Slashdot Mirror

.
The corruption of science in this case is startling; banning dissent, fabricating data, falsifying data, LYING about the presence/absence of data, lying about results to get pre-ordained results, this group has sullied the entire IPCC and the climate research field by their actions.

Neo libertarian would be a more apt description, as they aren't really in favor of individual liberty, but in diluting the powers of governments in order to maximize the power and profits of the multi nationals. A task at which they have largely achieved.

As in usual in these cases when they talk about 'Net Neutrality' they mean the exact opposite. Mainly to do with installing toal roads on the InterTUBES. Once it gets to Washington the 'Net Neutrality' bill won't actually keep the net neutral, similar to how the 'Can-spam' act didn't, can spam that it. It actually made it legal, and illegal to try and stop it.

'Advocates of "network neutrality" have the federal government's ear and seem closer than at times past to achieving their goal of greater government control over the Internet '

Instead of where it rightly belongs, in the hands of a few unaccountable mega-corporations. I wonder just who is really financing Heartland .. :)

some more quotes:

'Neutralists .. advocate a combination of collective activist user behavior and government mandates to break "Big Media's" grip on information and culture by creating an information commons to unleash citizens' bottom-up creative and innovative potential. And they oppose "Big Software," such as Microsoft, believing there should be no proprietary ownership of software and that users should instead be free to use, copy, change, or redistribute any software code as they see fit.'

This is merely a pretext to discredit the 'Neutralists' by associating them with open source 'activists' using a total distortion of what Open Source is really about.

'Neutralists view the economics of information technology through their unique prism, which results in a set of beliefs that Cleland calls "neutralnomics." .. An underlying premise of neutralnomics is the Marxist notion that capitalism'

Ahh, the ole Open Source is communist fud.

'The conventional view of broadband is that ISPs should be free to divert from the flat-rate billing structure most customers experience, and experiment instead with variable pricing, usage-based pricing, or even caps on broadband use in order to tailor services and products to the wants of potential consumers. The drive to make greater profits propels the search for new and better products, and the presence of competition gives consumers choices at reasonable prices. This is the fee structure employed even by public utilities such as electricity and water, where it is generally seen as being efficient as well as fair.'

No that's not accurate. What the telecoms want to do is restrict customers from using third party services and then bump up the price for their own offerings. In other words create a monopoly. Not only will this stifle competition but make it almost impossible for any new player to enter the market. Certainly things like Apachie would never take off as the incumbents would disconnect them for violating intellectual property laws. Would the net be safe in the hands of a few mega-corporations.

'Stallman has little use for the Founding Fathers' idea that intellectual property rights are one of the keystones of individual liberty'

Does anyone have a link to the original text where the 'Founding Fathers' refer to 'intellectual property rights'

'Municipal WiFi mesh networks have consistently proven to be more technically and operationally difficult to operate than government officials have thought'

This is bullshit, most anywhere a city council tried to implement wireless, the telecoms have tried to use the courts to get it shut down. Purely in the interests of 'competition'

'The author thanks Scott Cleland .. [who] is also chairman of Netcompetition.org, an e-forum on Net Neutrality funded by broadband telecom, cable, and wireless companies'

Instead they rely on their publications to speak for their views instead of a label with baggage.

Well, on their web site's header they apparently rely on a lot of dead people to speak for their views. The undeniable advantage of that is that dead people can no longer answer back, so you can quite easily add authority to an anti-net-neutrality article by associating yourself with Ben Franklin, even though nobody will ever know what the man would've had to say about the issue :-P

Where did you get the idea that these guys are libertatians?

From their about page:

Heartland has been endorsed by some of the country's leading scholars, public policy experts, and elected officials. Dr. Milton Friedman calls Heartland "a highly effective libertarian institute."

Basically they don't want to label themselves as Libertarian because that would foolishly scare away potential non-Libertarians from reading their work. Instead they rely on their publications to speak for their views instead of a label with baggage. If you're an economist, however, you recognize them for what they are: predominantly libertarian with hints of conservatism. Popular knowledge agrees.

