Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
airfrnt
Posts: 2176
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:51 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 8):
S poiticians should stop to complain about every single dollar that does not flow into the pockets of the hand full of US investors who control their media, their rating agencies, their banks and finance the campaign

That statement reminds me of another German statement about how the political class in America is controlled by a class of elites.

The EU complained vociferously, and has constantly bucked security standards, because frankly three airliners didn't fly into their buildings. No the EU has a prioritization on Global Warming, and is doing the exact same thing that the US did. I wish I could say the hypocrisy was surprising, but it's not. The EU is on a massive powertrip right now, between the recent collapse of their fiscal institutions - which they use to argue that states should give up even more power to Brussels. This is now extending into Aviation.

Look, I am all for modernization and trying to reduce risk of global warming, but they way they did this guaranteed that it would be a political question, not a science or aviation question.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:54 pm

Quoting Pu (Reply 149):
it is equally acceptable for the USA to impose a tax on foreign airlines which fly over the Middle East for its pet "removing WMDs from Iraq" project or its pet "world policeforce project," correct?

How on earth to you give US tax authority for flights over middle east? EU isn't even trying to impose restrictions on flights over EU.

Seems anything is OK as long as you object to ETS.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:03 pm

Quoting airfrnt (Reply 150):
The EU complained vociferously, and has constantly bucked security standards, because frankly three airliners didn't fly into their buildings.

Germany dealt with more crippling terrorism decades before. They dealt with it with far less draconian measurements. I don't think that is a sign of bucking. UK had too much experience too.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:16 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 152):

Germany dealt with more crippling terrorism decades before. They dealt with it with far less draconian measurements. I don't think that is a sign of bucking. UK had too much experience too.

And so did France with some 45 years before 2001. So it's ok for everybody to pay, and keep on paying foir what was in fact a major security bungle ?
So it's ok to impose on everybody a future of global warming phenomena that impact the lives of millions so that a few cartels can make some extra bucks ,
And it's not right to think that we could curb that greenhouse effect ?
for one euro per passenger ?
Lives of some children are very cheap indeed .
Contrail designer
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:10 pm

Quoting us330 (Reply 148):


[quote=us330,reply=148]Quoting jollo (Reply 7):
sanctions applied in retailation only to EU carriers would be, without a doubt, discriminatory and a no-brainer WTO case

Not necessarily. The WTO only applies to goods, not services.

Incorrect. The WTO agreements include GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services).

Quoting us330 (Reply 148):
Basically, on its face, the issue doesn't seem to be within the WTO's scope

Incorrect. Annex 13 to the GATS includes:

"3. (a) aircraft repair and maintenance services;
(b) the selling and marketing of air transport services;
(c) computer reservation system (CRS) services."

Traffic rights are however specifically excluded.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:35 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 146):
as of late 2011 nobody on his/her right mind denies that global warming is here and is human caused.

That is an insulting statement. Plenty of sane people question the human-cause issue. I am more concerned about those who do not question authority, particularly when nobody has produced an answer for earths' natural climate swings throughout history, without the help of mankind.

Quoting cmf (Reply 147):
I'm not the one putting out emissions in higher and higher quantities.

Neither is the aviation industry. Is it not a FACT that airlines and manufacturers are constantly developing and buying more efficient airplanes? I'm still wondering if any EU bureaucrat considered the carbon cost of recycling planes before their time.

If the EU really wanted to make a difference, they would get off the diesel car trip and really push hard for electric cars.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:40 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 155):
That is an insulting statement.

Maybe, but it is also true.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 155):
I am more concerned about those who do not question authority

Authority? What does authority have to do with anything? This is just about science! About facts! Read any of the reports I have linked above three times already and educate yourself, please.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:42 pm

56 replies since I left. It's gonna be a long night..

Quoting Pu (Reply 120):
Too bad the "European mentality" is at minimum matched and often outclassed by the American mentality, the Chinese mentality, etc... when considering the values that THEY deem important.

Your values are your own. Europe has yet to prove theirs are superior - insofar as a "European mentality" actually exists. When they likewise judge Europe by their values - Europe comes up far short. Live and let live, its ok to keep your values in Europe and let the Chinese, Americans, Indians, etc... keep their values for themselves.

Unlike America, Europe doesn't play world police very often. So it's fair to argue that ''we'' let others have their own values. However, when their doings affect us, we have a right to speak up against it.

Quoting Pu (Reply 120):
Quoting Giancavia (Reply 21):
I dont understand.. what is the point in saving something 500 years in the future (if at all even possible) and making everyone nows life a misery? Makes no sense.

Because the collectivists wish to gain control of economic output and this is one of their tools

Yes, all governments in the world are a secret society. Conspiracy theories are rarely wrong.

Quoting Pu (Reply 120):
Quoting something (Reply 27):
If you make your travel dependent on a $20 price difference in your TATL ticket, maybe you shouldn't be spending your money on travel in the first place?

Spoken like a true Eurocrat who loves taxes and spending the taxes earned on others production....how about if I am the one earning the money, kindly not tell me how I should spend it or that a $20 price difference is not something I should consider?

If you use the verb ''to love'' to describe the European attitude toward taxes, you are giving it a negative connotation. That is very far from being objective already.

Secondly, you don't quite seem to understand what our global economy has become. First of all, you don't ''deserve'' the money that you ''earn''. The mechanisms of salary formation have been rendered unfunctionable and the remuneration alloted to most professions is largely arbitrary. Capitalism, per definition, cannot function without government regulation to a certain degree because humans can't survive without income, i.e. can't choose to work. That's where exploitation starts and capitalism ends.

But to kindly tell you why you should not consider the $20 price difference: In macroeconomics there is a term called ''externalities''. As mentioned above, the $20 price difference do not at all cover the damages that your economic decisions entail.

How would you feel if I decided to burn tires in my yard and cover your property in a thick black cloud of toxic smoke, if I didn't compensate you for the damages?

That is, on a larger scale, what the rich industrial nations are doing to the poor developing nations. Exploiting nations who are too poor to raise their voice/concerns.

Quoting Pu (Reply 120):
Someone has a great career calling out for them in Brussels. I long for people to tell me how to live economical and responsible lifestyles - better yet if they tax and legally force me to live how they would choose for me.

The way you wish to conduct your life will always be at your own discretion. The reductio ad absurdum you are trying to employ does not really change that either. I'm just calling for laws that are self-explanatory on a ''tangible'' level to be extended to intangible levels. You would not be okay with people flinging fecies at your house, because letting them do that feels unjust to you, or like a step towards anarchy. However, if you want to throw proverbial fecies at the proverbial houses of others, you call that ''self determination of your own economic decisions'' and everything else would be totalitarism.

Quoting Pu (Reply 120):
Quoting something (Reply 36):
Imagine how much fuel could be saved if instead of 30 , only 15 airplanes would fly LON-NYC everyday

It is a shame that for-profit companies and their investors get to decide how to invest and spend their money when others have such better ideas about how to deploy the assets others have earned and paid for.

Oddly enough, the others with the "better ideas" are never the ones who can be bothered to create or produce the wealth they so yearn to spend. Thus this tax was invented.

Your rejoinder would be quite effective if there was only one single airline operating the LON-NYC route. There are, however, multiple.

Fuel is sold for way too cheap in most nations. The money it costs does not pay for the damages it causes. If you are not okay with factories dumping toxic waste into rivers and the ocean without cleaning it up afterwards, you can also not be okay with airlines destroying the environment without picking up after themselves. Just because they don't leave a brown river with fish with legs behind, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Quoting Pu (Reply 120):
If you want to save the world, stop population growth and all the problems, including global warming, are solved....but stopping population growth is no fun because it doesn't give the control over private enterprise some so desperately deisre.

If you believe the EU wants to reduce economic activity and this is just a front, you should have yourself checked for a psychosis. In all honesty.

