Slashdot Mirror

They are a front: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Legal_and_Policy_Center

Because it will affect their monopoly, which is anti-capitalist. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto,_Genetic_Pollution_and_Monopolism

This will be usable for a few years, then you'll eventually have some plausible deniablity when it it over used

I also know from experience that a 50ml pot of SmartWater is enough to chemically mark every PC or electrical item in a school several times a year and last several years.

It's also very good for equipment recovery. It basically guarantees identification / return of stolen property if it comes into police hands. but with SmartWater once it's in police possession even the smallest tiny speck of SmartWater (which can be deployed even on hard-to-cleanse areas like across the PCB's of (unpowered) motherboards) or similar will link it to it's owner.

If this stuff spreads with the ease that TFA describes, it's going to get everywhere. How many law enforcement agencies do you think are going to take Joe Blow's word that they "only touched something that was touched by someone else, who I shook hands with?

Experiment: Spill some powered detergent with color safe bleach. Leave it in a public space for a day. Use a UV light to track its spread. Count how many people are now "marked" that were not the original spilling "criminal".

Yes, this product is uniquely identified, and easily indiscriminately spread. Just use Monsanto as an example of a unique item is being spread by the wind to people being accused of stealing.

FYI, the Monarch butterfly report showing harm was discredited due to the concentrations of pollen placed on the milkweed. It was way more than would normally by found in the wild.

And thank your for for the support.

That said, here are some links you might find informative;

Monsanto
more Monsanto
Yet more Monsanto (busy aren't they)
intersting site
Canola
GM canola in the wild
Possible wipe out of terrestrial plant life
another one

Have fun reading.

_

The fact is, that within the continental USA, because we are electrified, the ONLY places that Solar pays for itself is on extreme rural areas

The fact is is solar may be more competitive if it received as much in subsidies as conventional energy gets. Coal receive billions of dollars in subsidies. Add in external costs, such as co2 and mercury emissions, and coal will cost more. Require nuclear power to buy it's own insurance, get rid of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, and make companies pay their own disposal costs and nuclear power will cost more too.

Between 2002 and 2008 coal received around $17 billion in subsidies. Obama's 2011 budget proposal even cuts coal subsidies $2.3 billion over the next decade. But it's hard to see exactly how much subsidies are, as State coal subsidies and US subsidies of oil and coal more than double the subsidies of renewable energy says, it's hard to add up all the subsidies because while some are purely handouts on taxpayer dollars others are deductions on taxes owed. And nuclear power would not exist without subsidies, it is Hooked on Subsidies:

"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Falcon

Our brown coal won't run out for thousands of years at the current rate!

Are Reserves of the Largest US Coal Field Overstated by 50%? Coal reserves: "Perhaps no question has more relevance to strategies for dealing with the global warming crisis than the distribution and quantity of coal available for future mining." How much coal is out there?

Falcon

Call me a foil hat wearing lunatic but I say at this point we've seen more than enough evidence of close cooperation between the American government and America's large industries to call it a budding facism.

Consider: Pluralism has been steadily weakening as congress and the presidents sign law after law giving and allowing the president to take unprecedented power. The courts already lack any real ability to stop this trend.

New laws have made everyone a criminal. Those against whom the government chooses to enforce these laws are being imprisoned and harassed. It's no longer possible to be a law abiding citizen in America -- only on the ruling powers' good side or not. Police all over the US have an "us against them" mindset that has led to countless abuses to the extent that a police uniform is no longer a comforting site even for those who obey the law. It's now illegal in several states to even record these abuses and Americans everywhere are shutting up and keeping their heads down.

If these dangerous trends are not stopped the US will be a fascist police state very soon.

And this is something I don't understand. Why do people harp on a supposed financial advantage for showing that GW is happening? Most of the money in this fight is on the side of fossil fuel companies. Certainly if a scientist wanted to get more money, there would be some way of getting it from the anti-AGW interests. I'm tempted to get biblical myself - something about beams and motes in people's eyes.

There really isn't much money out there to fund AGW research. While companies like Exxon are spending more, but its simply not in the same scale as the govt is providing. For reference, see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil. Big Oil seems to be taking the approach that its far cheaper to fund lobbyists and bribe key politicians.

Its also possible that Big Oil, like tobacco wants to keep plausible deniability (honest, we didn't know burning oil cause GW).

Reporters w/o Borders is a blatant propaganda front for the US Government. Proof & References: "Reporters Without Borders Unmasked"

"Reporters Without Borders seems to have a geopolitical agenda"

"Source Watch: Reporters Without Borders"

Reporters w/o Borders are also trying to trap potential leakers and activist bloggers in their thin veil: https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&q=Reporters+Without+Borders+shelter

It can get gathered cryogenically from natural gas. ..

No thanks

You also don't need to keep standing for this, the reality is going to hit.

