[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Well, if the car you got for free cost you $750 in taxes every year, plus $3000 MORE a year in gasoline than a car that might cost you an extra $10,000 to buy, then making a buying decision IN FAVOR of the environment is actually quite an easy thing to do, and it doesn't even take any green sympathy to make the sensible decision.

you couldn't afford NOT to.

And that's why I object to this "movement." I drive my car about 6,000 miles per year, I get about 27 mpg (American gallons), and my power is 80% hydroelectric. I'm not a part of your problem, but you want me to pay $750 in penalties because it makes you feel better about doing...something. With all due respect, keep that self-righteous attitude to yourself.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Articles from the end of '06 have not been subject to peer review and can safely be ignored until they have been reviewed, discussed, and, as will ultimately be the fate of these particular ones, dismissed by the scientific community.

It doesn't really matter anyway, because the article he links to neither disputes the fact that global warming is happening nor that humans are part of the cause. It just says that humans are responsible for less global warming than other scientists think. And gets to that conclusion by making a very basic error.

[analogika]

Ah, well that's just stupid.

[Face Ache]

Geologists eh? Most geologists work for mining companies, don't they?

[analogika]

But...but they're scientists!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The Americans who think like you.

I don't know how your xenophobia is relevant or even productive in this thread.

Yes - again, that seems to be a specifically American problem.

Really?

Emissions tax and gas tax seem fairly effective: As mentioned, Germany has cut CO2 emissions by 15%.

I see where Germany hopes to by 2012. Can you site for me an article affirming that Germany has cut C02 emissions by 15%? Then, I'd like to see a global comparison by country of who has cut the most in the past say... 1 year or 5 years. Thanx.

The ****ing ferry is HEATED. I don't know if you Mid-Westerners have developed the concept or the technology yet.

I don't know if you people understand Geography or not, but we're ****ing land-locked moron. I'll say it again, there aren't any ****ing Ferries here. Make sense?

I'm not walking 5 blocks to the bus stop to wait an additional 10 minutes for the bus to arrive, having it take me approximately halfway to where I need to go, using a transfer to wait on a second bus to drop me off 8 blocks from where I work. I won't be doing this for two reasons; because it's ****ing -15 degree wind-chill outside and it's an extra 15 hours a week just getting to and from work. On my list of ways to spend my time, reducing emissions by using mass transportation is not one of them. Got it?

You certainly seem to have no concept of "public transportation"!

You obviously don't grasp the concept any better. This severely out of touch, "let 'em eat cake" mentality is getting mildly annoying.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not walking 5 blocks to the bus stop to wait an additional 10 minutes for the bus to arrive, having it take me approximately halfway to where I need to go, using a transfer to wait on a second bus to drop me off 8 blocks from where I work. I won't be doing this for two reasons; because it's ****ing -15 degree wind-chill outside and it's an extra 15 hours a week just getting to and from work. On my list of ways to spend my time, reducing emissions by using mass transportation is not one of them. Got it?

Yes, I got why you're part of the problem. And your refusal to acknowledge it IS an American problem, specifically. It also happens in other places - even here - but here, things are actually being done to change the way people think, and they do.

You see: If you weren't the lone moron going out in -15-degree windchill, but if you were one of hundreds who'd do so, then there'd probably be a bus that didn't stop more than two blocks from where you live, drove every three to five minutes during rush hours, and actually went where you'd want it to with *maybe* switching busses once in between.

And if the only thing that might force you to actually consider that choice is to make driving your car so prohibitively expensive that it starts to hurt, then that is precisely what it takes.

And suddenly, there is both the incentive AND the financial means to make such an infrastructure possible. That's not fantasy, ebuddy. This sort of thing actually happens outside of your world - you know, that weird planet where global warming is actually happening.

You see, people can be made to do what's in the interest of survival. They don't have to like it.

In fact, and this might be a comfort, ebuddy, they don't even have to understand it.

[Kevin]

analog's problem is he keeps thinking Europe = America.

Totally different land mass. Europe's problem fixers simply wont work in America.

That doesn't make us short-sited or any other hateful word analog likes to constantly call Americans.

He should just be glad that America didn't adopt Kyoto. People like him would bail out of it just out of purpose cause America was part of it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by analogika 

And if the only thing that might force you to actually consider that choice is to make driving your car so prohibitively expensive that it starts to hurt, then that is precisely what it takes.

There's that vindictiveness again.

You see, people can be made to do what's in the interest of survival. They don't have to like it.

Survival?

[smacintush]

Yeah survival 'cuz if we don't start riding buses and trains we're all doomed!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll 

LOL. Are you seriously arguing that the couple of minutes of cool down in front of the aircon has the same environmental impact as commuting by car??

I'm saying you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't think you're respecting the complexity and scope of the issue.

D-uh - lack of public transportation is part of the problem. How do you get more of it? Collect more tax money and spend it building infrastructure.

Spend it building infrastructure? You mean like making sure the street's potholes aren't swallowing small cars? They're not doing good enough with what they're already getting. It is not a wise investment for me or IMO, anyone else for that matter. Not to mention what they're doing with money at the Federal level. Now there's no doubt in my mind that all intentions are good (at least for most), but that doesn't mean they have merit. I can't afford to give them more. It's that simple. The company I work for cannot afford to give them more. Most can't. Contrary to popular belief, most business owners are not cigar-chomping, gold chain wearing suits laughing menacingly at the poor entry-level schlep.

How do you get more tax money? Increase the gas tax. What happens when you increase the gas tax? More people look for other transportation solutions. See the trend?

I see the trend. The trend has been well-established by history up to and including the above. Are the trustees trustworthy? A great many of us had better begin questioning more earnestly, the current spending endeavors before giving these "brokers" any more money.

Millions of New Yorkers and millions of Europeans say you're wrong.
Suzuki? Daihatsu? Subaru? Toyota? Renault? Fiat? Makers of economical 4x4s. Spot the American company in the herd.

Nope, nor the company I'm interested in patronizing. Well, with the exception of Subaru and I've considered them in my decision to purchase, but I'm not buying new. I'm looking 2000-2003 and the Subaru of my choice would've been the Baja which has slumped to below average reliability.

What's on your list? AIDS? Tuberculosis? Malaria? Bird flu? Poverty? Environmental degradation (other than climate change)? No wait, let me guess - at the top of your list is terrorism right!

These are all major concerns and I appreciate your balcony view, but I'd like to see us do a little more downtown. It includes accountability to those whom represent you at the local level both governmental and philanthropic and occasionally picking up a shovel.

I suppose you could hold a sign and maybe march to a golf course or something.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Yes, I got why you're part of the problem.

I see what you got.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I see where Germany hopes to by 2012. Can you site for me an article affirming that Germany has cut C02 emissions by 15%? Then, I'd like to see a global comparison by country of who has cut the most in the past say... 1 year or 5 years. Thanx.

I see what you forgot.

You see: If you weren't the lone moron going out in -15-degree windchill

The "lone morons going out in -15 degree wind-chill" aren't doing it because they want to wait on buses in the cold my... what are you again? Oh, eurofool. Believe me when these "lone morons" look out the bus window, they'd much rather be the one in the $23,000.00 Toyota Prius with the SAVE THE EARTH NOW bumper sticker.

In fact, I suspect a great many of them would like the value of their home to reach $23,000.00. No, scratch that. I'm certain they would.

And if the only thing that might force you to actually consider that choice is to make driving your car so prohibitively expensive that it starts to hurt, then that is precisely what it takes.

On behalf of all inner-cities everywhere; we don't want your help. Our business owners want it even less.

You see, people can be made to do what's in the interest of survival. They don't have to like it.

You've gone beyond funny to awkwardly fearsome.

In fact, and this might be a comfort, ebuddy, they don't even have to understand it.

Then again, they may not be looking up from their coffee, National Geographic, or over the guard rails of the ferry near enough to have a fighting chance at understanding it.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Millions of New Yorkers and millions of Europeans say you're wrong.
Suzuki? Daihatsu? Subaru? Toyota? Renault? Fiat? Makers of economical 4x4s. Spot the American company in the herd.

I'll bite.

Subaru: manufactured in Lafayette, Indiana, USA. Investment money: General Motors.
Isuzu: Manufacturing engines in USA, 37.4% owned by General Motors.
Mazda: 25% owned by Ford.
Toyota: manufactured in Ohio, partnership with General Motors.
Suzuki: General Motors joint venture, GM had a 17.4% stake.

So yes, I can spot the American companies in the herd.

Next!

[Buckaroo]

This Global Warming crap is going to get out of hand. Next thing you know, they are going to ban Soda Pop, Beer and I anything that contains CO2.

I hope I didn't make an ignorant goof. I'm sure someone will straigten me out.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Funny, not one of you has even attempted to rebut the Monckton report, maybe you all need a "shortcut" to it?

Yet again, your tired arguments make me yawn.

Who the hell is Christopher Monckton? A British Viscount or something, a former journalist, inherited royalty with too much time on his hands, some guy who likes to design puzzles with huge rewards and then loses his prize, a guy who likes to write on global warming but has no idea what he's talking about and gets everything wrong?

Again; you're bringing up newspaper articles and magazine articles and random articles from people who aren't scientists, or aren't practicing scientists, or aren't scientists involved with climate science. Again and again. Ad nauseam.

greg

[Face Ache]

Stopping global warming impinges on people's Freedom™.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Subaru: manufactured in Lafayette, Indiana, USA. Investment money: General Motors.
Toyota: manufactured in Ohio, partnership with General Motors.

Some of the Subarus and Toyotas that are sold in the US are manufactured in the US so Toyota and Subaru are American companies? What percentage of the cars that Toyota sells worldwide are made in the US? Please, Toyota are as Brazilian or British or South African (they make cars there too) as they are American - which is not at all. I mean, by your logic, GM is an Australian company because they make some cars in Australia!

Subaru is a division of Fuji Heavy Industries which is as Japanese as manga. GM used to hold 20% of Subaru but it sold 9% to Toyota in 2005 and announced that it would divest completely from Subaru. Since then, another 3% of that stake has been sold. So GM holds about 8% and is trying to flog it.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Isuzu: Manufacturing engines in USA, 37.4% owned by General Motors.

Nonsense! GM holds no shares in Isuzu. The top three shareholders in Isuzu are ITOCHU (Japan), Mitsubishi (Japan) and Toyota (Japan). Toyota holds 5.9%.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Suzuki: General Motors joint venture, GM had a 17.4% stake.

Note the use of the past tense. GM holds a 3% shareholding in Suzuki. This is known as a minority interest. If that makes Suzuki American, then there isn't an American company listed on the NYSE!

Suzuki has joint ventures with companies on all continents. Just as GM does. Is GM a Japanese company because it has joint ventures with Suzuki and Toyota? Of course not! In any event, I was talking about vehicles like the Suzuki Justy or the Fiat Panda which, afaik, are not even sold in the US.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Mazda: 25% owned by Ford.

Wrong again. Ford owns 33.4% of Mazda. Even though that's more than your guess, it doesn't make Mazda an American company. But for rigged shares, 51% is a controlling interest in a company, Sir.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

So yes, I can spot the American companies in the herd.

Sha-ah!

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Spend it building infrastructure? You mean like making sure the street's potholes aren't swallowing small cars?

No, more like making sure there's a bus leaving two blocks from your place every five minutes.

Something they're not doing now because there's nobody to ride them - because you all prefer your 16-mpg trucks for convenience.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Stopping global warming impinges on people's Freedom™.

No matter how absurd, some moron somewhere will believe it:

Originally Posted by Macrobat's sig

"One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some will say we were fighting that threat wherever possible; others will say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad." - Dennis Prager

[OreoCookie]

@ebuddy:
Here are figures for the EU. It clearly shows that Germany has reduced its CO2 emissions by 18.9 % in 2002 (compared to 1990) and thus takes the lead within the EU. If you want to know what industries have cut CO2 emissions, take a look at this. It's in German, but you can either run it through google or just take a look at the numbers.

For comparison, I've found this chart clearly indicating that the CO2 emissions by the US have steadily increased during that period. The CO2 emission per capita is even more telling.

I guess that should be sufficient to get off analogika's back on this one.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@ebuddy:
Here are figures for the EU. It clearly shows that Germany has reduced its CO2 emissions by 18.9 % in 2002 (compared to 1990) and thus takes the lead within the EU. If you want to know what industries have cut CO2 emissions, take a look at this. It's in German, but you can either run it through google or just take a look at the numbers.

I like your chart from 1980-1993. I found some other info regarding the .01% growth of population in Germany from 1997 and notice that during that span of time, the average annual growth rate of GDP has been on a decline since early 1980s and no growth was observed in total output to 2003. Interesting correlations.

For comparison, I've found this chart clearly indicating that the CO2 emissions by the US have steadily increased during that period. The CO2 emission per capita is even more telling.

Not very telling at all. You're comparing apples to oranges.

I guess that should be sufficient to get off analogika's back on this one.

It's chess, I've already got my next set of questions ready such as the GDP comparisons, economic comparisons, unemployment figures, and population growth statistics from 1980 to present. You see, some have stagnated in the above, others such as the US have not. It is critical to take population growth and these other issues into account. If I take a house full of people who throw their trash around and eventually empty the house, I'd certainly expect to see a decline in the amount of trash being thrown around.

Then again, if I had a cute little secretary like analogika apparently has, I might be more forthcoming with charts of my own.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yeah survival 'cuz if we don't start riding buses and trains we're all doomed!

Analog is gonna MAKE YOU ride that bus.

AND LIKE IT. And you'll do it with a smile.

In Communist Russia, he'd have made the bus RIDE YOU.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I'll bite.

Subaru: manufactured in Lafayette, Indiana, USA. Investment money: General Motors.
Isuzu: Manufacturing engines in USA, 37.4% owned by General Motors.
Mazda: 25% owned by Ford.
Toyota: manufactured in Ohio, partnership with General Motors.
Suzuki: General Motors joint venture, GM had a 17.4% stake.

So yes, I can spot the American companies in the herd.

Next!

Smackith downith.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

No, more like making sure there's a bus leaving two blocks from your place every five minutes.

A bus leaving every five minutes from close to my house would be 1/3rd full. Not an efficient use of that large vehicle emitting the black plumes of smoke. Civil engineering walks hand in hand with population growth. So does carbon emissions per State by the way.

Something they're not doing now because there's nobody to ride them - because you all prefer your 16-mpg trucks for convenience.

Actually, that's not entirely correct. While there are a lot of trucks moving to and fro, they're busy servicing others' homes or their own. This is the sign of progress and economic growth. Something you'd know little about statistically. What someone decides to own is no business of yours. They're not emitting any more C02 than your VW microbus with the Goddess Bless bumper stickers on the back. You might know the midwest is particularly big on ethanol usage. Something I notice Germans are trying to urge more.

They should buy their corn from the US' midwest.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Who the hell is Christopher Monckton? A British Viscount or something, a former journalist, inherited royalty with too much time on his hands, some guy who likes to design puzzles with huge rewards and then loses his prize, a guy who likes to write on global warming but has no idea what he's talking about and gets everything wrong?

Again; you're bringing up newspaper articles and magazine articles and random articles from people who aren't scientists, or aren't practicing scientists, or aren't scientists involved with climate science. Again and again. Ad nauseam.

greg

You just attacked the author and not what he has to say. This is known as ad-hominem attack. In NO TIME did you debunk ANYTHING he had to say.

This seems to be the norm here. Instead of debunking what people have to say the usual suspects just attack the person's "credibility'

We see you doing this. Yes we do.

[Doofy]

I'm *still* waiting for someone to explain to me what, exactly, is so bad about a 4 degree rise in the next 100 years. Do you people not like seeing chicks in bikinis or something?

[vmarks]

Someone tell me, what is the correct temperature of the Earth?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Someone tell me, what is the correct temperature of the Earth?

At any particular moment, it's whatever the socialists/commies/greens want it to be so as to best further their program of misery redistribution.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Some of the Subarus and Toyotas that are sold in the US are manufactured in the US so Toyota and Subaru are American companies? What percentage of the cars that Toyota sells worldwide are made in the US? Please, Toyota are as Brazilian or British or South African (they make cars there too) as they are American - which is not at all. I mean, by your logic, GM is an Australian company because they make some cars in Australia!

You tell Toyota Motor Corporation, USA that they aren't a USA company.
And yes, GM is also an Australian, Canadian company. Shoot, it's European if you consider Opel.

Subaru is a division of Fuji Heavy Industries which is as Japanese as manga. GM used to hold 20% of Subaru but it sold 9% to Toyota in 2005 and announced that it would divest completely from Subaru. Since then, another 3% of that stake has been sold. So GM holds about 8% and is trying to flog it.
Nonsense! GM holds no shares in Isuzu. The top three shareholders in Isuzu are ITOCHU (Japan), Mitsubishi (Japan) and Toyota (Japan). Toyota holds 5.9%.

GM is finding that the promises they made to support pensions and healthcare for retired workers is costing more than the costs to build cars. Of course they're selling off interests - they have to in order to meet their socialist promises, and it's killing their ability to conduct the car business.

Isuzu? 1971 - A capital agreement with General Motors is signed. 1972 - The Chevrolet LUV becomes the first Isuzu-built vehicle to be sold in the United States. A decade later, it is replaced by a domestic vehicle, the Chevrolet S-10.
1973 - Isuzu introduces the Gemini, which is co-produced with General Motors.1998 - General Motors and Isuzu form DMAX, a joint venture to produce diesel engines.
1999 - GM raises its stake in Isuzu to 49%, effectively gaining control of the company.August 14, 2002 - General Motors reduces its 49% share in Isuzu to 12% as part of a comprehensive recapitalization of Isuzu. GM also takes full control of DMAX and Isuzu Motors Polska, with Isuzu losing not just the factories but also ownership of all engine designs.Isuzu Troopers Are dropped out from the American Isuzu lineup.June 2006 - Isuzu and GM Agree to establish Joint Venture called "LCV Platform Engineering Corporation (LPEC)" to develop a new pickup. Isuzu says it will use it's engineering expertise to develop the pickup and GM will develop derivatives based on the integrated platform.
Novemember 2006 - Toyota purchases 5.9% of Isuzu and the two companies agree to study possible business collaboration focusing on the areas of R&D and production of diesel engines, related emissions-control, and other environmental technologies.

Tell me again how Isuzu is a GM owns no shares. I see GM all through the history and up to present, holding majority to holding 12%.

Note the use of the past tense. GM holds a 3% shareholding in Suzuki. This is known as a minority interest. If that makes Suzuki American, then there isn't an American company listed on the NYSE!

Suzuki has joint ventures with companies on all continents. Just as GM does. Is GM a Japanese company because it has joint ventures with Suzuki and Toyota? Of course not! In any event, I was talking about vehicles like the Suzuki Justy or the Fiat Panda which, afaik, are not even sold in the US.
Wrong again. Ford owns 33.4% of Mazda. Even though that's more than your guess, it doesn't make Mazda an American company. But for rigged shares, 51% is a controlling interest in a company, Sir.
Sha-ah!

I wasn't guessing. The docs at the US Federal Trade Commission (ftc.gov) stated Ford had 25% in Mazda.

Did you mean Subaru Justy? We've had them in the US when they were making them.
And the Suzuki Vitara (Suzuki never made a Justy) is the Chevy Tracker, formerly Geo Tracker. Next!

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yet again, your tired arguments make me yawn.

Who the hell is Christopher Monckton? A British Viscount or something, a former journalist, inherited royalty with too much time on his hands, some guy who likes to design puzzles with huge rewards and then loses his prize, a guy who likes to write on global warming but has no idea what he's talking about and gets everything wrong?

Again; you're bringing up newspaper articles and magazine articles and random articles from people who aren't scientists, or aren't practicing scientists, or aren't scientists involved with climate science. Again and again. Ad nauseam.

greg

Bull. You first deny that any dissenting opinion - whatsoever - exists for global warming. Then someone shows you dissenting opinions, of which there are literally hundreds. Then you simply attack the source, because we dare to impinge upon your faith. You, sir, are a religious zealot/

Here's a clue, Shortie, Monckton is simply the compiler of the report, the science is from MANY other people.

The only thing tiresome here is your condescension.

OpinionJournal - Extra

Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming' | Usa | North America | International News | News | Telegraph

Wes Pruden

Global Warming
(Have fun with this one, should take you most of the week)

Reason Magazine - Two Sides to Global Warming

Your attitude demonstrates the number one reason why no one accepts your arguments. You may actually have a valid point there somewhere, but if you act like you are Grand Poobah of the Planet and talk down to people, they will NOT listen to you.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You tell Toyota Motor Corporation, USA that they aren't a USA company.

Toyota USA is a subsidiary of a Japanese company beneficially owned and controlled from Japan. Don't play dumb. Toyota USA doesn't decide what technologies Toyota is going to invest in, what cars Toyota is going to build, how economical they should be etc. Besides which, I somehow doubt that you thought my reference to "Toyota" was to Toyota Motor Corporation USA and in your response, if you'd intended to refer to that subsidiary, you could have specified Toyota USA.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

GM is finding that the promises they made to support pensions and healthcare for retired workers is costing more than the costs to build cars. Of course they're selling off interests

That's not the point. The point is you posted completely incorrect data in an attempt to suggest that those companies were really American companies.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Tell me again how Isuzu is a GM owns no shares. I see GM all through the history and up to present, holding majority to holding 12%.

You quote from wikipedia yet you apparently didn't read the article. Look at the introduction. How can Toyota be the third-biggest shareholder with 5.9% behind Mitsu and ITOCHU if GM holds 12%? Huh? Answer a little way down:

2006 - Production of the 7-passenger Ascender ends in February with the closure of GM's Oklahoma City Assembly plant, leaving Isuzu with the 5-passenger Ascender, built in Moraine, Ohio, and the low-selling i-Series as its only retail products. The company sold just 1,504 vehicles in North America in the first two months of 2006. GM sells its remaining shares in Isuzu, but claims the companies will continue their current relationship. There is no word as of April 12, 2006 on the effect this will have on DMAX USA operations.

Of course, a little Googling would have revealed this on the completion of GM's exit from Japan:
GM sells Isuzu stake to end exodus from Japan - Business - International Herald Tribune

If you gloss over that fact, what other facts are you glossing over?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Look, admitting that you are wrong and that there are real scientists who have done real research that disagree with the Holy Consensus™ is NOT the same as admitting that you were wrong about climate change. Really, it's Ok.

Thanks. You just helped me with me in the argument I was having about a week ago. This was my point exactly.

[Macrobat]

Since I highly doubt the Grand Poobah even deigns to read any of the links or reports posted in rebuttal of his "arguments," I will post the Lindzen piece here in its entirety:

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Here's a clue: If the science even approaches any of your claims, there is no need to intimidate and stifle debate about it. The fact that debate about it most decidedly exists in the scientific community means by definition that it is NOT fact.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Your attitude demonstrates the number one reason why no one accepts your arguments. You may actually have a valid point there somewhere, but if you act like you are Grand Poobah of the Planet and talk down to people, they will NOT listen to you.

BINGO. Give that man a gold star for the day!

If you can't even accept the fact that there is credible dissent (whether you believe it is true or not), then it makes reasonable people question your ability to discern other subtle truths and whether you are too biased to be able to truly interpret what you are investigating.

[Kevin]

Intimidation is only needed where dishonesty is present.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Here's a clue, Shortie, Monckton is simply the compiler of the report, the science is from MANY other people.

I clicked through those sources. I couldn't be bothered checking all the links on the skepicism.net site but I did click the other links and there wasn't even a single reference to a peer reviewed scientific paper. It's really quite simple, dude - we're asking you to talk to us about the state of SCIENTIFIC debate not the OPINION contained in press articles. I agree with you that the press implies that there is a debate - that's precisely the issue I have. If you want to talk to us about SCIENCE, show us a peer reviewed scientific papers. This is the 9th page and we still haven't seen a single one. It's really getting tiring and if there were as much debate as you claim and knowing that the oil companies are throwing money at making the science, surely it wouldn't be this difficult for you guys to come up with the goods.

I don't expect you'll admit that because you've really put a lot into this argument. So, let's look for the middle ground. Let's do this. I think we can all agree that an overwhelming majority of scientists that represents nearly all of the experts in climatology, believe that global warming is happening and man is part of the cause. Let's assume, for the sake of progressing this debate, that this is the truth. Now the question really is, what do we do about it.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Here's a clue: If the science even approaches any of your claims, there is no need to intimidate and stifle debate about it. The fact that debate about it most decidedly exists in the scientific community means by definition that it is NOT fact.

Conspiracy theories are the last domain of people who've lost the argument. Basically what you're saying is that for the last 5 years or so, there's been a global conspiracy of all scientific journals to oppose some of the most powerful corporations and money interests on the planet for the sake of ... I don't know what actually ... a share of the profits of the sale of solar panels or something. There's an equivalent of this theory - it has to do with fish eye lenses and a group called the Flat Earth Society. Now that you've parked yourself in that conspiracy theory camp, it's not possible to debate you on this.

[Macrobat]

There is no need for me to "admit" anything, Trollie. The argument we presented was that ther [exists[/i] dissent. If anyone here needs to admit anything, it's YOUR constant movement of the goalposts.

You know full well that you are presenting a Catch 22. Since dissent is stifled, there will BE no "peer reviewed" papers, since they are universally ignored by the scientist/priests of your global warming religion.

Nice try - but it's transparent.

Your interpretation is that the argument is lost, but you are wrong. You try to belittle and present YOUR opinion as absolute FACT, but the Lidzen argument I posted in its entirety shows you for the blind zealot here.

The conspiracists here are the global warming community, since it is THEY who are attempting to alter people's behavior - I suggest you try your academic dishonesty elsewhere.

Lindzen's point is valid:

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

As is his point that the models actually support the exact OPPOSITE of the alarmists' claims on storm activity.

Global Warming is NOT good science, as the hypothesis has been twisted to fit a foregone conclusion, rather than allowing the scientific process to dictate the conclusion.

Just try to discredit Lindzen - I dare you.

A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists.

When you argue from a demonstrably dishonest conclusion in the first place, the honus is on YOU, not us, to defend the methodology in the first place. If anyone needs to "admit" anything here, it's you, not me.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The argument we presented was that ther [exists[/i] dissent.

I agree. Hallelujah. Not everyone on the planet agrees that global warming is caused by humans. Not everyone on the planet agrees that the earth is round or that we revolve around the sun.

Now that we've got that out of the way, tell us what you think about the point we've been making right from the start - is there any SCIENTIFIC DISSENT? Would you say scientists are agreed on whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun? How would you work this out? You'd go and look at a selection of the most recent peer reviewed scientific papers you can find. If you do the same thing for global warming, bobs your uncle, the consensus is that it's happening and human are contributing to it.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

If anyone here needs to admit anything, it's YOUR constant movement of the goalposts.

Right from page one of this debate, I've been referring to scientific papers saying global warming is not caused by human activity. The goalposts have never been shifted.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

You know full well that you are presenting a Catch 22. Since dissent is stifled, there will BE no "peer reviewed" papers, since they are universally ignored by the scientist/priests of your global warming religion.

What do you think would happen if you presented a paper arguing that the earth is actually flat because when you look out of a building, it looks flat? Do you think any respectable scientific journal would publish it? I reckon the biggest reason why these people aren't getting published is because their science sucks! I could set up a scientific journal tomorrow and start collecting $10k from Exxon for every negative article I write about global warming. Why wouldn't I bother. Because scientists would catch on quickly and ignore my publication and pretty soon I'd be out of business.

Anyway, as I said, once you park in any global conspiracy camp, it's not possible to argue with you because whatever I say merely confirms the conspiracy theory.

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Lindzen's point is valid:

More accurately, you're referring to Lindzen's OPINION. You have an untested idea against tested science. Who do you expect the sane person to believe?

Besides which, Lindzen's opinion is irrelevant to the debate. Lindzen takes issue with some scientists' views of the catastrophic consequences of global warming which is irrelevant to our debate. He doesn't deny that it's happening, that it's probably caused by CO2 and he doesn't exclude the possibility that humans are the cause.

Perhaps what you're really trying to say is that there's no need for alarm. Maybe you could be a little clearer about what your point actually is.

[Macrobat]

Clearer? I couldn't get any clearer, perhaps I should have it translated to another language for you.

Here it is (for the millionth time):

Global Warming is NOT an absolute. It is NOT accepted fact, except by those who ascribe assidiously to the "religion" of Climate Change. There DO exist credible dissenting opinions. The reason you don't get what you tantrum about (peer-reviewed papers) is because dissenting opinions are simply derided and ignored - not reviewed.

Clear enough for you?

[vmarks]

You don't think Toyota Motor Co, USA has a say in which products get introduced to the US market, or what specs they need to be in order to sell in the US market? I believe they do - because they know the US market and what consumers will buy better than men sitting in Japan do.

Originally Posted by Troll 

If you gloss over that fact, what other facts are you glossing over?

Fair point, I made a mistake.

I can admit this in plain language. You never do.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Global Warming is NOT an absolute. It is NOT accepted fact, except by those who ascribe assidiously to the "religion" of Climate Change.

Thanks, that's much clearer. You're saying that it is not accepted fact that there is an "observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades" (the definition of global warming). I thought you were just denying that the warming was caused by humans, instead you don't even think it's happening!

I understand now and I understand also that you don't have any actual science to back you up because there's a global conspiracy. I disagree but I've already explained to you why.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You don't think Toyota Motor Co, USA has a say in which products get introduced to the US market, or what specs they need to be in order to sell in the US market? I believe they do - because they know the US market and what consumers will buy better than men sitting in Japan do.

I agree with you. Toyota USA most definitely has a say in which products are introduced into the US market. I never said any different. Although distinguishing between Toyota USA and Toyota Japan in this context is a bit artificial. Toyota USA is owned by Toyota Japan so it's really a limb of the same body. Reps from Toyota USA go to Japan and look at the products Toyota has developed there and they say, "We could sell that," and then the car gets homologated for the US and the reps go out and sell it. I don't think that makes Toyota an American company.

My point was that Toyota is forced to think about environmental concerns because it's designing cars for markets that have more stringent environmental regulations than the US - like their domestic market. Toyota has also had to "green" its manufacturing because it builds cars in countries that have signed Kyoto like Japan. That has translated into manufacturing savings for them. At the same time, Lincoln and Cadillac have continued building big, inefficient cars because in their domestic market gas was cheap and regulation light. They haven't been able to sell their cars in the rest of the world for years, their production lines are still inefficient and the result? Suddenly people in the last market they have left are becoming environmentally conscious and suffering under increased energy costs and they too are looking for more efficient, cheaper cars. And they're finding that those cars are coming from outside of the US. What I'm saying is that the auto industry is an example of how environmental regulations like Kyoto translate not into economic ruin but a competitive advantage. US companies are losing out because they haven't been incentivised to change in the same way that companies in "greener" countries have.

I apologise if my tone was arrogant. I thought the whole "next" thing was a bit aggressive, but it was not my intention to put you down.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm *still* waiting for someone to explain to me what, exactly, is so bad about a 4 degree rise in the next 100 years. Do you people not like seeing chicks in bikinis or something?

Not like there'll be any beaches around for them to hang out on.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Thanks, that's much clearer. You're saying that it is not accepted fact that there is an "observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades" (the definition of global warming). I thought you were just denying that the warming was caused by humans, instead you don't even think it's happening!

Above is the ace card in the Global Warming Religion's hand. Do everything you can to confuse the issue as to whether....

A. There is warming that will cause catastrophic calamaties.
B. That this warming is primarliy caused by human activity

...by equating people who do not believe that there is with those who do not believe that a statistically small weather change has/is occuring. Prove one thing, then lump those who disbelieve other things in with those who don't believe the former.

It's called a "straw man". It goes right along with the "poisoning the well", goal post changing and personal attacks that have been used in this thread to deny the facts.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Bull. You first deny that any dissenting opinion - whatsoever - exists for global warming. Then someone shows you dissenting opinions, of which there are literally hundreds. Then you simply attack the source, because we dare to impinge upon your faith. You, sir, are a religious zealot/

You have never learned about CREDIBLE sources as opposed to anybody's opinion?

You have never learned to follow an argument, either?

[Macrobat]

You keep right on with your religion, I'm not trying to convert you.

Believe me, it's nowhere NEAR obvious to ALL of us that your "argument" consists of "we're better than you, you should be more like us and your source material sucks."

yeah, I want to try and "follow" that - lmao.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Since I highly doubt the Grand Poobah even deigns to read any of the links or reports posted in rebuttal of his "arguments," I will post the Lindzen piece here in its entirety:

Actually, my bizarre little friend, Troll has shown several times in this very thread that a) he in fact DID read linked articles, and that b) the people posting the links DID NOT read their own supporting articles, and that c) in fact, the articles occasionally flat-out contradicted either themselves or the very point the poster was trying to make.

Of course, you would have had to follow the thread and actually read stuff for that.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Clearer? I couldn't get any clearer, perhaps I should have it translated to another language for you.

Here it is (for the millionth time):

Global Warming is NOT an absolute. It is NOT accepted fact, except by those who ascribe assidiously to the "religion" of Climate Change. There DO exist credible dissenting opinions. The reason you don't get what you tantrum about (peer-reviewed papers) is because dissenting opinions are simply derided and ignored - not reviewed.

Clear enough for you?

Yes, yes, that point has been made, and it's been debunked. Even stupidousman got to the point where he was no longer arguing that global warming wasn't happening, nor that humans weren't causing it, but merely that its consequences won't measure up to what climatologists currently think will happen.

Any point?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Not like there'll be any beaches around for them to hang out on.

Right, so the sea somehow won't carry the existing sand up to its new waterline then?