Free Republic

As I heard said once, “If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, there’s gonna be a big fight over the thermostat!”

Nobody much likes navigating their website but there is usually some good - and often blunt - stuff in it.

Gore is getting desparate. All his carbon credits are going down the drain. You have to laugh at the fool.

Sorry bout the dupes.

Note that the “actual” conversation — if there was one — was at a party, years ago.

Which is particularly unfortunate timing, as the fact that it is indeed probably five or more years since that alleged conversation, and the ice caps are still there.

The Post really published this with that title?

I have a new respect for the New York Post.

How do I post a photo?

Thanks. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to do.

Mixing science with politics is disastrous to both.

It becomes impossible to discuss scientific data without filtering it thru a consideration of how it will affect political issues. Scientific data that supports one’s political position is jumped on with glee, while data that tends to support “the other side” is ignored or rejected out of hand.

While obviously the warmists have been egregiously guilty of this, for a host of reasons ranging from filthy lucre to groupthink and the misguided belief that they must do so to save the world, those who oppose the warmists can just as easily fall off the other side of the bridge for similarly varied reasons. There ARE people who oppose the warmist POV who have conflicts of interest that by definition make it difficult for them to examine the data objectively. The MSM, of course, portrays only “skeptics” as having such conflicts, while every single warmist operates without any.

I’m trying to promote, without much success, having scientific data interpreted without reference to its political policy considerations. I’m pretty sure this is a losing battle.

Let’s form a consensus on this before we do anything. ;^)

Hey, some like it hot. We definitely should hold off on any action until this is ironed out.

Well said. Our current experience makes it easier to understand how other nations drifted toward, and later plunged into soft tyrannies or totalitarianism.

Human nature is a constant throughout history. The institutions (Christianity, our state and federal governments under Constitutions) that once stood as bulwarks between us and our dark sides are largely gone. Our representatives increasingly reflect an immoral people for which our Constitution is unsuitable.

Thanks. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to do.

Mixing science with politics is disastrous to both.

It becomes impossible to discuss scientific data without filtering it thru a consideration of how it will affect political issues. Scientific data that supports one’s political position is jumped on with glee, while data that tends to support “the other side” is ignored or rejected out of hand.

While obviously the warmists have been egregiously guilty of this, for a host of reasons ranging from filthy lucre to groupthink and the misguided belief that they must do so to save the world, those who oppose the warmists can just as easily fall off the other side of the bridge for similarly varied reasons. There ARE people who oppose the warmist POV who have conflicts of interest that by definition make it difficult for them to examine the data objectively. The MSM, of course, portrays only “skeptics” as having such conflicts, while every single warmist operates without any.

I’m trying to promote, without much success, having scientific data interpreted without reference to its political policy considerations. I’m pretty sure this is a losing battle.

An unnamed White House official was more explicit, telling Fox News,

“If you don’t pass this legislation, then . . . the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

Not to mention riots, pitchforks, and a few lynchings of those 'faceless bureaucrats' hiding under their desks in the 3rd subbasement.

From a Native of many generation>

Texas is not where you were born, but a State of Mind, Heart and Attitude.

Goes something like this>

“Leave us alone to live our lives in peace and we will get along fine, if that is not satisfactory, we will deal with it.”

We have some of the best neighbors in the world here, and most of them feel the same way.

Most of my ancestors were burned out of Alabama during Reconstruction. They went GTT.

Some of my ancestors were in Texas during the Republic.

About the daffy-ficit.

Our dear reader bambam has already told enough whoppers about jobs and the economy, but aying we are going bankrupt if we don’t pass health-care is another thing entirely.

And the lies about CO2, is getting off the charts funny. Presidents, even man-child wanna bee presidents, don’t bald faced lie to the world. That’s stuff best left to two bit tin pots.

There will be a fine crop of good stuff.

there is a 75 percent chance that the Arctic will be "completely ice-free within five to seven years." WHAT AN IDIOT SUPREME IN SPADES!!!

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

Excellent article with regards to the addressing of probability and cost response to probabilities. However, allow me to put this into a smaller more local package.

Let us suppose that you were the owner of a company that made $10 Million per year. Then lets assume you were planning to take action (risk mitigation) against an event .... any event that would cause your business to stop functioning. 100% failure type of event.

How much would you be willing to spend on mitigation efforts?

Suppose you lived on a 100 year flood plain. Such a flood could be reasonably construed to wipe out your business. Same with Tornadoes, Hurricanes, etc. So for the sake of argument, you go through the historical data and come to the belief that in any given year, there is a 2% chance that such an event would happen (highly improbable).

If you were then to spend MORE than 2% of your total company value of $10 million, you would be wasting money because the chance of an event is less. It only makes sense to spend something less than 2% per year or less than $200,000 per year.

Now how much would you spend on an event that did not wipe you out? If it only damaged your revenue (GDP), then you would only want to spend enough money to mitigate the occurrence of that event down to an acceptable probability. For example, installing $25,000 worth of generation equipment would protect my business in the event of power failure. Power failure can likely happen with flood, tornado, hurricane, ice store, etc. So with one action, I have mitigated multiple possibilities. That would be a better spending of money than say installing $25,000 of berms to protect against flooding.

"You think CRU did science that showed warming trends? So what? Their conclusions were the same as everyone else's."

So, the chances that CRU's approach to critics and data integrity was also the same as everyone else's is pretty good, right?

The ability of data to fit the pre-determined conclusion is the only factor needed in determining its validity.

To put this as simply as possible: Arnold is a jackass.

none of this ridiculous talk of a 10-year cooling trend.

Just glanced at post 64. I don't believe I have ever hyped the 98 El Nino as part of any trend, it is an outlier. The short term trend is basically flat.

what surface record? I read the “raw data” thread at RC and saw very little actual raw data except for Europe (they misdirect as usual). You are not getting off the hook that easily, we will use satellite.

Love the GoD & DoG link on your homepage!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H17edn_RZoY

So thats the wood they make hockey sticks out of. Larch.

He’s just another money-grubbing, lying little thief from a banana republic trying to shake down the west - mainly the U.S., of course.

Man, these little tinpot losers in South America are feeling their oats with zero in office. Amazing!!!

Ahnold does what it takes to win re-election. Green is popular in CA(duh.) Conservatives have no clue what it takes to win in moderate or liberal states and districts.

Are you sure you want to hold up the "girly-man" who among other fits of lunacy has a lifelong liberal Democrat for his Chief of Staff as a success story for Republicans to follow?

What unspeakable evil Al Gore hath wrought!

And again we see WaPo commentators give us such well-informed opinion:

"You quit without finishing a single term, you silly woman! You have now self-identified as an expert on climate strategy. A debate, Oxford-style, would provide a platform for a comparison of your ideas and statistics and Al Gore's. We're all waiting. We won't, however, hold our breaths."

"Ms, Palin, You are an unfortunate soul trying to derail serious discussion of an issue that will negatively impact everyone on this planet. You should step out of this discussion before the facts of the matter overwhelm you. You are out of your league here."

"Actually, "as governor of Alaska" you just up and quit. You did nothing. And you're doing nothing for Alaska now."

Because we all know she quit for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

And this one's my favorite:

Ms. Palin: You are not capable or qualified to judge "what's on the table" in Washington or Copenhagen." You evince what scientists & epistemologists term "self-confirming bias," that is, a tendency to confirm--notwithstanding facts (or what more broadly might be termed "empirical truths"--& that's 'truth' with a small "t") your preconceptions (or in your case, your ideological worldview) even as your self-confirming bias or preconceptions are contradicted by observable (& replicable) facts. Your worldview, as you have shared with us over & over again, is predicated upon a belief in superstition, what would properly be termed "supernaturalism." Belief in the supernatural, as with belief in any irrational phenomena or system, is incommensurate with the world of reason, science, & intellect--the phenomenal & material world in which all sentient organisms live. You claim (as Governor) to have sought "common sense (sic) solutions" to the complex problem of climate change. However, you cannot make such a claim when your worldview is predicated upon superstition & supernaturalism: Your worldview is incommensurate with the recognition of the overwhelming empirical evidence associated with & the enormous complexity of climate change. Your belief in superstition & supernaturalism render you utterly incapable (your belief in superstition & the supernatural) of recognizing & engaging the world of empiricism & fact & responding with anything but...self-confirming bias."

Huh. Since when could we explain and understand everything without any error? Have we proven the nonexistence of a Creator? (No need to answer.)

False equivalence.

Voluntary carbon trading is, to summarize the activity, the trading of ‘emissions credits’ between individuals so that you reduce carbon emissions at the cheapest cost without going over a particular limit.

Abortion is homicide, the killing of an innocent child.

Carbon trading is in no way equivalent to abortion.

At any rate, Palin can be advised as much as she wants about carbon trading. If the numbers still show that it would be economically inefficient, she’s not doing it (and the odds of this ever happening are...?). Not that hard to grasp.

Dissolving the Palin Prejudice (No Barf Alert)

Just Because: Analyzing the Psychology of Palin-Hate

Palin’s Favorable Up (4%) Slightly; Obama’s Holds Steady

(Video) Michelle Malkin: Sarah Palin Is Person Of The Year

Palin Vs. Arnold: Terminating California

The Palin Wonder – by Jamie Glazov