Quoting Pu (Reply 120):
There are plenty of things YOU can do today that don't involve robbing the economically productive part of the world on which we all depend to survive. Stop reproduction in poor countries where newborns die. Stop funneling money to the royal familly while people are homeless. Change the world without telling others how to spend what they themselves earned.

If newborns die, as you say, wouldn't that preempt population growth? And who wants to fund the royal families anyway? I most certainly don't.

Again, nobody is telling you how to spend your money. The ETS is just a very feeble attempt at making you pay the price the product you're acquiring should actually cost, taken every factor of regular price formation into account (this is macroeconomics first semester by the way).

At the same time, a CEO of a company is not supposed to make 1000 times as much as his employees. In very short, his contribution to the revenue of the product is not 1000 times as high as that of the person assembling it. It would take this post way off topic to elaborate on this, but I want to suggest this and that article to you. They're not scientific studies, but I doubt you'd actually buy the books I could recommend you on the matter.

Paradoxically, captialisms biggest enemy is capitalism itself. Not the government.

Quoting Pu (Reply 120):
It takes 500 million EU citizens to produce the same as 300 million Americans and 1.5 billion Chinese produce nowhere near as much as these Americans. The median American household eanrs 30% more than a typical European family.

So when you are sitting in your block of flats, taking public transport, enjoying the fuel tax that is 10 times as high as in America and which smothers economic growth, when you are busy planning new ways to tax and redistribute the production of others, the tin-foil wearing Americans are the most successful at what they desire for themselves - material wealth.

Way off topic, but I regret we probably won't extend this particular discussion to its own thread. A friend of mine, proud American from New York and probably the most annoying person you'll ever meet, is currently writing her PhD disseration on exactly this issue. I think I am quite sufficiently informed on the matter and I would love to enlighten you on the reality of things. But I must warn you, it'd be pretty humiliating.

Quoting Pu (Reply 120):
If only we could have such people run every detail of our lives down to the planes we take, the cars we drive, the houses we live in, the food we eat....oh, wait, they already ARE trying to do this for us.

Why regulations, right? What do humans need clean air, clean water and unpoisonous food for. All way over-rated. Or safety at the work place.. who cares if you die after 10 years on the job? It's all in the best interest of ''unregulated capitalism'' so tell these stupid regulators to shut up already.

I get it now.

Man-made global warming is established science, along with gravity, the earth is not a disc and the earth is not the center of the universe. Even the catholic church accepts this, by the way.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 124):
Quoting something (Reply 109):
I promise you not a single flight will fall victim to the ETS.

And you would be absolutely incorrect. One of the very first things learned in an economics course is that if you want less of something, you tax it. Now a $10-20 additional price hike on a ticket may seem minute at face value, make no mistakes, it will indeed have a negative effect on air travel to Europe and less people will fly because of it. Now again as I said before, it can however be debated just how much of an impact it will have.

It goes without saying that air travel would grow at a faster pace if airline employees earned only half their salaries and if fuel was cheaper. But this is not the reality of things. Aviation will continue to grow, just as coal plants will proliferate in the future. At least until there is no more coal or useable crude oil left.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 124):
Quoting something (Reply 109):
there will be more flights in the future

Sure there will, just not in Europe if this trend of making the operating environment more expensive for airlines continues.

Curious that airlines and airports don't know this yet and invariably project 4-5% annual growth until 2022.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 124):
No, that is YOUR opinion which you are perfectly entitled to. The difference between yourself and I however is that I would never tell you that you do not have a right "partake in the discourse" simply because I disagree with you. I'm an open-minded person, I love intelligent debate, politics, and seeking out various opinions on issues, but honestly this trend among climate-change lemmings that any opposing ideas/explanations/data/solutions ought to be shut out and shut down is disturbing and I sometimes wonder if it is indeed true that 'green is the new red'.

No, the difference is that you think global warming is an opinion. It's fact. If I were to tell you that the sun's surface was 20

Quoting mham001 (Reply 155):
particularly when nobody has produced an answer for earths' natural climate swings throughout history, without the help of mankind.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

Those are just a few answers that nobody has produced yet.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 155):
Neither is the aviation industry. Is it not a FACT that airlines and manufacturers are constantly developing and buying more efficient airplanes? I'm still wondering if any EU bureaucrat considered the carbon cost of recycling planes before their time.

If the EU really wanted to make a difference, they would get off the diesel car trip and really push hard for electric cars.

You've got to start somewhere. That's the problem. While I agree the aviation industry should not be scapegoated, I also realize that it's really not. But I would agree with you that there are more pressing issues, namely coal power plants.

I also agree that something needs to be done about ground transport, urgently.

But just because others are worse, doesn't make ''lighter'' pollution acceptable.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:52 pm

What happened to all the stuff I wrote between Reply 124 and 155? All that work for nothing?

Gtfo!
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 5138
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:15 pm

Why would the ANSPs in EU want to provide for more fuel efficient traffic handling? It would reduce the amount of EU ETS taxes; based on emissions above the baseline period. I present to you a Fox guarding the Hen house scenario.   

http://reason.org/news/show/air-traffic-control-reform-news-88

ANSP Performance in Europe Falling Short

"The big ones, responsible for the lion’s share of air traffic, were singled out as unsatisfactory: Britain, France, Germany plus Austria and Spain."

"From 2012 through 2014 they are supposed to achieve specific targets for: reducing excess miles flown (termed “route extensions”), reducing air traffic delays per flight, and reducing the cost per unit of service delivered."
mercure f-wtcc
 
B747-4U3
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2002 8:08 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:10 pm

Quoting something (Reply 27):
If you make your travel dependent on a $20 price difference in your TATL ticket, maybe you shouldn't be spending your money on travel in the first place?

I don't think it is for you to suggest how others spend their money. The world is an amazing place and I think that if people want to travel to see it they should - even if it means doing so on a shoestring where $20 may make a difference.

Quoting something (Reply 27):
There are various ways to maintain your standard of living without augmenting your income, even in the face of increased prices.

This is true to an extent, but eventually increased prices will have an impact. I fly a lot because I enjoy seeing the world and enjoy flying. I have thus far been able to offset price rises in air travel through making savings elsewhere. With the ETS and APD rises this coming year I will no longer be able to "trade-down" to maintain my standard of living, and will therefore have to save less if I want to maintain my standard of living.

Quoting something (Reply 27):
The aim is to incentivize airlines to fly more efficient airplanes.

The most efficient way to run planes is to run old ones for as long as reasonably possible. Building a new plane requires a huge outlay of energy. This scheme will encourage people to run newer planes and thus replace them before they become life-expired.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
Unlike America, Europe doesn't play world police very often. So it's fair to argue that ''we'' let others have their own values. However, when their doings affect us, we have a right to speak up against it.

From my experience, Europeans are no better than anyone else at imposing their values on the world. In fact, I think the British are probably some of the worst offenders.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
But to kindly tell you why you should not consider the $20 price difference: In macroeconomics there is a term called ''externalities''. As mentioned above, the $20 price difference do not at all cover the damages that your economic decisions entail.

The situation is more complicated than that because it is difficult to gauge the precise environmental impact of flying. What is the value of environmental damage caused by flying from London to New York for instance? This must surely be largely arbitrary - especially when one considers all of the other contributing factors to climate change.

Furthermore, what is the environmental impact of each new born child? Perhaps having children should be taxed too? Or perhaps there should be a baby trading scheme whereby families all across the world have to trade baby credits so that they can create offspring?

If there were fewer people in the world, would the environmental impact of flying even be a problem? I think the biggest challenge for man is that there are too many of us. Less people = less pressure on land for farming, less burning of fossil fuels, less environmental damage caused by building fridge-freezers...etc because we need fewer. Perhaps the best way to fight climate-change is to reduce the population, but I doubt we have global leaders willing to attempt this. