PDA

View Full Version : Greenies: Democracy must be suspended



Sonnabend
05-28-2010, 07:52 PM
From Darth Misha's site (http://nicedoggie.net/)


In this BBC podcast (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/analysis/analysis_20100524-2030a.mp3) (takes a minute or so to load), the view of green elitists is that we have casus belli. Thus democracy has to be suspended and common sense authoritarianism (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/analysis/analysis_20100524-2030a.mp3)has to take over – just for a while, until things are put back in their proper order. The general population is just too stupid to understand it, and is only getting in the way. (Actually, and thankfully, they’re too informed and many people understand precisely what this is about). “The situation is urgent, the world is going to hell in a handbasket – let us rescue the planet. Trust us,” we are constantly told.
"There are times when democracy has to be set aside"

"Global warming is like a war"


"We must do these things whether the people like it or not"

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_w-By2Dsk4Us/Sed7GL0yrWI/AAAAAAAAAyY/0jzMncaSwHU/s400/green-nazis.JPG

Gingersnap
05-28-2010, 08:27 PM
Well, if we couldn't successfully convince people over the past 5,000 years that random sex was destructive and stupid, it's unlikely we can get them to return to subsidence farming and short lifespans just to save some nameless plant or fish. :rolleyes:

Tecate
05-29-2010, 02:18 AM
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/Loveways/climatology_dees.jpg

NJCardFan
05-29-2010, 02:45 PM
Jonah Goldberg is right then.
http://samuelatgilgal.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/liberal-fascism-58142327.jpg

Constitutionally Speaking
05-29-2010, 06:56 PM
Jonah Goldberg is right then.
http://samuelatgilgal.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/liberal-fascism-58142327.jpg

Yes he was - and is.

wilbur
05-30-2010, 09:05 AM
I think its an interesting question in general: What are the types of catastrophes that democracies cannot prevent?

I think we're basically screwed if:

1) The bad consequences of a problem are in the sufficiently distant future.
2) There is a short window of time where disaster mitigation can be effective.
3) Mitigation comes with a sufficiently high cost.
4) Mitigation in the present will be detrimental in the short term, to sufficiently influential interests.
5) The issue is sufficiently complicated, so that misinformation by interested parties can easily persuade the public.

I think problems with these characteristics are basically unsolvable by democracy - democracy will just have to eat the catastrophe and hope for the best. We have to hope that democracy *can* eat the catastrophe, and come out the other side, still standing. This doesn't just have to be global warming here.. think of the financial crisis, government spending and borrowing, social security, etc.

Sonnabend
05-30-2010, 09:15 AM
I think its an interesting question in general: What are the types of catastrophes that democracies cannot solve?None.

I think we're basically screwed if:

1) The bad consequences of a problem are in the sufficiently distant future.Go buy a time machine, go to 2340 and when you get back, report in and let us know what you find. until then, democracy and freedom are the watchwords of this society.


2) There is a short window of time where disaster mitigation can be effective."For the duration of the emergency" is the typical ploy used by fascists and would be dictators.


3) Mitigation has at a sufficiently high cost.There is no mitigation in denying the basic freedoms of every individual...and just what freedoms would you deny them?

Hm?


4) Corrections in the present will be detrimental in the short term, to sufficiently influential interests.Assuming that the "problem" exists..which it doesnt


5) The issue is sufficiently complicated, so that misinformation by interested parties can easily persuade the public.Oh, I quite agree, we can start with Gore's lies, then Jones, the IPCC, NASA...all misinformation, all fabrications, all lies to gain money and power.

"Interested parties" like Al Gore and his ilk...shall we start with THEIR misinformation?


I think problems with these characteristics are basically unsolvable by democracy - democracy will just have to eat the catastrophe and hope for the best. This doesn't just have to be global warming here.. think of the financial crisis, government spending and borrowing, social security, etc.I find it interesting that you of all people are in favour of a dictatorship...you'd just be SOOO happy to see the "deniers" silenced, along with anyone else who dares disagree with the Church of Mother Gaia, wouldnt you, wilbur?

