Climategate Email Leak 2.0

[dre]

No. The unethical behavior came first. If they had been upfront with their data and acknowledged uncertainty there would have been no need for people to question their claims.

Yes there would. Thats simply how the political battle is being waged.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

If the "scientists" were merely "mewling zealots" I would consider them to be misguided fools. It is worse. They are fraudsters.

It's very simple from their point of view. If there is no man-made climate problem there would be no funding for their dubious "research".

Absolutely. The Scientist who makes 60-90k a year is doing this to keep their job.

Not big corporations with over 100,000,000,000,000 at stake in future oil purchases alone...

Yep. Must be the scientists.

Edited November 24, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[MiddleClassCentrist]

BTW - No one is impressed by your ability to slaughter strawmen.

I never refuted your position about conservatives being driven by ideology. I agree!

Ideology is not rational, it's a belief. It is closer to faith than science. To follow ideology instead of analysing a situation and applying the best policy to solve it is to be willfully ignorant of reality.

Common Example:

Problem = "There are too many poor and unemployed people"

Common Conservative Solution: "Lower the minimum wage to create jobs"

Result: More poor people are created.

This is exactly what is happenining in the climate change debate.

I believe it isn't a problem as my ideology says so, therefor it is not a problem.

come to the conclusion that CO2 mitigation policies are are complete waste of time and money.

Most of the plans are garbage. I never said they weren't. Especially the conservative pushed ones like pumping CO2 underground slowing it's release. Just putting the problem on future generations.

The most promising plans are in changing how we create and use fuel. One plan I saw that looked promising for fuel creationwas using algae to produce oil. Carbon neutral because the algae grows taking carbon out of the air. I remember reading that If 1/7th of the U.S. corn crop was turned into growing this algae the U.S. could be energy self sufficient.

Edited November 24, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[TimG]

Problem = "There are too many poor and unemployed people"

Common Conservative Solution: "Lower the minimum wage to create jobs"

Result: More poor people are created.

A beautiful example because in this case the science supports the conservative view 100%. If you want to reduce unemployment eliminate the minimum wage. Lefies on the other had look at this issue through a purely ideological lens and would rather see people collect welfare than work for less.

The conservative opposition to big government anti-CO2 plans is much the same. i.e. if climate change is a problem and big government is the only solution then I would rather live with the problem. It is absolutely no different from the lefty position on minimum wages.

What I critized you for was the suggestion that conservatives are more driven by ideology than leftie. It is not true. The only difference is conservatives are more honest when it comes to admitting that their views are driven by ideology.

[TimG]

I haven't seen this claim before. How could you show which came first?

If you go back an look at the timeline for climategate you will see that sceptics always asked politely for access to the data. The FOIs only started coming when these polite requests are refused. This story has played out over and over again. Climategate would have never happened if climate scientists had acted like mature professionals instead of spoiled little children.

This is well documented but you would have to read sceptic blogs which makes it difficult to go further since you assume that in a disagreement between a sceptic and alarmist the alarmist is ALWAYS right no matter how rediculous their position.

Edited November 24, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

If you go back an look at the timeline for climategate you will see that sceptics always asked politely for access to the data. The FOIs only started coming when these polite requests are refused. This story has played out over and over again. Climategate would have never happened if climate scientists had acted like mature professionals instead of spoiled little children.

They asked politely... ok I'll take your word. But wasn't the blogosphere already rife with a snarky element by that point ?

This is well documented but you would have to read sceptic blogs which makes it difficult to go further since you assume that in a disagreement between a sceptic and alarmist the alarmist is ALWAYS right no matter how rediculous their position.

I don't assume that. I prefer dialogue between scientists who are equally qualified in their field and the best skeptics have interesting points to consider.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

A beautiful example because in this case the science supports the conservative view 100%. If you want to reduce unemployment eliminate the minimum wage. Lefies on the other had look at this issue through a purely ideological lens and would rather see people collect welfare than work for less.

Do you have a source to verify this? I will cite the great depression.

-> People with lower wages will buy fewer products and services.

-> When fewer products are being bought, jobs are lost in all related activities (R&D, Marketing, Customer Service, etc).

-> People without jobs definately can't buy anything, the cycle worsens.

Our entire economy is built on this concept of consumerism. Those who make very little or nothing can't consume. If you pay them more, they can consume more. In turn creating economic activity and jobs for what they consume. Anyone with a broader understanding of business and economics beyond 'ideology' can see that fact in action.

The incandescent lightbulb has been engineered to fail. 100 years ago you could get bulbs that lasted 2000 hours. Why is it after 100 years they are worse? The incandescent bulbs only last 1000hours.... inspite of patents of 25 year designs and a 100 000 hour patent? The more something breaks the more it has to be replaced. Planned obsolescence. Making us consume more than we really need to, and destroy our environment even more.

I suppose I have just argued for lower wages when taking the environment into consideration. If we destroy the economy by paying everyone but the top end very little, then we can't consume nearly as much and even more jobs will be lost. When we have no money, no one will buy unnecessary toxic products like cellphones, microwaves, televisions and the C02 emissions creating them will be saved. Hurrah!