Most of LIFE is based on lies, on perception, on deceit, this is not only business, we start our lives and immediately people lie to us and at the minimum they only tell us half the truth, so this is not limited to business or politics, it is the entire existence.

Marketing is manipulation, so is schooling. So are relationships.

Why do you get your girlfriend that blood stained rock anyway? So she wants one, don't give it her. She is manipulating you into giving you things, well you are giving them to her to manipulate her as well. Do you want something from her? Probably yes, otherwise why is she your girlfriend? What is fidelity anyway? What does it matter if you have sex with people other than your girlfriend as long as there are no diseases transmitted and unwanted pregnancies on the side that would eat your resources she wants you to spend on her?

Why are our lives so routine, that when we do afford to spend time outside of the routine some asshole says we mustn't, we shouldn't go to a restaurant? I am a vegetarian, the stake analogy is lost on me, but my salad costs in a restaurant so much, I could feed myself for a week for that money completely just eating home.

Here is where you start diverging from the truth: why did everyone think that home prices should grow and grow, your answer is businessmen are lying to you.

Here is the truth: your government is lying to you, and that is why the home-prices were expected to go up forever. Your government knows the manufacturing and production is going down, to keep the 'GDP' from falling and to keep it raising, your government created a policy of keeping you in debt indefinitely, and they7 are using the businesses for this purpose. Your government creates inflation, who else? It is printing and borrowing and it is setting up corporations to get you to buy mortgages you cannot afford. What is Freddy and Fannie but exactly that - manipulation of the housing market, manipulation of the mortgage market to keep the selling/buying going where in fact the housing prices should be falling they were rising due to the government manipulation.

And even as the government was manipulating you, its representatives who are directly responsible for inflation and manipulation were saying nonsense like this

July 2005

INTERVIEWER: Ben, there's been a lot of talk about a housing bubble, particularly, you know [inaudible] from all sorts of places. Can you give us your view as to whether or not there is a housing bubble out there?

BERNANKE: Well, unquestionably, housing prices are up quite a bit; I think it's important to note that fundamentals are also very strong. We've got a growing economy, jobs, incomes. We've got very low mortgage rates. We've got demographics supporting housing growth. We've got restricted supply in some places. So it's certainly understandable that prices would go up some. I don't know whether prices are exactly where they should be, but I think it's fair to say that much of what's happened is supported by the strength of the economy.

July 2005

INTERVIEWER: Tell me, what is the worst-case scenario? Sir, we have so many economists coming on our air and saying, "Oh, this is a bubble, and it's going to burst, and this is going to be a real issue for the economy." Some say it could even cause a recession at some point. What is the worst-case scenario, if in fact we were to see prices come down substantially across the country?

BERNANKE: Well, I guess I don't buy your premise. It's a pretty unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So what I think is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize: might slow co

They also sue if your non-GM crop is contaminated by another's GM crop.
No, they don't. All of the companies and governments involved clearly say that a certain amount of crossbreeding is inevitable, and not a cause for legal action.

First, Monsanto did claim their GE crops will not cross breed years ago. It was only after it was proven crossbreeding does happened that they stopped making the claim. Secondly, many farmers have either been sued or themselves sued GE companies. Monsanto regularly sends out private investigators, Pinkertons, to collect specimens to test for GE genes. They even threatened someone who's neither a farmer nor a seed dealer. Despite having no evidence, and the State of North Dakota Seed Arbitration Board not having found any themselves, Monsanto still threatens a farming family in North Dakota.

You did not sign a contract but you're sued anyway.
Yes, because you've violated someone's patent. And this isn't a Monsanto or even a GM issue - plant breeders have had legal protection for new varieties since 1930.

In other words if your crop is contaminated, which does happen, you're screwed. The above links are a vary small sample of results Google returns for farmers monsanto. Adding sue still leaves more than a million results. Like this one, Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers:

"David Runyon and his wife Dawn put a lifetime of work into their 900-acre Indiana farm, and almost lost it all over a seed they say they never planted."

"'I don't believe any company has the right to come into someone's home and threaten their livelihood,' Dawn said, 'to bring them into such physical turmoil as this company did to us.'"

The Runyons charge bio-tech giant Monsanto sent investigators to their home unannounced, demanded years of farming records, and later threatened to sue them for patent infringement. The Runyons say an anonymous tip led Monsanto to suspect that genetically modified soybeans were growing on their property.

"'I wasn't using their products, but yet they were pounding on my door demanding information, demanding records," Dave said. "It was just plain harassment is what they were doing.'"

Or this one: Monsanto sues and sues and sues and...

Falcon

You are pointing at Krugman for an economic insight? It's like pointing at Ben Bernanke as he was sitting there in 2007 saying that there is no housing bubble, while he was sitting in the middle of one while being one of the principal actors in setting it up.

