ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

[Gary Ruben]

Re: do it for the turtles and penguins

Humans have already lived through several ice ages without going extinct. Why should the next one do it? Now, "civilization" might not survive, but it is hardly likely that a mere ice age would make the species itself go extinct.

The inuit, among others, have managed to survive in what amounts to a permanent ice age for at least 10,000 years here in North America, living until recently entirely off the frozen land. The main threat to continuance actually seems to be the probable ending of their local ice age due to global warming.

I doubt that even unchecked global warming would eliminate our species and would bet on homo sap still being around in ten thousand years. By then the great cull that is likely, in my opinion, to result from the warming will seem like a very minor incident in the distant path.

It is only the next few generations - our children, their children and grandchildren - who are likely to die by the hundred millions in the next couple of centuries, but for some reason I am sentimental and would prefer if we could, by intelligent foresight, avoid that contingency. But perhaps the fate of your grandchildren is not very important to you?

While complete extinction is unlikely, there woud be a hugh reduction in population. Many nations aren't equiped for the cold temperatures.

Your prediction regarding the next few generations dying from global warming is bunk. It is simply incorrect. The paragraph is worthy of a speech writer for an evangelist. It contains frear mongering along with hope for those who follow in the path laid out by the evangelist and interpretations of the writings of someone or other.

I figure health care will continue to improve and the life span will expand. Three score and ten will become more like 4 score and ten. Many get that and more now. The problem is overpopulation and not global warming.

Can you tell the what inroads B.C. is making toward cutting down on pollution? I'll tell you one which promotes global warming. Incentives to drill for oil and gas wells.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: do it for the turtles and penguins

A personal view perhaps, but I believe that sometime in this century a pandemic or two will sweep across the globe and take out as much as two-thirds of the population. Viruses are getting stronger, and people's immune systems are getting weaker. These trends are bound to intersect at some point. When the black plague took out a huge chunk of Europe's population, things changed for the better (on the whole). Not saying things would change for the better this time, but at least it would deal a blow to overpopulation.

We've seen SARS and Swine Flu. Back in the middle ages when the black plague struck they didn't have the medicines or science to deal with it. Polio was pretty bad and we rarely hear of it these days.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: ClimateGate

This assertion is not valid. For one thing, who are "the people"? Have you not even seen or heard the prime candidate for word of the year in 2009, "sheeple"?

Actually, both halves of the statement are correct, replacing people with sheeple: yes, it's the sheeple who elect and re-elect governments (ohhh, but wait: who is responsible for Dubya since he lost the popular vote in the 2000 election? Hmmmmm, could it be.... the Supreme Court justices????). And yes, it is the sheeple who hold some responsibility for the policies.

Governments who get elected and re-elected are simply the people's choice. You get the government you deserve and you pay for it. You can call the voters anything you want but they elect the government they can afford or who serves in their best interests.

In case you didn't know, the American presidential election doesn't work by popular vote. They have an electoral college. Winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college vote is not unique to Gore. For what it's worth, I don't think Gore would have made much of a president.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: ClimateGate

This is why the best government is the least government. When people start asking government to save their jobs, their way of life, they cannot be surprised when governments invade foreign countries or buy corporations in the private sector. I expect as things get worse economically, people will expect the governments to do more and more. This is only the beginning.

The want to do a fast IPO on the new GM. If that company goes bankrupt again, the governments don't want to be the ones caught holding.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: do it for the turtles and penguins

Your prediction regarding the next few generations dying from global warming is bunk. It is simply incorrect.

Got any evidence for this claim?

My interpretation about what is likely to happen is based on fairly straightforward projections of the current situation and the scientific evidence provided by scientists. It is a guess as to what will happen if we do nothing, but it is a reasonable guess, I think, and consistent with the current evidence.

Of course we could prevent it, if we wanted to, and got started now.

The paragraph is worthy of a speech writer for an evangelist. It contains frear mongering along with hope for those who follow in the path laid out by the evangelist and interpretations of the writings of someone or other.

Your paragraph is merely name calling without any supporting evidence. Noticing the approaching tidal wave and suggesting to people that they might want to run to higher ground is not fear mongering.

I figure health care will continue to improve and the life span will expand. Three score and ten will become more like 4 score and ten. Many get that and more now. The problem is overpopulation and not global warming.

Given the governments we are presently electing the trend seems likely to reverse itself rather soon. Overpopulation is of course a problem and it will make the effects of global warming much worse than it would otherwise be.

Can you tell the what inroads B.C. is making toward cutting down on pollution? I'll tell you one which promotes global warming. Incentives to drill for oil and gas wells.

Of course that is a stupid policy, but then again I didn't vote for the idiot government that is doing it. Are you suggesting I take to the streets in armed struggle?

Why the obsession with BC, though? Alberta is doing far worse things and most other provinces are not far behind.
Do you think that because I live in BC that I am personally responsible for it's actions, or are you just trying to distract attention from the faults of whatever province you are living in?

[Jason Lohner]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

I have seen the emails. They change nothing. If you want some data have a look here..

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...eres-the-data/

After some further research, this site was actually quoted in the emails. The editor was deleting any articles that were skeptical on this 'neutral' site. The people in charge of this site are up to their necks in this scandal. This site is closely linked to Micheal Mann who is now under investigation.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: do it for the turtles and penguins

Got any evidence for this claim?

My interpretation about what is likely to happen is based on fairly straightforward projections of the current situation and the scientific evidence provided by scientists. It is a guess as to what will happen if we do nothing, but it is a reasonable guess, I think, and consistent with the current evidence.

I'm a chess player. I do my own analysis on everything from economics to climate. Right now I don't see any particular evidence to support either point of view on global warming, so I've concluded what has been will continue to be.

Given the governments we are presently electing the trend seems likely to reverse itself rather soon. Overpopulation is of course a problem and it will make the effects of global warming much worse than it would otherwise be.

The increase in population will increase the need to cultivate more land for the production of food.

Of course that is a stupid policy, but then again I didn't vote for the idiot government that is doing it. Are you suggesting I take to the streets in armed struggle?

I would never suggest such a thing. Probably simply carrying a sign sayting the world is ending would suffice. :)

Why the obsession with BC, though? Alberta is doing far worse things and most other provinces are not far behind.
Do you think that because I live in BC that I am personally responsible for it's actions, or are you just trying to distract attention from the faults of whatever province you are living in?

Yes, but I'm not discussing this with someone from Alberta. I sold my investment in the B.C. paper company for a nice profit. Switched to Alberta oil and gas. Hopefully for a good time and not for a long time.

You're probably right about Alberta being worse for pollution. They are also giving drilling incentives to try to pick up activity. The problem is that gas wells generally start flowing at an initial rate of production. So with no new drilling, within a couple of years production from a well drops dramatically and so do the royalties. Decline can be shown on graphs like a financial yield curve. That means you can't stand still and still get the same amount of royalties. You need constant drilling of new wells to tap the reserves.

I'm in Ontario. I expect the provincial government will change next election over the HST. The last time the government changed was after a hot summer. It was so hot there were power outages. The Conservative government not being able to keep the lights on became a big issue and they didn't win the election. I guess that was about 6 years ago. We haven't had a summer like that since. I guess it would be an outlier on a standard deviation graph. Like the stuff some people are trying to feed us on global warming.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: do it for the turtles and penguins

I'm a chess player. I do my own analysis on everything from economics to climate. Right now I don't see any particular evidence to support either point of view on global warming, so I've concluded what has been will continue to be.

Well, I think you are overlooking a tactic about two moves deep. Moreover your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

While people talk about supposed problems in the collection of data in the past research is actually continuing and in fact the findings are getting worse for the "skeptics", not better.

I put "skeptics" in quotes above because those who call themselves that in regard to global warming actually aren't true skeptics at all.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: ClimateGate

Governments who get elected and re-elected are simply the people's choice. You get the government you deserve and you pay for it. You can call the voters anything you want but they elect the government they can afford or who serves in their best interests.

In case you didn't know, the American presidential election doesn't work by popular vote. They have an electoral college. Winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college vote is not unique to Gore. For what it's worth, I don't think Gore would have made much of a president.

Yes, I know about the electoral college vote, and we'll never know thanks to the Supreme Court whether Dubya even won that in 2000.

I notice you didn't answer my two questions. I think, Gary, you put too much stock in the election process. I know you love politics and that's fine, but I think the younger generation -- which has been saddled with all the problems their parents and grandparents wouldn't handle (notice I don't say "couldn't" handle) -- needs to hear that politics is only useful for those who like to follow soap operas. And that they can enact orders of magnitude more change via spending and saving habits than by a lifetime of voting.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: ClimateGate

Yes, I know about the electoral college vote, and we'll never know thanks to the Supreme Court whether Dubya even won that in 2000.

I notice you didn't answer my two questions. I think, Gary, you put too much stock in the election process. I know you love politics and that's fine, but I think the younger generation -- which has been saddled with all the problems their parents and grandparents wouldn't handle (notice I don't say "couldn't" handle) -- needs to hear that politics is only useful for those who like to follow soap operas. And that they can enact orders of magnitude more change via spending and saving habits than by a lifetime of voting.

My memory is vague on this so maybe you have the answer. Did Gore withdraw his action from the Supreme Court when he realized it could stall the inauguration and make the U.S. and his party look bad?

Regarding your questions, how many people do you think saw the downturn coming? Certainly most didn't expect to see GM declare bankruptcy. You didn't think the U.S. government would let GM go out of existance, did you?

Regarding voting, there are trends. As an example, Alberta seems to always vote conservative. I think the new party there will win the next provincial election. The Wildrose Alliance. I hope so because that party seems to be more pro-business.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: do it for the turtles and penguins

I put "skeptics" in quotes above because those who call themselves that in regard to global warming actually aren't true skeptics at all.

Define a true skeptic.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: do it for the turtles and penguins

Define a true skeptic.

You should be able to get a copy of "Skeptic" magazine on the newstands if you have a decent bookstore in town. They give a satisfactory definition in each issue. It's also on the web at http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/. The first paragraph is as follows:

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

A true skeptic must have an open mind and be willing to change it when presented with convincing evidence.

But that presupposes an understanding of what is, and what isn't "evidence" and I'm afraid the deniers posting on this board, at least, don't get that part of it.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: ClimateGate

My memory is vague on this so maybe you have the answer. Did Gore withdraw his action from the Supreme Court when he realized it could stall the inauguration and make the U.S. and his party look bad?

No. There was a supreme court ruling (a stupid one in my opinion, but never mind now) against Gore and at that point Gore conceded the election. But the Gore suit went to the Supreme court and they made a ruling.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: ClimateGate

My memory is vague on this so maybe you have the answer. Did Gore withdraw his action from the Supreme Court when he realized it could stall the inauguration and make the U.S. and his party look bad?

Regarding your questions, how many people do you think saw the downturn coming? Certainly most didn't expect to see GM declare bankruptcy. You didn't think the U.S. government would let GM go out of existance, did you?

Regarding voting, there are trends. As an example, Alberta seems to always vote conservative. I think the new party there will win the next provincial election. The Wildrose Alliance. I hope so because that party seems to be more pro-business.

On the Gore thing, my memory is also a little vague. I believe the Supreme Court did rule, that ballots from certain Florida counties couldn't be counted because of the "hanging chad" issue, and then Gore dropped any chance to appeal that decision, awarding the election to Bush. I wonder if Gore has second thoughts on that? To think that some very major, major directions were so influenced by a tiny piece of cardboard called a "chad"!!!!

I think some investors saw the downturn coming and might have warned about it, but the public at large didn't foresee it at all. I doubt anybody foresaw a GM bankruptcy, but that is part of my point. By shutting their wallets en masse in reaction to the financial meltdown, the public forced the government to do something about GM, and allowing it to liquidate (i.e. shut everything down) was not even a consideration. Wouldn't have mattered if it was a McCain administration or even (shudder) a Palin one. Rescue GM, rescue the banks, would still have been the result.

The public didn't know they would cause this, and might even have been horrified if they had known. But the genie is now out of the bottle, if the public only realizes the power they hold. If they want the "new" GM gone, just continue to not purchase their products. The speed with which this can happen is amazing. If the public is so mad at banks for how they've prospered from Obama's bailouts while main street suffers, then act en masse and bring the banks down! I read last week that a prominent California economics professor is encouraging underwater homeowners around the U.S. to walk away from their homes. Renting is much cheaper than owning now, let the banks take the hit. His rationale is that people must act in their own self-interest, and continuing to make payments on underwater mortgages is not in their own self-interest.

There are dangers to all of this, no doubt about that. Bringing down the system begs the question: what will replace it? As my wife always says, fear of the unknown is greater than the known, so the public may shrink from doing too much damage at once. And I'm not trying to encourage bringing down the whole system. All I'm suggesting is replacing the vote as a mechanism of change with the dollar. The inherent power is enormous, and with great power comes great responsibility.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

I remember the trial about the Florida ballots, where a Montrealer were questioned as an expert on statistics. But these informations are too vague to give me any good clue to give me a way to find back the details of the affair. If someone could help me on this, that would be appreciated.