No more global warming?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why, indeed. Page 25, 'By 2100, mankind will largely have vanished from the planet'.
http://www.clubofrome.at/2009/amsterdam/p/cramer1.pdf

Most peculiar.

But wait...the plot thickens:

Jacqueline Marian Cramer (born April 10, 1951 in Alkmaar) is Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment in the Fourth Balkenende cabinet for the PvdA.[1] Previously she was a professor of sustainable entrepreneurship at the Utrecht University and professor of environmental management at the Erasmus University. She is member of the Board of directors at Royal Dutch Shell and a member of the Social-Economic Council.[2]

Board of Directors at Shell?

[Fragony]

Board of Directors at Shell?

Standard practise, every big compony has a leftieloonie in the board of directors, easier to deal with unions and the eco-nostra that way. Leftieloonie can't resist the cold capitalist cash hen it comes down to it, it's bribing really, they get 400k for being, well on the board directors, and they are usually powerful figures in leftielalaland, it's a bargain really.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Standard practise, every big compony has a leftieloonie in the board of directors, easier to deal with unions and the eco-nostra that way. Leftieloonie can't resist the cold capitalist cash hen it comes down to it, it's bribing really, they get 400k for being, well on the board directors, and they are usually powerful figures in leftielalaland, it's a bargain really.

Ah. Food for thought for Louis, and much to read up about.

Will the indomitable Fragony unravel a great lefty plot to Louis, again?

[Fragony]

ololol she is going to make such a fool out of us an 8 year old speaks better English http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/7368...n_kreemer.html

LOL what an inconvenient inconvenience, the weather map for next thursday, hey Rasoforos are you going to make snow-doll? You can http://climategate.nl/2009/12/10/kri...n-gore-effect/

[Louis VI the Fat]

An internal memo obtained by Greenpeace USA details polluters’ plans to launch a nationwide Astroturf campaign, staging fake "grassroots" events to attack climate legislation during the final weeks of recess before the Senate returns to debate the issue in September.

The email memo (download a PDF copy), which appears to come from the desk of American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard, asks API’s member companies to recruit employees, retirees, vendors and contractors to attend “Energy Citizen” rallies in key Congressional districts nationwide. API is focusing on 21 states that have “a significant industry presence” or “assets on the ground.”

API Energy Rally The American Petroleum Institute is sponsoring a Grassroots rally focusing on energy related job security, adverse legislation, and high consumer prices currently under consideration in Washington. Anadarko will have 4 buses available for employees to attend during an extended lunch time. Additional buses may be provided based on the waiting list. Buses will begin loading at 10:15 with an 10:40 departure for downtown Houston.
Hot Dogs and sodas will be provided at the venue.

Better link:

IREA memo header
Memo from Stanley Lewandowski, General Manager of IREA

On August 12, 2009, an American Petroleum Institute memo came to light. The memo, from API President Jack Gerard, details the API’s plans for an astroturfing campaign to oppose U.S. climate change legislation [1]. The memo was leaked to Greenpeace USA. It sets out a plan for a series of API-funded “Energy Citizen” rallies to be held in August ’09. The “Energy Citizen” rallies will be populated by oil company employees, and the API was hoping to keep the venues confidential:

Please indicate to your company leadership your strong support for employee participation in the rallies.
[...]
The list of tentative venues is attached. Please treat this information as sensitive and ask those in your company to do so as well, as some of these places may be subject to change, and we don’t want critics to know our game plan.
Jack N. Gerard,
Copy of API memo [1]

This most recent insight into the API’s activities is getting extensive coverage [2] [3], so I’ll use this post to look back a bit.

The API’s efforts to oppose climate change legislation go back more than a decade. Other oil and coal interests have been doing the same. Two earlier leaked memos, one from the API, and one from an electric distribution cooperative called IREA, provide some clear information about these organisations’ motives, methods, and funding arrangements.

http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/200...-leaked-memos/

[Louis VI the Fat]

Frightening is that the Rebublican Party outright knows that the science is against them. They are perfectly well aware that the facts are against them.

In an act of cynicism bordering on insanity, their strategy is to create doubt. To 'Teach the controversy, not the science' (where have we heard that strategy before...)

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.