INTERVIEWER: Ben, there's been a lot of talk about a housing bubble, particularly, you know [inaudible] from all sorts of places. Can you give us your view as to whether or not there is a housing bubble out there?

BERNANKE: Well, unquestionably, housing prices are up quite a bit; I think it's important to note that fundamentals are also very strong. We've got a growing economy, jobs, incomes. We've got very low mortgage rates. We've got demographics supporting housing growth. We've got restricted supply in some places. So it's certainly understandable that prices would go up some. I don't know whether prices are exactly where they should be, but I think it's fair to say that much of what's happened is supported by the strength of the economy.

Krugman should be stripped of his Nobel Prize by the way, for completely misunderstanding exactly this: what is inflation caused by.

Deflation? Deflation would actually be a solution to the problem at hand. Prices for everything, including houses and labor need to go down. DOWN. But they will not do so until there is a major disaster - hyperinflation, which is going to be coming soon, as government will start printing dollars to buy back their junk bonds, but probably even sooner as they can no longer find short term refinancing at very low interest rates as they are enjoying right now.

So if Anthony Watts is an honest amature then why did he try and use the DCMA to suppress this devestating contra-evidence to his propoganda? (meat of the debunking at 5:00-6:00)

As for what McIntyre does, he's an industry shill and he's very good at it.

Interesting how the farmers are not the ones against Monsanto.

Except there are many farmers who oppose Monsanto, or visa versa.

1. Monsanto versus Farmers.
2. Monsanto's Harvest of Fear
3. Haitian Farmers Fight Back Against Monsanto
4. Nelson Farm - A Fight Against A Giant -- Monsanto Sues North Dakota Farmer Over Biotech Crop Dispute
5. Goliath and David: Monsanto's Legal Battles against Farmers
6. Monsanto vs. US Farmers [pdf]
7. Oregon farmers caught up in Monsanto suit over engineered alfalfa
8. Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers
9. Could Monsanto Be Responsible for One Indian Farmer's Death Every Thirty Minutes?
10. Monsanto watch: Targeting American farmers with lawyers, fear and money
11. 1. Falcon

Maybe you shouldn't take everything you read by Lawrence Solomon at face value.

Herbicide resistance can lead to less herbicide use because you can then apply one herbicide that kills everything but the one thing that is resistant rather than having to apply multiple chemicals depending on what weed you need to eradicate.

Quite the contrary, plants are made herbicide resistant so the plant can be drenched by the herbicide. And as herbicide resistance spreads to the wild even more herbicides or more power herbicides are needed. As it is herbicide resistant weeds were discovered in the early 1970s.

The same could be said for pesticide resistance, perhaps you can apply stronger chemicals but less often which may be safer than having to apply weaker stuff more often.

How about instead of using fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides that are natural gas or petroleum based use organic methods. Instead of planting the same crop year after year rotate crops. Instead of monocultures inter-plant different species, companion planting?

Falcon

I have a feeling that there's no source or list that you'd consider credible.

I'm fairly certain TapeCutter would consider any credible source credible. So why don't you try citing one? Instead you cite World Climate Report, an advocacy blog with a fakely impressive name run by Pat Michaels of all people. Now I'm not saying that everything Michaels writes is wrong by definition, but a credible source? Hardly!

Actually, I'd like to know what source you'd consider credible?

I can't speak for TapeCutter of course, but any paper published by an isi listed peer reviewed journal (i.e. not E&E), which as has survived being dissected by the expert community for half a year or so would generally be considered credible. A blog posting rarely would be.

What is the total cost of install and operation for 50 years for the solar project? What is it for a nuclear plant? A coal fired plant?

Estimates vary widely, depending on who you ask and who is paying those people to give that answer. With nuclear it depends on if you count that you have to monitor the waste for 1 million years or if you just dump it in a hole and forget about it. Most people assume you can forget about it, or reprocess it later to recoup some of your costs.Here's one estimate:

Cost in cents per khw

Coal/Nuclear/Gas:
* Gas peaking: 22.1 - 33.4
* IGCC: 10.4 - 13.4
* Nuclear: 9.8 - 12.6
* Advanced supercritical coal: 7.4 - 13.5 (high end includes 90% carbon capture and storage)
* Gas combined cycle: 7.3 - 10.0
Alternatives:
* Solar PV (crystalline): 10.9 - 15.4
* Fuel cell: 11.5 - 12.5
* Solar PV (thin film): 9.6 - 12.4
* Solar thermal: 9.0 - 14.5 (low end is solar tower; high end is solar trough)
* Biomass direct: 5.0 - 9.4
* Landfill gas: 5.0 - 8.1
* Wind: 4.4 - 9.1
* Geothermal: 4.2 - 6.9
* Biomass cofiring: 0.3 - 3.7

The cheap price for coal and gas may or may not count the cost of dealing with they myriad environmental and health problems associated with them, such as acid rain, mercury contamination, coal miner occupational hazards (~120,000 coal miners have died on the job since 1850), global warming and associated climate change, water quality degradation due to mountaintop removal, wars in foreign countries to protect oil interests (Iraq, Niger delta), etc. etc. etc. Contrast that to solar power where the only point that real environmental degradation is being done is during the synthesis of the cells (and recycling at EOL) rather than over the entire lifespan as in coal.

The answer here seems to be that solar is more expensive up front, but should benefit society because of the lower environmental and health concerns associated with it. Note that this makes fiscal sense for the federal government to make these loans because more often than not, it is the taxpayer who pays for the clean up of environmental damage or health risks, not the power company.

And by your logic, the fame one would gain by proving George Bush was a criminal would be the holy grail of liberalism... So why hasnt it happened?

Here is a list of some of the research papers that somehow never made it into the IPCC inner circle of journals.

Here are some scientist associated with the fields of climatology and atmospherics who dissent.

Here's a report on the US Senate Commitee on Environmental and Public Works about 100 scientists (many formerly of the IPCC) who are skeptics and who sent letters to the UN declaring so

Here's a Senate report on scientists who were proponents, but are since turned skeptics of global warming:

If none of that is bad enough, lets talk about the intimidation?

Here is a link, again on the US Senate Committe on Environment and Public works talking about the NASA scientist calling for charges of Treason against for skeptics.

Here's another Senate report on the Intimidation that skeptics face for "climate blasphemy":

Here's a Washington Post article about a skeptic fired from his post as Virginia State Climatologist becuase he used it as a "platform as state climatologist to promote his views on global warming, including that the issue was overemphasized" after clashing with the Governer

Another case of intimidation

Here's an aricle about a man whose career in television as a science journalist ended because of his beliefs about global warming

Here's a Senate report about a climatologist calling for the scientific certifications of skeptics to be revoked:

So yeah... There's no evidence of intimidation or ignoring the legitimate dissent....

Creationists, climate change deniers, the tobacco industry ... they all use the same arguments. You can go through The Fine Art of Baloney Detection and find the examples right to hand.

At least the tobacco industry has mostly given up claiming smoking isn't bad for you. Now their shills are working for the climate change deniers. Yes, it's the same shills.

RationalWiki (unfinished) comparative example: A comparative guide to science denial.

Don't forget http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com

People spend more time figuring out what kind of a vacuum cleaner they are going to buy than thinking about the bank they will put their money into.

There is no competition and the reasons are that government now plans/runs the economy. Chase will have their customers, nobody will be leaving because Chase is going to drop support for a browser. Nobody will be leaving if Chase continues gambling with deposits. Nobody will be leaving even if Chase continues trading any kinds of derivatives.

The reason for this is FDIC, the Fed insuring the deposits, which creates a set of problems:

1. The banks don't have a reason to care about earning customers' trust, they can start gambling with your deposits.
2. The people don't care and don't pay attention where their money is.
3. Competitiveness between banks is no longer that important, this is a problem, small banks start losing out to bigger ones just based on this alone.
4. Large banks do gamble with your money, as they also receive Free Money from the Fed they become bigger and bigger, until they are... "Too Big To Fail" *(a government creation, in reality they are too big to exist at that point.)

FDIC, just like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac etc., create a moral hazard for everybody - the creditors and the debtors.

Government shouldn't be in insurance business at all, it is terrible at assessing risks, for reference see Ben Bernanke sitting the middle of a huge credit bubble he helped to create and not seeing it at all even while staring right into its face (I am talking about the housing bubble and that guys saying: we don't have a bubble in 2007!

INTERVIEWER: Tell me, what is the worst-case scenario? We have so many economists coming on our air saying 'Oh, this is a bubble, and it's going to burst, and this is going to be a real issue for the economy.' Some say it could even cause a recession at some point. What is the worst-case scenario if in fact we were to see prices come down substantially across the country?

BERNANKE: Well, I guess I don't buy your premise. It's a pretty unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So, what I think what is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumption spending a bit. I don't think it's gonna drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though. - these are the people who will now, under new Obama's financial reform will be watching for the signs of bad things about to happen? Seriously? Really? You must be kidding me?

Banks must NOT be Federally insured, any insurance must be private and insurers must provide information on the conditions of insurance, the payments etc., so that risk can be evaluated by the banks' customers.

Many will say: but how do you expect an average person to look and understand.... well I guess that's what arithmetic is for.

People NEED competition in banks just like in anything else, otherwise soon enough all banks will be one same too big to fail, only IE is allowed mega-bank, and the problems will not be limited to just what kind of browser the banks allows you to use on their site, that will be the smallest of the problems.

While I think Penn and Teller are very funny, I do realise that they are both fellows of the Cato instiute. The Cato institute is a Libertarian think tank founded by Koch industries and funded by corporations to put out misinformation and propoganda about smoking, environmentalisim, etc, etc. As I said I think they are funny and I enjoy their act but it IS bullshit.

I can play that game too: ya rly.

That's JUST the federal income tax, doesn't count how much they got back, ignores all other taxes, and ignores the more important comparison of that tax burden (including how much is returned or hidden) as compared to their level of income.

The top 1% pays a maximum of 35% federal income tax, control very nearly 50% of all wealth in the country, and the highest tax bracket has been steadily decreasing for quite a while. In 1944 it was 64% for those making $1M in income.

Before reading any detail about global warming, I try to examine the source. You can tell a lot about global warming skeptics by examining the source.

In your referenced case, it was terribly easy. The man who runs climatedepot.com is Marc Morano. He also was the lead man in the John Kerry/Swiftboat situation, and has exactly zero scientific credentials. He does seem to be a pretty heavy and obvious republican though.

Provide me a source I can't argue with. How about a published paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

It's not Bomis they're talking about.

Shameless "News" organizations deserve yearly review by an independent panel with congressional oversight to see that standards are being adhered to. It worked for Comic Books, why not schlock T.V?

Drawings - no matter how 'realistic', are still drawings - typically crafted by one hand without the benefit of life study.

Leaving aside the whole actual argument of the article, I find the journalism troubling.

There's a few lede paragraphs. And then, it's all about "a growing number of economists, policy analysts and academics". It turns out "they say" things that back the arguments point -- anonymously and collectively. "Experts cite" statistics.

But then, whose names do we actually get? Well, there's the president/CEO of a test-taking company, who only says "The reality is, they may not be ready for college." (Take my test and find out, I guess.)

Then we get some paragraphs about how much school costs. Fine. Then we're told that college grads have a much, much lower unemployment rate than those with just a high school degree, which doesn't seem to support the point at all, but the statement is given as if it does.

That's followed by a quote from some career-center councilor -- hardly a national expert -- who complains that a four-year degree doesn't get you much (again without actually speaking to the thesis of the article).

Then we have some quotes from a high-school senior, the one from the introductory paragraphs.
And her mom.

Okay, _finally_: Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder, who gives the pull-quote above. Apparently some more on him here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Vedder . Anti-immigration, pro-tobacco, shockingly opposed to public funding for higher education. But okay, at least he qualifies as an "economist, policy analyst and academic".

Next up: Margaret Spellings, former federal education secretary under George W. Bush. Wait, she's a counter-point. She supports more college grads. Okay.

Next: John Reynolds, but all he is quoted talking about is whether dropping out makes you depressed. (It doesn't, overall.)

And then we close with a quote from the test company guy, who says, shockingly, that we need a new way of measuring skills rather than just trusting college degrees. Perhaps if there were *some sort of test*. Right, I see where you're coming from.

So, in summary, this WHOLE ARTICLE, which purports to show some sort of trend, is really just a framework around the argument of this Richard Vedder guy. His research may be sound, or it may not be -- but it sure isn't enough to support what the article claims.

Who is funding it? Apparently Exxon: Exxon Mobil page on sourcewatch.org

Now, it certainly seems plausible that there are models out there with variables and assumptions that result in no warming, or a cooling. What is the likelihood these would get published based purely on their results?

Close to 100%. There are "fringe" journals such as the notorious Energy and Environment that are extremely friendly to critics of global warming. While not highly regarded by serious scientists, there is little doubt that E&E would publish such a model. Besides, one can publish one's models on the internet these days. Many of the models used by climate scientists are available to the public so one could get a head start by modifying an existing model. And there is little doubt that many of the fossil fuel companies would be happy to fund the development of such a model. Heck, I imagine you could get enough money to fund such a study just by asking for donations on right-wing websites. Isn't it curious that nobody has managed to produce such a model to date. Of course, maybe it isn't actually all that easy to come up with a model that is reasonably consistent with known physics, with the historical climate data, and with the climatic effects of "natural experiments" like volcanic eruptions, and yet does not predict substantial warming in response to continued CO2 emissions...

In other words, climate changes is being run by socialists (who want everyone to drive equal cars), PETA (who doesn't want people eating helpless animals), and the Sierra Club (who wants plants to have rights).

Let me get this straight. You think that socialists, PETA and the Sierra Club have managed to buy out virtually all the climate scientists of the world? Where did they get the money for that? And what evidence do you have for this? For such a massive conspiracy, there would have to be a large paper trail. There would be evidence of these organisations funding research groups, just like we see evidence of anti-climate change think tanks being funded by industry at places like SourceWatch.

I guess you are saying that SUVs don't produce more CO2 than smaller cars, that cows don't produce massive amounts of methane and that deforestation has no effect on the ability of this planet to convert CO2 to O2. Well you would be wrong. On one hand you have these proven scientific facts, while on the other hand you have unproven conspiracies that have been supposedly committed by people who I doubt would have the organisational skills to pull it off. Which seems more likely?