I've had enough with the IPCC references. The IPCC is a policy organization that poses what-if scenarios:

http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/Chapter%201.1.pdf [heartland.org]

Basically, they're a bunch of scientists and non-scientists that have policy objectives. Here's the kicker though:
* Even though they use complex computer models, their models do not follow standard guidelines for scientific forecasts. When audited, their little IPCC homework assignments fail miserably - in this case Working Group I violated 72 of 140 scientific procedures, some very critical violations by themselves.
And I'll leave you with one of the contributing authors replies to the scathing criticisms on their shabby methodologies - sorry to all you IPCC lovers out:
---

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author along with Philip D. Jones of chapter 3 of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report, replied to some of these scathing criticisms on the blog of the science journal Nature. He argued that "the IPCC does not make forecasts" but "instead proffers 'what if' projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios," and then hopes these "projections" will "guide policy and decision makers" (Trenberth, 2007). He says "there are no such predictions [in the IPCC reports] although the projections given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often treated as such. The distinction is important."

I've had enough with the IPCC references. The IPCC is a policy organization that poses what-if scenarios:

http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/Chapter%201.1.pdf

Basically, they're a bunch of scientists and non-scientists that have policy objectives. Here's the kicker though:
* Even though they use complex computer models, their models do not follow standard guidelines for scientific forecasts. When audited, their little IPCC homework assignments fail miserably - in this case Working Group I violated 72 of 140 scientific procedures, some very critical violations by themselves.
And I'll leave you with one of the contributing authors replies to the scathing criticisms on their shabby methodologies - sorry to all you IPCC lovers out:
---
Kevin Trenberth, a lead author along with Philip D. Jones of chapter 3 of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report, replied to some of these scathing criticisms on the blog of the science journal Nature. He argued that "the IPCC does not make forecasts" but "instead proffers 'what if' projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios," and then hopes these "projections" will "guide policy and decision makers" (Trenberth, 2007). He says "there are no such predictions [in the IPCC reports] although the projections given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often treated as such. The distinction is important."

http://venturebeat.com/2007/01/15/ethanol-use-causing-corn-shortages-spiking-price-price-of-tortillas/

Well, I haven't done the direct research myself, I just know what I've read.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-10-ethanol-study_x.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119258870811261613.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/business/05ethanol.html
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20947/Biotech_to_Ease_EthanolRelated_Corn_Shortage.html

And to further your argument (again, I'm more interested in the truth than being right)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/10/ethanol-as-cause-of-food-crisis-flat-out-wrong/
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f81/definitive-proof-ethanol-not-creating-food-corn-shortage-61448/

You say all environmental scientists are drinking the same kool-aid

There are plenty of scientists not drinking the kool-aid

Just think how much nicer NJ would be if people were valued for their humanity rather than just as sources of "income & property tax revenues". If these people needed a hint to avoid New Jersey, your post certainly provided it. Of course, they could have looked around to find that New Jersey has the worst business climate of any state in the US.

My state (Minnesota) isn't very good either, but it beats New Jersey. I hope to move to an even better state soon.

I don't know. I think maybe you are falling for the because I saw it, it must be true logic problem. Education is actually controlled by each state and the territories by the federal government. Some states write broads guidelines and leave it to the counties to fill in the gaps. This is something the NCLBA was supposed to address by creating a guideline of what should be expected for a student to know after each grade level and supposedly if the states created a standard similar enough, tested the student's abilities and then showed progress when they didn't meet that, they were going to get a certain amount of federal funding to be used. Of course this was met with mass resistance when the teachers couldn't pass the performance tests.

The problem is that I do remember getting an overview on the rules of logic in the course before advanced geometry. We had to take pre-algebra for half a year and intro to geometry the other half in 7th or 8th grade, then two algebra courses, then an advanced geometry course another algebra course, pre-calculus and if you were advanced enough you moved on to calculus and AP courses. Of course there was other math course options like Statistics and what they called integrated math which focused generic math skills until you got to career tech integrated math that focused more on specific aspects and formulas for various industries like carpentry and house building, electronics, drafting, auto repair, and so on. So the problem isn't the HS math curriculum in the US, it's the HS math Curriculum in certain states or counties within the US.

There is no one place to make any change to the schools procedures or curriculum.

Wanna bet CO2 still warms the atmosphere after they incorporate the new ocean current data?

Your premise: CO2 warms the atmosphere

Wanna bet that 1000's of individuals will gather in Washington DC this June for the 3rd time to hear 100's of scientists debunk your premise? 3rd International Conference on Climate Change

Wanna bet that a pro-human movement will rise to oppose the pro-environment movement?

the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter

Not quite. In fact, the US and Canada are net carbon sinks.

Well that was really scientific. (Just to be clear, the previous sentence was sarcasm). So convenient to blame the obvious culprit, isn't it? But if you were to blame the obvious culprit all the time, in another century you might have been burning witches. Soooooo........

As it turns out, at least one glacier in the world isn't disappearing because of global warming. See what happens when you make assumptions without verifying? What about the others? We should check and find out.

I don't know what is happening to Antarctic ice. Perhaps it is due to the one degree of warming the earth has experience in the last 20 years. However, that is not an assumption I am willing to make without verifying it. Because

(here is a joke)

When you ass-u-me, you make an ASS out of U and ME.

As long as scientists work for politicians, expect the scientific consensus to be based one politics, not science.

From HERE:

The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study âoeImpacts, Adaptation and Vulnerabilityâ and âoeMitigation of Climate Changeâ respectivelyâ¦They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 is listed as âproofâ(TM) of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.

And from HERE:

In an early March briefing before congressional staff, members of the press, and scientists, Professor Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute for Technology assailed the politically driven work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), charging the panel misrepresents the work of its contributing scientists to fit a preconceived agenda.

Better yet, just google IPCC politics and read for yourself.

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that it is impacting us worse than predicted, inasmuch as all the models I've seen showed significantly hotter temperatures by this time, some were expecting temperatures 5-10 degrees Celsius above what we have now. Have you seen the opposite? Here is an article talking about the limitations of computer models. Here is a quote "Failure to account for local warming in cities led to some claims of dramatic warming in the 1980s and 1990s and, while adjustments are made today and the predictions of warming significantly reduced, some researchers believe the adjustments to be inadequate." This is consistent with what I have observed, as well.

I'm not a climatologist, but I once stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.... BUT, I have been alive long enough to identify BS when I see it. Singling out CO2 as the evil is BS. John Coleman, another "heretic" has a petition signed by roughly 5000 scientists that have doubts about the current view of global warming. (I didn't know there were that many climate scientists in the world!) Just remember Galileo, they called him a heretic, they almost excommunicated him, they forced him to retract. Sounds much the same like anyone who speaks out against Global Warming. Remember, the nay-sayer was right, the Sun was the center of the solar system. We all could learn a little from history.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17977/Mars_Is_Warming_NASA_Scientists_Report.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Al-Gore-Scours-for-Extraterrestrial-SUVs.htm

The conveyor is not shutting down.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20505/Gulf_Stream_Will_Not_Shut_Down_Science_Magazines_Admit.html

Is that the best you can do? References from IPCC that are over 7 years old? Pathetic.

The very first reference you gave (7), was written in 2001 and bases its support of the subject on an earlier IPCC Third Assessment Report! Jesus Christ! Not only the third but now even the 4th have been discredited. They mis-reported the science, and in some cases the "science" in them was actual fraud!

The second reference (8) also bases its position on the 2001 IPCC TAR, and other related United Nations activities, which again have been discredited.

The third reference above (10), ALSO uses as a basis the IPCC FAR (4th Assessment Report). Do I have to state yet again that this has been discredited?

The fourth reference you cite (11), (which, incidentally, is the third many-years-old citation from the Royal Academy), ALSO cites as the basis for its support, the IPCC TAR of 2001.

And the fifth reference you cite (12) is the laughable, discredited "study" by Naomi Oreskes. (Hint: I asked for something other than that, thank you very much.) Is that the best you can do? References from IPCC that are over 7 years old? Pathetic.

The very first reference you gave (7), was written in 2001 and bases its support of the subject on an earlier IPCC Assessment Report! Jesus Christ! Even the report before last was discredited, unreliable, and largely retracted!

The second reference (8) also bases its position on the 2001 IPCC TAR, and other related United Nations activities, which again have been discredited.

The third reference above (10), ALSO uses as a basis the IPCC FAR (4th Assessment Report). Do I have to state yet again that this has been discredited?

The fourth reference you cite (11), (which, incidentally, is the third years-old citation from the Royal Academy), ALSO cites as the basis for its support, the IPCC TAR of 2001.

In short, 4 of the 5 references you cite above are solely based on the flawed Assessment Reports from the IPCC, and the fifth (12) is the laughable, discredited "study" by Naomi Oreskes. (Hint: If you go back and look, you will see that I specifically asked you for something other than that because it is known to be flawed, thank you very much.)

Sorry, guy, but you should know better than to use Wikipedia as your source on such matters. I can do better than that with one cerebral hemisphere tied behind my back.

