Obama's transparency is sort of opaque

[j2k4]

Click on climate change and do a bit of interesting reading...if you're a fanboi for global warming (human-caused specie).

http://cei.org/issue/48

[ckrit]

http://myron-ebell.blogspot.com/2006/11/die-cei-die.html

:idunno:

[j2k4]

A quick scan of both links put the latter in proper perspective.

Funny how an attack on one person's credibility is conflated to envelop all that one finds objectionable.

I suppose, though, it only stands to reason that global warming is the fault of humans (read: Americans); after all, Mother Nature hasn't any cash.

[ckrit]

I don't know about whose fault it is. But my impression is that the CEI has been accused of not being that serious an agency, the guy in the link I posted taking it to the extreme.

These chaps have had a thing or two to say about the CEI's work as well. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/12/further-comment-on-the-supreme-court-briefs/)

At any rate, while there's certainly nothing wrong with scrutinizing your EPA's work and so forth, it seems to me it may be more a question of not wanting to lend questionable work legitimacy, than an attempt at suppressing 'The Truth'.

It'd probably be a good thing if someone who knew what they were talking about and who didn't have a dubious agenda, could prove we weren't screwing the planet, seeing as there's no stopping the bulk of our emissions anyhow :dabs:

Those CEI guys are not it, though.

[ckrit]

Y halo thar, forum hiccoughs.

[j2k4]

I don't know about whose fault it is. But my impression is that the CEI has been accused of not being that serious an agency, the guy in the link I posted taking it to the extreme.

These chaps have had a thing or two to say about the CEI's work as well. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/12/further-comment-on-the-supreme-court-briefs/)

At any rate, while there's certainly nothing wrong with scrutinizing your EPA's work and so forth, it seems to me it may be more a question of not wanting to lend questionable work legitimacy, than an attempt at suppressing 'The Truth'.

It'd probably be a good thing if someone who knew what they were talking about and who didn't have a dubious agenda, could prove we weren't screwing the planet, seeing as there's no stopping the bulk of our emissions anyhow :dabs:

Those CEI guys are not it, though.

None of that suggests why you think humans (whose complicity by your own admission is suspect) can effect an environmental change one might regard as "favorable", when even the debate over whether a bit of warming might be a good thing has not been properly concluded.

Seems your mind has closed on the matter, and for no reason apart from the specious claims of people who - again, by your admission - are pushing an agenda.

[Rat Faced]

FFS

Man is not "causing" climate change, that happens anyway..

Man is increasing the rate of climate change beyond anything that has happened in history, including a number of mass extinction events.

OK, have a debate on whether it will benefit people.. ask those in the States bordering the Mexican Gulf, or small Islands etc..

The UK will get colder as a result of Global Warming if the Gulf Stream switches off. Personally, I hate the heatwaves we're having until this event possibly happens... but I'm not looking forward to adopting the climate of Alaska and Siberia when it does (even if they are slightly warmer than they are now).

If the Gulf Stream does switch off, then the human race is extinct by the way. It is one of the main engines that circulates the Oceans waters and if these stop then the Oceans stagnate and eventually there is no Oxygen.

Whether you believe in Climate Change or not, it does seem a little stupid to gample the lives of your decendents over a few more dollars in your pocket now, given the amount of evidence out there.

Kev, you are absolutely right when you point out some stupid environmentalists that bend or exagerate things, they don't do any favours to anyone. However the vast majority of Scientists that actually are against "Climate Change" are linked to the Companies against it.

I honestly cannot see why big business is against Climate Change, the amount of money to be made out of the Greens is emmence.

I also cannot see why the USA always takes things as an attack on them.. OK they use more energy per person than any other country on the planet, however they are also the world leaders in the technologies to reduce the amount of crap we pump into the atmosphere, and in the amount of Environmental effort being spent in the world. Look at both sides of it, not just the bad part FFS.

[j2k4]

FFS

Man is not "causing" climate change, that happens anyway..

Man is increasing the rate of climate change beyond anything that has happened in history, including a number of mass extinction events.

OK, have a debate on whether it will benefit people.. ask those in the States bordering the Mexican Gulf, or small Islands etc..

The UK will get colder as a result of Global Warming if the Gulf Stream switches off. Personally, I hate the heatwaves we're having until this event possibly happens... but I'm not looking forward to adopting the climate of Alaska and Siberia when it does (even if they are slightly warmer than they are now).

If the Gulf Stream does switch off, then the human race is extinct by the way. It is one of the main engines that circulates the Oceans waters and if these stop then the Oceans stagnate and eventually there is no Oxygen.

Whether you believe in Climate Change or not, it does seem a little stupid to gample the lives of your decendents over a few more dollars in your pocket now, given the amount of evidence out there.

Kev, you are absolutely right when you point out some stupid environmentalists that bend or exagerate things, they don't do any favours to anyone. However the vast majority of Scientists that actually are against "Climate Change" are linked to the Companies against it.

I honestly cannot see why big business is against Climate Change, the amount of money to be made out of the Greens is emmence.

I also cannot see why the USA always takes things as an attack on them.. OK they use more energy per person than any other country on the planet, however they are also the world leaders in the technologies to reduce the amount of crap we pump into the atmosphere, and in the amount of Environmental effort being spent in the world. Look at both sides of it, not just the bad part FFS.

Money to be made?

By whom?

What sort of response do you think you would get from me if I were Indian or Chinese?

Work all that out and get back to me.

[Rat Faced]

Doesn't matter who does it, it's still money.

I think your scared that anything you come up with will be made better and smaller by the Japanese and then copied and made bloody cheap by the Chinese using an Indian Call Centre to market it all..:rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Doesn't matter who does it, it's still money.

I think your scared that anything you come up with will be made better and smaller by the Japanese and then copied and made bloody cheap by the Chinese using an Indian Call Centre to market it all..:rolleyes:

Then let someone else do it.

[ckrit]

I don't know about whose fault it is. But my impression is that the CEI has been accused of not being that serious an agency, the guy in the link I posted taking it to the extreme.

These chaps have had a thing or two to say about the CEI's work as well. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/12/further-comment-on-the-supreme-court-briefs/)

At any rate, while there's certainly nothing wrong with scrutinizing your EPA's work and so forth, it seems to me it may be more a question of not wanting to lend questionable work legitimacy, than an attempt at suppressing 'The Truth'.

It'd probably be a good thing if someone who knew what they were talking about and who didn't have a dubious agenda, could prove we weren't screwing the planet, seeing as there's no stopping the bulk of our emissions anyhow :dabs:

Those CEI guys are not it, though.

None of that suggests why you think humans (whose complicity by your own admission is suspect) can effect an environmental change one might regard as "favorable", when even the debate over whether a bit of warming might be a good thing has not been properly concluded.

Seems your mind has closed on the matter, and for no reason apart from the specious claims of people who - again, by your admission - are pushing an agenda.
Not to be harsh or anything, but you accusing someone else of having a closed mind is a bit rich.

As for the rest: I don't know whether we've messed up the planet to the point where we're doomed - polar ice caps melting, gulf stream stopping, etc etc - but, to reiterate: The CEI does not appear to be an agency people should be taking seriously.

I've formed this opinion mainly through reading about their political bias, and some statements they've made (switching from coal to a energy source less prone to pollution kills, growth hormones aren't bad, etc).

And furthermore: Should it turn out we're not rushing in a new ice age or something equally hilarious via our current emissions, then that's just swell. If someone proves that, it'll be just great. If the studies showing that we've affected climate change and whatnot could be proven to be bunkum, that'd be great too.

On a personal level, however, I find it hard to believe that all the research that would point to another conclusion can be dismissed. One reason being that the IPCC have less reason to make shit up, than, say, the CEI.

[lynx]

The major problem with the whole "climate change" discussion is that both sides concentrate their efforts on pointing out how ridiculous the (extremist) arguments of the other side are, and in doing so give publicity to these extreme arguments. From what I've read the CEI seems to be yet another purveyor of the extreme, when there really is no necessity.

To the comment that the IPCC has less reason to "make shit up" I'd make this point -

the amount of money to be made out of the Greens is emmence.

To those of you who believe that climate change (if it is indeed happening) is man made can I suggest you ask the following question:
"Can I see the evidence, please?".

You will be shown the conclusions of studies, at which point you should ask:
"Can I see the evidence, please?".

You will be told the opinions of thousands of eminent scientists, at which point you should ask:
"Can I see the evidence, please?".

You will be shown films of glaciers calving, at which point you should ask:
"Can I see the evidence, please?".

Some of you are probably thinking that you wouldn't understand the evidence. Maybe you would, maybe not. But there's one thing that's absolutely certain, you won't understand evidence that they won't produce.

They will repeatedly fail to produce any evidence, and at that point you should ask:
"How did you reach any conclusions without any evidence?"

Creationists don't ask people to make as big a leap of faith!

[bigboab]

The globe has been warming up since the ice age otherwise what melted all the ice? They were warned not to use flint to make tools but they would not listen.:cry:

[j2k4]

The globe has been warming up since the ice age otherwise what melted all the ice? They were warned not to use flint to make tools but they would not listen.:cry:

I propose we delete Al Gore and re-consider the whole proposition.