This isn't that surprising - the reason the similarities are so striking is because the oil companies are hiring the exact same people the tobacco industry used.

I have to wonder though - wouldn't the oil companies know that their propaganda artists are the same ones who failed the tobacco lobby?

They aren't being hired in order to kill the global warming issue (that won't work) they're just working on getting enough FUD out there, murky enough water for them to get through their tenure as CEO and retire with an awesome severance package. It costs a company let's say 10 million a year to hire these guys and run their operations (number pulled from thin air), whereas for them to recognize the issue and go with the flow would mean billions of billions of dollars to realign their company. Any sane CEO looking out for his own rear will go pay the little bit to stall and leave someone else with the problem.

The only question is how long they can keep tossing the potato before it ends up being too hot and gets dropped in a lap

Anyone who was alive during the 70s should see distinct similarities between this disinformation campaign and the once vehement claims that there was "no definitive link" between tobacco use and cancer.

This isn't that surprising - the reason the similarities are so striking is because the oil companies are hiring the exact same people the tobacco industry used.

I have to wonder though - wouldn't the oil companies know that their propaganda artists are the same ones who failed the tobacco lobby?

"not meant to be anti-agw, though obviously, until tried or proven from first principles, the jury is still out"

RF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1) = 3.71 W/M^2 for a doubling of CO2 concentration - Fourier's 1824 prediction of the GHG properties of CO2 derived from it's spectra. Faraday confirmed Fourier's predictions by experiment in the 1850's. A modern version of that experiment can be seen here.

"Anyone mentioning the subtle detail that climate is chaotic"

Usually doesn't know the difference between climate and weather, let alone the difference between forcings and feedbacks.

"The only systems we can predict are systems that are, thermodynamically speaking, in equilibrium."

Yeah right, the size of expansion joints in bridges and railway tracks are picked out of a hat.

"But if the AGW "debate" proves anything, it's that science is no longer allowed to tell people "we don't know"."

No, what it proves is that a measly few million bucks worth of anti-science propoganda can create a huge army of usefull idiots such as yourself to create the impression of a debate about a well understood climate forcing.

The rest of the "science" in your post is so wrong it makes creationist arguments look reasonable. The whole thing is an accurate demonstration of the GP's astute observation that "stupid and pissed off (at the IPCC) is the new cool".

Ironically, your post also contains the cure for your ignorance in your call to teach scientific philosophy, unfortunately you don't seem to have taken your own advise and uncritically repeat the misinformation and red-herrings fed to you by lobbyists.

So how do you explain that when you remove the effect of my simplistic calculation from the observed record the warming trend dissapears? Science is about the best explaination, from what I can tell you don't have an explaination. Scientists have spent decades looking for alternative forcings and have come up empty handed.

Hint: El-nino is not a forcing it's large scale turbulance.Your rant about El-nino is similar to saying the convection currents are what is causing the water to warm when I put a pot on the stove but that's what you get when you take creationist style arguments to their logical conclusion.

RF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1), or 3.71 W/M^2 for a doubling of CO2.
T = (3/3.71)*5.35*ln(387.5/280) = 1.41 degC since pre industrial times. Almost half of which we have not seen yet due to the massive thermal inertia of the oceans. If we burry our heads in the sand it will only take another 40yrs to turn 387.5 into 480, I will leave the calculation of that temprature increase as an exercise for you.

Sure without looking at the facts it's possible to say that the increase could be masked by -ve feedbacks but basic physics says the 1.4DegC MUST be accounted for. If you actually do look at the feedbacks and compare them to gelogic records you will find it's much more likey fedbacks will ADD to the warming rather than mask it. You can expect to observe this in the N Hemisphere over the next decade or so since the melting of the Artic sea ice is a large +ve feedback that is occuring well before the "alarmists" predicted it would. The only way I can see of avoiding it would be to hope China and India vastly increase (and sustain) their output of smog so that the -ve forcing of the smog will mask the increase from CO2.

Some things really are quite simple to grasp when you take the time to understand them. AGW on a global scale is as simple as looking at the radiation striking the Earth and comparing it to what is re-radiated back out into space, when these are not in equiblirium due to increasing GHG absorbing IR radiation then the planet will heat up. When there is less radiation striking the Earth due to Milankovich cycles the Earth will cool down.

The only advise I can give people like you is to stop being a usefull idiot for vested interests and crack open a text book on the subject.

Umm? Do you even realize who this hedge fund is? I'm going to copy from groklaw here.
Sounds like no, my sarcastic friend. Elliott is run by Paul Singer. Link states:

Paul E. Singer, a former corporate lawyer, is "the founding partner of Elliott Associates, a $7 billion hedge fund with a conservative, risk-averse bias that has been in business since 1977, making it one of the oldest funds around. A reserved, private man who would answer questions only via e-mail, Mr. Singer is a self-described conservative libertarian who has given millions of dollars to Republican organizations that emphasize a strong military and support Israel."

Singer is a member of the Board of Trustees of the neo-conservative think tank the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; a "member of the boards of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and of Commentary Magazine, and is on the Board of Advisors of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University", and a member of the Board of Fellows of Harvard Medical School.

Also from the NYT

Paul E. Singer is the founding partner of one of the oldest hedge funds around. And while he has become a major donor to Republican and conservative causes in recent years, he has largely managed to stay out of the limelight, even avoiding having his picture appear in newspapers. [...]

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, questioned “Paul Singer’s involvement in this dirty trick aimed at stealing the White House.” A group of Democrats filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging that Mr. Singer had been acting on behalf of Mr. Giuliani in his efforts to change the California law — which Mr. Singer and the campaign deny. And the Democratic National Committee drew attention to the part of Mr. Singer’s business that involves buying the debt of poor countries at a discount and then seeking repayment in full — prompting an article in The Times of London labeling his firm, Elliott Associates, a “vulture fund.”

.

I didn't have to read either of those to already know that. Notice from the NYT: Vulture fund.

Meanwhile, what's the kicker?

The shareholders are pissed already and think it's BS/hostile takeover. from that link:

An investigation on behalf of current long term shareholders in Novell, Inc. (Public, NASDAQ:NOVL) concerning shareholder claims over potential breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law in connection with an alleged unfair takeover was announced.

So umm, whoops?

Umm? Do you even realize who this hedge fund is? I'm going to copy from groklaw here.
Sounds like no, my sarcastic friend. Elliott is run by Paul Singer. Link states:

Paul E. Singer, a former corporate lawyer, is "the founding partner of Elliott Associates, a $7 billion hedge fund with a conservative, risk-averse bias that has been in business since 1977, making it one of the oldest funds around. A reserved, private man who would answer questions only via e-mail, Mr. Singer is a self-described conservative libertarian who has given millions of dollars to Republican organizations that emphasize a strong military and support Israel."

Singer is a member of the Board of Trustees of the neo-conservative think tank the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; a "member of the boards of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and of Commentary Magazine, and is on the Board of Advisors of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University", and a member of the Board of Fellows of Harvard Medical School.

Also from the NYT

Paul E. Singer is the founding partner of one of the oldest hedge funds around. And while he has become a major donor to Republican and conservative causes in recent years, he has largely managed to stay out of the limelight, even avoiding having his picture appear in newspapers. [...]

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, questioned “Paul Singer’s involvement in this dirty trick aimed at stealing the White House.” A group of Democrats filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging that Mr. Singer had been acting on behalf of Mr. Giuliani in his efforts to change the California law — which Mr. Singer and the campaign deny. And the Democratic National Committee drew attention to the part of Mr. Singer’s business that involves buying the debt of poor countries at a discount and then seeking repayment in full — prompting an article in The Times of London labeling his firm, Elliott Associates, a “vulture fund.”

.

I didn't have to read either of those to already know that. Notice from the NYT: Vulture fund.

Meanwhile, what's the kicker?

The shareholders are pissed already and think it's BS/hostile takeover. from that link:

An investigation on behalf of current long term shareholders in Novell, Inc. (Public, NASDAQ:NOVL) concerning shareholder claims over potential breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law in connection with an alleged unfair takeover was announced.

So umm, whoops?

"I always suspected the Ecological Stalinists want us to go back into the caves."

That comment got me wondering as to who exactly are these guys and are they connected in any way....

Kevin Kelly is the founding executive editor of Wired magazine, and a former editor/publisher of the Whole Earth Catalog.

Stewart Brand is an American writer, best known as editor of the Whole Earth Catalog (ding!). He founded a number of organizations including The WELL, the Global Business Network, and the Long Now Foundation. Brand also served as a member of the board of Directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

They sound like a couple of rich old hippies, OTOH the impressive list of sponsers of the Global Business Network make for an interesting read.

What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.

You mean something like this I presume.
This was actually difficult to find: Woodward & McDowell lobbying firm, AB 32 Implementation Group.
Other maybe interesting links:here, or this slightly more activist website.

What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.

You mean something like this I presume.
This was actually difficult to find: Woodward & McDowell lobbying firm, AB 32 Implementation Group.
Other maybe interesting links:here, or this slightly more activist website.

What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.

You mean something like this I presume.
This was actually difficult to find: Woodward & McDowell lobbying firm, AB 32 Implementation Group.
Other maybe interesting links:here, or this slightly more activist website.

Thanks for the link, it's a great summary of the history. Naomi Oreskes has done a good job of tracking down the tabacoo scientists and creationists who's anti-science propoganda often gets quoted word for word here on slashdot. Unfortunately her work gets very little MSM attention.

For those who still think Al Gore invented AGW in 2005, here's a 1958 video from Bell Labs on the subject.

a professor at the University of Edinburgh DOES = good science and for things like this... i think i'll ask someone i KNOW to be an expert.... good idea don't you think?

Come to think of it, it probably is a good idea. The more people get to know about this guy, the better.

"My "blathering on" was to make it clear that no one person can have the expertise to review the entire field"

The same is true of any field, no?

"And you didn't provide context."

The quote is another way of wording the old cannard that climate scientists claim the "science is settled", is that clear enough for you?

"Highly likely" - has a technical definition in the IPCC reprots it's a specific confidence level.

Lomborg advocates "doing nothing" listen to his TED talk. Anyone with half a brain knows that spraying massive quantities of S02 into the stratosphere is a cure that's worse than the disease, he is just being his ingenious self when he bounces between ludicrous and suicdal options.

Just the fact that Lomborg strongly associates himself with the American Enterprise Institute, The Hearland institute, CEI and similar climate/tabacoo anti-scientists should be enough to tell any genuine skeptic all they need to know.

"My "blathering on" was to make it clear that no one person can have the expertise to review the entire field"

The same is true of any field, no?

"And you didn't provide context."

The quote is another way of wording the old cannard that climate scientists claim the "science is settled", is that clear enough for you?

"Highly likely" - has a technical definition in the IPCC reprots it's a specific confidence level.

Lomborg advocates "doing nothing" listen to his TED talk. Anyone with half a brain knows that spraying massive quantities of S02 into the stratosphere is a cure that's worse than the disease, he is just being his ingenious self when he bounces between ludicrous and suicdal options.

Just the fact that Lomborg strongly associates himself with the American Enterprise Institute, The Hearland institute, CEI and similar climate/tabacoo anti-scientists should be enough to tell any genuine skeptic all they need to know.

"My "blathering on" was to make it clear that no one person can have the expertise to review the entire field"

The same is true of any field, no?

"And you didn't provide context."

The quote is another way of wording the old cannard that climate scientists claim the "science is settled", is that clear enough for you?

"Highly likely" - has a technical definition in the IPCC reprots it's a specific confidence level.

Lomborg advocates "doing nothing" listen to his TED talk. Anyone with half a brain knows that spraying massive quantities of S02 into the stratosphere is a cure that's worse than the disease, he is just being his ingenious self when he bounces between ludicrous and suicdal options.

Just the fact that Lomborg strongly associates himself with the American Enterprise Institute, The Hearland institute, CEI and similar climate/tabacoo anti-scientists should be enough to tell any genuine skeptic all they need to know.

A case study of that petition. Should give some more balanced information on how it put forward and what a breakdown of the results actually mean.

"Christians can enforce their beliefs only upon those who voluntarily accept such enforcement."

Until they write laws and become those who administer those laws:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dominionism

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Theonomy/

"Someone want to remind me why I should trust the IPCC (or climate "science") again?"

Because they not only acknowledge their errors but prominently link to the acknowledgement on their main reports page.

Can you tell me why you trust Khandekar who hails from the Fraser Institute. The Fraser institute is famous for providing Phillip Morris with "scientists" to convince you that smoking is harmless. Can you point to where they have acknowleged thier "error" on the effects of smoking?

To paraphrase the late George Carlin - They call it Pajamas media, because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Because modern leftists define themselves by nothing but their opposition to the USA.

Modern rightists define the USA as everyone who agrees with them.

No, really. Start at 0:34.

Us leftists just know they're being misled by the people at the top of that heap.

Eisenhower, Truman, MacArthur, Marshall -- you know, all those blatantly anti-USA guys -- took a whole batch of people and snugged ropes around their necks, nice and tight, then tied the other ends to something solid, and dropped the people until the rope snapped their necks, so at least they'd be unconscious while their bodies strangled to death.

Of course, doing it that way doesn't always work, and sometimes people strangle to death while they're still conscious no matter how careful you are.

Conscientious people try very hard and they almost always succeed, but that they don't just fire both barrels of a shotgun upwards from the base of the skull, that they do leave that possibility open, is part of the point.

That being to demonstrate exactly what decent people think of anyone who'd order people waterboarded.

All the same, we're all Americans.

I was going to post the counter example of http://www.nswmining.com.au/ a mining industry marketing site, and http://www.miningnsw.com.au/ a parody site made by a green group. I was going to describe how satire is alive and well on the net in Australia. It turns out that satire is in fact dead because the parody site was taken down a couple of years ago thanks to a copyright notice from the NSW Minerals council.

More info: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NSW_SLAPPs/NSW_Minerals_Council_vs_Rising_Tide.