Here is the public letter from Chris Landsea, explaining why he had his name removed from participation in the IPCC studies: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Here are a bunch more links. No, they are not all peer-reviewed scientific papers, but they sure do refer to a bunch of them. Follow the link chain as deeply as you care to, but they pretty much all contradict your position:

International Conference on Integrity in Science http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002299.html [jennifermarohasy.com]

Economic Formulas in IPCC Report Criticized for Overstating Emissions http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22786 [heartland.org]

Here's a DIFFERENT former IPCC participant: Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge http://newsbusters.org/node/13971 [newsbusters.org]

Yet another official IPCC reviewer criticizes the reports: http://oldsarges.blogspot.com/2008/03/paul-reiter-takes-on-ipcc.html [blogspot.com]

Global Warming: Science versus Fraud http://www.forces.

Global warming is real! But temporary. The real question is: "is it anthropogenic?" and "is it permanent?"

We have a very limited view of what weather should be like. Only now are we finding out that Cairo Egypt used to be a very fertile place, with water up to the pyramids. Of course, anthropogenic factors did not cause /that/ warming, but now for some reason, the /current/ warming is somehow our fault? Co2 has been 0.28 of one percent! Now it went up by 0.040 of one percent over two hundred years.

There are dicussions being started about the growing evidence to the anthropogenic contrary. How many outlier events do we have to have before the outliers are no longer outliers?

When is the warming trend over? And melting trend over as well? When are record lows a sign of a change in direction?

It seems there is as much more evidence against global warming continuing as there is for it to continue.

When will we see NASA AIRS co2 distribution factored into the IPCC models? (Right now they assume even atmospheric distribution)

I'm not surprised that climatological literature is a chorus of global warming anthropogenesis. Climatologists who offer alternative theories get fired (such as Mark Albright) , retitled (such as Patrick Michaels and George Taylor), or threatened with one or both.

This whole issue has become so politicized that any dissenter is viciously attacked, personally and professionally.

You might do well to watch "Doomsday Called Off" to see other scientists' research in beleaguered opposition.

Maybe UPann's Health care plan and the health care un Penn in general isn't as good as other areas of the country. I haven't needed to wait to see a specialist but this isn't really the same as in other countries.

In America, when we know what is wrong with someone, we schedule an appointment to take care of it. In countries with socialized health care, you sometimes go on a list and have to wait until your number is ready and if there isn't anyone in more need then you, you go. If there is someone who can, they will jump in front of you and you go back onto the list. Now, have you had your appointment bumped after waiting 2 months to see the specialist just to have to wait longer? And yes, you had the option of going somewhere else, even if that meant further away then your local area to see the specialist sooner. In other countries, you don't, you get what they give you.

This waiting isn't about someone waiting for a specialist to get time, you are after all, under the care of another doctor, it is about waiting 10 years for bowel surgery and having to goto other countries to get procedures done. It is about doctors deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't, regardless of anyone's ability to pay but because of perfectly legal acts like smoking or growing old. Sure, you can drink, but you won't get any surgury if you do, but it is still legal right? But there are other stark contrasts between the US system and other countries like England's. This piece actually offers a pretty good comparison so take the time to read it.

I know I have been picking on England's system so lets get into some of the problems with Canada's. Canada has wait time to see general practitioners that makes your specialist appointment look like a week long vacation. Granted the government is working on the problem and has supposedly worked out a plan that will be implemented in 10 years or so, but what about until then and what about everything up until people complained loudly enough for the government to act. It is so bad that companies are offering medical insurance in Canada that will take you to another location and even out of the country if your wait times are too long. Imagine that, the people of Canada are buying health insurance when they already had free health coverage from their very own government because the times they wait to get treatment is way to long.

Now maybe you just don't know about the wait and thing a 4 week wait or an 8 week wait to see a specialist is similar to a 16 week wait to see your general practitioner or having to wait 16.2 weeks to see an orthopedic surgeon, and another 24.2 weeks for treatment to be performed after the initial visit. Now those numbers are averages, this means that some are longer and some are shorter. But we every one that's shorter, there is one or more that is longer. You may think, well that isn't too long. Most back problems have healed themselves in 3-6 months, if the healing is improper (which is why surgery is often used), there will be problems with the back for the rest of the patient's life. So lest see, 14 weeks is over 3 months already. 24 weeks is six months longer, there is a good chance of a patient needing an orthopedic surgeon never regaining normal use and comfort levels in their back again simply from the wait between seeing and treatment. Of course this isn't always the case but it gets introduced and it shouldn't be there.

