Leaked e-mails stir climate controversy

Agree---Go to website, "The Green Agenda"---More damning quotes than could ever be reproduced on this blog--Let me hear--No one has so far...

A lot of working people can't afford health insurance - possibly could if not required to pay income taxes below a certain income? Won't happen - there are more poor people than rich people and poor people don't contribute to political campaigns. "Capitalism is harsh ... but it's the only thing that works with humans". Well let's see - slavery evidently "works with humans", it's been with us throughout history , and before - even ants do it. Solomon said "go to the ant", but he was an unethical individual - power corrupts.

If there's any point to being human at all - it is the one we make - the resolution to be more than human - to develop something called an ethical system - this means compassion - this means responsibility. Some people do the best they can, but they're still not as able, or possibly are more able in some ways, but not as fortunate as other people. Really, fascism is just capitalism with eugenics.

And what this has to do with clmate change is that, people tend to think apocalyptically when there is too large a population for the economic carrying capacity. And since worldwide, human means, quality, distribution of production and reward are so skewed that the ants don't have any answers for us, we may have to behave ethically; even though the Golden Rule is problematic in application. For one thing, it's shinier on my end than yours...

Jaen, socialim is slavery for all. Im talking about free capitalism where everyone works for what they get and keeps most of it. This allows people to be free to give to charities if they want.

Jaen, look up fascism in the dictionary, it is not "capitalism with eugenics".

It's important to remember that we tried unfettered capitalism, and didn't like the results. It took Teddy Roosevelt (conservative republican) to break up the trusts that had become a shadow government, undermining our democracy and freedom. But memories are short, and it seems that every few generations we try to make the same mistakes again. Capitalism is great - I own my business, and every penny I see comes from the market. But too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing. Left to its own devices, unfettered capitalism leads to a few wealthy corporations, families and individuals enslaving the rest of us. That is why a century or so back We The People decided it was best to regulate business, and made a devil's bargain with our government to be the regulator. If as is often the case the government does a bad job, the solution lies at the ballot box.

The intensity of solar radiation is a known quantity, and the changes are measurable. Are you up to date on the current levels, and on how they differ from earlier measurements? The size of Earth's orbit, and its variations are also well established. Do you have the current data? The amount of heat generated by the human body is also measurable, and the human population of Earth is known to a reasonable degree of certainty. This is a discussion of a science based issue. Where is your math?

There is no debate that CO2 levels have fluctuated in the past as a result of processes that had nothing to do with human activity, and there is no debate that it will continue to do so. It is also clear that the invention of agriculture had has left its footprint in the form of increasing CO2 levels. There is also no read debate that burning fossil fuel spews nasty stuff other than CO2 into the air. How you get from there to the idea that we shouldn't work toward reducing our contribution to CO2 levels is not clear to me. I also don't see the relevance of the higher CO2 levels during the reign of the dinosaurs. Presumably they and the plants they ate were well adapted to that environment. I have not heard any theories that it was the high CO2 levels that did them in. Nor do I think that it will kill us all. I do think however that an advanced civilization of six or seven billion people, who depend on a stable environment to grow crops is in jeopardy.

As to your other point about Brazil and China, Brazil is at least trying to wean itself from fossil fuels through ethanol production, even if they do so at the cost of the rain forrest, so they get an A for effort from me. That way they will have plenty of gas and oil from their newly discovered offshore reserves to sell to China. If China wants to keep burning fossil fuels and spewing pollution, and the Chinese people are fine with that, then there is really nothing you or I, or some global treaty (which they likely won't sign) can do about it.

My sense is that we are now at the technological point where those of us in the advanced economies can transition to alternate energy sources. Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and 3rd generation nuclear power are available. Some are seen as too costly compared to (heavily subsidized) fossil fuels, but that is an illusion. Only a fraction of the true cost is paid at the pump.

So if you believe that CO2 is just one of many pollutants that we would be wise to control, then I agree with you. If you think that these other pollutants should be given more attention I also agree. But if the same changes in fuel choices that would fix these other problems would also curb CO2 output, what's the argument?

"But if the same changes in fuel choices that would fix these other problems would also curb CO2 output, what's the argument?"

No argument there. The issues come up when one wants to spend outrageous sums of money on such schemes as artificial carbon sequestration or beaming solar energy from outer space. I am also disturbed by the misconception that ethanol or biodiesel or wind or solar are more environmentally friendly than, say, nuclear power. It takes, according to my studies, about 200 hetares of land to generate 1 MW of power from biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel, etc.). it takes about 50 hetares of land to generate 1 MW of energy from wind. It takes about 20 hectares of land to generate 1 MW of energy from solar. It takes about 5 hetares of land to generate 1 MW of energy from hydro electric. In every case, the land so dedicated is pretty useless for much of anything else. One nice thing about fossil fuels or nuclear power is they don't use up a whole lot of land (at least at the generating point. We have to give coal bad marks for past mining practices, and there are those that would also give bad marks for past uranium mining practices). If you are going to use up all that land to generate energy, where are you going to store the increasing world population?

Outrageous sums of money get spent in cycles on fads, and just as one will do better to diversify ones investment portfolio with bonds, and blue chip stocks it is wise not to put all our energy eggs in one basket.

It is not even terrible to spend incredible amounts of money, if what you get from the expense works well for the long haul.

On the one hand we have energy needs that increase everytime some more children are born, and on the other we have impacts on the environment from the mining or drilling required to get that energy source.

Solar power either from photovoltaic cells, or the thermal is attractive since it is more like capturing energy that is laying around, and was pretty much what we had for most of our history before we started burning things up.

Over the long haul it is not likely to run out.

What energy sources and systems do you see as most viable and desirable in the 23 Century? What sort of Grid infrastructure might be made to ship it around the planet?

I guess I disagree a bit with you about solar. I am fond of solar and hydro and wish it was more powerful. I wish that nuclear was less threatening for reasons of alternative uses and breakdowns, and wastes.

(Spent some time at Three Mile Island.)

You in particular can also be sure that I want you to be happy and healthy and prosperous.

I am not really averse to pursuing any reasonable alternative energy approach, if it is applied where appropriate. I install solar systems, where appropriate. I am heavily engaged in a tidal energy project currently. Nuclear, with all the supposed hype, has been far safer than coal, when one looks at the total picture. If I had a pig farm, I would be producing my own methane.

The key is appropriate application. When one extracts energy from the environment (even when that energy is in the form of food), there is a price to pay. The most worrying trends that are being masked by the hype over climate change is the population explosion and subsequent urbanization that we are dealing with currently. I would much rather see the billions of dollars being spent on capturing and burying CO2 being directed toward insuring an adequate water supply for all those people crowding in to cities where you couldn't grow a decent food supply if you wanted to. All this focus on climate change results in ignoring the real problems (which we have little hope of solving anyway) by pretending we are doing something worthwhile...

In my mind, the issue is priorities, not who is right or wrong. We have limited resources. We better be sure we are using them where they can have the greatest impact on our survival chances. That, or we let lose the Four Horsemen...

In one of my posts I did write "wished" and in another "hope".

In another I wrote, "Live in hope, die in vain."

So I am for balance and common sense in consideration of what time it is, and what we have at this time.

It does look to me that one important thing to do is make a robust Grid.

Certainly I do "wish" for simplicity, and of simple things the Grid that had motive power and worked as well as the internet, is attractive to me.

Of course the internet is not all that simple.

The issue I have with the extended grid is that I do not see us being able to make it sufficiently robust to deal with every potentiality. Right now, a tree limb falls in Ohio, and the lights go out in Boston for three days. If you have your national grid, how are you going to insure that the earthquake in San Francisco doesn't turn the lights out in Washington, DC? Ignore the fact that the government is working in the dark anyway. Or, with your national grid, how easy would it be for a determined entity to selectively attack the appropriate points and bring all US commerce to a standstill? Much better, I think, keeping it local...

I had used the Internet analogy for I was under the impression that it was designed so as to route around local failures. I thought that this was done so communications would not be paralyzed if say a big bomb wiped out a big city.

I was also under the impression that this is the case with the power Grid, up to a point.

Further I was under the impression that it was significant as far as applications of Solar , Tide, and Wind that the currently existing Power Grid was not capable of getting power from where it was made, to where it was needed.

So I was seeing this problem, as one to be solved.

Back in the early days of what has become the Internet, some time in the late 1980's or early 1990's, much of the landline communications network then in the US (primarily telephone, in those days) was routed through five or six main hubs. A power outage due to a fire in the hub in Chicago nearly brought the whole system to its knees (apparently, loss of a significant portion of capacity resulted in significantly overloading the rest of the system).

With regards to coupling wind energy to the grid, the issue that has been most difficult has to do with rapidly switching between sources of energy (significant problems in this pretty much shut down the national grid in Germany not too many years ago). Apparently, when dealing with more than about 20% of energy sourced from wind, this problem rears its ugly head. Recently, Spain appears to have overcome this limitation, at least for short-term testing. Progress is still being made, I believe. But, with wind, you still have to have your conventional generation systems on standby, because you can never know when the wind will blow...

Solar and tidal are a bit better, because you can predict quite accurately when the new power will be available, and schedule your switching accordingly. Typically, you do not need the standby capacity running during the alternative generating periods.

One still must address the issue that it is much more efficient to use the energy near where it is produced- minimize transmission losses. Also, do you want to pay for the lack of foresight on the part of Californians through higher energy costs in the Carolinas? California should pay for their own mistakes.

You, as a consumer, have a much greater chance of impacting energy policy issues and cost issues if you maintain local control over the utilities. Moving the center of power to some national entity will put much greater distance between you and the policy makers, significantly limiting the impact of your input...

I suppose it is for me a case where the perfect, can be the enemy of the good.

Frankly my experiences with the NYC area Grid infrastructure give me great respect for engineers who worked to create long lived robust and reliable distribution systems.

It does appear that there are some limits to wind, that create unique problems dictating specific solutions.

Some of my study in the past of wind, and its problems seemed to recommend high voltage DC feeds to the National Grid out of the Dakotas.

Solar does become attractive as a more generally available and reliable source.

It does represent more Localized generation possibilities.

As far as conflicts between the States I suppose I am Federalized and concerned with the creation of a working National Power Grid.

CWarner,

GA, to me that really says it all, that somebodys Global Warming scientific conclusions are all wrong.

I think you are making a false distinction. If you don't have insurance and become seriously injured or ill, and arrive at a hospital unconscious, you will be given the life saving treatment you need. If you don't have the assets to pay the bill, the hospital will be unable to collect. Guess who pays? The rest of us will pay, either through higher insurance premiums, or through taxes that support medical care for the indigent. The similarities are greater than the differences.

If I become seriously injured by someone else, they should pay, not I. If I injure someone else then I should pay.

I do not agree that taxpayers should have to foot the bill for those who choose not to insure themselves, even though that may be the way that it is.

Requirement of auto insurance is one of the exchanges (agreements) in return for the privelege to drive. Requirement for health insurance is in exchange for what in return?

Machiavelli is pretty hard to beat, as far as Political Science, which really is History, and the lessons from it, as Jared Diamond says. Mr. Diamond also says that whereas it would be unethical to conduct some of these events as "experiments", essentially the experiments have been conducted.

Edward Hallet Karr in his essay a Critique of Realism builds on Machiavelli and makes the point that Institutions, like the Army, or the Post Office or the Government are best charged with one specific mission with a clear mission that is led by ideals.

Again, it is not what you have, but what you do with it.

Imagine if those with power believed the true and right things and always did the right thing in relation to those true and right things?

Imagine if someone of the political acumen of Hitler was directed by higher ideals?

It is not lost on me that Germany was a Democracy.

William James the American Philosopher pointed out in his writings that Democracy is more delicate than we like to think.

Bad laws make a bad society, no matter how they are made, by what sort of government hardly matters.

Bhutan is an interesting nation undergoing change obviously led by "ideals".

As Bhutan becomes a Democracy it will be interesting to see what happens to its standing as the happiest?

The health of the environment is important to the overall well being of the citizens.

I sometimes do wonder if the engineers and scientists get sidetracked and are insulated from the streets.

Mr. Diamond studied Rwanda. It was overpopulated.

Where I live, the Climate sure has seemed to change, and I know for a fact it used to be more fun to drive when the population was smaller.

Around where I live I am on one hand for limits to growth, but on the other for growth in industry sectors that are clean, and high paying, whereas those who I call The Liberal Nazi's are such blockheads they are simply for "No Growth".

I really don't enjoy driving much anymore, but I don't like public transportation much either.

I resent having to drive far then.

The Greeks had architecture pretty right overall for it was pedestrian friendly.

Sometimes I wonder why the Right is so married to doing things as they have been done, while touting "Rights, and Morals, and Ideals, and Individual Initiative, and Individual Responsibility." - It is not as if the Left doesn't tout the same ideals. I suppose the argument is how these ideals are to be achieved.

What I think of as legitimate limits to the power of government, like staying out of my, or anybody else's bedroom, and equal rights for all citizens, or persecution for Victimless Crimes, based on morality instead of ethics seems countered by a Right that really doesn't seem to get even their own ideals straight.

Too many rabbits in one neighborhood destroy the environment they all depend on, eat everything up, and die off.

The reason pollutants were originally discouraged was not Climate Change, or Global Warming, but Environmental Change, which you don't need a Weatherman, or a Climatologist to see for yourself.

Where the Right and the Left at least ought to be able to agree here, and anywhere else, is that regardless of whether or not they believe in Climate Change, or Global Warming, it is unethical for individuals or groups to subject others to pollution, and environmental degradation.

There is nothing unethical about doing honest work, and the steelworker in China, as an individual is no more in a position to refuse to work at a dangerous and polluting steel mill, as was the steelworker in Pittsburg or Buffalo.

So then the proper role of government is to cause its institutional power to protect the shared environment, and essentially say to Companies and Corporations, better you be clean in the first place, than expect us to clean up after you, and leave it at that.

It would be a victory for me personally here to get participants to drop their arms and agree that if we think of the situation under the banner of environmental change, all objections to moves towards less polluting and cleaner ways of doing things is good and ideal, in and of itself.

It would be a victory for me personally here to get participants to drop their arms and agree that if we think of the situation under the banner of environmental change, all objections to moves towards less polluting and cleaner ways of doing things is good and ideal, in and of itself.

Drop arms with the conspiracy and conspiracy conspiraciest conspiracies????

For the most part I believe all actively involved in these discussions, atleast the ones that identify themselves believe in climate change is going on. The issue at question is to what degree is when "Annie gets her gun".

p911

The problem with this argument is that 'The Prince' was written in 1513 AD, and by now both the supporters and deniers of global warming have read it. If it is true that global warming proponents, who are bent on enslaving us all are using what knowledge they gained from it, then it is also true that the fossil fuel industry is also using it to protect the power they have amassed. Or do you assume that the oil barons have a higher sense of ethics, and that they would never stoop so low.

You also mentioned (in a separate post) that history can teach us why earlier experiments in democracy failed. I am sure that you understand that people who write histories, whether as eye-witnesses to the events or later as comentators, all have axes to grind. How many 'theories' are there about the fall of Rome? How many theories explain the rise of Fascism or Communism? History always has been and always will be 'politicized', and probably far more expertly and thoroughly than science. You can't explain world history in a few hundred words, or in thousands of scholarly books. Much of what has been written is self-serving rubbish, some of it offers valuable hints about lessons to be learned, but it does not seem to provide enough certainty to justify your 'vague' assertions.

If there is any universal historical model that applies here, it is the age-old battle between old money and new money, between the 'divine right' kings and the growing power of bankers, merchants and industry, between the entrenched power of corporations and the union movement. Old money wants to keep things as they are so they can maintain their cash flow and positions of power (both inside government and outside of it), and new money sees that these old monopolistic industries (or kings) are outliving their usefulness. In the current debate, they (new money) believe that the monopolistic fossil fuel industry (both domestic and foreign) is imposing unsustainable costs on the rest of us, and are shifting much of the cost of their operations to others in the form of pollution, trade deficits, and periodic wars to keep the supply lines open.

Guest-

If you have a look at the game is being played out on the international stage, it is pretty obvious that the "haves" (the rich, developed countries) are doing everything in their power to maintain their economic advantage over the "have nots" (i.e., the devleoping countries). "We got to where we are by excessive energy consumption, but now we are going to change the rules, so the rest of you will not have that advantage as you try to catch up."

True

"Heated debate" is the only evidence of "global warming"...

Nitrogen 78.084%

Oxygen 20.942%

Argon 0.934%

CO2 0.038% look here!

Misc 0.002%

so why is it that such a small percentage of substance has so great affect on the earth?

You need to study the volumetric heat capacity of the various substances to evaluate the impact. Also, CO2 is not the only "culprit"- one must also have a look at methane and water vapor and particulate matter and all sorts of other components that are part of the "misc" category you list. Unfotunately, the interactions of all the various factors involved are far too intricate to be adequately modelled in a simple computer program...

Why don't you guys take a break from agreeing with each other for a moment and read this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Seriously, first Global Warming was bad science with you guys, now it's the scientists that are bad. You need to stop being so easily manipulated and educate yourselves. Please stop with the histrionics on something that is proven without a doubt and fight the useless cap and trade solution instead.

The emails reveal nothing other than that a few scientists who thought they were speaking amongst themselves weren't hiding their contempt for you guys and that within statistics the terms "manipulate" and "trick" mean completely different things than what you guys think they do.

I've said to you guys before that I actually like you guys better than most because I think you need to hear to your face what the vast majority is saying behind your back.

AH, I know for a fact we could get along great if it weren't for these issues, but my conscience cannot allow me to remain silent in the face of this nonsense.

It's a real shame too, because there are plenty of real things that you guys could get behind, intellectual debates that could better this country. But instead we get conspiracy theories and screaming at town halls.

GA,

But I have real world experience - not with these scientists but with their acolytes.

What I have experienced. Where you have to be 100% blindly on board but where I had the most problems had nothing to do with GW but is when I gave my opinions of the politicians involved, I was not 100% on board and nor marched lock step with this crusade. This in itself raises issues I would question. Almost like who is not 100% with me, is against me. And this is on all issues.

This is repeated, this discussion is a typical example.

It was difficult for me to defend anything about GW because I openly admitted I knew very little about it, but was ridiculed that in the mean time I should be on "the side of pro GW", just felt alienated. Is there a something about GW, possible and a good chance, I also threw in that it also could be a part of the climatic cycle and the humans race may not be a part of the future of earth.

I had the opportunity to ask him how he came to the conclusion cited above. He eventually admitted that the conclusion was "misunderstood" - apparently by me and everyone else who questioned it.

That has always been an easy out.

I have to say that all of this does not mean that we should ignore the possibility of Global Warming and we should do everything reasonable to limit it and pollution in general.

I agree 100%

But - we also have to remember that instrumented climate data only goes back to about 1850. In geologic time it is a nano-second. We don't know where we are on up side of the long term trend line or the down side with momentary up ticks.

Oh now, now we get buried in reports and stats that supports both sides of this coin. That's the most difficult to trudge through. Climate is only a small part of my many interests.

GA none the least,

p911

These were not "just a few scientists"--These were the MAJOR PLAYERS in the debate, that had the funding and the connections, and the agendas to get all of this published as fact. They are THE manipulators of the data, that went into the SCARE in the first place, and have, as a result, help create suppressive legislation that does more harm than good. As the Hippocratic oath states "First, do no harm" C-MAC

One example of suppressed science is a study that I came across some time back (and again, recently) that seemed to indicate that the warming trend was actually obvious as much as 10,000 years ago, and atributable at least in part to extensive land clearing for agricultural pursuits (apparently slash and burn technology) in Asia and Europe. This idea was inconsistent with the main goals of the climate lobby, and was buried under the excuse "oh, there probably weren't enough people around 10,000 years ago to have this effect.", but never an alternative explanation of the trend in the data (the data was never discredited, just ignored, because it did not fit the popular model).

Over population and urbanization are the human characterisitics that I see as most damaging to the environment, but there are no politically correct solutions to these problems, so they are ignored. Is this unbiased science?

I think you are missing the point. Birds migrate and flowers bloom because their lives depend on it. Observing changes in the behavior of other living things is science. The birds and the flowers don't give a damn what people think about the environment; they are responding to changes in their environment. These are observable and measurable scientific data. You and I can sit here in our comfy chairs and tap on our keyboards while we debate, and turn up the air conditioner or the furnace, while the birds and flowers try to adapt to the changes in the real world outside.

As for the idea that 'the warming trend has at lest, temporarily, stopped for reasons unknown', this is a bogus claim, that was recently debunked by a several teams of statisticians in a blind test by AP. They gave them data, with all units deleted (to avoid clues as to the subject matter of the data), and they found that the data indicated continued warming. The story got started when one specific period in a series of rolling ten year averages showed a drop. If by guile or chance you pick that one particular ten year span you can 'proove' that global warming has stopped. Now that's some real science.

Sorry but the data I see is money grubbing politicians with there hands out... and seems they have infected the "scientists"...

The science has been pretty consistent for a few decades now. If you think that 'data' includes the study of politicians, who are by nature duplicitous, but does not include the study of birds and flowers who are by nature guileless, then I really don't know what to say. Do you see any money grubbing oil and coal industry execs out there with their hands out asking for taxpayer subsidies and military support for their decrepit business interests?

Do you see any money grubbing oil and coal industry execs out there with their hands out asking for taxpayer subsidies and military support for their decrepit business interests?

Well of course. It's human nature and all the more reason to keep the politicians out of things. In there attempt to make things fair or protect us from ourselves, they generally (not always) cause more harm than good.

In a thread filled with a lot of "smoke and mirrors" argument (and probably even more "smoke and fire"), I found this to be refreshing, informative, well-reasoned, and even passionate, but without the uninformed rhetoric I would have probably added. I REALLY appreciate the look you have given at the problems of government. And like you, I think we, as voters, trust our politicians too much. I don't think we should shoot them all (some may even be honest men and women today!), but I do believe we give them entirely too much unquestioned authority over our lives, both by what we directly attribute them, and by what we allow them to accrue, often outside Constitutional limits, and do nothing to thwart.

Term Limits seem like they might help, though I've heard numerous arguments both ways. What do you think, JBTardis?

What do others think? Not to hijack this blog, but because I believe that those leaked e-mails would as easily have been OUR problem in the US, as they were Britain's. And the subject did not HAVE to be Global Warming.

Dishonest people will behave dishonestly, any way, time and place, they can do so, and benefit by it. Honest behavior from them is nothing more than unplanned altruism. Locks keep honest people honest, and good government OF the People, BY the People, and FOR the People, is arguably a tenet of good locks on Governmental dishonesty.

JBT:

You've obviously (to me, at least!) thought through this to a greater depth and detail than I have, and I like your thinking. Off-hand (and all of this is off-hand, because I doubt that we are going to see these changes in my lifetime, at least) I can't find anything here with which to disagree, except the idea of limiting Supreme Court time.

I have always felt that the Supremes were one of the most stable institutions in our government, mostly devoid of a solid political bent, because of their longevity. The media always talks about (and of course administrations hope to be able to accomplish) appointments to stack the court, but there seems to have not been a time when the result was too catastrophically tipped in my lifetime. Shorter limits MIGHT make it more likely (for example) that the court would become more intent on "interpreting" the Constitution, rather than upholding it!

But I like all of your commentary on Congressional terms, both the length of term and the numbers of terms. Details could still use work, but the thought process is right, in my opinion.

And stacking "pork" onto bills smokes me more than all the backroom shenanigans could ever do. The President NEEDS line-item veto powers, if the ability to hang riders without any justification still stands. On the other hand, where in the constitution is Congress given the power to tack on unrelated riders, anyway?

Truth, I doubt we'll see a change in the way Congress does business without bloodshed, because Congress is SO convinced of their innate rightness, and their overwhelming authority. And both of those are the traits of despots and dictators, neither of which ever give up power willingly.

I'm not certain a limit on Supreme Court judges is necessary or even wise myself which is why I choose such a long term.

I agree that it's very doubtful any of my ideas would be implemented, but you never know.

Although I have some serious problems with some of the recent "interpretations" of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, I personally think the current system is good. Most often, one gets "term limits" because the judges are generally pretty mature when they are appointed- I don't have the statistics, but I doubt many have served more than 25 or 30 years. The current vetting system does tend to "stack" the court, but it is unlikely that one will get a justice of extreme perspective either right or left- more centrist is the norm. Generally, one president is not going to have the opportunity to shift the prevailing court political orientation, because one would need to appoint 5 judges to make such a shift. It is unlikely that a single president will have this opportunity. The political bent of the Court thus tends to reflect long-term shifts in political trends far better than one finds with popular elections. The last time that I know of a president tried to really stack the court was when FDR tried to increase the number of justices, and this effort was killed by his opponents, as it should have been. Appointing justices rather than electing them theoretically keeps them from being overly influenced by fashion or special interests (although, as we see here in Panama, this does not always work in practice).

Cwarner17 and JBTardis:

This pretty much agrees with my observations on how the Supremes have worked out, with their "lifetime" (and I definitely agree, that by the time this "lifetime" starts, there is not too much of it, for our purposes, left) appointments. The very fact that they CAN last a long time also serves, I think, to limit the shift.

Well, now that we've solved that problem, what's next? The Japanese Diet? The Israeli Knesset? Nah, how about let's try stopping the fist fights on the Chinese Congressional (or whatever they call it) floor?

The time-out chair, anyone?

You don't really to take on much of a challenge, do you?

Well, obviously sarcasm will get ME nowhere, anyway!!

Maybe not, but I enjoy good sacrastic humor unless it's my kids mouthing off to me. Well even then I sometimes have to fight back a smile.

I've had that problem, too. How do you tell them <snicker,snicker> that was just WRONG <guffaw, snort chuckle>, now go to your room <Haw Haw, hack, gurgle, sniffle> and think about what you just said/did/etc?

Kind of tends to negate the training, no?

Yes, exactly. We can still fool my son (age 4), but it's almost impossible to hide it from my 8 year old daughter.

Cheer up. My youngest is 29, and my eldest is 36. Two of the five are married, and the youngest has 52 more days, as of Wednesday, February 17, when he, too, will be married. And with them all "of age", I don't have to correct them any longer. Now I can just say "You know, I promised I'd never say 'I told you so", so, consider it NOT said". They get the message. And the two who have already been married a few years (my eldest son celebrates his 10th anniversary this year. My middle son celebrates his 4th) have 6 kids between them. So I can hide behind my hand, snicker, leave the room and roar, and come back in while THEY deal with it.

And after all, isn't that the goal, to live long enough to be problem for our kids? Revenge is a dish best served cold ... or something to that effect.

Nah, we raised them for because we believed they were worth it. Now that we know better, they have the same problems we did, but with their own. And I'm always reminded that it wasn't until I was raising mine as teens that I realized just how tough my folks had it, and they STILL let me grow up to adulthood! What grace! What forgiveness!

What a sap I am!

I am with you...even though I haven't agreed with all Supreme Court decisions, I don't think the current system is that bad and as you say most justices are nominated later in life (age 60+) so they are somewhat already limited. Since that is true, is there any harm in making the limit official? Either way, it's not a major gripe by me....just a minor addition to my thoughts on term limits for congress.

Might not be a definitive reason not to make the limit official. I just prefer the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mode of operation, ESPECIALLY where the US Congress is concerned. And making this limit official would involve US Congress in every step of the process except the actual referendum. In fact, I think they'd try their best to find any way possible to get involved, if for no other reason than "face time".

And I'd rather they bowed out of most of our lives. Granting we need them, because the system fails without them, I believe they've taken upon themselves a great many unconstitutional powers, and are always looking for ways to grab more. I'd like it if they didn't get involved, if for that reason only.

So, my vote? Leave it as it is. The Supreme's length of service seems to work out right. It's one of the few things that still does in our government.

Well, I can't really disagree with your logic.

Great article and thanks for the link. I haven't had a chance to wade though the hacked material yet, so I'm in no position to comment on that part of the subject. But I do have trouble with this idea that the scientists and politicians who think global warming is real have a hidden agenda, while the skeptics are above reproach.

Funny thing though - I read through the comments at the end of the article and it made me appreciate that no matter how hot it gets here in CR4, I've never seen the discussions go quite so far down hill so fast.

Hence the problem, componets supply facts, figures, articles that support their claims such as the article from Michael Le Page.Then you see what he written in the past to see what kind of consistantencies he has.

But it seems that passing yourself off as an knowlegable authorian on climate change by using one (or a number of articles in your case) articles to back up only your views, only because he agrees with you on this one article, what or how do you feel about the other articles of his.

Or is that irrelevant, because that does not fully agree on your position.

Now as another poster said this has gone downhill, as compared to what, All discussion on Climate I have seen has gone this way, because of each fact one can produce an article(s) (stats, or facts for that matter) Pro or Against. The opponent can come up with the same, which would carry the same weight Against or Pro.

This is not an easy and simple discussion, as the complexity was pointed out by an earlier poster, and being complex each opponent can throw crap at each other, but the intersting part, each is taking off the same pile. (just have to pick through it).

What becomes of it....well, atleast the whole pile gets moved.

One thing though I have become more interested in Climate due to the diversity of discussions.

Does this link sound familiar.

p911

Gentlemen--I have interjected in this stuff before---PLEASE GO THE THE WEBSITE____" THE GEEN AGENDA"--CLUB OF ROME, CLUB OF MADRID--LOOK AT THE PLAYERS, LOOK AT THE AGENDAS, AND report back---until then ---awaiting a response (BTW___A great new book , is "Heaven and Earth"---Australian Geologist author---more data than you can ever scream at. I am afraid, it is a political/economic hoax...)--Still awaiting the reports on this website---

Everyone is looking at the surface of this topic because that is the way things are these days. As an example of how things work, look at the religious fervour of the antivaxxers - I have looked into it, they are talking b@llocks, but their opinions keep coming back even though they have been debunked because someone who defines the broadcast agenda decides what is aired, science be damned because you can't argue with anecdotal examples. There are humanities graduates deciding what is valid scientific evidence. A trial has just ended in Italy and the media are trying to summarize a year's worth of evidence in a soundbite. The verdict doesn't suit some people but it's not possible for Joe Public to weigh the issues based on a news broadcast. It's unfortunate that in such cases you have to trust the system. There are other examples but look at the techniques used here. After doing some reading on fallacies and rhetoric, the techniques used by the voices who are always trotted out are visible. For this particular situation it suits a lot of people not to change their lifestyles. If they can justify to themselves that actually it's all made up then they are guilt free and can carry on as normal.

This is a forum for engineers and what has surprised me is how far to the right many people's opinions are, green engineering can be more fun. Where good design is a selling point! How many times have you had to justify your position on a design that you knew was a good one whilst the bean counters were trying to save a few pence / cents? I realize this has become an emotional appeal, and after my earlier comments on technique too!

But the easiest solution is to do nothing. The alternative is to do something. The first step is to think for yourself, this was first suggested by Arrenhius at the start of the last century. It has a long history and a lot of evidence. But that is not enough against faith, the people who are using this as a weapon are true believers.

This is a forum for engineers and what has surprised me is how far to the right many people's opinions are, green engineering can be more fun.

That can be true but green engineering like sustainable agriculture, and what I mean by that is not so much good farming practice, but more so organic. It takes time to develop to make it economically acceptable to the consumer. Yes, it comes down to the almighty dollar. Something both sides of this discussion can understand

It does not and can not happen over night. And definitely cannot happen by intimidation, name calling or arrogance.

Taking a position is one thing, thinking your position is the only position is foolish thinking.

p911

Have to admit that after a cursory once through reading of APD's post I don't understand it. But one point is clear. APD is saying that we have to take the expert's word on things, because the rest of us don't have the time and expertise, and all we have to rely on is the media, which reduce a complex subject down to a sound bite.

I would have agreed with this assessment when I was young, but no more. Too many gov't science type prognostications have been made and then debunked. As engineers, especially those who use modeling in their work, we ought to recognize that a model is a simulation of selected aspects of reality. A minimum of reality is simulated, so as to be able to solve the problems in a deterministic manner and get a useful answer.

I look at the vast simplifications that are made in any modeling to which I have been exposed, and the consequent limitations on the validity of the answers coming out of the simulation, and I extrapolate to modeling the global climate, and my gut reaction, based on thirty years in engineering, is, "Yeah, right."

When one further reflects on the tremendous power grab that the climate change proponents are after, this changes from mere scientific ignorance and arrogance (which ought to be oxymorons) to a disguised but nevertheless socialist revolution.

emc_c

APD is saying that we have to take the expert's word on things, because the rest of us don't have the time and expertise, and all we have to rely on is the media, which reduce a complex subject down to a sound bite.

I am all for that...............now which "experts" to believe is the issue.

p911

"We hear also that the data showing the climate heating up has been destroyed, intentionally, because they "didn't have room" to keep it."

Really?? And why would they hide THAT information, since it would support their arguments? What I read and heard was that the data (ANY) which DID NOT show climate heating was destroyed. In fact, what I read was that any data which DID NOT show climate heating would NEVER be allowed to come to the public eye.

Hmmm. Now why would honest scientific research require THAT kind of care?

Micah

I wrote unclearly. There is raw data that is gathered, and then the scientists go to work massaging that data, and out of all the mathematical manipulation, they come up with their predictions.

The raw data exists; the predictions exist, but the "physics" and "math" that produced the predictions from the raw data have been destroyed.

To paraphrase Micah, why would honest scientists feel the need to bury their calculations?

emc_c

The biggest clue that this has become a political movement is that the narrow term "global warming" has been replaced by the broader term "climate change".

Thats pretty much what I believe from post #16. Thing is what makes it suspect, are what I would call extremist, that are trying to defend the position.

p911

Beautifully said, and a GA from me! I've long contended with the nitwits I meet on the bus platform (and what does my pentient for arguing with fellow bus-riders about SCIENCE say about me, hmmmm? ) that there is NOT ENOUGH evidence to support making laws about Global Warming. And they inevitably trot out the old shibolleths about how "Wolf Blitzer (or whomever, pick you poison) said last night that ..." or "All the real scientists say that ...." yet when I ask in the first case, "And what, exactly, do you think Wolf Blitzer (or other) knows about science?", or in the second case, "I, as a practicing scientist, cannot find that universal agreement, so whom are you citing"?, they clam up, or sputter and insist it IS true, it IS, IT IS, IT IS, and I MUST BE STUPID AND BLIND TO DISAGREE!

And all of this is said with an air of a)real, b)uninformed, not to say totally ignorant, and c)media driven panic.

It ain't science, it IS politics, and it ISN'T proven to be true. Nor is it even universally accepted as true, by those whose job it is to find it out, publish it, understand it, make the public able to understand it, and learn more about it. We're falling down on the job, because our FIELD has sold out (though many of us have not).

Meanwhile, such destructive species as jellyfish and bark-eating beetles are moving northward out of normal ranges, and seas expanding from warmth and glacier melt are encroaching on low-lying island states.

This proves exactly what?

To qoute Benjamin Disreali "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics". This was in the preface to a college text I had a few decades back called "How To Lie With Statistics"

How can two esteemed groups both claim to be right when one says that the last 10 years have been the warmest on record, while the other claims we are cooling down?

A TV spot for "Hopenhagen" claims that the number of major hurricanes has doubled in the last twenty years. Is this proof of anything? The hurrican season was virtually non existent in 2009. Shall we declare that this proves something?

The boogie man "global warming" is being phased out in favor of "climate change". Global warming at least had a direction to it. Climate change is about as nebulous a concept as one can imagine. The thing of it is, is that it is impossible to prove a negative, so how do we prove that Jellyfish migrations aren't the result of the argument dujor?

It is spitting snow this morning and it didn't yesterday. Am I to get my undies in a bunch? Every year we hear of a record high or low temperature or record rainfall somewhere on earth. Is this proof?

I recall old geezers with sandwich boards proclaiming that A-Bomb tests were causing the wild weather 50 years ago. Nothing has changed except that the voices have gotten more shrill and there is a suspicious smell about the whole movement.

FOLLOW THE MONEY. This will lead you to the truth.

Well what exactly is the lesson if you follow the money?

From what I can tell if you follow the money coal and oil and nuclear are working to keep us all dependent on their finite resources as long as they can, while also working to take control of any alternatives.

Balanced by the gazillions doled out by the UN and other governmental agencies in the form of research grants to prove something exists. You don't see wads of government cash being doled out to prove global warming doesn't exist.

Al Gore is a prime example of "follow the money". The more hysteria he can stir up the more carbon credits he can trade. His concern for the environment is about the lint in his wallet pocket.

Apparently the Saudis have spent enough to make up for any failure of the US or the UN to prove that Global Warming is not happening, and that the actions of people don't matter.

Do you really sincerely want to debate in good faith, with any possibility that you may be forced by the facts to admit you are wrong?

You say follow the money, and I say, okay, I will, and from what I can tell those with a great deal of money we give them for oil will, and have done all they could to propagandize so as to deny all of the evidence that is counter to their interests.

I think you make a valid point. What have actions have the Saudis taken to influence the Climate debate? I've not heard any mention of their involvement until reading your post. I've spent a fair amount of time in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in 2007 and 2008, never saw anything in the Saudi local news mentioning support and opposition to what's been going on.

Actually I heard reports of Saudi expenditures aimed at influencing the Climate debate in favor of their product on NPR, as I wrote the post yesterday.

You may also remember the TV commercials of last year sponsored by the Coal industry, touting Clean Coal.

I am also influenced by the actions of BP, who now turn towards representing themselves as an "Energy Company", as opposed to an Oil company.

I do not think that Oil companies are run by stupid people.

If I was in charge of a company that sold a product that was certain to run out, I'd be remiss if I did not direct investments and seek control of the alternatives.

I fully expect that over the next 5 to 10 years you will see major oil companies like BP, do all they can to get control of what they know to be essentially their competition for energy source dollars.

You will see these companies buy up and buy out their competition.

You will also see a transfer of drilling technology, where they have great experience and expertise, to geothermal.

Al Gore did one thing that was fully good that I know of in his position as Vice President, and that was to give Russian Rocket Scientists work during the collapse of the Soviet Union.

His movie was alright, but overstated some things.

Whereas Roger Pink has put out a prediction of an inch rise in the ocean levels within, whatever he said, (5 years), Gore would have said a foot in the same period.

Even Roger Pink says Cap and Trade is bullshit.

We are the guys.

I've been round with the UN myself and found them to be in need of hard butt kicks.

They are in Manhattan so as to get limo drivers to take them to La Trapeze on 27th St. while they orgy on Wednesdays.

Even Andre`Lewin of the French UN Association says it is only the concept of the UN that is worth working on.

He says very clearly what needs to be done to ReInvent that sadly corrupted institution.

The US does not have the highest standard of living in the world, from what I know.

Seems to me that nation that invented modern capitalism does.

-Netherlands, Dutch, -though they in Iceland are reported to be happier.

I'll tell you something I love about all of you on CR4.

At least we have ongoing arguments and get to know each other.

Clinton and Gore and Bush and those guys, well, if you don't have a G4, or a Falcon, they are not going to talk to you, or listen to anything you say.

I'd work for BP.

They seem to know what the score is.

I'd like to have a jet too, but well, I'd go for a little old Cessna Citation sort of thing.

Damnit, even Rutan has gone to whimsy world making tourist rocketships.

By now we ought to have some that go London to Sydney on Hydrazine, so as not to contrail, not burn oil, and be right faster.

Where did my future go?

If Nevil Shute was around he'd tell us little group the truth, on every score, though he did like to make elegant planes that were a bit slower than what was needed at the time.

121 online now on cr4. as I hit submit...

Good points!! Speaking of the Soviets, I couldn't help but see the irony of a Soviet Intercontinental Missile test (I believe with nuclear capabilities) , lighting up the sky when it's 2nd stage failed, at the same time the "Hopenhagen" party was in high gear and Obama was receiving the Noble Peace/War Prize. Those Russki's really know how to crash a party!!

Sometimes I wonder why there are so few Russians on CR4.

It was pretty funny when I lived in Manhattan on Madison Ave, across from the Met Life Building to walk down 27th over towards 5th Ave, and see all the Limos with Diplomatic plates lined up there by the sex club, La Trapeze. Seems like Wednesdays was UN night.

Guess they at least take the saying "Make love, not war." to heart sometimes, aye.

Was in fashion to beat up on the French when they pretty much said, "Don't go into Iraq." But its not like they had no experience when you look at their history in Algeria.

I'd seen that movie, The Battle of Algers back in 1970. Seems like Cheny took it as a primer, instead of a warning.

While I am not wild about nuclear power, the French apparently aren't going to quibble about it.

Think they flat out killed some Greenpeace activists over that issue.

-I forget the details.

Read up on nuclear batteries last night on Wikipedia. They are pretty interesting.

And again, the BP site is suggested reading in relation to Climate Change, along with Collapse by Jared Diamond.

-another favorite of mine, slightly off topic is The Onion, Our Dumb World, Atlas of The Planet Earth. Mine has 30 percent more Asia.

Yes---The French took their nuclear tests seriously, in the So. Pacific. Funny---I think the boats the Greenpeace guys were using were French built. I believe that, if we were to get the United Nations parking tickets paid, and not allow Diplomats exemptions for many of their fees, we could balance our budget!

I'm starting a new thread, "Is there positive effects of global warming and do they outweigh the negative?"

Spacecannon

I'd be interested! Let us hear.

I guess a consensus now depends on your point of view.

Along the lines of the original topic, here is a link to an interesting article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html