Obama to Attend Copenhagen and Commit the U.S. to Emissions Reduction Targets

MojoMan cares too much about religion to be Trader Jorge in disguise. Myth busted!

 

Mojorge's head explodes --

Obama Meeting With Gore Today On Climate Change

The White House adds a new meeting to President Obama's schedule: former Vice President Al Gore.

The Oval Office huddle takes place as global climate talks begin in Copenhagen.

The White House says the private, 4:40 p.m. sit-down is "in advance of his Wednesday meeting with business and environmental leaders" about Copenhagen

Gore will attend, and Obama will go at the end of the conference.

 

In a strange turn, MojoMan ironically opens the case for him being T_J by signing off with the Jorge's infamous tagline. CASE OPENED.

 

wrong about topics like say, Iraq. George Bush in general. America electing its first black president because the last admin was so inept? what other topics have these guys been wrong about?

 

Wrong to MojoMan appears to be anything that doesn't fit into his right-wing blinders-constrained worldview which not even science can adjust or widen.

 

Careful, one out of 100,000+ stolen emails may show, if taken without context, with misinterpretations of key phrases, that the process of science is not a flawless mechanism. That means we can toss out the entire enterprise, of course, or at the very least paint a picture of a massive global conspiracy of climate scientists, planetary scientists, and polticians: all for no real tangible reason beyond a few people's career advancement... (?) ... or something like that.

 

B-Bob, come on now. Those scientists shouldn't have been lying. There are serious ethical questions that come into play with that, ones that hurt the genuine good that the environmentalists have done for the world.

 

I think you missed b-bob's point.

 

No, I know he's making the case that they weren't lying, I've seen that in many different places, or that there lies were didn't really affect anything substantial. I'm just not seeing it. People don't step down from jobs for inconsequential behavior. When you're in a position where you're called to have high standards, even one lie loses the public trust (i.e. Bush) and the ability to do good. Who knows how far back even one little lie from these scientists set back the environmental movement?

 

For people like you, I do plan to come back to it and post some more extensive thoughts. I've got a lot more reading to do.

For now, I don't even see "lying." Seriously. The "decline," by the way (I've gone back and read the referenced papers) refers to an phenomenon in the 1960's, not the last four years. And the "hide" was made in plain view. You can still view the graph those scientists published.

Stupid words, and a stupid email, and ideally people don't sex up graphs. Ideally, some of these climate scientists would have avoided the frustration of dealing repeatedly with a group that continually distorts anything they can grab hold to (e.g. year-to-year fluctuations, misinterpretted data from other planets, and so forth and so on; I've been reading a lot of the denialist stuff recently, just to really examine their arguments, and when you go to the primary literature, much of it by NON-climate scientists, the interpretations are not accurate. Intentional? Well, I just think there's a pre-conceived narrative, if you will. The denialists desperately want to find bits that support their view and trumpet it loudly.)

One thing I *cannot* locate: the bulk of the stolen emails. I find it hard to believe that, in 100,000+ emails, there's not something more inflammatory. If not, those are the most sedate and professional set of emails in the history of the medium. Anyway, I would like to see other things the emails show -- blow by blow discussions of the data sets. Peer review discussions. Argumentation. Details of experimental techniques and modeling. Probably a lot of alarming data sets that could not be confirmed or duplicated and were therefore never published. That sort of thing is very common and it would be good for the public to see the inner workings of all of it.

I remain a skeptic. We cannot know the exact extent of our influence on climate. The data is very suggestive that we're having an effect, an appreciable effect, but moving forward, we can only state probabilities. I would very very much like to see some convincing new data that suggested non-anomalous warming. I dearly hope the correlation between CO2 and global average temperature is misleading and that the preponderance of models about our future are incorrect. This is always possible. It is also possible that we will help ourselves avoid a new ice age. Stating these things is difficult for scientists when they feel engaged in a political bicker-fest, where those bolded statements will be taken by those playing political football as weakness and surrender.

Cheers, twhy77.

 

12,000 years, B-Bob. 12,000 years.

 

LOL -- exactly, Tschmal, thank you. Great example of the "debate." I read the articles, go through and describe the more complete picture of what's happened between 12,000 years ago and now, and... that photo still gets posted. :grin:

Well, the position I truly do accept is that the horse is out of the barn, particularly with the monstrous growth in south and east asia. We just need to figure out how to deal with (most probably) a warmer globe with higher sea levels.

 

I am NOT selling my apartment in Queens!

 

That's completely well and good.

The whole debacle is just sad. Conservatives should embrace their inner Teddy Roosevelt and realize their position as stewards of the earth. Liberals shouldn't be so determined to follow a preconceived narrative.

It's all trade offs in the end when it comes down to what the law will and will not do.

At any rate, given your ice age prediction, I fully support global warming to combat this plight.

 

Yeah, I agree with both of those statements. It's really funny how often you and I really end up on the same page from totally different directions.

Once you enter politics, everyone needs an absolute. Everything has to be clear and causal. But science is giving you probabilities and correlations.

So just like a president can't viably say "this blah-blah move will probably create more jobs, at least if X, Y, and Z also happen," the politicized science can't say probably either. Ah well.

We need "X jobs will be created by 2010!" and "sea level will raise 200 feet by 2100!" when we just don't exactly know. (By the way, I think the science of climate is a little better understood than the social science of economics! But I'm biased.)

 

Glad you didn't take it seriously. Sometimes I think I post a little bit too sarcastically and it doesn't always come across.