>I suggest you look at how well the people in countries with 'social' programs do over countries with out them.
doing great like this:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=15524

reiterated here:
http://www.harp.org/canada-phillips.htm

and here:
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/515864

15 percent of canadians don't have a family doctor because they go where they can get paid. People that work and pay their taxes get screwed.

And fascism is a form of socialism as is communism. Get it right ; )

I'm voting independant because republicans and democrats are destroying this country with stupidity.

-Viz

No, we don't. I consume considerably less than many people I know. And some products have much lower external costs. And, um...you using six rolls of toilet paper doesn't mean I only need four instead of my usual five.

I already addressed that with the over consumption and different choices of consumption. The impact is going to be ultimately broken down to a per unit basis. If your not paying for it in savings, then someone else will when they buy it instead

I don't know--we probably can't get it exactly right--but I know it's not zero. We can estimate the medical costs associated with pollution. We charge for it using taxes, obviously. That's how it's done right now, you know. I'm not proposing a new system. This is what we DO because economic theory says it's the most efficient way.

You know it isn't zero so you think some tax should be there. Well, lets look at this, first, lets asume I am a doctor and I don't want patients who don't pay so I charge 5 times as much as any other doctor. How do you figure my fees in with the "medical cost"? How about when you find that I'm not alone, most doctors do that and other doctors have to raise their fees to cover the nonpayments from patients who don't pay their bills? So lets assume the medical costs are inflated, do we go with them as a whole or do we work out an actual cost? And by what standards?

Ok, now, lets asume that the "Medical costs" have been established. What does the Tax do? Does it pay my medical bills? So far the tobacco tax hasn't. But I have been paying more for smokes because it will increase my medical costs. Well, lets assume that we goto a socialized medical system and it will somehow magically pay for your or our health costs. What does the manufacturer do? They increase the costs of the product to cover the costs of the tax. They want to make a certain profit off of the stuff and they will. Now with the tobacco, people had the option to opt out and quit using the product. So what happens with electricity? What happens with food? What happens with clothing and other textiles or transportation to and from work? What about housing? There is no opting out and you will have to pay the extra costs which puts us right back to my original position, you either pay for it in monetary terms or you pay for it in savings when you use the products.

Sure, there might be a year or so before everything goes up to reflect it, but don't fool yourself, if the Utilities sectors can make 6% profit, they will continue to after you increase their costs because of a tax. If the home builder makes 20% profit they will continue to after the tax. When the automakers aren't making a profit right now, how long before before they are out of business when the tax makes the dig into savings even more? Do you think paying $15,000 for a decent car that would have sold for around $7,000-10,000 just 30 years ago is way too much That costs is because of CAFE standards, mandates safety standards and devices and Union contracts forcing the automakers to charge more.

And no, I'm not saying that those things weren't needed, I'm saying that those things illustrate my point. You can no longer work and save to buy a new car, you have to use other people's money in the form of a loan because of all the added costs imposed from outside sources. My Uncle purchased a brand new Corvette Stingray in 1967-68 for $4300 decked out. The same car today, top of the line and off the showroom floor except the new model, is almost $50,000. They are proportionally the same for the era in power, handling (except for the traction control), interior, sound system, and so on. Hell, the new CAFE standards alone are supposed to an another $4000 to the costs of a car in 2015 when they take effect. And that estimate is without adjustments for inflation. The CBO (Congressional
Budget Office) estimates that the NEW CAFE standards will cost 3.6 billion extra each year once they are in effect.

and the line of blather you're pushing is pretty damn far off the mark

Is it?

http://www.exyoung.com/Journalism/WindFarm.htm
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080710/NEWS02/807100355/1003/NEWS02
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1434788/wind_farm_project_could_double_in_size_developers_expect_to/
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48596
http://www.iberianature.com/spainblog/2008/06/wind-farm-construction-in-capercaillie-habitat-paralysed-by-judge/
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16203
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/12/31/wind-farm-plans-pose-big-threat-to-harbour-porpoise/
http://renewableenergylaw.blogspot.com/2005/02/kansas-wind-farm-faces-another-lawsuit.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/22/windpower.greenpolitics?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6875711/

I'm not even trying hard. Just put

court halt "wind farm"

into Google. No FOX News involved. And no, these aren't the NIMBY cases; I skipped those. These are enviro's killing wind development over "rare grasslands", various birds, etc.

