Climate.

Quick question Hands....

If a Republican committee determined a Republican did no wrong without the help of Democrats, would you trust the outcome?

How about if a military committee determined a military branch did nothing wrong and had no civilian oversight?

Would you trust the results of a police commission investigation into the affairs of some corrupt cops if there were no city residents on the commission?

What makes this any different?

Did the commission include any skeptics or outsiders to the process? If not then it is simple GIGO.

I am not seeing much impartiality in your post or poll Hands.

Your poll illustrates beautifully just how "impartial" this inquiry was.

How is an investigation into right or wrong doing a scientific endeavor? It is an ethical endeavor.

Having interested and biased persons as the only parties engaged in the investigation isn't ethical. Their self-interest in the outcome automatically casts doubt.

Impartial parties or a balance of parties invested in the outcome is the only way to have a true ethical investigation. What we have here is no different than code of silence where self interested parties protect each other.

I think the world has been shown otherwise in recent date; the down low hokum and worldwide fiction that is global warming has been made manifest - the bit players revealed for their snake underhandedness. Whether or not the few CRU scientists were honest in their ecological intentions or fully embedded in the snake oil enterprise of selling global warming is not really the lingering issue; it is instead the far larger international movement away from the global warming kooks to a realization that these ecological demagogues sold their own souls and belief in their progressive wares need not be extended. Gore et al. have shown their stinky undies and trust me there be no truth therein; while preaching carbon credits/global alarmism to a legion of mindless iPad pushing progressives, behind the scenes of Eco Headquarters Central there was international jet setting waste on the climate grants, wild abuse of Portland ladies in undress, repeated breaking of marriage vows, and wholesale waste of climate protection action funds! Carbon credits? We don't need no stinking carbon credits! So in retrospect, whether or not these CRU scientists fell for Gore's bait and committed fraud is meaningless in the greater scheme of things... nobody important believes the snake oil of global warming anyway! Along with the fiction the truth was out there too, and we know it now...

LOL...the center of "no shame in abusing truth for political ends" fires up the white-washing guns and sprays a greywashing report (misrepresenting its mixed conclusions and turning it into a full vindication) AND fails to note that the authors did a half hearted and unserious job.

For anyone want to find out the truth rather than play "my side wins." You will find both the report and the critics to be of interest.

For example, did you know that they didn't even bother to interview the victims of the censoring who were stonewalled? Are are you aware that they simply relied on the characterizations of the disputed work as provided by the perpitrators, but did not bother to contact those who made the criticisms of thier methods ?

As any investigator would tell you, that is a half assed and half hearted investigation.

Among the interesting ciriticisms from McKittrich, McIntyre, Pielke, and Pierce:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/fred-pearces-column/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/you-cant-be-serious/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/11367/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/l...de-them-do-it/

lets keep the grant money flowing and continue the hoax to control the people, and continue the anticapitalism rant. science is self correcting, this isn't science it's political extortion.

Well I'm glad this is all settled. By the way, it's m-o-r-o-n, not "moran."

Hands Sandon and Sammi Jo are such cards. Are they serious?

Let’s see, the cause of the controversy were hacked/leaked email exchanges that suggested there might be an manipulation and suppression of data (among other unethical actions). The “independent” Russell panelists were charged to examine any and all information held at CRU, including all emails, in order to discover the extent of their suspect doings and to find out if they were at odds with scientific practice and therefore may have badly tainted their science research.

So what did this panel do?

Well Muir Russell and other panelists did not even bother to attend the interviews of the suspects. And even though they were obligated to examine all the CRU emails (of which the hacked emails only represented a tiny portion) they were totally unsccussful. Why? Because, they said, the police was examining the evidence, and besides there was too much to look at, and besides, they consulted with the UAE attorneys (the fellows that supervised CRU) and they suggested it might cause legal troubles for the institutiion.

LOL…Hopefully this hapless Muir crew never quits their day jobs to become real private or police investigators. If I were under investigation I’d love it if these wanna-be detectives said “Oh Mr. Parrish, you may have been guilty of wrong doing but a) you have too many records to look at, and b) we sought the advice of your attorney and he said it would be a bad idea”.

As laughable as this cover story is, it becomes even more dubious when one actually reviews the sequence of events, the gaps and/or ginned documented timelines, and the actual comments of the technical expert hired to go through CRU emails.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/t...er/#more-11414

So the analysist is hired, two weeks later (and a few days after getting CRU email data) he says it might take several weeks to analysize SO then his project is cancelled?

Are they clowns? In more meanings than one - yes.

Yes, because reality is what you make it...

So a massive tax increase is stalled by Republicans? Maybe I will vote for one of them in November.

Another bad joke? Cutting out the nations debt "big time"? My gosh Handon, where do you get this nonsense?

Now for the sober truth. Let's address the last item, which really belongs in a different thread (the subject being healthcare reform). In order to finance a trillion dollar plus healthcare program (when it is fully operational in 2016) it requires alot of taxes. The taxes will be the on current Medicare users (slashed funding), and various new taxes collected in increased premiums for everyone, health insurance taxes on 'the rich', taxes on branded drugs, taxes on medical devices, and taxes on imported equipment.

It will be a trillion dollar tax (200 billion a year) by 2015-16 over a ten year horizon, for a trillion dollar program.

However, because the taxes & Medicare cuts will start before the program is fully operational, the excess revenues will lower the deficit by a tiny 140 billion dollars for a couple of years (around 2013-14). That will end by 2015. (For some perspective, the current annual deficit is 1.4 trillion and the debt more than 13 Trillion).

To a rational person, someone not afflicted with raging partisan fevers, this hype over deficit reduction is mainly an obvious con, and insignificant in its effects. IF one was interested in reducing the deficit with new taxes and Medicare cuts, then a trillion in new taxes/cuts would normally result in a trillion in deficit reduction (ignoring macro economic growth effects). So why does this not happen? Because 85% is bled off into new health care spending. And by 2016, 100% will be bled off into new spending.

Finally, if one wants to see what a laughable fraud their method of taxing for the purposes of 'deficit reduction' is, suppose we used this method to try and wipe out the current annual deficit (1.4 trillion). It would require a tax of 13 trillion dollars a year (i.e. the whole GNP of the US this year). LOL...

If you begin your rant with a demonstrative falsehood it is hard to extend belief to your remaining points:

Cap and Trade Doesn't Work
Obama can learn a thing or two from Europe's scheme.
MARTIN LIVERMORE | WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
JUNE 25, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124587942001349765.html
To get a good idea, U.S. policy makers need only look across the Atlantic. The European Union, keen to show global leadership, introduced the world's first Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in January 2005, just before the Kyoto protocol came into force.... The biggest abuse began right at the start of the ETS when regulators handed out too many free permits. As a result, utilities companies made windfall profits by simply selling on large numbers of unneeded credits and not passing the savings on to their customers in the form of price cuts. Despite the EU's declared goal to dole out permits based on objective criteria, industry lobbying led to an overallocation. When push comes to shove, governments will always protect their national champions. The German government, for example, negotiated an easing of planned caps on emissions from cars to the advantage of manufacturers of higher-powered cars such as Mercedes-Benz and Porsche... But these are only cosmetic changes to an inherently flawed system. The auctioning of permits may avoid overallocation but instead saddle industry with huge upfront costs. The entire scheme will remain vulnerable to political interference and thus likely fail to reduce carbon emissions. The only certainty is that it will hurt the economy and drive up energy costs.

He provided his evidence, now you provide yours on how it is working brilliantly.

Maybe it's because it is originally a Republican idea and was used by Nixon and Bush one to curb sulfur pollution.

That article was from JUNE 25, 2009. 1 year ago is not that long at all...

Is English a foreign language for you? June 2009 WAS NOT that long ago and IT WAS during Obama administration.

Glad you have a helpful response for any questions that might arise from your position.

I guess Hands wants to ignore the valid observation that you are correct, a year old article on a rade system that was starte 5 years is a valid criticism. More amusingly I looked at his MIT link and it said it was posted in Dec of 2008 - well, that trashes Hands "not current" carping.

Hands also claims all that has ALL been fixed, I guess in the last year - a claim that we ought to look at in spite of his trip up. In the meantime I hope Hands knows that most economists think that cap and trade on carbon is a very inefficient and ineffective idea.

For example, the distinguished environmental economist William Nordhaus has done studies on cap and trade vs. carbon taxes and found that cap and trade is pretty poor.

But then "ignore" is a good way to deep a closed mind, is it not?

I have had to put him on ignore before due to the sheer frustration of dealing with him so I understand the need to take a break. But for this?

Hands, answer the question. Is a year a LONG TIME in any political setting when dealing with legislation on this scale? I put forth that it is not.