That's just the US. Europe/UK are spending a lot too. That's notwithstanding subsidies for inefficient renewable energy, which adds to the tax-payers bill by around 30% (at least here in the UK - don't think you have that in the US).
Your argument is: Mann and Jones are scientists, therefore they can't be attacked. Given the juxtaposition of Phil Jones quotes shown below, please tell me why I shouldn't attack him.
Phil Jones on Horizon:
"The basic science is in the peer-reviewed literature, and I wish more people would read that than read the emails."
Phil Jones in CRU email:
"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Cheers, Phil"
This isn't science, it's climate science. You know, the end of civilisation. Regardless, you argue my point even more forcefully: There's now even greater competition for funds, meaning even greater reason for hype and dissembling.
You accuse scientists of conspiring for grant money, but give Big Oil a free pass
The energy production industry has a dog in this race, yes, but the amount it spends on its propaganda is an order of magnitude less than government spends on its policy based evidence making.
Look, whatever you might think about climate change, the evidence for it is utterly overwhelming, and comes from tens of thousands of data sources and thousands of studies
Stop right there. Climate Change is always happening and always has. It's a straw man argument to suggest anyone thinks anything differently, or that any of these studies should come to any other conclusion. There aren't thousands of data sources and thousands of studies showing man's emissions of CO2 are responsible for that change. There's a hypothesis, baked into models, which seems to be largely inaccurate if you compare the output of those models to actual reality.
That fact that there are billions of dollars in grants to be had from gullible tax payers to institutions and NGOs researching this coming "catastrophe" should make you pause for thought if nothing else does. Why would the IPCC conclude it wasn't a catastrophe, if by doing so their very existence could be called into question? They don't want their gravy train to stop.
The basic declarations of the IPCC have been consistent for years
So what? You can be consistently wrong your entire life. It's meaningless.
The "hockey stick" graph has been found to be fairly accurate
Very funny. Did William Connoley edit that page? I doubt Mann's hockey stick will feature in the new IPCC report at all. Here's what Keith Briffa had to say about Mann's methods (from "climategate" emails):
I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series, such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years
Nothing to do with the recession. Everything to do with Trade Union control of industry, militant socialist trade union leadership, overmanning, closed shops, strikes and secondary picketing, all of which combined to make Britain the "sick man" of Europe, its industry uncompetitive, productivity low, and brought the country to its knees.
Trade union reform has led to dramatic improvements in industrial relations. The UK economy now boasts the most efficient labour markets in Europe. Britain has prospered as the number of days lost due to strikes fell - plummeting a hundredfold, from 29.5 million in 1979 to just 278,000 five years later, for example. By 1997, the figure had sunk to 235,000; and although after four years of Tony Blair's New Labour it had doubled again to 510,000, this is still a long way short of 1970s levels.
You win the prize for the least bright person I've ever had an on-going conversation with on Slashdot
I don't think we've had a "conversation". You've ranted incoherently. I doubt you lived through the 1970's here in the UK. If you had, I can't imagine why you'd think nationalised services were a good idea. I actually think you should read more. And if I could recommend a single book, not too heavy (at your intellectual level, it'll take about a year or so), it would be Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. Read it. Understand it. Then come back here and we can have an actual conversation, where you will attempt to justify your assertion that nationalised industries are better than privatised ones.
It seems to me that all of the evidence is on my side.
It must really suck to live a life combining religious adherence to a failed selfish ideology and bouts of emotional anger
OK, now I think you're seriously deluded, 14 years old, or worse, a guy who's only ever read one book. Also, you're someone who's never seen the satellite photo comparing North and South Korea at night.
I very much doubt you'll find anyone in the UK, who isn't a militant left wing troll or mentally ill, who also lived through the period, who would suggest that services were better when they were in public ownership (and therefore under militant union control).
The problem is that you aren't able to refute my basic argument that services now are far better than they were under public ownership. Your twattish comment is kind-of indicative of that.
I'm guessing you weren't alive when we had state organisations like "The Gas Board" to deal with instead of independent, private businesses. BT, the railways, everything is MUCH BETTER now than it was before. I remember before. This country was like Soviet Russia in the 1970's. At least the queues were as bad if not worse and the service was appalling. These companies used to be run for the benefit and convenience of their employees (the militant trade unions), not their customers.
Of course there's an extinction event going on at the moment. So what? Either Humans will end up covering the entire Earth in grey goo, or we'll die out and the animal kingdom will once again diversify.
There are more people lighting more fires than ever before. Of course there are more bloody bush fires. What do you expect? This one was apparently started by illegal weed growers.
Sorry but they ain't secrets, they ain't nothing, they are just information
Just so I understand your position here, you think that there's no reason any state should keep any secrets, have any spies or agents, run a security service or otherwise hold data outside of FOI, prosecute or have laws preventing the dissemination of those secrets outside of certain circles, or otherwise engage in any subversive activity to the benefit of its vital interests?
I am literally gobsmacked that anyone could be so utterly stupid, wilfully blind and spectacularly complacent. Grow up.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just the US. Europe/UK are spending a lot too. That's notwithstanding subsidies for inefficient renewable energy, which adds to the tax-payers bill by around 30% (at least here in the UK - don't think you have that in the US).
This isn't science, it's climate science. You know, the end of civilisation. Regardless, you argue my point even more forcefully: There's now even greater competition for funds, meaning even greater reason for hype and dissembling.
The energy production industry has a dog in this race, yes, but the amount it spends on its propaganda is an order of magnitude less than government spends on its policy based evidence making.
Stop right there. Climate Change is always happening and always has. It's a straw man argument to suggest anyone thinks anything differently, or that any of these studies should come to any other conclusion. There aren't thousands of data sources and thousands of studies showing man's emissions of CO2 are responsible for that change. There's a hypothesis, baked into models, which seems to be largely inaccurate if you compare the output of those models to actual reality.
That fact that there are billions of dollars in grants to be had from gullible tax payers to institutions and NGOs researching this coming "catastrophe" should make you pause for thought if nothing else does. Why would the IPCC conclude it wasn't a catastrophe, if by doing so their very existence could be called into question? They don't want their gravy train to stop.
Mann and Jones aren't doing science. They're doing grant farming and calling it science.
So what? You can be consistently wrong your entire life. It's meaningless.
Very funny. Did William Connoley edit that page? I doubt Mann's hockey stick will feature in the new IPCC report at all. Here's what Keith Briffa had to say about Mann's methods (from "climategate" emails):
Poorly "temperature representative"? Oh dear!
Argue with that you complete cretin.
I don't think we've had a "conversation". You've ranted incoherently. I doubt you lived through the 1970's here in the UK. If you had, I can't imagine why you'd think nationalised services were a good idea. I actually think you should read more. And if I could recommend a single book, not too heavy (at your intellectual level, it'll take about a year or so), it would be Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. Read it. Understand it. Then come back here and we can have an actual conversation, where you will attempt to justify your assertion that nationalised industries are better than privatised ones.
It seems to me that all of the evidence is on my side.
OK, now I think you're seriously deluded, 14 years old, or worse, a guy who's only ever read one book. Also, you're someone who's never seen the satellite photo comparing North and South Korea at night.
I very much doubt you'll find anyone in the UK, who isn't a militant left wing troll or mentally ill, who also lived through the period, who would suggest that services were better when they were in public ownership (and therefore under militant union control).
The problem is that you aren't able to refute my basic argument that services now are far better than they were under public ownership. Your twattish comment is kind-of indicative of that.
True. But for clarity I much preferred Lenoard Susskind's Stanford lectures, which are available on YouTube.
I have no idea what you're ranting about. Get a grip.
I'm guessing you weren't alive when we had state organisations like "The Gas Board" to deal with instead of independent, private businesses. BT, the railways, everything is MUCH BETTER now than it was before. I remember before. This country was like Soviet Russia in the 1970's. At least the queues were as bad if not worse and the service was appalling. These companies used to be run for the benefit and convenience of their employees (the militant trade unions), not their customers.
Of course there's an extinction event going on at the moment. So what? Either Humans will end up covering the entire Earth in grey goo, or we'll die out and the animal kingdom will once again diversify.
I think that's pretty unlikely. Life is constantly adapting to change. That's the whole point.
I think animals with shells survived well enough in the past when atmospheric CO2 levels were far, far higher. They'll adapt.
Arguable if you're a blithering idiot, or a socialist, yes.
This includes NGOs of course, who lobby the government for money, some of which they spend on... lobbying the government.
I wouldn't be surprised, no.
Very interesting. Thanks for that.
There are more people lighting more fires than ever before. Of course there are more bloody bush fires. What do you expect? This one was apparently started by illegal weed growers.
Just so I understand your position here, you think that there's no reason any state should keep any secrets, have any spies or agents, run a security service or otherwise hold data outside of FOI, prosecute or have laws preventing the dissemination of those secrets outside of certain circles, or otherwise engage in any subversive activity to the benefit of its vital interests?
I am literally gobsmacked that anyone could be so utterly stupid, wilfully blind and spectacularly complacent. Grow up.
Are you serious? Really? I am literally at a loss for words.
The gigantic idiot was carrying the encryption key, written down, on his person.