Climategate II

So, if the solutions that the left is proposing to a problem are inneffective or damaging then the problem doesn't exist. That's useful to know.

So, if the solutions that the left is proposing to a problem are inneffective or damaging then the problem doesn't exist. That's useful to know.

The fact is that the proposed greenie solutions would have the effect of impoverishing the capitalist western democracies, the same goal the left has had on its agenda for generations. This has all the appearance as just one more in a long line of excuses for power from the Usual Suspects.

It's a sad thing that some honest scientists who don't accept the left's agenda have got caught on the same side with them. But the solution is not to shout IT'S WARMING ever louder and more insistent. It's to shout HERE IS THE SOLUTION to our energy issues, and oh yes by the way, it will reduce CO2 as well.

Like any faith or political belief, those that have dug in their heels will never change their minds. That works on both sides. So change the subject to the solutions, and spend the same energy convincing the left that nukes are a danger we can live with. And good luck with that.

And who determined, in this particular case, that the request was vexatious? Name names, please. What, if any, were the grounds for such a determination?

From those emails that I've looked at it looks like they initially tried to be as cooperative as they could with McIntyre's requests but he never accepted any arguments for why he could not have exactly what he wanted. He always complained and asked for more even when it was pointed out that the data was available elsewhere. He was seen as a prima donna throwing tantrums.

Well, except that the guidelines for vexatious requests specifically state that a person's previous history of requests is not, in and of itself, grounds to decide that subsequent requests are vexatious. So each request must therefore be considered on its own merits, and therefore, we're back to square one - how do we know that this was not simply a self-serving decision to deny requests?

And who determined, in this particular case, that the request was vexatious? Name names, please. What, if any, were the grounds for such a determination?

From those emails that I've looked at it looks like they initially tried to be as cooperative as they could with McIntyre's requests but he never accepted any arguments for why he could not have exactly what he wanted. He always complained and asked for more even when it was pointed out that the data was available elsewhere. He was seen as a prima donna throwing tantrums.

Well, except that the guidelines for vexatious requests specifically state that a person's previous history of requests is not, in and of itself, grounds to decide that subsequent requests are vexatious. So each request must therefore be considered on its own merits, and therefore, we're back to square one - how do we know that this was not simply a self-serving decision to deny requests?

You are making an assumption that the British guidelines are the same as the Anerican ones. I don't know what the British ones are but I would not be surprised if they had different ideas of on when a request was considered vexatios.

So, if the solutions that the left is proposing to a problem are inneffective or damaging then the problem doesn't exist. That's useful to know.

I have not seen anyone say that.

Nuclear power is worth pursuing for economical and safety reasons alone. Nuclear power produces more power at lower cost with less radiation dispersal in the atmosphere than excavating, transporting, and burning coal.

Agreed but it has not been enough to overcome fixation on the rare serious accident, worries about waste storage and concern about nuclear weapons proliferation. If you say its opponents assessment of comparative risk is bad I will concur.

The problems that they are concerned about are real and cannot be waved away. You have to get them to see them in proportion to the alternatives. Getting them to see it as part of the solution to major problems is the only way I know that is likely to get them to seriously look again at the options for energy supply.

And you cannot do that if you don't take the environmental danger of continuing as we are seriously.

These efforts to marry nuclear advocacy to environmental fear-mongering seem to me an effort to subsume yet another sensible scientific development and its attendant study groups into the mudpit of Endless he said/she said conflicts and confrontation.

With powerful groups lining up on both sides, I'd rather see the men with the actual solution stay calm and focused, and ready to go into action when the mayhem on the playing field has reached its ultimate stalemate.

Maybe we'll have to let China show us and the rest of the world that the answer, the only answer, to environmental depredation in both the first world and the third, is an energy policy that actually works and solves problems as soon as the men with the bullhorns get out of the way.

I would rather that it be America, as it should be. But the entrenched interests would rather have their mud-battles than to give up the ground they're fighting over.

I don't care what problems are being shouted about, and drawn to our attention. I'm only prepared to listen to those who want to proffer solutions, either quietly, or with a bit of showmanship. Their glory is of no concern to me, and they will be welcome to it.

I only care about getting on with being intelligent.

So, if the solutions that the left is proposing to a problem are inneffective or damaging then the problem doesn't exist. That's useful to know.

I have not seen anyone say that.

Ah well.

So, if the solutions that the left is proposing to a problem are inneffective or damaging then the problem doesn't exist. That's useful to know.

I have not seen anyone say that.

Ah well.

Have you? Here, as seems to have been your implication?

And who determined, in this particular case, that the request was vexatious? Name names, please. What, if any, were the grounds for such a determination?

From those emails that I've looked at it looks like they initially tried to be as cooperative as they could with McIntyre's requests but he never accepted any arguments for why he could not have exactly what he wanted. He always complained and asked for more even when it was pointed out that the data was available elsewhere. He was seen as a prima donna throwing tantrums.

Well, except that the guidelines for vexatious requests specifically state that a person's previous history of requests is not, in and of itself, grounds to decide that subsequent requests are vexatious. So each request must therefore be considered on its own merits, and therefore, we're back to square one - how do we know that this was not simply a self-serving decision to deny requests?

You are making an assumption that the British guidelines are the same as the Anerican ones. I don't know what the British ones are but I would not be surprised if they had different ideas of on when a request was considered vexatios.

Actually, I've read the guidelines, and I haven't seen where anyone at CRU made a case that any particular request fell within them.

So, if the solutions that the left is proposing to a problem are inneffective or damaging then the problem doesn't exist. That's useful to know.

I have not seen anyone say that.

Ah well.

Have you? Here, as seems to have been your implication?

Well, I was going from the specific to the general (obviously), and I started to type a long and detailed response. But a bit of the way into it I thought, "WTF. I just can't be arsed". My original opinion is an "argument by extension" (reductio ad absurdum?) by me of some of the arguments that I see in this thread. But if you don't see people putting forward arguments pretty similar that, and you're very perceptive, then that's fine. Sorry. I'll concede the point.

.... the entrenched interests would rather have their mud-battles than to give up the ground they're fighting over.....

It's important to note that the people on the public front lines of this debate are making a good living at it. They NEED opponents or their livelihood is gone, and to get those opponents they're perfectly capable of proposing nonsensical non-solutions precisely because some of us will rightly oppose the nonsense.

This is one of the oldest techniques of governments, to invent a crisis and then ride to the rescue to "solve" it. They have to justify their phony baloney jobs somehow.

I only care about getting on with being intelligent.

Part of being intelligent is recognizing when you're being used. Regardless of the validity of AGW, the scientific community is being well used by the much larger community of worldwide government officials.

At the very worst, the damage to the planet and humanity will be limited by AGW, in most cases unnoticeable to the average human, even if the worst predictions materialize. Yet the proposals for solutions put forward seem to require an all-powerful world wide government, capable of controlling the lives of every human on earth.

By any objective observation, the governments of the last few centuries are the most dangerous entities faced by humanity. They are like fire, a necessity, but only when they are kept small and under tight control.

I want to get on with being intelligent as well. But examining the relative risk of AGW vs the risk of feeding the power of government, keeping in mind recent history, the intelligent thing would be to starve government of the crises, like AGW, it needs to thrive and grow.