It GNAWS at you that we peons and plebs have the effrontery to disagree with the "consensus" (another lie since there isnt one) doesnt it?

That freedom of speech is so pesky, and you'd LOVE to see it removed, wouldnt you?

To you and your ilk "freedom of speech" is "agree with us or else"

warpig
05-30-2010, 02:38 PM
This idea has been around along time. The think tank Club of Rome, stated such in their book "Limits to Growth" published back in the 70's. They felt that democracy was not a good system of governance going forward and looked for alternative methods. You know like maybe the ol' feudal system. They also felt that the idea of getting the world to have a single adversary, notably the rape of the environment, for the world to focus on would keep us from having wars and bring us all to that big "Michael Row the Boat Ashore" moment.

FlaGator
05-30-2010, 02:51 PM
I think its an interesting question in general: What are the types of catastrophes that democracies cannot prevent?

I think we're basically screwed if:

1) The bad consequences of a problem are in the sufficiently distant future.
2) There is a short window of time where disaster mitigation can be effective.
3) Mitigation comes with a sufficiently high cost.
4) Mitigation in the present will be detrimental in the short term, to sufficiently influential interests.
5) The issue is sufficiently complicated, so that misinformation by interested parties can easily persuade the public.

I think problems with these characteristics are basically unsolvable by democracy - democracy will just have to eat the catastrophe and hope for the best. We have to hope that democracy *can* eat the catastrophe, and come out the other side, still standing. This doesn't just have to be global warming here.. think of the financial crisis, government spending and borrowing, social security, etc.

A better question is can science accurately recognize a problem that will occur in the distant future and not invent one in order to supply the salaries of scientists while they work hard to manufacture more evidence in order to maintain their income into the sufficiently distant future?

3rd-try
05-30-2010, 04:34 PM
This idea has been around along time. The think tank Club of Rome, stated such in their book "Limits to Growth" published back in the 70's. They felt that democracy was not a good system of governance going forward and looked for alternative methods. You know like maybe the ol' feudal system. They also felt that the idea of getting the world to have a single adversary, notably the rape of the environment, for the world to focus on would keep us from having wars and bring us all to that big "Michael Row the Boat Ashore" moment.

The mindset of leftist activists amazes me. It's never enough for them to practice their beliefs. They have to change everyone to their way. Self righteousness abounds. They feel sooooo superior. All the while they don't seem to notice Al Gore is getting richer faster than any evil corporate CEO.

warpig
05-30-2010, 04:45 PM
The mindset of leftist activists amazes me. It's never enough for them to practice their beliefs. They have to change everyone to their way. Self righteousness abounds. They feel sooooo superior. All the while they don't seem to notice Al Gore is getting richer faster than any evil corporate CEO.


Too true, their hypocrisy knows no limits. When conservative rage they do so because something isn't fair or right, when liberals do it it's because they didn't get their way.

PoliCon
05-30-2010, 05:45 PM
Progressives know better than you or I what is good for us and they have the moral superiority to force their choices onto us. Just ask any progressive.

Sonnabend
05-30-2010, 06:12 PM
Just ask wilbur...he HAS no degrees and is no more qualified than anyone else, but when it comes to pious, self righteous and arrogant, he makes one of these God bothering, born again fanatics look tame.

PoliCon
05-30-2010, 08:18 PM
he makes one of these God bothering, born again fanatics look tame.

Excuse me?

FlaGator
05-30-2010, 10:00 PM
Just ask wilbur...he HAS no degrees and is no more qualified than anyone else, but when it comes to pious, self righteous and arrogant, he makes one of these God bothering, born again fanatics look tame.

Pardon Moi! I resemble that remark.

Rockntractor
05-30-2010, 11:54 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/laughing-dog.jpg?t=1275277921

wilbur
05-31-2010, 12:22 AM
None.

Well, care to provide your thoughts (beyond a rather pathetic single-word reply) as to how democracy would solve a problem with the characteristics that I described? Which of my bullet points would democracy overcome, and how?



...non-sequitors...
...straw-men...
...ad hominems...
...spittle covered keyboard and monitor...
...blood pressure issues....


1st, my comment was not aimed at global warming specifically. Not only is it a swing and a miss on your part - you're even in the wrong stadium.

2nd, I certainly didn't offer up dictatorships or totalitarianism as desirable alternatives to democracy - I don't think they are.

3rd, I think freedom of speech is awesome, and I have never proposed or supported any additional restrictions on it - ever.

Rockntractor
05-31-2010, 12:39 AM
Well, care to provide your thoughts (beyond a rather pathetic single-word reply) as to how democracy would solve a problem with the characteristics that I described? Which of my bullet points would democracy overcome, and how?



1st, my comment was not aimed at global warming specifically. Not only is it a swing and a miss on your part - you're even in the wrong stadium.

2nd, I certainly didn't offer up dictatorships or totalitarianism as desirable alternatives to democracy - I don't think they are.

3rd, I think freedom of speech is awesome, and I have never proposed or supported any additional restrictions on it - ever.
Of course you have always been for freedom of speech and you enjoy differing opinions, but wait, there is that ignore list you lying little pussy!:rolleyes:

Sonnabend
05-31-2010, 07:33 AM
Well, care to provide your thoughts (beyond a rather pathetic single-word reply) as to how democracy would solve a problem with the characteristics that I described? Which of my bullet points would democracy overcome, and how?

There are several hundred different possibilities, each and every one of them with this caveat: that they are enacted or carried out with the consent of the governed.

Not rammed through without consultation or ignoring the will of the people...which is what that person clearly advocated.

Right now the governed are fed up with being lied to.

Hardly a surprise.

FlaGator
05-31-2010, 09:40 AM
Of course you have always been for freedom of speech and you enjoy differing opinions, but wait, there is that ignore list you lying little pussy!:rolleyes:

Quoted for the usual purpose of quoting Rocks posts to wilbur.

warpig
05-31-2010, 12:29 PM
I don't think there are any problems that a democratic society cannot over come once we have the true facts of the matter.
An "elitist" ruling/incharge class will narrow the field from which you can draw expertise as they tend to be overly impressed with their abilities and position and thinking that their solution is the only solution.
As we all know there is and always will be several avenues to solving any problem, many usually ignored by the "betters" in society simply because they didn't think of it first.

Odysseus
05-31-2010, 02:52 PM
I think its an interesting question in general: What are the types of catastrophes that democracies cannot prevent?

I think we're basically screwed if:

1) The bad consequences of a problem are in the sufficiently distant future.
2) There is a short window of time where disaster mitigation can be effective.
3) Mitigation comes with a sufficiently high cost.
4) Mitigation in the present will be detrimental in the short term, to sufficiently influential interests.
5) The issue is sufficiently complicated, so that misinformation by interested parties can easily persuade the public.

I think problems with these characteristics are basically unsolvable by democracy - democracy will just have to eat the catastrophe and hope for the best. We have to hope that democracy *can* eat the catastrophe, and come out the other side, still standing. This doesn't just have to be global warming here.. think of the financial crisis, government spending and borrowing, social security, etc.

Although longterm problems are hard to solve in governments where politicians are more concerned with election cycles than posterity, there is no other form of government that has a better track record. For example, the Soviet dictatorship, British constitutional monarchy and a host of smaller states failed to accurately assess the threat of Nazi Germany, but the United States was able to not only mobilize a vaster force than the rest of the allied powers, but supply itself and its allies with the war materiale needed to win within a very narrow window. In fact, dictatorships and monarchies often fail to see their imminent demise, even as things are collapsing around them. Think France just before the revolution, or Romania after the Berlin Wall fell. People are fallible, and any government run by people will be fallible. The only logical and rational approach to government with that in mind is to ensure that the poor planning or decision-making at the top is mitigated by as many impediments as possible so that those who are closest to a problem can act on it with the least interference. That is the genius behind the American republic, and the lack of it is the fatal conceit that leads so many other systems to ruin.

Having said that, I'm going to now have to lay waste to the rest of your theses:

1) The allegations of the threat posed by global warming are not supported by the facts. The advocates have proven repeatedly that they will distort and hide information that undermines their theories, because ultimately, they are less concerned about the "threat" of global warming than they are by the opportunity to amass power and money.
2) If this were true, then the advocates would have proposed solutions which might actually have the desired mitigating effect. In fact, even if the Kyoto accords were fully implemented by every nation, the effect on greenhouse gases would be minimal, while the transfers of incomes from the first to the third world would be immense. Kyoto is simply a means of fleecing the most economically advanced nations, just as carbon exchanges have turned out to be a lucrative scam for the likes of Al Gore.
3) The mitigation costs are immense, especially in view of the fact that they proposed mitigation doesn't actually do anything. See 2.
4) This is a combination of 2 and 3, couched in class warfare rhetoric. The "influential interests" that you cite are American citizens who do not want to be impoverished for yet another scam from our elites, and you ignore the influential interests who stand to gain from the mitigation, such as academics whose grant applications are being approved at rates never before seen, industries which are being given massive infusions of taxpayer cash in order to create unproven technologies (and which, if they fail, will not cost those companies a dime, since they were funded by the taxpayers), media outlets which have been given a huge myth to promote (one which dovetails very nicely with their big-government agenda), government agencies that see their power over us increasing by leaps and bounds and demagoguic politicians who get another issue with which to perpetuate their careers at our expense.
5) Except that the misinformation is coming from the advocates. It is the academics who have cherry-picked data and then deliberately destroyed it before independent scientists could examine it, corrupted the peer review process, blacklisted true investigators who have dissented from their orthodoxy, libeled opponents as "deniers" and advocated draconian action against them and ultimately corrupted their profession to the point where they now have zero credibility.

In short, your premise that global warming cannot be solved by democratic means is flawed. In fact, it is democratic means which have exposed the fallacies behind the scam, which demonstrates that democracy can not only solve a crisis, it can even protect itself from an artificially concocted one that was designed to exploit the perceived weaknesses of the mass of taxpayers.

My work here is done. :D

wilbur
06-04-2010, 09:19 AM
And finally, time to catch up on this old one...


Although longterm problems are hard to solve in governments where politicians are more concerned with election cycles than posterity, there is no other form of government that has a better track record. For example, the Soviet dictatorship, British constitutional monarchy and a host of smaller states failed to accurately assess the threat of Nazi Germany, but the United States was able to not only mobilize a vaster force than the rest of the allied powers, but supply itself and its allies with the war materiale needed to win within a very narrow window. In fact, dictatorships and monarchies often fail to see their imminent demise, even as things are collapsing around them. Think France just before the revolution, or Romania after the Berlin Wall fell. People are fallible, and any government run by people will be fallible. The only logical and rational approach to government with that in mind is to ensure that the poor planning or decision-making at the top is mitigated by as many impediments as possible so that those who are closest to a problem can act on it with the least interference. That is the genius behind the American republic, and the lack of it is the fatal conceit that leads so many other systems to ruin.


Yes, democracy does have a good track record compared to other forms of government, I agree - but I don't think its all-powerful, like Sonna apparently does. There are problems that it probably cannot solve... so it would behove us to think about what those are and what they would look like. Plus its interesting.



Having said that, I'm going to now have to lay waste to the rest of your theses:


Unfortunately, the following 'waste laying' (perhaps an alternate meaning there) is aimed at an argument that I never made - which is that global warming is unsolvable by democracy. I'm not sure I agree with that... though I certainly disagree with the very bad objections that you raise below:



1) The allegations of the threat posed by global warming are not supported by the facts. The advocates have proven repeatedly that they will distort and hide information that undermines their theories, because ultimately, they are less concerned about the "threat" of global warming than they are by the opportunity to amass power and money.


Nevermind, there hasnt been a *single* sound, compelling case against the scientific evidence of the theory of AGW... Go ahead, mount one, and you'll fail. But in any case, point 1) was about democracies response to long term problems. Whether you think global warming is true or not, one can certainly look at the scenarios - most consequences of AGW arent till decades into the future... so I think this is long term enough not to cause alarm in most people. So AGW fits the criteria for concern #1.



2) If this were true, then the advocates would have proposed solutions which might actually have the desired mitigating effect. In fact, even if the Kyoto accords were fully implemented by every nation, the effect on greenhouse gases would be minimal, while the transfers of incomes from the first to the third world would be immense. Kyoto is simply a means of fleecing the most economically advanced nations, just as carbon exchanges have turned out to be a lucrative scam for the likes of Al Gore.


This again, misses the mark. I too am skeptical of most political efforts to mitigate global warming - partly because, on one hand while we are pretty certain that AGW is happening, we are far less certain what the consequences will actually be, and how severe they will be. With that in mind, I think its up in the air as to whether disastrous consequences of global warming are solvable *only within a short time window* in the present, and not sometime later, or even whether there are even any disastrous consequences to solve at all.



3) The mitigation costs are immense, especially in view of the fact that they proposed mitigation doesn't actually do anything. See 2.


I'm skeptical that most efforts to mitigate would be feasible. However, some proposals certainly *would* reduce carbon emissions - but perhaps not for the right cost.



4) This is a combination of 2 and 3, couched in class warfare rhetoric. The "influential interests" that you cite are American citizens who do not want to be impoverished for yet another scam from our elites, and you ignore the influential interests who stand to gain from the mitigation, such as academics whose grant applications are being approved at rates never before seen, industries which are being given massive infusions of taxpayer cash in order to create unproven technologies (and which, if they fail, will not cost those companies a dime, since they were funded by the taxpayers), media outlets which have been given a huge myth to promote (one which dovetails very nicely with their big-government agenda), government agencies that see their power over us increasing by leaps and bounds and demagoguic politicians who get another issue with which to perpetuate their careers at our expense.


The influential interests include the largest, richest, most powerful corporations of the world, and a political interest that is as powerful and influential as the left - namely, the right.

Both of those interests have created a tremendous information asymmetry. Exxon, Koch and others have created dozens and dozens of autonomous and independent looking think tanks and advocacy groups to promote scepticism, and the right wing media has been beating the denial drum for at least 15-20 years now, relentlessly. The information asymmetry is immense here. Its results of these efforts are trivial to see. Most who people deny the theory enthusiastically, couldn't tell you a single valid piece of information about it. I bet you included. So far every point you've raised has been a careful aim... in the wrong direction.

And like abortion, being anti-agw is basically a requirement now to hold high office as a republican, and to receive right-wing money and votes. The stakes are buried so deep in the right now, that none can even comprehend the idea of conceding to the facts of AGW - to most righties, it would be equivalent to just handing all the worlds power to the left.

Its to the point now, where we could have black skies from pollution and the the black lung... if a big "all american" company and your favourite right wing radio host told most of you it was the fault of some academic phd in his ivory tower (and not those smoke stacks in your backyard), you'd be there knocking down the phd's door with your pitch forks and torches, no questions asked.

The treatment of climate scientists these days will probably take a place in the history books next to the story of Galileo.



5) Except that the misinformation is coming from the advocates. It is the academics who have cherry-picked data and then deliberately destroyed it before independent scientists could examine it, corrupted the peer review process, blacklisted true investigators who have dissented from their orthodoxy, libeled opponents as "deniers" and advocated draconian action against them and ultimately corrupted their profession to the point where they now have zero credibility.


Give me a break, are you really this oblivious? Any person who displays even a hint of anything less than rabid denialism, is "libelled" a greenie, an environmental wacko, a communist, a socialist, a marxist, and on and on. That has been going on for *at least* 15 years as well. So lets talk about the labels and the rhetoric - you lose there too.



In short, your premise that global warming cannot be solved by democratic means is flawed. In fact, it is democratic means which have exposed the fallacies behind the scam, which demonstrates that democracy can not only solve a crisis, it can even protect itself from an artificially concocted one that was designed to exploit the perceived weaknesses of the mass of taxpayers.


And to repeat - that was never my premise. Personally, I think we might eventually overcome the information asymmetry on this issue. I also think the effects of global warming might not be all that devastating. And if they would be, we might still have a long time to fix them.

Sonnabend
06-04-2010, 09:59 AM
Nevermind, there hasnt been a *single* sound, compelling case against the scientific evidence of the theory of AGW... Go ahead, mount one, and you'll fail. But in any case, point 1)That there is massive and mounting evidence to the effect that the crisis does not exist, that it was manufactured, that many of the tenets and wild claims are now being proven to be either hoaxes, massive exaggerations, or out and out LIES

That the credibility of those involved is not only being questioned, but in many cases has been utterly demolished by proof that there was collusion, deception, evasion, illegal acts (refusing or avoiding an FOI access request is an OFFENCE), and as the claims and panic mongering revelations of impending doom have been shown to have as much substance as the Easter Bunny.

Jones OWN WORDS in telling others to avoid FOI requiests, threatening to delete data rather than have it be given to others (and PLEASE dont insult my intelligence, Jones ADMITTED he wrote the emails and they are all authentic), as well as the proof that many of the claims of the IPCC have been taken from questionable sources...all of which point to the fact that there IS no "consensus" and that AGW has not been proven in any way shape or form to be utter truth.,

It isnt.

And anyone who claims otherwise is deluding themselves and others..your own arrogance in claiming to be utterly right is also a major thorn in your side, since you have admitted you have no qualifications and no degrees in any science, yet you sit there and sneer at others who dare question your pious stance complete with stone tablet that we are all wrong and you have the monopoly on truth.

You don't.

No one does.

Not me, not you.


The treatment of climate scientists these days will probably take a place in the history books next to the story of Galileo.

Or Charles Ponzi.

When others who claim to know better are caught in lies, when they obfuscate the truth, avoid direct questions, refuse to disclose data or destroy data they claim is the proof, then the entire matter is in doubt.

Fact: the data used to make these "models" is gone forever.

Fact: their "conclusions" cannot now be checked by outside INDEPENDENT sources

Fact: The one major argument that demolishes AGW, the massive, gaping hole in all the panic mongering and alarmist propaganda is this: that the one phrase that they, and you, refuse to utter is this: Not Gore, not Jones, not you, not the IPCC..none of them have ever said these words

"We could be wrong"

When someone takes that stance, when they close their eyes and jam their fingers ion their ears because others dare to argue with their dire proclamations ex cathedra..or denigrate and belittle others (as you do, REPEATEDLY) who have dissenting opinions, and that includes scientists who dispute their "findings"..then quite frankly, no one will listen.

This contempt for the intelligence of others is manifest again in your own words, the insinuation that those who are "deniers' (and that word and epithet speaks volumes for the arrogance of the AGW lunatic chorus) need others to tell them what to think, or that its a conspiracy of "big oil" (when in fact no proof has ever been tendered that this is even remotely true) not only makes the messenger look a fool, it calls into question the veracity of the message.

See wilbur, i've seen a lot over the years. Travelled, seen more of death than you can even begin to imagine, been around for all the scares and panic theories...and the other day, I passed on your contention that others tell me and others like me what to think to a lady I have known and worked with for over five years.

Her first reaction was stunned amazement, followed by hysterical laughter.

She hasnt stopped laughing yet....and she choked out that I am one of the most stubborn, opinionated people she has ever met, and the idea of ANYONE telling me what to think is not only ludicrous, it's impossible.

The concept that others have minds of their own and can think and decide for themselves is alien to you, isnt it?

You and others of your ilk treated the public like fools or little children needing to be "led"..when in fact the arrogance and overweening dictatorial tone taken is proof again that the AGW science is not "settled" at all..because if you have to stoop to such vicious tactics, to such depths of disgusting behaviour and contempt of your fellow man....then one is left to wonder just what it is that gives you the right to be so smugly superior and omnipotent.

As for scientific evidence, one only has to look at the myriad of papers written that dispute AGW, amongst them is Dr Freeman Dyson, whom you dismiss so glibly ( again, who the hell are you to denigrate his findings, when he has qualifications, and you DONT?)

There is proof galore that AGW is not solid fact, that you choose to ignore it, or dismiss it , or attack the character of those who know far better than you do, is yet another reason why AGW is not fact, were it so and were it as indisputable as you say, then you would have the scientific proof to refute his research.

You dont...do you?

There is one, and only one, way to irrefutably prove these models and theories and wild assed guesses right...build a time machine, go forward, come back and tell us what you have found.

You. Dont. Know.

If you cant admit that, then you have in fact abandoned science, because those three words are the foundation of all science, and the beginning of all knowledge.

noonwitch
06-04-2010, 10:24 AM
The Greens are radicals who left the democratic party because they decided that they needed to do more to enforce what they think are the right environmental policies. They don't speak for all liberals, nor do they speak for all who support environmental conservation or stewardship.


They're crazy, and luckily in this country, they don't have the numbers to be a serious political challenge.

I support some conservation policy ideas-at this point in time, I don't want to see oil drilling under the Great Lakes, for example. I think if a company dumps a whole lot of chemicals into a body of water, whether it's the Love Canal, the Huron River, Lake Michigan or the Gulf of Mexico, that company should have to pay for the cleanup. It makes sense to explore alternative energy sources to oil-I'm not one of those "peak oil" lunatics, but logic tells me that there is a limit to how much oil there is on the planet. It also makes sense to find the best combination of clean and cheap to replace oil. I don't think those are issues of liberal vs conservative, though, those are quality of life on earth issues that everyone can relate to.

Sonnabend
06-04-2010, 10:30 AM
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
If the "science is settled"...why threaten to delete the proof he says is irrefutable? Why refuse to allow the findings he says are 100% conclusive to be viewed publically?


From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil:
If there is any "conspiracy", it's Jones and his CRU covering his tracks. Is this the action of an ethical scientist?

and here


From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxx.edu
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes” Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

What's he got to hide? Why tell people to knowingly break or flout the law? Why deny FOI requests? If the data is what he says it is, surely it can stand up to scrutiny and scientific review?

He wrote them
He admitted he wrote them
He admitted these were his actions.

Why do i say Jones is a liar? Because he is. So tell me, wilbur, why should I trust a single word a man says when i know he has already lied and covered up data? Because the data doesnt say what he says it does? Because he exaggerated it?

An honest man has nothing to hide.An honest ethical scientist is happy to have his work reviewed and put in the public domain, as he or she will know it is solid and the work they have done is honest, upfront and will stand up to critical review and analysis?

Hm?

The Righteous One
06-04-2010, 01:04 PM
"There are times when democracy has to be set aside"



It is typical for green ideologues to think like this. Their indoctrination is based on destroying democracy and moral values and promoting ethical decay which they hope will lead to various left-wing fantasies like a government takeover of all society and an abolishment of our most basic freedoms.