J. Clarke wrote:
jmfbahciv wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
jmfbahciv wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Benj wrote:
On Feb 8, 10:51 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/8/10 2:19 PM, Leon wrote:

Evidence is emerging that the data had been rigged all along.
From the American Institute of Physics:
snip a bunch of crap and the usual propaganda links by Worm

In case you didn't notice Sam, scientific progress isn't
determined by BS pronouncements and propaganda by the sold out
leadership of the AIP. In fact, it's not even determined by
majority vote of the AIP membership.
It also isn't determined by BS pronouncements and propaganda by the
sold out leadership of the IPCC.

Like it or not, they've screwed up bad. If the problem they're
reporting is real, their shenanigans have pretty much guaranteed
that nothing is going to get done about it.

That would be a lot better than what is happening now. If you've
noticed, politicians and the general public are still doing things
which will "fix" the myth. That will make things worse.
That's true--their true colors appeared at Copenhagen, where their
"solution" was to play Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to
the poor. I will say though that they're learning the game--what
arch-conservative can fault "let the market solve the problem"
without coming across as a hypocrite?
Dammit. I'm not talking about redistributing wealth. I'm talking
about physical actions which will make the environment worse.

Haven't seen any of those specifically in response to AGW. What I have seen
is China becoming the world's largest CO2 emitter after signing Kyoto, with
the expectation that the US was going to come charging in on a money-laden
white horse and fix their power plant emissions for them.

Power plant emissions isn't the problem.

Have I missed something?

Yes. You are missing [what I call] processes. All decisions are
getting made based on the myth, even the little decisions.


Meanwhile, the general public continues to have the rather
charmingly naive notion that turning the heat down and using CF
light bulbs and driving a hybrid is going to somehow magically roll
worldwide per capita CO2 emissions back to the level the IPCC was
asking for.
no, that's not why they do those things. People do those actions
(except the last one) to reduce their living costs. the fact that
they can rationalize using the latest PC mantras makes them feel
like part of the community. Hybrids are still a status symbol
for those who can't afford to buy a Humvee.

Do you see these same people lobbying for a moratorium on fossil fueled
power plants and an increase in nuclear? Do you see them dumping their gas
or oil heat for the electric that will be needed to heat their homes with no
CO2 emissions, if and when the power plants are replaced?

I see them buying wood stoves. THINK about that.

Do you see them
lobbying for sanctions against China and other nations that have made major
increases in emissions post-Kyoto?

As long as Al Gore is the fountainhead, there will be nothing done
against China.

No, we see them making marginal
reductions in their own use of energy and the ones who do this often are the
same ones who lobby against anything that will be truly effective.


One of the most insidious notions to come out of all this is the equation of
reductions in CO2 emissions with reduced energy consumption. Not gonna
work. Try that and people are gonna starve. Lots and lots of people.
What's going to have to be done to reduce CO2 emissions is to replace
CO2-emitting energy production with non-CO2-emitting energy production,
often at considerable _reduction_ in efficiency.


See? You have swallowed the myth, too. Thus all of your "solutions",
and voting for people who will invoke your solutions, are going to
be wrong.



/BAH