ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Riverwind]

So if I get called a communist for suggesting we tax the rich its me that's making it impossible to have a rational discussion?

Yes if the term was used as perjoritive intended as a substitute for discussion. No if it is just a short hand way to say 'I don't think that punative income redistribution schemes like what they have in Communist systems are good policy because they undermine the incentive to work.' Edited December 7, 2009 by Riverwind

[GostHacked]

So they created enough CO2 as a small town would by having this conference. Not only that everything that is coming out of their mouths is CO2.

They can stop having these conferences all over the world and telecommute and conference each other that way. If these guys were truly genuine in their actions to have the summit, they would have found a greener way to set a good example. They did make an example of themselves that they really don't care. I mean someone in the other thread or this one informed us about how much C02 they created during the summit.

[wyly]

So if I get called a communist for suggesting we tax the rich its me that's making it impossible to have a rational discussion?

logic is not required to be a denier....HST is good, Cap and Trade is stupid, suggest Carbon Tax and you're a tree hugging commie liberal...you say black they'll say white, you say white they'll switch to black....

[myata]

In any case, it's important that the public understand what is being said, and is bought in to the results.

There're many ways to achieve that (schools, popular media, programs in schools, museums, books, lectures, etc). However, given general public's distance from the forefront of science, there's always a room for a willing polititian / ideologue to play a game of "confusion / inconviction / conspiracy" around it. In the end, it always comes down to what kind of society we are / want to be.

Otherwise, science becomes a religion - whereby the priests tell us what is so, and we simply trust them.

Of course it does not. Any willing individual can learn foundations of science and determine for themselves validity (or not) of any claim. The conclusions of science are always open to a (qualified) critical test, unlike postulates of religion that must be taken without questioning. "Qualified" is important to sort out meaningless noise.

It must, rather, be a process. If the skeptics have scientists on their side, then they can step forth and ensure that real debate is happening.

The process is there, and it is being followed. It stretches credibility quite far to claim that a meaningful research could be deliberately and wilfully ignored by a community of highly educated, qualified professionals. If the research is published, verified and confirmed by other professionals, it'll be accepted. The problem with "skeptics" is that they'd like to bypass that scientific process altogether, calling upon unqualified general public to judge on purely scientific argument. The unqualified then indeed would have a tough choice between trusting the process (that ultimately led to technological advances in this age - compare with medieval times when all was decided by the opinion of a lord or a priest) and perhaps and in certain times, hearing something that public wants to hear, that would not line up with the recommendations of science. As it is with choices, it's ours to make, but it will also affect our lives (in the broad sense).

[Riverwind]

The process is there, and it is being followed.

The emails show otherwise. The gatekeepers work to ensure dissenting research is suppressed and kept out of peer reviewed literature and/or policy documents like the IPCC.

[Michael Hardner]

There're many ways to achieve that (schools, popular media, programs in schools, museums, books, lectures, etc). However, given general public's distance from the forefront of science, there's always a room for a willing polititian / ideologue to play a game of "confusion / inconviction / conspiracy" around it. In the end, it always comes down to what kind of society we are / want to be.

There's always room for a politician / idealogue to dissent for valid reasons as well.

The system can't be design to take the purity of a man's heart into account. It can be designed with open dialogue, so that at least people can make up their minds on their own.

As such, the public has to be involved because science impacts all of us.

Of course it does not. Any willing individual can learn foundations of science and determine for themselves validity (or not) of any claim. The conclusions of science are always open to a (qualified) critical test, unlike postulates of religion that must be taken without questioning. "Qualified" is important to sort out meaningless noise.

Any willing individual who learns the foundations of science and disagrees with climate change, though, is a 'skeptic'. Unless they're scientifically qualified for peer review and to publish their own questions, or studies of their own, qualified to understand doesn't help.

Proper feedback and dissent has to be built in to the system, otherwise it's just - "trust us".

The process is there, and it is being followed. It stretches credibility quite far to claim that a meaningful research could be deliberately and wilfully ignored by a community of highly educated, qualified professionals. If the research is published, verified and confirmed by other professionals, it'll be accepted. The problem with "skeptics" is that they'd like to bypass that scientific process altogether, calling upon unqualified general public to judge on purely scientific argument. The unqualified then indeed would have a tough choice between trusting the process (that ultimately led to technological advances in this age - compare with medieval times when all was decided by the opinion of a lord or a priest) and perhaps and in certain times, hearing something that public wants to hear, that would not line up with the recommendations of science. As it is with choices, it's ours to make, but it will also affect our lives (in the broad sense).

I agree it does stretch credibility quite far, and yet here we are. The results of the studies were published, and it seems the raw data wasn't available and may not be available. How is that better than using a divining rod ?

The scientific process is an invention of human behavior, and as such it doesn't seem that it will survive the advent of the internet entirely intact. Specifically, if the products of certain scientific investigations are complex and difficult to discern (as with climate change, economics and what have you) then science needs social will, i.e. political will, behind it. If we can't figure out a way to get social buy-in, and instead only want people to trust the scientists then we're in danger of being in the same league of societal enlightenment as those who blamed eclipses on tea leaves and chicken feathers.

[myata]

Well since then we have had several thousand emails released that prove that I was right to describe climate scientists as an untrustworthy lot. That fact alone negates all of your points. The only discussion we should be having now is on how to find out how widespread the corruption is and what we can do to reform the processes to prevent such abuses from happening in the future.

But of course it does not. You simply do not understand the idea, even being demonstrated a great body of work that goes into creating even one piece of research. Under standard, unconfirmed and even fradulent cases did, do and probably will always happen. Exposing such cases only improves the quality of science as a whole, a large body of work that is good solid science, by sorting out bad, unreliable pieces, or just plain junk. Only because you have no clue, no confidence in being able to see for yourself a quality research from under par/fradulent/junk one, would you need to jump to generalising conclusions like that "untrustworthy lot" (like all, thousands of them who study and work around the globe years upon years?), conclusions based if not on understanding the essence of the issue, then what? your inner hunches? beliefs? friendships and affiliations? ideology?

[eyeball]

The emails show otherwise. The gatekeepers work to ensure dissenting research is suppressed and kept out of peer reviewed literature and/or policy documents like the IPCC.

And I'm expected to believe that things like the WTO/IMF don't likewise employ gatekeepers for the very same reason you say climatologists do?

Don't get me wrong I'm now convinced that the scientific method of determining and reporting and and all findings that are used to formulate public policies, needs to be standardised and made completely transparent. This should also include full disclosure of all communications between scientists that work directly or indirectly for the government and in the public's domain.

[Martin Chriton]

So if I get called a communist for suggesting we tax the rich its me that's making it impossible to have a rational discussion?

Rich will just leave.

Why would anyone successful start or keep a business in Canada if they just lose all their earnings? If they can switch Countries and make another 20-100% more, it's a win-win for them.

(FYI - I've already left Canada because the tax rate is too high. I still have family in Canada that bare it but increasing the tax rate more will just further push people away.)

[eyeball]

If we can't figure out a way to get social buy-in, and instead only want people to trust the scientists then we're in danger of being in the same league of societal enlightenment as those who blamed eclipses on tea leaves and chicken feathers.

There is only one way to get society to buy-in and that is to give them a real democratic voice on this issue.

Of course you'll say we already do have that voice at election time but...if election returns are any indication I'd say more and more people just don't seem to buy that any more.

At which point you retort...these people are simply lazy...and round and round it goes.

[Riverwind]

You simply do not understand the idea, even being demonstrated a great body of work that goes into creating even one piece of research.

There is plenty of evidence that the corruption spreads way beyond that group of scientists caught on the emails. The recent editorial in Nature which characterized all dissenters as 'deniers' is proof that even a renowned journal like Nature has become corrupted by climate alarmism and we cannot trust the editors there to give sceptical research a fair hearing.

What you seem to be missing here is climate science is NOT a displine where truth can be verified with experiments. Climate science largely opinion based on analyses of heavily adjusted datasets. This means it is not enough for the gatekeepers to claim they are unbaised - they have to prove to the public that they are unbaised. The stubborn refusal on the part of most climate scientists to even acknowledge that they have an obligation to the public simply re-enforces the need for reform imposed from the outside.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

Rich will just leave.

Why would anyone successful start or keep a business in Canada if they just lose all their earnings? If they can switch Countries and make another 20-100% more, it's a win-win for them.

(FYI - I've already left Canada because the tax rate is too high. I still have family in Canada that bare it but increasing the tax rate more will just further push people away.)

Good, fewer people will help reduce the strain on our system, cut down on our CO2 emissions and there'll be more resources left for those of us who stay.

Mind that door doesn't hit your family's ass on the way out.

[wyly]

Rich will just leave.

Why would anyone successful start or keep a business in Canada if they just lose all their earnings? If they can switch Countries and make another 20-100% more, it's a win-win for them.

people come and go for all sorts of reasons very very few will leave for taxation reasons...if you're logic were true europe would be a barren wasteland but there are plenty of millionaires and billionaires in europe...

(FYI - I've already left Canada because the tax rate is too high. I still have family in Canada that bare it but increasing the tax rate more will just further push people away.)

so you move to the USA and end up paying more for healthcare or higher corporate tax, you take your cash out of the left pocket instead of the right it's all the same in the end...taxation wise Canada is better than some countries worse than others, what you gain in one respect you'll lose in another...

[Martin Chriton]

Good, fewer people will help reduce the strain on our system, cut down on our CO2 emissions and there'll be more resources left for those of us who stay.

Mind that door doesn't hit your family's ass on the way out.

Getting the rich, who pay for the system that you take advantage of, to leave isn't a forward looking strategy

[Riverwind]

Good, fewer people will help reduce the strain on our system, cut down on our CO2 emissions and there'll be more resources left for those of us who stay.