The evidence for the intolerence of "all the greens" for basically any development at all, including so-called "renewable" energy is obvious. Pull your greeny head our of your ass and pay attention.

"The massive amount of CO2 in the air is having a strong impact on the enviroment. Out side of politics and religion, this is the accepted fact. It has mountains of evidence."

No, no and no. Maybe you just need to read up on the subject?

To start with; http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23387

followed by;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDX2ExKYyqw&feature=related (see the sidebar for the other three parts)

and;

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

Happy studying!

... that my claims are anything but "extraordinary"! Where did you get this idea? Are you somehow of the opinion that just because I disagree with you (for good reason, by the way), that my claims must therefore be "extraordinary"??? How fascinatingly arrogant. Well, let's work on concrete statements rather than trying to read between the lines. Apparently, what you are asserting (at least), is that someone who disagrees with the IPCC reports has an "extraordinary" point of view. Wow. And YOU are accusing ME of being "different". Just wow.

As I have clearly stated here more than once, I am merely echoing what a lot of reputable scientists are saying. And I can safely say that at least some of them are scientists with much more credibility that the vast majority of the reviewers of the IPCC reports.

I mentioned before that you could find well-supported contrary opinions by spending only a few moments on Google. You have refused to do so. So, just this one time (because I dislike your smarmy attitude so much), I will indulge you and actually do just a little bit of your homework for you. I am not your daddy, so do not expect me to do it again.

I would like you to know up front that just as I stated was possible a few posts ago, I actually spent less than 2 minutes on Google pulling up these articles. The links below actually represent only a small percentage of all I found, and I did not spend a lot of time choosing among them. I could have spent a LOT of time following related links... but I figure that if you are actually interested in learning you can do that for yourself. I suspect that you can actually feed yourself too, if you try. But in any case, even if you disagree, if you do not hear opposing arguments then by definition you are being deliberately biased.

To anticipate a possible objection, I will state from the outset that most of these are not "peer reviewed" papers from "science journals", but they do contain a good many links to same. Read to the depth you care but if you do not care, then do not come back later and ask me yet again to do it for you.

To start, here are just a few pieces that support my statements about the problems with "peer review". These are only a few of the huge list I found. The amount of literature out there on problems with and utter failings of peer review, especially in recent years, is vast:

PROBLEMS WITH PEER REVIEW: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0124/p14s02-stss.htm

NY TIMES: "For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html

Nature: Quality and value: How can we research peer review? http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05006.html



There is a lot more I could say here, but I believe that under the circumstances it would be pointless. Here are some more links. Understand that these are only a very small sampling of those that are out there. But (this one time only), you asked for some, you got some.

Letter from Chris Landsea http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

International Conference on Integrity in Science http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002299.html

Economic Formulas in IPCC Report Criticized for Overstating Emissions http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22786

Here's a DIFFERENT former IPCC participant: Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge http://newsbusters.org/node/13971

Yet another official IPCC reviewer criticizes the

Umm, well since this global warming theory is still just a theory, how about we get some hard evidence before eviscerating companies? Read this: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1b702e93-802a-23ad-406d-20a0e08818af and this: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22434

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10582
Where did you get this "fact" about who owns the website? Maybe you mean to say they CONTRIBUTE to the site? I would just like to know...honestly, I would. Maybe you can sue the site for lying if you are so sure?

If this site is owned by an oil company, they forgot to tell the site...

Does that mean that if Algore contributes to a cause, I can just claim it is false because of where the money came from?

I see serious flaws in your logic...

You mean this consenus?

And if it's losing effectiveness gradually, people will use more and more of it as it does. The salesmen will assure them that they simply need to spray more of it to reach the places they missed.

The reason the countries that you mention have solved the problem is, at least in part, that they USE DDT. Since they aren't dependent on aid from the US, they aren't stuck with the condition that they not use DDT that goes along with US aid.

Lest the Eco-Nuts post Lambert's screeds in reply: the requirement that no USAID funds be used for DDT is an effective ban, since the record keeping required if you DO use DDT anywhere to prove no US funds were used for it is onerous beyond all reason for a third world country.

The power generation infrastructure suffers from too much 'NIMBY'. I lived in Indiana for years, and during the 90's; Duke power wanted to build several 'Peak Power' generation plants fired by Natural Gas. Every time they tried to get permits, the 'NIMBY' (Not In My Back Yard) crowd showed up and whined to the elected officials. Naturally, fearing a loss of votes elected officials caved.

California is in much the same state; They haven't been able to build a power plant (thanks to the NIMBY's) for at least 2 decades. Now, they are suffering for it. Back in 2001, the DOE estimated that the US would need around 1900 power plants built by the year 2021. Yes, they've built wind farms, but now they're finding that the Wind Farms are killing Raptors and causing infestations of rats. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18447

There is no easy answer--Conservation by us will help some, but ultimately we need clean, cheap power. On NUMB3RS last night, they were looking at putting up Solar Panels on Charlies house; which on a nice bright sunny day would generate more than what they used. IIRC, they were looking at some really cutting edge technology stuff. Currently, the break even point is about 12-18 years, but this company looks really promising. http://www.news.com/greentech/8301-11128_3-9835241-54.html?tag=nefd.top At their cost of $1/watt it cuts the break even by as much as 66%.

Also, IIRC, you can buy wine on Sunday afternoons. I've never really cared enough to look into it.

You can now. You could not only a few years ago — until the 2004. Liquor stores were simply closed, stores offering both wines and foods (like Trader's Joe) weren't selling the wine-stock (just as I describe). Often they had the alcohol section completely blocked on Sundays, but not always, which lead to the confusion that I describe.

Because that is exactly what they are told.... over and over and over again. Many scientists, geologists and meteorologists disagree.

What, five of them?

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.

Also, JunkScience.com is offering $125,000.00 to anyone who can PROVE that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.

Ah yes, it's the great conspiracy. So tell me, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, were these same scientists being denied federal grants? It seems to me that it's the Conservatives complaining about the silencing of critics, but they were being silenced by officials of an all-Republican run government.

Sorry, but Republicans do not rule the world.
From HERE:
Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."

and HERE:
In a paper issued Jan. 3, 2007, UCS accuses ExxonMobil of funding "front groups" opposed to the climate-alarmist agenda of groups such as UCS and of former Vice President Al Gore. The company, said the UCS report, had distributed $16 million to 43 advocacy groups from 1998 to 2005 "to confuse the public on global-warming science."
Let's leave aside the fact that $16 million over eight years can't match the $2 billion that the federally funded Climate Change Science Program spends each year on global warming, or even the $4 million annual budget of just one of the many well-funded global-warming advocacy groups, Strategies for the Global Environment (the umbrella organization for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change). Moreover, the UCS document is hardly an investigative breakthrough. ExxonMobil itself publishes its philanthropic contributions to nonprofit organizations online.

And HERE is where the state climatologist in Oregon gets fired for questioning global warming:
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist...

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

Then there is THIS one where a scientist was fired for correcting bad data:
University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was dismissed on March 12 from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains...
Cliff Mass, a professo

And while some populations have denned on the ice, those same populations are starting to den on land, too.

As the environment changes as it has throughout history, it is not unexpected that certain populations will grow and decrease.

Please, give examples.

And while you've raised the issue, shall we discuss political meddling in the opposite direction (cough EPA report cough)?

The current rate of warming far exceeds the natural rate of cooling during glaciation.

It is true that eventually we will enter a new ice age, regardless of global warming, but no one is "ignoring" this fact. It's just farther off into the future; right now, the warming is what we have to deal with. If warming is a problem, you can't just ignore it because someday it will be cooler.

As we have seen already, it's far easier to raise the temperature quickly than it is to cool it, having to do with the ease in emitting CO2 as a byproduct of civilization and with the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In regards to people saying that there could be alternative fuel sources such as wind, solar, etc. as alternatives to fossil fuels, people have been saying that for years, but there's always one problem (at least in the U.S.), and that's that wherever the government or some corporation tries to build the facilities for clean power generation, someone makes up a lame excuse like it's "unsightly" (see for example this page , which describes the difficulty Cape Cod is having in building a wind farm). Even environmental groups such as the Audobon society have opposed plans to build them in some cases, though admittedly the Audobon society had given its support to the Cape Wind project. I do hope, though, that eventually the higher gas prices and other energy prices (for example, in Connecticut, UI is planning on raising their rates by this year), not to mention the security threats posed by dependence on foreign oil, will force people to reconsider.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/10/05/AR2006100501782.html - 14.6 million federal
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18746 - 15.8 million state and local

So over 10%. Which probably doesn't include state and local contractors. Or the industrial part of the "military-industrial complex"...

Although it's a lot of fear-mongering so far, if the moratorium is lifted, it would not be against federal rules to let a state or a municipality start taxing the intra-state email (although I fail to see how it would be possible to collect/enforce fairly).

States and municipalities are pretty darn'd good at dreaming up taxes right now and I wouldn't put it beyond some of them to tax corporation an assessment based on how many employees there are or tax broadband providers based on how many customers they had (although in the latter case, I'm sure they'd let them pass the surcharge to the subscriber). If you look at your telephone bill or cable bill, you'll see what I mean. I doubt there would ever be a per-email tax (for instance, how could you really tell web-mail from e-mail an define it properly w/o a loophole), but you could certainly get socked with a per megabyte of bandwidth consumption tax.

For instance, oregon, faced with the possiblity that better fuel economy would make increasing per-gallon tax on gasoline unfairly regressive to folks that must drive older cars that get worse gas, is looking into a GPS-based road tax...

Most of this urge to tax telecom is coming because of fear. Traditionally, local governments were able to shake down the telephone and cable companies for money by offering monopolies in exchange for access to the public right-of-way (e.g., to dig phone trenches and stretch coaxial cable), and a host of free or discount use of services (e.g., anyone remember public access cable, that's what we used before YouTube). With the telecom revolution bringing in many new players that don't have to bow before the local commissioners, local governments realize that the "monopolies" they were granting aren't really that valuable anymore and going forward it'll be hard to continue to shake-down these big companies and that the price of revenue enforcment will go up (can't just rely on the monopoly cable or telephone company to write them a check every month for the tax collection). As the cost of revenue enforcement goes up, so does the tax rate to compensate. Since they can't go that regressive on the taxes, they need to find new revenue streams (it's easier politically to tax the "rich" than the "middle-class" and the "poor"). That's were we are right now.

Here's some more info on the subject...

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

I wouldn't put too much stock in any "science" from anyone at the Dept. of the Interior. Interior is a haven for folks who all share the same opinions and work towards the same agenda.

Do you have any references for your claims besides an unsourced article published in a right-wing conservative (sorry, "Libertarian") think-tank's unabashedly anti-environmentalist publication? You really think the Heartland Institute constitutes a neutral, unbiased source on anything? You don't suppose maybe they have an axe or two to grind?

I wouldn't put too much stock in any "science" from anyone at the Dept. of the Interior. Interior is a haven for folks who all share the same opinions and work towards the same agenda.

Here's an example of their "science":

Gov't researchers caught planting false ESA evidence

Can you explain then why warming on Mars appears to also be warming? Please don't tell me that we already have SUV's running around there spewing CO2???

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07 0228-mars-warming.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

"The Internal Revenue Service has released data on tax year 2003 that show the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent of the whole, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent."

Quote from the article:

"The lower elevation tropical glaciers are going right now, no matter what we do we're going to lose the glaciers on [Mount] Kilimanjaro and we're going to lose the lower elevation glaciers in the Andes," said Thompson.

Too bad it has been proven already that the melting of the snows of Kilimanjaro is due to deforestation, not to any increase in global temperature. In fact, temperatures at the top of Kilimanjaro haven't changed at all over the years.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16905

Well put.

Also, he will probably violate his own principals because odds are he went to a public university OR took federal funding if he went to a private university. Surely he wants the freedom to choose where to go and what to study and for profs to have academic freedom - totally contradicting his point in the post. His logic ... fails.

Also, ask him why 57% of DC public school teachers with children opt to send their kids to private schools, and why shouldn't everyone have that choice? Citation.

Environmental extremists are extremely bad for the real environmental reform.
So there was no smile on my face because I was dead serious.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4780

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13367

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0512c.asp

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?L EARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_Ameri ca&xpicked=4&item=eco

During the past two decades, radical environmental and animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism and harassment, causing more than $100 million in damage. While some activists have been captured, ecoterror cells - small and loosely affiliated - are extremely difficult to identify and most attacks remain unsolved.

http://www.cdfe.org/conference.htm
Washington (CNSNews.com) - As concerns about eco-terrorism mount on Capitol Hill, there is more finger-pointing aimed at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which admits to having provided financial support to a group allegedly connected to the terrorism.

But while PETA acknowledges that some of its money has in the past gone to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and to the legal defense funds for several Animal Liberation Front (ALF) members, the organization denies that any of its money "goes toward illegal activities."

The Law of Unintended Consequences in full effect: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14562