Did I miss the thread about the CRU Fraud?

[Drake Tungsten]

A smart carbon tax would be deficit neutral or earmarked for paying down the national debt. Just because cap-and-trade as proposed by Congress is a boondoggle doesn't mean that reducing carbon emissions isn't necessary or possible to achieve in a fiscally responsible manner.

[Asher]

This whole climate change nonsense is bull****. Keep polluting.

Mankind works best when a gun is to their head. Witness the cold war space race.

Keep polluting, and then watch how quickly technology develops to combat it.

[Asher]

this server's DPs are contributing to global warming

[KrazyHorse]

The key thing is not whether or not a proposed carbon tax specifically offsets another, more destructive tax. The part to watch out for is whether or not it specifically uses any of the proceeds to pay for stupid **** like government-sponsored research or payments to poor families to keep driving 30 miles each way to work or ethanol subsidies.

The US is in an enormous fiscal hole right now, and needs deficit-reducing initiatives which come online pretty soon (at least once the current economic situation has reversed itself more fully).

Government spending and government revenues are only very weakly coupled to each other in the short run. Spending needs to shrink relative to GDP and revenue needs to rise. These issues can be tackled separately.

[BlackCat]

KH, you are both a scientist and a fortran programmer, try taking a look at this

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Asher, stay away if you want to keep your sanity

[Blaupanzer]

Originally Posted by KrazyHorse
Yes, and one "side" is the scientific consensus. The other side is a bunch of nonacademic conspiracy theorists.

Originally Posted by notyoueither

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Princeton, Harvard, Columbia, MIT, NASA, etc, etc, etc...

Originally Posted by KrazyHorse
What a sad list. Thanks for proving my point, ****.
__________________________________________________ ____________________

KrazyHorse, do you really think that the list of climate change skeptics actually includes the examples NYE called out, and if it did, that thay could be considered conspiracy theorists?

Those folks for the most part doubt the solutions, not the science. The scientifiic models are not sensitive to economic solutions except in terms of carbon emission reductions. So the people with the "hard" solutions saying "we will say how much emission will be permitted" cannot prove that their solution will: 1) work; 2) two go to far; or 3) require even more intervention. Not putting those people in charge of the economy sounds like a viable solution. Doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

[Blaupanzer]

Blackcat, very scary and very funny. I laughed at all his successes especially early that were all wrong but the system was closer to "working." Been there on extracting old data, but his rendition is hilarious in spots. I am an old fortran programmer, but you can follow the process and the humor without knowing the code and the anomalies revealed.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by KrazyHorse
Yes, and one "side" is the scientific consensus. The other side is a bunch of nonacademic conspiracy theorists.

Originally Posted by notyoueither

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Princeton, Harvard, Columbia, MIT, NASA, etc, etc, etc...

Originally Posted by KrazyHorse
What a sad list. Thanks for proving my point, ****.
__________________________________________________ ____________________

KrazyHorse, do you really think that the list of climate change skeptics actually includes the examples NYE called out, and if it did, that thay could be considered conspiracy theorists?

I have no idea what you're on about. I clicked on the link NYE provided, glanced through it and provided my assessment of his list of "skeptics". Some are just crazy old dudes and some aren't really skeptics at all.

[KrazyHorse]

BlackCat if you think I'm going to read through 50 pages of IDL and Fortran crap then you're seriously mistaken.

[BlackCat]

Well, if you think that I have read trough all that, then you are seriously mistaken

Skimming the first/last pages and a little random can do it - quite entertaining and a bit scary.

[BlackCat]

Blackcat, very scary and very funny. I laughed at all his successes especially early that were all wrong but the system was closer to "working." Been there on extracting old data, but his rendition is hilarious in spots. I am an old fortran programmer, but you can follow the process and the humor without knowing the code and the anomalies revealed.

Honestly, I haven't done anything professionally with fortran - had a course about antennas some 25 years ago where we used watfiv, though I could be wrong - the hot languages back then were algol and pascal

I can't figure out if it's a hoax or not. It will be quite bad for the climate fanatics if it's for real, but the script is so damn big an detailed, so it difficult to see someone make it up.

And yeah, this poor guys frustrations over undocumented data, programs and procedures is quite entertaining

[notyoueither]

The other side is a bunch of nonacademic conspiracy theorists.

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[16]

George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."[25]

William Happer, physicist Princeton University: "all the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[27]

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[39]

Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."[45]

Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[48]

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[52] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[53]

That was the first link off the google search I did. I know there are many more.

The point being that it is difficult to accept anyone saying 'just trust us, all the evidence is on our side.' It is impossible to accept any sort of 'everyone knows' assertion.

[KrazyHorse]

Thanks for proving my point, ****.

[notyoueither]

Yes, yes, dear.

We understand.

You couldn't hack it, but it's a professor of atmospheric science at MIT who is a nonacademic.

[notyoueither]

Now, let's hear how a sales tax an an excise tax can have the same effects on exporters.