Look up 'going galt' sometime. One of the New England states brought in a tax on incomes >1 million. The following year nobody reported incomes >1 million.

[Martin Chriton]

so you move to the USA and end up paying more for healthcare or higher corporate tax, you take your cash out of the left pocket instead of the right it's all the same in the end...taxation wise Canada is better than some countries worse than others, what you gain in one respect you'll lose in another...

It's complicated; personally it works out well for me.

The point I was trying to get across to eyeballs is that you can't endlessly tax the rich. They're not going to stay if things get out of wack with other countries.

[Michael Hardner]

There is only one way to get society to buy-in and that is to give them a real democratic voice on this issue.

Of course you'll say we already do have that voice at election time but...if election returns are any indication I'd say more and more people just don't seem to buy that any more.

At which point you retort...these people are simply lazy...and round and round it goes.

Actually, eyeball, there are times when I do think a wide vote on an issue is justified, and this would be one of them.

The question is when do you want to have it ?

We don't have proof of AGW now, and with ClimateGate the momentum may turn around.

I think that some people are lazy, but not all and I want the system to encourage the non-lazy and discourage the lazy.

[Michael Hardner]

It's complicated; personally it works out well for me.

The point I was trying to get across to eyeballs is that you can't endlessly tax the rich. They're not going to stay if things get out of wack with other countries.

We can get rid of money - THAT would scare them.

[Riverwind]

The question is when do you want to have it?

The more important point is who gets to write the question. IMO, Any question that did not clearly require the public to accept some sacrifice before approving of anti-CO2 policies would be biased and not acceptable. A question like this would work:

e.g. Do you favour cutting social programs to pay for an aggressive program to reduce CO2 emissions?

Edited December 7, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

The more important point is who gets to write the question. IMO, Any question that did not clearly require the public to accept some sacrifice before approving of anti-CO2 policies would be biased and not acceptable. A question like this would work:

e.g. Do you favour cutting social programs to pay for an aggressive program to reduce CO2 emissions?

Sure, there are many more questions too: what is the question, who writes it, what does it propose and so on. There are many difficulties there.

My response to eyeball is more relevant to a long debate we have had about the mechanics of democracy. He's strongly in favour of direct voting on issues, and I am less inclined to support those.

[wyly]

It's complicated; personally it works out well for me.

The point I was trying to get across to eyeballs is that you can't endlessly tax the rich. They're not going to stay if things get out of wack with other countries.

things stay in balance more or less with other countries people come and go...and if the rich leave there are many who stay behind who are quite able and willing to take their place...

[eyeball]

Getting the rich, who pay for the system that you take advantage of, to leave isn't a forward looking strategy

Actually, the real strategy is to reduce or better check and balance the influence that rich people have on the system that would really be to my advantage.

[myata]

There is plenty of evidence that the corruption spreads way beyond that group of scientists caught on the emails. The recent editorial in Nature which characterized all dissenters as 'deniers' is proof that even a renowned journal like Nature has become corrupted by climate alarmism and we cannot trust the editors there to give sceptical research a fair hearing.

That's one way of looking at the problem. The entire branch of the science, globally is completely and utterly corrupt. Really, if there were any significant population of not yet corrupt climate scientists anywhere on this planet, they would be bound to approach the matter professionally, supporting and accepting merit research even if it goes against "corrupt" mainstream. As this doesn't appear to be happening, it could only mean one of two things, 1) "scepticism" (overall and not toward any particular piece of research with which there may very well be legitimate problems or concerns) has no serious following in the scientific community - as opposed to e.g. pseudo scientific one; or 2) a global, complete and over-reaching conspiracy. I've no comments on global conspiracies, but why does it sound so familiar to a deep conservative way of looking at any problem (investing in communities rather than jails = communist, questioning military engagements in foreign lands = terrorist lover)?

In other words, anything that would not agree with my views must be corrupt, complicit and/or immoral?

What you seem to be missing here is climate science is NOT a displine where truth can be verified with experiments. Climate science largely opinion based on analyses of heavily adjusted datasets. This means it is not enough for the gatekeepers to claim they are unbaised - they have to prove to the public that they are unbaised. The stubborn refusal on the part of most climate scientists to even acknowledge that they have an obligation to the public simply re-enforces the need for reform imposed from the outside.

As heard from our very own MLW expert on "climate science". We should discuss my muonic waves next, maybe I'll find some traction here, what I've been lacking with the traditional science.

[eyeball]

Look up 'going galt' sometime. One of the New England states brought in a tax on incomes >1 million. The following year nobody reported incomes >1 million.

Please bring it on. Settling for less and reducing our production/consumption will help reduce our impact on the planet.

Downshifting is a great idea, now I have more time and energy for sex - and yes I've been fixed but that's probably more information than I need to reveal.

[Martin Chriton]

Actually, the real strategy is to reduce or better check and balance the influence that rich people have on the system that would really be to my advantage.

I agree w/ this. But this is another tangent.