"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science,"

[...]

A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange

The world thanks the GOP very much for this act of depraved cynicism.

[gaelic cowboy]

You know they way things seem to be done these days I get the feeling no one will do sod all about this till we run out of oil and gas. Then when all the nuke plants get built we will by accident end up with carbon lite energy. I believe is it eighty percent of home emmisions will be cut due to carbon free electricity.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Frightening is that the Rebublican Party outright knows that the science is against them. They are perfectly well aware that the facts are against them.

In an act of cynicism bordering on insanity, their strategy is to create doubt. To 'Teach the controversy, not the science' (where have we heard that strategy before...)




The world thanks the GOP very much for this act of depraved cynicism.

You just took that out of context in a way a politician would be proud of. Firstly, that is an article from 2003. Secondly, here is the full quote:

The new administration put the plan on hold, prompting "the biggest public relations misfire of President Bush's first year in office", Mr Luntz writes. The perception was that Mr Bush "was actively putting in more arsenic in the water".

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.

Luntz was talking about how the story of Bush supposedly adding arsenic to water was more emotionally compelling than the truth, which was that he wasn't.

[Furunculus]

Frightening is that the Rebublican Party outright knows that the science is against them. They are perfectly well aware that the facts are against them.

In an act of cynicism bordering on insanity, their strategy is to create doubt. To 'Teach the controversy, not the science' (where have we heard that strategy before...)




The world thanks the GOP very much for this act of depraved cynicism.

i thought it was crazy neo-con climate deniers that were the only ones capable of taking an email out of context?

[Louis VI the Fat]

You just took that out of context in a way a politician would be proud of. Firstly, that is an article from 2003. Secondly, here is the full quote:

Luntz was talking about how the story of Bush supposedly adding arsenic to water was more emotionally compelling than the truth, which was that he wasn't.

Props for your critical eye and refusal to take information at face value. But alas, it's not true.


The full quote, in full context, can be found here, a photocopy of the leaked memo:
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url...ate=2008-10-31
The page titled 'overview', third paragraph.

The quote is:
"Indeed it can be helpful to think of environmental and other issues in terms of 'story.' A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth... The facts are beside the point. It's all in how you frame your argument."

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The full quote, in full context, can be found here, a photocopy of the leaked memo:
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url...ate=2008-10-31
The page titled 'overview', third paragraph.

The quote is:
"Indeed it can be helpful to think of environmental and other issues in terms of 'story.' A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth... The facts are beside the point. It's all in how you frame your argument."

Once again that is taken out of context. Read the whole overview section rather than just the one specific paragraph. He is, again, referring to Democrats as constructing a story with Republicans as the bad guys.

[Louis VI the Fat]

DP. Forum troubles etc.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Props for your critical eye and refusal to take information at face value. But alas, it's not true.


The full quote, in full context, can be found here, a photocopy of the leaked memo:
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url...ate=2008-10-31
The page titled 'overview', third paragraph.

The quote is:

"Indeed it can be helpful to think of environmental and other issues in terms of 'story.' A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth... The facts are beside the point. It's all in how you frame your argument."

Quite the length on a double post. I refer you to my previous one.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Once again that is taken out of context. Read the whole overview section rather than just the one specific paragraph. He is, again, referring to Democrats as constructing a story with Republicans as the bad guys.

My post does not take anything out of context, since it presents the context down to it's original state and in its entirity.



Luntz describes in general how people decide based on 'story', and then fit the facts according to that. Much of the remainder of the memo is then devoted to creating a convincing story for Republican politicians. Even as the science of global warming is closing in on them.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

My post does not take anything out of context, since it presents the context down to it's original state and in its entirity.



Luntz describes in general how people decide based on 'story', and then fit the facts according to that. Much of the remainder of the memo is then devoted to creating a convincing story for Republican politicians. Even as the science of global warming is closing in on them.

Of course it is out of context. He in no way says that science should be falsified, especially if you actually read the section on global warming (page seven). He does say, in the section you quoted, that Democrats are guilty of using stories, be they factual or not, to push their own agenda. In other words, that memo could just as easily be used to prove that Democrats are guilty of falsifying their side of the global warming debate. The memo is quite clear that the science is not final, that there is no consensus, and which issues will resonate with the voters.*It in no way asks the Republican Party to lie, it just tells them to do what the Democrats are doing because standing back will not work. It contains talking points, just like all kinds of memos from political strategists.

You, by contrast, are using it as "evidence" that the Republicans are deliberately falsifying information about global warming.

*This term is known as politics. All political parties do it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Of course it is out of context.

[..]

You, by contrast, are using it as "evidence" that the Republicans are deliberately falsifying information about global warming.

*This term is known as politics. All political parties do it.

I think the term your looking for is 'spin'. It is generally considered an embarrasment when a political party is caught with its pants down in the act of spinning.


I by no means use the memo as evidence that the Reps are falsifying information. On the contrary, I use it to show that they are into something far more insidious. 'Depraved cynicism' is I believe the phrase I used. Far more dangerous than easily verifiable falsifications.
There is more to language than lying or telling the truth. Luntz is a master of cunning spin. He unfortunately realises most of the electorate will not understand what he is doing.


Again, of course it is not out of context. I provide the source in its entirity, down to its original form. I was even polite enough not to mention that you misread the Guardian article. Instead, I dragged up the complete and original source for further debate.


This is the second time you recommend I actually read this source, a source which I provided for discussion, of which I even directed you to a specific paraghraph of a specific page.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I by no means use the memo as evidence that the Reps are falsifying information. On the contrary, I use it to show that they are into something far more insidious. 'Depraved cynicism' is I believe the phrase I used. Far more dangerous than easily verifiable falsifications.

Well, having read the global warming portion of that I would have to disagree with you. Still, the essential gist of your argument - warning: Republicans copying Democrats - is hardly damning.

There is more to language than lying or telling the truth. Luntz is a master of cunning spin. He unfortunately realises most of the electorate will not understand what he is doing.

So, now we come back to politics. You're taking something that every single political party does, whether they are for or against your personal views, and applying it to the Republican Party. It doesn't help your argument, as the source you linked identifies precisely where the idea in this case came from - the Democrats. So, if the Democrats were the original to do it, how can we say that the "depravity" is a wholly Republican phenomenon?

You are only taking this in a decidedly negative light because it is a party that disagrees with your viewpoint. You are spinning.

Again, of course it is not out of context.

Your claims were out of context.

This is the second time you recommend I actually read this source, a source which I provided for discussion, of which I even directed you to a specific paraghraph of a specific page.

Then perhaps we are merely approaching it from opposite angles.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh dear.

The leaked memo is considered an embarrassement by the GOP itself. They were caught with their pants down, and were not amused that it was leaked.

If all you can take away from it though is that it proofs that the Democrats are evil and that everybody who mentions the memo are themselves spinning, then..well, so be it, eh? In that case, I must grant victory to Luntz: story and preconceived notions, not facts, are decisive for the majority of the electorate.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The leaked memo is considered an embarrassement by the GOP itself. They were caught with their pants down, and were not amused that it was leaked.

Of course it was. Just because everyone does it doesn't mean anyone wants it confirmed that they do.

If all you can take away from it though is that it proofs that the Democrats are evil and that everybody who mentions the memo are themselves spinning, then..well, so be it, eh?

That isn't what I said. I said that the way you were talking about was spinning, as you are blaming the evil Republicans without conceding that the Democrats do it to, and that they do it about the same issue. In that regard you are not being even-handed, but criticizing only those who disagree with your opinion. I am sharing the blame equally between the two parties.

In that case, I must grant victory to Luntz: story and preconceived notions, not facts, are decisive for the majority of the electorate.

Of course it is, otherwise all parties wouldn't use that strategy.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Lots of political parties use spin. The Democrats do too.


I would still content that the GOP in the past two decades has taken spin further than perhaps any mainstream party in a liberal democracy.

Whether it concerns healthcare, terrorism, the environment - or: 'Washington Takeover', 'War on Terror', 'Scientific Controversy Global Warming Climate Change' - the GOP is too much in the grip of its project to change reality. It believes - rightly - that a debate is not won by facts, but by having decided on the language before the debate has even started.

Two problems:
Shouldn't policy, not winning the debate, be decisive?
The GOP has a tendency to end up believing its own spin. To then lose the distinction between the facts, and their spin of it. Then act on the latter. Usually, with catastrophic results. (What, for example, if the US had not believed there was a War on Terror but a securty problem that needed adressing?)

[Furunculus]

Cosmic rays and CFC's:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/2...lobal-warming/

Remember, the science is peer reviewed, and settled. The debate is over:
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerb...entId=blogDest

[Louis VI the Fat]

Cosmic rays and CFC's:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/2...lobal-warming/

Remember, the science is peer reviewed, and settled. The debate is over:
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerb...entId=blogDest

As to the second link: the lesson there is to always use the original source.

The first article is of more consequence. Quite interesting. We'll see if his theory holds up. I'm not holding my breath. He's an adventurous professor of astronomy, that's for sure.
If I were a sceptic, I suppose I should attack him for his arguing that climate change is the result of man-made emissions of greenhouse gasses. But I think most sceptics will embrace him, rather than deploy their usual arguments how the climate can't possible be influenced by human pollution.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Returning to the leaked emails, so eagerly touted as proof of a vast conspiracy, as 'the biggest scientific scandal of all time', a closer reading should be most sobering for any such bold claims:

Science not faked, but not pretty

The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/...limate_e_mails

I suppose I should also link to some source that shows some Democrat somewhere doing something evil, lest I be acussed of spinning, but I won't.

[drone]

But the leaks still highlight the bias and unwillingness to use proper scientific methods in their research. Basically, they are doing a poor job, and therefore should not be trusted.

And regarding the CFC/cosmic ray thing, we all know the global temperatures have declined recently mainly due to Somalia's main industry.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

So in essence, they didn't lie or falsify anything, they were just very generous in their interpretations. That fills me with confidence, and I now firmly believe that we should spend billions of dollars because someone with a degree told me to, even though they clearly have an agenda and, as Yes, Prime Minister put it:

Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets [honesty] you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.

Excuse me for retaining the beliefs that the conduct was improper and not following good scientific method, and that proper methods should be established and proper tests conducted before we arrive at a concrete position.

[Furunculus]

If I were a sceptic, I suppose I should attack him for his arguing that climate change is the result of man-made emissions of greenhouse gasses. But I think most sceptics will embrace him, rather than deploy their usual arguments how the climate can't possible be influenced by human pollution.

most of the scientists and statisticians who are seen to 'lead' the skeptic camp quite blatently state that they believe in anthropogenic climate change.

where they dissent from the consensus is the following:
how much warming is attributable to anthropogenic CO2
how much faith should be invested in current catastrophic models
how efficacious the proposed Kyoto/Copenhagen solutions will be

[Idaho]

most of the scientists and statisticians who are seen to 'lead' the skeptic camp quite blatently state that they believe in anthropogenic climate change.

where they dissent from the consensus is the following:
how much warming is attributable to anthropogenic CO2
how much faith should be invested in current catastrophic models
how efficacious the proposed Kyoto/Copenhagen solutions will be

We have seen the skeptics go through many stages over the last 2 decades.

First they said there was no such thing as climate change. Then they said that there might be minor natural changes. Then they said there might be large natural changes. Then it was large natural changes with some human element. And now we have statements like the above.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

We have seen the skeptics go through many stages over the last 2 decades.

First they said there was no such thing as climate change. Then they said that there might be minor natural changes. Then they said there might be large natural changes. Then it was large natural changes with some human element. And now we have statements like the above.

No, these aren't stages, these are skeptics who believe in different things. What I believe as a skeptic may well be different from what Furunculus believes, that doesn't mean that one of us is more "behind" than the other.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Removed hotlinked picture. BG

That is all.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That is all.

I hate that excuse. "If the skeptics are right, then this is all OK anyway, isn't it? Because we'll get all the benefits anyway, so it doesn't really matter if we're right, right?"

Wrong. I demand, and the electorate should demand, complete openness, honesty, and a proper scientific process. I don't want to reduce smog because somebody says it will stop global warming, I want to reduce smog because I want to reduce smog. The environmental issues can and should be dealt with, but they should be dealt with properly as important issues in and of themselves, rather than as a sub-issue or byproduct of global warming legislation.