to pay for what they use.

When in the US over time Companies have been pushed to pay for the use of shared resources, their reaction has been to move operations to places where they don't.

Often the US can say, "My Past is Your Future."

I could go on, and on, but what I am attempting to do is achieve here is to cut to the chase. At some point none of us really has to believe in Global Warming, or Climate Change for us all to get what we all want, which is a clean environment.

How to achieve that is going to require International laws and regulations which do have precedents.

So Okay, fine if you don't believe in Climate Change, or Global Warming. Can you agree that we share an interest in causing industries to operate cleanly simply to protect the environment?

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
4
Anonymous Poster
#132
In reply to #86

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/08/2009 12:57 PM

"Capitalism does need to be regulated as we have seen illustrated by distortions in the Financial markets."

Wrong. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 forced loans to people previously deemed poor risks. It was given a boost in the 1990s. This resulted in unsecured loans, and the resulting mortgage meltdown.

Not coincidentally, forcing banking from being a staid, respectable conservative business into an anything goes gambling enterprise changed the type of people who became bankers.

It was gov't interference, fueled by community organizing outfits like ACORN, that destroyed the mortgage industry. Saying that capitalism is corrupt and requires gov't regulation is saying chickens need foxes watching the coop.

emc_c

Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2972
Good Answers: 93
#134
In reply to #132

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/08/2009 3:23 PM

Dear emc_c, As I understand it the Community Reinvestment Act was intended to redress inequities due to unfair lending practices and specifically the practice of Redlining.

Seems like blaming the Community Reinvestment Act on the financial meltdown ignores the role of Derivatives, as well as fee based profits as opposed to normally accepted banking practices.

When the manufacturing base of the US was gutted and outsourcing of so many jobs possible to move offshore money went out of the Nation, and then came back as bets.

Only high paying jobs of any regularity were left in construction.

Service and retail jobs were low paying. Banks had money to lend coming from other nations and essentially stopped taking responsibility for their actions.

Bundle it and sell it to some sucker and get a fat fee was the result.

If in fact the Community Reinvestment Act is the root of the problem, it sure did take awhile for it to cause the collapse of the economy.

Now it would appear that banking bailouts and insurance company bailouts are intended to artificially keep up the prices of mega homes, that were known by the bankers to be higher than realistic in relation to the earning power of the borrowers they allowed.

The adjustable rate mortgage for overpriced property given to any walking breathing person that walked in asking for it, regardless of due diligence reflected the bankers cynical short term assessment of the risks, especially as they as quickly as possible sold the risk.

If the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 had any influence at all on the current situation, I'd say it was minor in comparison to the other actions by those in control of the economy.

Certainly your post in this particular thread that was focused on issues related to climate change is off topic.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Anonymous Poster
#135
In reply to #134

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/08/2009 3:52 PM

How could my last post be off-topic, when it was a direct response to a quoted section of one your posts?

You imply the Community Reinvestment Act could not have been the root of the financial collapse, because it took thirty years to come to fruition. The US economy is a large ship of state. It does not change direction, or sink, quickly. It's the concept of inertia, applied to economies.

Actually, the first round after 1977 wasn't that bad: it allowed people who didn't have 20% to put down on a house to put down 10%, and buy private mortgage insurance, essentially increasing their interest rate because they were poorer risks. When al those people got their houses, the down payment dropped to 5%.

Then under Clinton, they started to address those people who had nothing to put down. After that, it was people who had nothing to put down, and couldn't make the payment. They went from ARMs to interest-only loans. When all those people were serviced, they started doing away with background or financial checks, taking people's word for it on their income. You know the drill.

Do you think that a person who was in banking in the 1950s or 60's or '70s would have even recognized the banking industry in the late '90s or this decade? The type of people who ran banks in those days were "pillars of the community, members of the Episcopalian Church." When the only rule is, "there ain't no rules," then the respectable people leave, and banks are run by the same types that run gambling casinos, a very similar line of work. But whose fault was this?? The gov't's. And you advocate having the gov't regulate the scam artists, who are a direct result of the gov't subverting the banking industry?

You correctly cite the stated rationale for the CRA, being redlining, and hence discrimination. But this is a red herring. If a larger fraction of a minority is poor, or live in poor areas, and are poor loan risks, then it does not follow that not giving as many loans to that demographic is evidence of racial discrimination; it's just economics. But the CRA was based on it being racial, which is the standard leftist trick to ram through all sorts of bad economic laws and directives.

emc_c

Reply Off Topic (Score 3)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2972
Good Answers: 93
#136
In reply to #135

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/08/2009 5:08 PM

I suppose nothing is off topic according to Chaos Theory, but we are far afield of climate change and into areas of economics.

I did imply that the Community Reinvestment Act was not the root of the financial collapse in light of other events. In a correspondence with my brother-in-law, who is the VP at Stephens Inc, in Little Rock Ark., he allowed that I was likely correct that the Dot Com Bubble led to the Housing Bubble near like WWI led to WWII.

(Stephens was lauded in Forbes about 6 months ago for sensible operations.)

The backstory on my take on what happened is that smart people involved in the Dot Com Bubble got out typically 1 and a half to two years prior to that meltdown, putting their money into NYC real estate, or real estate in general, and retired.

This pushed up prices for real estate.

In the meantime working class people were pushed down. Jobs were exported. Rents and property values pushed up.

In fact it became sensible for someone to cleave to short term financial situations if the mortgage was same as rent, plus they could borrow more than ever before.

We might have done alright if it were not for the invention of derivatives and the sale of bad paper to whatever sucker willing to pay the fees, since then the debt loads would have been long term for whomever put out the loans.

Sharp dressed desk jockeys with short term goals got fees, and are surprised to be out of a job.

I myself am out of a job.

Maybe more on the subject later.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#137
In reply to #134

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/08/2009 6:36 PM

We've ben through this before, but the CRA was the primary catalyst for the banking meltdown.

It was an irresponsible effort at social engineering when it was instantiated and worse (immoral in my opinion) when it was strengthened in the 1990s.

Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2972
Good Answers: 93
#139
In reply to #137

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/08/2009 9:49 PM

What did I say in the past?

I thought that the primary catalyst for the banking meltdown really was the infusion of foreign investment dollars chasing an unsustainable mortgage market propped up by fee based pocket money for rogue bankers on fad fun allowed by myopic regulators of the financial system in collusion with rip off artists.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#140
In reply to #139

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/09/2009 9:35 AM

While the items you mention have a part in the process, the underlying issue is the laws that required lending institutions to provide loans to individuals that did not meet minimum lending requirements.

The legislation is a bit complex and the number of loans required by each bank varied based on the community, but the issue with it was the same.

Every lending institution has a number of loans that default. When you force banks to make more and more high-risk loans, the number of defaults statistically increases. Eventually, the system snaps and comes unglued (the downturn in housing prices was the event that triggered the landslide of defaults).

While those other activities may have played a part, the foundation for the collapse is entirely rooted in the excessive number of high risk loans that the lending institutions carried.

All the other activities you cited grew out of the fertile ground sewn by the CRA. If the CRA never became law we would not be in the situation we are today.

Finally, when you force banks to loan money to people that can't pay it back, who pays? The answer is simple, the rest of us pay. It is called socialism; the redistribution of wealth.

In my mind it would have been better to raise up the poor so they could afford a better standard of living rather than lower the rest of us down to their level.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2972
Good Answers: 93
#144
In reply to #140

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/09/2009 1:14 PM

In relation to the effect on the economy I regard the CRA as more allowing, or enabling than forcing bad loans.

I still regard the other factors I mentioned as the primary factors. In particular Derivatives, or what is called Toxic Paper, which I doubt the writers of the CRA anticipated.

I am suspicious that the bankers that failed have a strong interest in now saying that the Government forced them to act unwisely so as to justify the bailouts.

Certainly it is significant to me that during my correspondence with my brother-in-law, who is an Investment Banker, he did not once mention the CRA as having any influence whatsoever. Possibly this is a reflection on his and his firms position, since they did not fail, and continue on well.

I intend to ask him if he now sees the CRA as a "force", and will get back to you with his take.

I intend to look as well at the state of affairs in Commercial Real estate which my friend the Commercial Real Estate attorney in Manhattan reported to me not ever to have been so bad. How the might CRA have had any influence on those loans?

As far as any redistribution of wealth, well, credible reports indicate in that case if there is any redistribution going on it has been that those at the top have been getting it distributed among themselves to degrees not seen since the age of the robber barons.

It appears to me that many companies have simply been looted and that working classes, previously called The Middle Class, are now called the Poor.

The role of the Insurance companies in the Banking Crisis is not one to be ignored. Did the CRA require the insurance companies to underwrite these loans that you characterize as forced?

I find the bailout of AIG extremely indicative of a collusion between banks and insurance companies to grab all the lifeboats and whatever profits possible knowing full well they were essentially partners in crime, whereas the real mission of the insurance companies ought to have been as a check on the banks.

In the past I have said that if you wanted to see Adam Smiths invisible hand unleashed in the economy, when AIG was propped up at taxpayer expense every US citizen ought to have immediately received a Whole Life Insurance Policy.

My thesis on this score is that this would give Labor, the Working Classes some parity with Capital, and further capitalism, while you might call this "socialistic".

I do imagine that such an event would have instantly helped create a US that was internationally recognized as wealthy in spite of its mistakes.

Now another significant influence on the economy that goes back to the same era as the enactment of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act you see as the root cause of the financial meltdown, was the complete abandonment of the Gold Standard.

I posit that that event has had as much influence over time on how things have turned out, as any influence the little old CRA might have had.

Surly as the Globalization of economic interdependence has increased we wonder what the real basis for our money is.

No wonder real estate, and real estate speculation went wild.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#147
In reply to #144

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/09/2009 2:39 PM

Trans...,

I agree with you about the gold standard, but in regard to the Insurance companies not having to insure this bad debt...Thats what Ins. co. do, they insure "things" based on risk assesment. The people that really need to be hung here are the ratings agencies who rated this debt at "AAA", when internally they knew it was not, the ins. co. would still have insured it but at a rate that was more comesurate with the risk, which would have changed things considerably. So regarding the toxic paper, wall street produces toxic paper all the time its rated "D" or lower and the ins. co. insure it accordinly, and the world doesn't colapse when these debts fail. So they people who should be prosecuted first are the rating agencies.

Spacecannon

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2972
Good Answers: 93
#149
In reply to #147

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/09/2009 2:57 PM

How would you compare the rating agencies to journalists in relation to reports of climate change?

Your note allows a pivot for an avenue by which we may return to the topic of the thread.

Your note reminds me of an NPR interview with a guy whose job was to assess the value of property, who quit out of ethical motivations when pressured to overvalue property.

Not many people will give up paying work, simply for ethical reasons.

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#150
In reply to #149

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/09/2009 3:14 PM

Trans...,

Comparing ratings agencies of financially traded "things" to journalists who cover climate change....the ratings agencies have a fiduciary duty, and are legally prosecutable for breachs, Journalists have no fiduciary duty, both can and do have alterior motives, and agendas.

Spacecannon

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2972
Good Answers: 93
#169
In reply to #140

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/23/2009 11:32 PM

Got note from my Brother-in Law, the investment banker.

My question was: "I was wanting to know your take on the influence of the Community Reinvestment Act on the events of the current economic era." His answer was: "Don't know much about that. Lots of bad loans made too many people happy and all the politicians look smart. Now the party's over."

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#138
In reply to #134

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/08/2009 9:20 PM

Trans, i like your posts but it did all start with the CRA, It took so long because the act didnt have any teeth in it to force the banks to do it until the late 90s, the problem was compounded by the repeel of the "Glass-Steegle Act" which allowed investment banks to act as "casinos" and create and sell these derivitives. there were other elements to this "perfect storm", but the CRA got the ball rolling.

totally off topic

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4296
Good Answers: 213
#89
In reply to #79

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 1:00 PM

I always fasten my seat belt, either in an airplane or an automobile. I do not, however, spend a great deal of time pondering whether these are true safety devices or some scam that was developed by seat belt manufacturers to sell more seat belts. I fasten my seat belt out of habit, and because, in the case of air travel, it is a lot less hassle than arguing with a flight attendant about the necessity for said action. It costs me nothing to fasten my seat belt.

"Climate Change", or "Global Warming", on the other hand, is being used to strip me of my hard-earned resources, in that it has become a "justification" for all sorts of scams (i.e., artificially sequestering CO2 or beaming solar energy from outer space) that suck resources from the common wealth that would be better directed at more reasonable approaches to future adaptation. The "science" behind global warming generally ignores the information from the first 4 billion years of earth's history, and tends to discount valid data that indicates fossil fuels are not the only culprit (i.e., data that clearly show "human impact" as much as 5000 years ago, theoretically resulting from deforestation for agricultural purposes).

It is pretty clear to me that this whole bruhaha is about the "haves" keeping what they have, by limiting the rest of the world's ability to catch up to the elevated life style enjoyed by the wealthier societies...

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 11664
Good Answers: 155
#80
In reply to #75

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 10:31 AM

Flight home from California I was on we hit some turbulent air, and were required to fasten our seat belts.

It felt like dropping 20 feet instantly, they said that was nothing. we then flew above it.

I don't generally ride in airplanes executing fancy loops, so where is the real benefit for me in using a seatbelt on an airplane?

Unless you talking this were it doesn't really matter even if you were wearing a helmut.

p911

__________________
phoenix911
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#91
In reply to #75

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 1:17 PM

The benefit may not be for you. The seat belt may keep you from impacting someone else as you fly out of your seat. Besides that, no one is forcing you to ride on the plane. If you do not want to wear a seat belt or follow any other airline rules, then you don't have to fly. Flying in severe turbulence you could easily leave your seat and impact your head on the overhead compartment.

Considering that surviving a crash is generally lethal, a secondary benefit is so investigators can find the bodies....which may indirectly be a benefit to family members wishing to know the status of a loved one on the flight.

__________________
J B
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - New Member Engineering Fields - Nuclear Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No. VA, USA (No, it does NOT mean "won't go"!)
Posts: 1402
Good Answers: 59
#97
In reply to #75

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 1:43 PM

I've been on a couple of flights that got so ugly my seatbelt kept me from falling, or "floating" out of my seat, and in at least one instance, from then floating sideways, where I would have landed in the lap of, and no doubt crushed, the elderly lady sitting by me. But, like you, I don't ride that kind of flights deliberately. And I doubt the pilots put the plane into that kind of air, deliberately, either.

Of course, I will admit, that during that portion of the ride that was that rough, I didn't think much about what my seatbelt was doing FOR me, as much as what it was doing TOO me!

Micah

__________________
It does not take quantum math to develop good toilets. On the other hand ...
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#65
In reply to #60

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 11:39 PM

JB, Like your Tardis, miss The Dr.

1) Can't leave CA cause wife won't move too far from old parents.

2) If you're driving a volvo and mine is a bug, the answer is self evident. Its a dangerous world if you believe you car is better allways insist on your car, my friends are frank w/ me and ask "is this car going to kill me today". My car is more like something out of mad max, I may buy a cheap rolling coffin, but as time and money permits I always modify it to where its not something you want to hit.

3) I lived in detroit in the early 80s and there is a different price between a mandated accessory which is something that puts all mfgrs on the same footing and so competing, and an accessory thats an extra add on to a car you've already picked out, no real competing there, "you want what!, ok, bend over".

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#68
In reply to #65

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 11:59 PM

I miss the Dr. too....but life goes on.

1) Understand completely. I suppose you can't take them with you.

2) The extremes are always easy to see...what if it's not so obvious? I like your description of your car btw...." I always modify it to where its not something you want to hit"....made me chuckle.

__________________
J B
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
4
Anonymous Poster
#64
In reply to #56

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 11:18 PM

"I generally come down on the side of least government interference, however, we live in a complex environment and I am suggesting that not all government intrusion is bad."

Actually, it is just the opposite. The less complex a civilization, the more justification for authoritarian rule, because it is more feasible for one man, or a small group of men, to understand the economic, political and social structure of their country. The more complex a civilization, the more impossible it is to understand the unintended consequences of even a simple, well-intended directive.

Example from "Freakonomics". Some patently unconstitutional law (not per the Supreme Court of course, that is my opinion, only) says that if an endangered species is found living on your land, you lose all right to alter (used to be called improve) your land in any way that might harm the endangered species. In fact, this means that the gov't has taken your land with out any compensation, which is contrary to the eminent domain clause. The ostensible purpose of this act was to protect the endangered species, but the actual outcome is that people who see an endangered species starting to live on their land will shoot them on sight and try to eradicate them before anyone becomes wise. They are protecting their property.

Now that is a very simple example. A better example of gov't intrusion with calamitous consequences is the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which forced banks to make loans on properties they would not otherwise touch. The end result, as we all know, was the financial meltdown that just preceeded the last election.

In previous posts, I advocated separation of gov't and science. Here I advocate separation of gov't and markets. The underlying principle is the same: the reason for gov't is the imperfection of people. We need gov't to provide physical security against enemies foreign and domestic, a court system to adjudicate disputes and try criminals, and not much else.

Those are tasks that can be efficiently executed without undue unintended consequences, although anyone who has ever been in the Armed Forces, or worked around them, might argue the term "efficiently."

emc_c

Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#66
In reply to #64

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 11:46 PM

Freakonomics! Awsome book! GA

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#69
In reply to #66

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 12:00 AM

I haven't read Freakonomics....I'll have to check it out.

__________________
J B
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - Time to take control United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posts: 1486
Good Answers: 54
#67
In reply to #64

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/06/2009 11:54 PM

I am highly in favor of separation of government and the markets and of government and science, although I do believe there is a place for government to provide support of R&D in various fields....that possibly could be done via branches of the military funding weapons research or something along those lines.

I disagree with your statement 'The less complex a civilization, the more justification for authoritarian rule' . While that may be true of some, I don't think it's a function of complexity. I do agree simpler societies may be easier for an authoritarian ruler and certainly easier to see the result of good and/or bad decisions by such a ruler. Nevertheless, the people are still at the mercy of someone else making decisions for them....which is not a good thing (IMHO).

I do agree with you that because of our complex society, it is certainly impossible for one or a small group to fully understand the unintended consequences of laws and regulations. Also it's undesirable (to me anyway) for one person or a relatively small group of persons to have a lot of control. Milton Friedman covers this nicely in his book 'Capitalism and Freedom'.

__________________
J B
Reply
Anonymous Poster
#71
In reply to #67

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 12:13 AM

I was not implying that authoritarianism is desirable at any level of human civilization, only that it is more feasible the simpler things get, whereas many make the argument that gov't intervention is more necessary the more complex things get. Quite the opposite is true.

Ancient Rome tired of their kings when they were small enough to be but one tribe occupying a small part of the Italian peninsula. SPQR - the Senate and the People of Rome then conquered the world over the next five or six centuries, before succumbing to authoritarian rule due to senatorial corruption.

But history doesn't repeat itself, nothing to worry about, la dee dah dee dah...

emc_c

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 730
Good Answers: 70
#83
In reply to #56

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 11:35 AM

CO2 is not a scam thought up by people that want power. CO2 is a gas that has an interesting but not unique absorption spectrum - it is almost completely transparent to visible light (like most of the light from our sun), but somewhat opaque to infrared. That's why we call it a greenhouse gas. This much at least is settled science. Most high school physics labs have all the equipment you would need to verify this finding. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and it would be foolish to blow our whole wad on this one factor, but it is one of the problems and should be addressed.

Global warming theory began, not as a plot to enslave us all by ruthless politicians, but by a scientist (Dr. Hansen) trying to explain why Venus is so much hotter than Earth. The different amounts of incoming solar radiation due tho the different orbital distances was no where near enough to be the cause. The high concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the Venuitian atmosphere, including CO2, offered an explanation.

So feel free to argue that global warming is a scam thought up by unscrupulous scientists and politicians with some dark motive, and I'll feel free to argue that global warming denial is a scam thought up by the fossil fuel industry for...well what possible motive could they have to lie?

Reply
6
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#98
In reply to #83

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 1:49 PM

"This much at least is settled science."

I've used a similar chart in a previous discussion. I find it hard to draw a "settled" opinion on the link of CO2 to surface temperature.

Temperatures seemed to oscillate about 10°C until we hit the Cenozoic period where it trended downward at a much slower rate. If history is an indicator of future trends, we are due for another 10°C swing upward soon.

Additionally, what correlation do you draw between CO2 and temperature based on this graph? Most of the science that screams Global Warming is based on graphs that are less than 100 years in duration (some extend 1,000 years or more), however, I would submit to you that those graphs are too small a sample size (given the total geographic time the Earth has been around) to be meaningful statistical predictors.

Finally, when looking back from the Precambrian period forward, Current CO2 levels are almost as low as they have ever been (excluding the dip at the middle of the Pliocene period onward). About 435 MY ago we had lower temperatures than present and much, much higher CO2 levels.

There must be other factors in play because I can not draw a direct correlation with CO2 and temperature.

Dr. Hansen, with as many letters after his name that he has, is a hack. Simply read his "scholarly" rants and it is clear to see that he is as biased as a human comes.

Reply Good Answer (Score 6)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 730
Good Answers: 70
#109
In reply to #98

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 4:33 PM

Interesting graph. I guess that proves that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared, and the physicists that have measured its absorption spectrum are incompetent or liars. Do you have a graph explaining why Venus is so hot?

The earth's climate is not a slave to CO2 levels. Clearly there are other factors, many of them beyond the control of humans. I don't see any lines for them on the graph. But if for some reason you want to try raising a planet's temperature, pumping green house gasses into the atmosphere is probably one of the most efficient ways to do that. Intentionally or not that is the experiment we are conducting with our planet. Maybe the universe is throwing us a bone that just happens to cancel out the warming effects of these green house gasses. How lucky for us.

Reply
2
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#114
In reply to #109

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 6:04 PM

Come now. All we see here is that the temperature of Earth's past does not seem to correlate to CO2 levels. It does not prove CO2 does not absorb infrared.

The level of CO2 change over time is significant, as is the temperature swing. However, as pointed out before, the difference between Earth and Venus' CO2 concentrations are 3.5 orders of magnitude different (96.5% for Venus vs. 0.038% for Earth), so your argument about Venus is more like a red herring.

Incidentally, Precambrian CO2 levels were about 0.36%, about ten times current levels and the planet Earth did not see thermal runaway during that period.

I submit that your statement that I should be posting the cause or causes for the cycles of Earth's warming on the graph is ridiculous. Neither one of us (or anyone else for that matter) really understands what the drivers are for those changes.

All I did was show that CO2 does not seem to be one of them. Poking holes in a theory is called peer review. Something we should know very well as engineers.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 730
Good Answers: 70
#143
In reply to #114

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/09/2009 1:05 PM

I don't consider the Venus issue a red herring, but as the point of origin of the global warming theory. I first encountered it ~1980, in an article by Dr. Hansen (probably in Scientific American), where he described this findings from the Mariner mission. To me, the argument that this is irrelevant is like arguing that Darwin's visit to the Galapagos has no relation to the theory of evolution. I'm sorry if that seems pedantic, naive, or disingenuous to you, but I didn't catch a whiff of communist conspiracy in his article. I smelled excitement, concern, and honest scientific inquiry.

I agree that your graph is interesting, in that it shows that the planet can warm up while CO2 levels are dropping, or cool down when CO2 is increasing. I think we have both observed that there are many other factors at work. The graph gives no hints about cloud cover, solar flux, etc., and we would be hard pressed to reconstruct all these other 'lines' to see just what mitigating factors were involved in the deep past. Since we have access to our current environment, we have a much better chance of untangling these other factors. Will scientists miss something? Of course they will. Will they identify and measure the big stuff? I think so.

I have some doubts about many aspects of the theory that have developed since 1980, and am sane enough to know not to expect absolute certainty or proof from science (except that I'm almost positive that green house gasses work as advertized). I expect to find levels of probability. That to me is science. But if you and many others in this tread assert that global warming theory is junk science, and has been hijacked by communists and others bent on the destruction of modern civilization, I doubt that as well because it is the least probable explanation. I think commies and other crazies latch on to popular subjects to try and gain traction and relevance, in the same way that LaRouche seizes on current trends to support his pathetic career.

I'm pretty sure that Global warming began as honest science. I don't see that the same can be said of the deniers, who are in my mind essentially the PR arm of the fossil fuel industry. In terms of probability, it seems very likely that the politicization of the debate began with the fossil fuel industry in an effort to protect their investments and profits. It seem very improbable that a bunch of communists decided to infiltrate the scientific community, and to get jobs at NASA and NOAA to destroy civilization.

So if as you and others have suggested that this debate has become so politicized that we can't trust what anybody is saying, then I suggest that we listen to voices that have not been contaminated by the debate: the flowers, birds, bees, etc., who don't know or care what humans are talking about. Their 'opinions' on global warming, and its impact on their lives were come by honestly.

So if our wildlife tells us that something's wrong in Denmark, and if the vast majority of scientists say the same thing, I'm inclined to agree with them. If the fossil fuel industry (who wants what's in my wallet) say otherwise, I'm inclined to treat them with deep suspicion, bordering at times on absolute contempt.

Reply
3
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#146
In reply to #143

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/09/2009 2:32 PM

"So if as you and others have suggested that this debate has become so politicized that we can't trust what anybody is saying, then I suggest that we listen to voices that have not been contaminated by the debate: the flowers, birds, bees, etc., who don't know or care what humans are talking about. Their 'opinions' on global warming, and its impact on their lives were come by honestly."

I'm waiting for you to bring divining rods and crystal balls to the party next.

You can't be serious unless you do a comprehensive (and independent) unbiased scientific study to the subject.

However, what evidence I have presented simply shows that we do not yet know what all of the factors are that drive change in our Earth's climate, nor do we have a mechanism to predict it (as witness to the last 8 to 10 years of declining or flat global temperature).

As far as Venus goes, you can't point to a planet that is saturated by nearly 97% CO2 at a distance nearly half that of earth, and make a prediction about Earth's meager rise of CO2 from .02% to .038% over the last 100 years with any statistical accuracy. To say otherwise is a red herring. What further proves my point is my original graph that blatantly shows CO2 levels rising and falling temperatures. Then you see falling CO and rising temperatures and every other combination as well. As a scientist you can only draw a conclusion that CO2 is probably not be the principle driving factor for that change.

I am not going to change your mind. You are free to believe that Earth is on a thermal runaway path, but I contend that the evidence for that is both too flimsy and subjective. The science behind it, as Irving Langmuir put it, is pathological.

Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Transcendia
Posts: 2972
Good Answers: 93
#160
In reply to #146

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/11/2009 2:07 PM

Dear Anonymous Hero,

I ended up going to the BP site to see what they were up to.

Suggest you nose around there.

Here is one quote from the BP site: "BP accepts the findings of the intergovernmental panel on climate change."

__________________
You don't get wise because you got old, you get old because you were wise.
Reply
Guru
United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mojave Desert, Southern California
Posts: 515
Good Answers: 13
#120
In reply to #98

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 8:24 PM

Anonymous Hero to the rescue, GA, where can I get a copy of that graph, its source and supporting documentation. I'd like to place a full page ad in the L.A. times.

Spacecannon

__________________
The person who wrote the above is not resposible for spelling, grammar or puncuation, ......
Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#122
In reply to #120

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 9:55 PM

The source is listed in the caption below the graph. Just search the web on that study.

Global Warming. Welcome to the new world religion. Al Gore and President Obama are the new Jim Jones. Kool-Aid anyone?

Reply
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4296
Good Answers: 213
#124
In reply to #122

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 10:06 PM

If I am not mistaken, that graph, or one very similar to it, appeared in earlier versions of the UN study. As noted above, I believe the section on Paleoclimate was Chapter 7. I also seem to recall that this sort of information was purged from later versions of the UN study. Unfortunately, I have suffered a couple of virus infections since I last accessed these documents, and, although they exist somewhere in my backup files, trying to recover them would be a major chore. If we ever go to court over this, I guess I will have to dig through all those backup CD's...

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - New Member Engineering Fields - Nuclear Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No. VA, USA (No, it does NOT mean "won't go"!)
Posts: 1402
Good Answers: 59
#102
In reply to #83

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 2:10 PM

"I'll feel free to argue that global warming denial is a scam thought up by the fossil fuel industry for...well what possible motive could they have to lie?"

I can't (wouldn't anyway, since I dont' trust ANY of them) argue that with you. I merely say, loudly, and long, that the evidence for Global Warming HERE ON OUR EARTH is not in yet! The paperwork AIN'T done yet! So making panicky rules and regs about it all over the earth, and costing so many of us so much (yes, especially in the well-developed USA) is a bad idea.

I am adamant about this not least because the politicians (and, yep, a lot of scientists who know where the butter sticks, too) are involved in it NOT because it is an imminent danger (I don't think it is, BUT, see my opening comments. The knife cuts both ways, and the data that might tend to demonstrate, if not prove, either side is not well-enough collected/collated/processed/understood/tested/reviewed/agreed upon!) but because it stands to gain them something they want at whatever cost, from any source. It might be political power, it might be grant (or election! NO, it couldn't be that!!) money, and it might be prestige for having been "in on the ground floor" (that last, in Academia, is a pernicious driver of unethical behaviour, but that is another thread entirely) of something ground-shaking, earth-breaking (or NOT) or otherwise new, and, in the public's eye, "Gee'Whiz" enough to feed a worldwide ego.

OR, it might be that they scientists involved really, truly believe in what they are preaching. In fact, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. They DO believe. But it still doesnt' make them right, and it still doesn't prove the point. Which is where we started.

THE DATA ARE NOT IN YET!! DO THE HOMEWORK, HERE, WHERE WE LIVE!! THEN TELL THE WORLD IT HAS TO CHANGE IT'S SPOTS. And if you can't prove it, shut up, go back to the lab, do the homework, write up the labs and the logbooks, and the PUBLISH YOUR DATA FOR PEER REVIEW.

Or are you chicken to do so? Can't let the data that exists see the light of day? Obviously some were chicken, and couldn't let that happen.

Micah

__________________
It does not take quantum math to develop good toilets. On the other hand ...
Reply
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4296
Good Answers: 213
#111
In reply to #102

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 5:09 PM

"PUBLISH YOUR DATA FOR PEER REVIEW." Ah, but if your data contradicts "conventional wisdom", how do you go about getting it published in peer review venus??? There have been a number of instances (probably some valid, some not so valid) where "scientists" have been unable to get their views on Global Warming because they dared to challenge conventional wisdom...

Reply
3
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - New Member Engineering Fields - Nuclear Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No. VA, USA (No, it does NOT mean "won't go"!)
Posts: 1402
Good Answers: 59
#168
In reply to #111

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/12/2009 5:08 PM

I'm with you on that point. The data I'd like to see published is that which incontrovertibly "PROVES" that global warming is a) Man Made, b) a serious threat, c) existent beyond the historically seen cycles. None of that argues with the "Conventional Wisdom", so there should, ipso facto, be no reason it can't get published. Unless it can't stand the light of day, and a careful scrutiny (read that "peer review").

The argument advanced by many is that it is "established science" so there is no reason for it to be reviewed. But in the best interests of science in the past, the process has been review first, declare it established second, act third. This time around it's declare it, act on it, and (maybe, some day get around to) review(ing) it last.

So, the challenge. PUBLISH YOUR DATA FOR PEER REVIEW.

Should be a no-brainer, right? But until all scientists, practicing in all related fields, can agree that the data itself (it will probably still be open to interpretation) is valid data, collected by valid methods, presented without edit (beyond that which is accepted by the body of reviewers), it isn't established science.

__________________
It does not take quantum math to develop good toilets. On the other hand ...
Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Anonymous Poster
#103
In reply to #83

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 2:18 PM

This post is an example of the type of science that can't stand to see the light of day. The percentage of CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere is 96%. The percentage of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is 380 ppm. The relative concentration ratio is 2500:1. Extrapolating Earth to Venus is a bit of a stretch...

emc_c

Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - New Member Engineering Fields - Nuclear Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No. VA, USA (No, it does NOT mean "won't go"!)
Posts: 1402
Good Answers: 59
#104
In reply to #103

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 2:31 PM

Guest:

I sure wish you'd signed in, so I could give you a GA. This whole debate is a glowing example of trying to put too much responsibility for decision making where it hits us on a science that has little to do with where it hits us.

And your ratiometric example so clearly points it out. Even if (When? OK, WHEN) scientists agree that WE are warming the earth (or maybe not US. Causality doesn't really matter to whether we have to fix it, since we can't point to inanimate earth and blame it, then say it has to fix itself.), we still have time to find the RIGHT way to fix it.

And the entire world's politicians, US LEADING, have absolutely no business thinking THEY have what it takes to figure out the best way to fix it.

On the other hand, I have too many fellows among the scientific community who find nothing wrong with euthanasia, merely disagreeing on who should be allowed to live, to want to trust the running of the world to scientists.

I think we need to throw all the scientists back in their labs and shut the doors, locking them from the outside. Send in supplies, keep them working, and let them out only when they have something to say that we don't have to spank them for. But shoot all the politicians. Then let the uninformed public elect their own new representatives, and let THEM argue about the solutions.

With any luck, the whole bunch of them will be so busy trying to find their "power base" (Whatever THAT is) that they won't get anything done, and will leave us all alone for a century or so. Then we'll have to clean em out again, and start over. Keeps the thinking fresh, though.

__________________
It does not take quantum math to develop good toilets. On the other hand ...
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 730
Good Answers: 70
#110
In reply to #103

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 4:47 PM

The physics of what has happened to Venus, and what may be happening on Earth are the same: green house gasses pass visible light and partially block infrared. We will almost certainly not see temperature like 900 deg F here on earth, because as you point out our concentration is much lower. But concentration only influences the magnitude of the effect, not the direction.

Reply
2
Anonymous Poster
#112
In reply to #110

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 5:10 PM

Linear extrapolations on an "other things equal basis" are cocktail party discussion starters, but not policy foundations. If a CO2 concentration that starts at 0.038% increases by 35% over a century, or whatever, one does not extrapolate a linear temperature change from that. Assuming (strictly for the sake of discussion) that the seas are becoming warmer, one expects more water vapor, which on the one hand is a green house gas, but also means more cloud formations, which block visible light energy from the sun, inducing global cooling. This effect was verified after 9/11, when for three days no commercial airliners flew over the USA, which meant no contrails (man-made clouds) and temperature increases were noted accordingly. Also, since plants breathe in CO2 and exhale O2, one would expect lusher plant growth as the CO2 concentration rises, and the resultant plant growth to at some point offset the increasing CO2 concentration. And yes, some forests are being chopped down, but its not as if they are being paved over; they are being used for agriculture. Those plants also breathe in CO2, and exhale O2.

Now if GW proponents, like Roger Pink, are going to tell us that their computer models can take all this into account, and more, and make accurate global temperature predictions for decades to come, and centuries, then I am sorry, but they are either liars, frauds, or arrogantly deluded about how smart they and their computer models are.

When they then say that not only can they make these predictions, but that I and my whole civilization have to give up freedoms and change our lifestyles to avert their predicted catastrophe, then they get push back, and lots of it. And when they, and Mr. Pink are surprised by that, then that is clear evidence they are not nearly as smart as they think they are.

emc_c

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 730
Good Answers: 70
#115
In reply to #112

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 6:17 PM

Increased concentrations of green house gasses will result in more heat being trapped. Concentrations are increasing, and temperatures are rising. Whether there are other mitigating factors (clearly there are) is a separate issue. There is just no rational basis to assume that the complex interplay of these other factors will somehow cancel the green house effect. But if you or I don't know what they all are, and how the various feedback loops work, then we would be making a 'faith based' choice if we decided not to clean up the mess we are creating, in the hope that some unknown process will save us. Granted incomplete science is a poor basis for public policy, but it is certainly better than a belief in luck.

The conditions for green house gas induced global warming are in place. Green house gasses are increasing, and they work as advertized. If you want to argue that other factors will mitigate the process, then from my point of view the burden of proof is not on Roger Pink. The onus is on you to identify these factors, show how these individual processes work, and that their combined magnitude is similar to the warming caused by the green house gasses. Otherwise the sensible choice is to reduce fossil fuel use.

Reply
Anonymous Poster
#117
In reply to #115

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 6:53 PM

Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. We are past science, and past engineering, and we are now into logic. Very basic logic; or more accurately, illogic.

What is being sold here is that GW proponents have identified one physical process by which global warming can happen, and although there is no way to quantify the effect accurately, the burden of proof is on everyone else to show that it isn't a problem.

In other words, the burden of proof is on the skeptics to prove that man isn't causing global warming.

One cannot prove a negative. That is why, in courts of law, at least the English common law heritage is that a man is innocent until proven guilty; he does not have to establish his innocence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt.

Not that it is necessary, but if you needed any more evidence that this whole man-made GW scam is purely politics, this is it. This is the same logic by which the US Senate took up an investigation of Vice President George W. Bush (Bush I) sometime after Reagan became president, and there were (totally unfounded) rumors that VP Bush had traveled to Iran prior to the election to encourage the Iraqis to hold onto the embassy hostages until after the election, to help Reagan win. Mind you not a shred of evidence, but the Democrat majority Senate invoked hearings because "the seriousness of the charges outweighed the lack of evidence," or words to that effect. It was obviously a political attack, but that was the cover for it.

Ditto here. A political attack, justified with illogic.

emc_c

Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hannover, Germany and Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 141
Good Answers: 8
#183
In reply to #117

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

02/13/2010 3:00 PM

Well put Guest! and now Obama wants to use Govt agencies to further this travesty. (NASA and NOAA) not to mention that the head of NOAA is biased...

We have had snow on the ground here for almost 3 months... and now 49 out of 50 states in the US have seen snow fall! So now they say it is because of too much moisture in the air... causing extreme weather conditions. Talk about loading the dice for a win win scenario....

__________________
Johannes
Reply
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4296
Good Answers: 213
#121
In reply to #115

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 9:47 PM

" But if you or I don't know what they all are, and how the various feedback loops work"-

How can you assure me that your tweaking of a complex system, the weather, which you seem to admit you do not fully understand, will not result in too great a correction; i.e., how do you know that if you take all that CO2 out of the atmosphere, you won't induce a new ice age? I suspect an ice age would be far more devastating to humans and other life on earth than the projected global warming. Walk in to a conventional steam plant one of these days and start tweaking valves at random, without a full understanding of what they do. What do you think is going to happen (assuming security doesn't sequester you before you go too far!).

If you are going to tweak, you better be pretty d****d sure you know what you are doing...

Reply
3
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 9587
Good Answers: 761
#125
In reply to #121

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 10:18 PM

Whoa.

I am not a global warming fan by any stretch of the imagination. I think it is political bunk.

However, that does not give us free license to trample over the planet. We need to be better stewards of this planet and that will require some educated work.

Still, our world economy is at a very fragile moment and I contend it is not all by accident. Think of it as a sick patient. On one hand we have short term treatment and the other we have long term treatment.

Our first goal should be to stabilize the situation. The short term goal is to make us strong or stronger so we can manage the long term treatment. In that regard, we need to be careful that anything we do in the short term does not cause economic ruin.

Once we get economically stabilized we can invest in long term solutions to keep our environment sustainable.

The present approach is one of fear and emotion to drive us into concessions that will cause or move us (the world) toward economic collapse. On the brink of that collapse will come "government" to the rescue at the expense of liberty, but it is all for our own good. At least that will be the retort from those in power.

In other words, I believe that the crises is a means for a massive engineered social change in world order. I think that there is no guarantee that such a plan will work, but the powers that be feel that now is the time and it is worth the gamble. In plain vernacular, the odds are in their favor.

In the end the argument is boiled down to emotion versus logic. As creatures of emotion the bet right now is that emotion will carry the day, not reason. If I were a betting man I would probably place my chips on the emotional argument, but I would be happier to lose that bet.

Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4296
Good Answers: 213
#126
In reply to #125

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 10:24 PM

Concur...

Reply
3
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - New Member Engineering Fields - Nuclear Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No. VA, USA (No, it does NOT mean "won't go"!)
Posts: 1402
Good Answers: 59
#93
In reply to #54

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 1:21 PM

SC

CO2 is a scam thought up by people that want power, control, and other peoples money.

You SAID it! And Al Gore proves it, directly, while world governments are proving it daily, by pushing the processes involved in "De-Carbonizing" us, without regard to the science involved.

Two points, and I'll shut up about it. Well, three.

Humans breathe out CO2, and all green plants need it, to produce the oxygen we need. CO2 is NOT a poison!

All the carbon in the world is NOT more carbon than we started with, how many thousands of years ago (I'm a creationist, which, I realize, discredits me from the get-go with a lot of CR4 readers, but that's neither here nor there. What it DOES say is that I find an earth age around 10,000 years to fit in with everything I know in Science, and there just IS no evidence that we CREATING new carbon.) So, we have what we had. Possibly we are concentrating it more, in forms it wasn't in. But we aren't making more of it.

There is STILL not enough un-politicized, truly scientifically tested, studied, peer-reviewed and agreed upon evidence that any Global Warming is more than a recurrent trend, or man-caused, for anyone in the world to be forcing their rules and opinions on the subject on others. And AL GORE knows this. Which is why he started his "carbon offsets" scam early, so he could get his money before we figured him out. But the UN knows this, also, which is why they are trying so hard to cripple the industrial nations, in order to grab the power, and hopefully, the money, they are so jealous of, in the Western (OK, NORTHERN Hemisphere OF the Western World) and in parts of Europe and the UK. The UN is NOT, and never has been, about peace in the world. Rather, it IS, and always has been, about "What can I grab for me and mine, if I hitch my wagon to the UN star?" Kofi Anan proved this, but he was just one in a long line of many such.

Bottom line, from all three points. We ain't where we have to be to make rational decisions about Global Warming, especially if it has to involve worldwide changes in behavior, and we ain't gonna be in any time I can see coming, if we don't back away from the politics, shut and lock the lab doors to keep the politicians out, and do the real science on the subject.

From the Greek original, Poli means many, ticks are blood sucking insects. Hence, politicians are many blood sucking insects. And worth as much, too!

Micah

__________________
It does not take quantum math to develop good toilets. On the other hand ...
Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 730
Good Answers: 70
#106
In reply to #93

Re: Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

12/07/2009 4:00 PM

People also produce urine and feces. Want some? We probably all ingest microscopic amounts of urine and feces every day, and we do just fine, but take a big bite of that chode and you'll be sick at both ends, and probably end up ingesting a little more.

Carbon is not carbon dioxide. All the carbon in the world came from super nova explosions that occurred long ago, and almost all of it is still here. Carbon in the form of coal, carbonaceous rocks, or fossil fuel, deep in the ground is no threat. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, at levels that plants and animals are accustomed to is not a problem. Without it we wouldn't be here to talk about it. We would freeze if we didn't starve first. CO2 is a green house gas (not by any means the only one), and at 'normal' levels it helps keep the plants growing to feed us, and warm enough that we don't need to be born wearing space suits. But increase the levels a little bit and things will warm up a little bit. Increase it a lot and things will warm up a lot. Increase it still more and we will suffocate. Some CO2 is a good thing. Too much CO2 is a poison.

Global warming theory did not begin with Al Gore, or with some communist conspiracy. It began with a NASA scientist (Mariner Venus Project - 1979) trying to explain why Venus was so much warmer compared to Earth than its distance from the sun could explain. Dr. Hansen's explanation was that the high levels of green house gasses in the Venutian atmosphere trapped the heat. I don't know the man personally, so I am in no position to vouch for his motives, but I would think that a man like him with a superior education and a job working for the government of a great nation, who had the opportunity to play with some of the most amazing toys in history (built and paid for by that government with our taxes) would not be much inclined to kill the goose that dropped that golden egg in his lap.

It is the easiest thing in the world to impune other people's motives. I could for example say that you are obviously a paid lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry, pretending to be a Christian, and posting here to protect the power and profits of your employer. I won't do that. I will assume that you came by your conclusions honestly. But you are still incorrect. CO2 is vital to life, and it is also poison.

Reply
Reply to Blog Entry Page 1 of 2: « First 1 2 Next > Last »
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Anonymous Hero (21); Anonymous Poster (18); APD (1); atsysusa (1); beriberi (5); C-Mac (7); cwarner7_11 (17); Jaen (2); JBTardis (28); Johannescnc (5); johnfotl (20); micahd02 (14); phoenix911 (12); Roger Pink (5); spacecannon (18); Transcendian (23)

Previous in Blog: Solar Impulse Plane Flies For First Time in Switzerland [Plane]   Next in Blog: Sony to offer soccer World Cup in 3D

Advertisement