Edited November 25, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[TimG]

Do you have a source to verify this?

Keep in mind I am same the overwhelming "consensus" among economists is that minimum wages kill jobs. I not saying that all studies support this view - just that the lefties are choosing ideology over science on this topic: http://ftp.iza.org/dp2570.pdf

A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries.

So you can engage in as much 'armchair economics' as you want but you are no different from those climate sceptics pushing arguments that disagree with the scientific "consensus" on climate change. Edited November 25, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Keep in mind I am same the overwhelming "consensus" among economists is that minimum wages kill jobs.

But do we want jobs that pay less than minimum wage ?

[TimG]

They asked politely... ok I'll take your word. But wasn't the blogosphere already rife with a snarky element by that point ?

There was no 'blogosphere' when this started. SteveMc was denied access to data as soon as Mann figured out he wanted to criticize his work. Mann then went on a witch hunt - personally attacking Steve Mc - something that the Climategate emails has evidence to support.

Of course, Mann likes to re-write history to suit his narrative and he claims that he was attacked first. I don't find such claims credible given the way Mann generally reacts to criticism.

Edited November 25, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

But do we want jobs that pay less than minimum wage ?

Good question. But why is it acceptable (in the mind of a leftist) to make a value based decision to keep a minimum wage despite the science that says it increases employment but it is unacceptable to make a value based decision that the costs of mitigation outweigh the future harms? Edited November 25, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Good question. But why is it acceptable (in the mind of a leftist) to make a value based decision to keep a minimum wage despite the science that says it increases employment but it is unacceptable to make a value based decision that the costs of mitigation outweigh the future harms?

There shouldn't be morality involved... just numbers. Falling wages is a number...

[TimG]

There shouldn't be morality involved... just numbers. Falling wages is a number...

Which is better: a lower paying job or no job at all? I think it is pretty obvious that a lower paying job is better than no job.

If you disagree you are making a moral choice that has nothing to do with science or data. It is a value based decision.

Edited November 25, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Which is better: a lower paying job or no job at all? I think it is pretty obvious that a lower paying job is better than no job.

False choice: EI is better than no job.

[Michael Hardner]

Wait... thread drift again... I recommend a new thread... apologies.

[TimG]

False choice: EI is better than no job.

So you are assuming that the state will support anyone who can't find a job? That again is a moral choice - not one based on science or data.

[jbg]

False choice: EI is better than no job.

No, EI doesn't teach work habits.

[dre]

Good question. But why is it acceptable (in the mind of a leftist) to make a value based decision to keep a minimum wage despite the science that says it increases employment but it is unacceptable to make a value based decision that the costs of mitigation outweigh the future harms?

In both cases its acceptable to make a value judgement, and in both cases one IS being made.

[Michael Hardner]

So you are assuming that the state will support anyone who can't find a job? That again is a moral choice - not one based on science or data.

Well... it does do so, so... and yes it's a moral choice.

[Michael Hardner]

Well... it does do so, so... and yes it's a moral choice.

Sorry... this IS thread drift now... can we start a new thread ?

[TimG]

Sorry... this IS thread drift now... can we start a new thread ?

It is connected to the topic of thread because one of the memes that comes up over and over again is how conservatives are wrong for making value based decisions on climate change action. This example clearly illustrates that value based decisions are extremely common and the only real problem are arrogant lefties that ASSUME that their value based decisions are something other than value based decisions. Edited November 25, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

It is connected to the topic of thread because one of the memes that comes up over and over again is how conservatives are wrong for making value based decisions on climate change action. This example clearly illustrates that value based decisions are extremely common and the only real problem are arrogant lefties that ASSUME that their value based decisions are something other than value based decisions.

I don't think I've heard anybody frame that part of the debate that way.

But I agree, as humans values frame pretty much everything we do, including financial dealings, purchases, and so on.

[TimG]

I don't think I've heard anybody frame that part of the debate that way.

You hear is all of the time. Whenever someone claims that conservatives oppose CO2 mitigation because of ideology (in a derogatory sense) they are basically saying: when people who we disagree with make decisions based on ideology it is wrong but when we make decisions based on ideology we are right. It is shameless hypocracy. Edited November 25, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You hear is all of the time. Whenever someone claims that conservatives oppose CO2 mitigation because of ideology (in a derogatory sense) they are basically saying: when people who we disagree with make decisions based on ideology it is wrong but when we make decisions based on ideology we are right. It is shameless hypocracy.

Have people said that often ? It's basically saying your decision is based on your politics... which isn't saying much.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Keep in mind I am same the overwhelming "consensus" among economists is that minimum wages kill jobs. I not saying that all studies support this view - just that the lefties are choosing ideology over science on this topic: http://ftp.iza.org/dp2570.pdf

There is no consensus like you claim there to be. Sorry.

You Have To Have Money To Spend It

If no one is spending. Jobs are lost over time.

So you can engage in as much 'armchair economics' as you want but you are no different from those climate sceptics pushing arguments that disagree with the scientific "consensus" on climate change.

I am far from them. I compromise. Ideology does not.

Edited November 25, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist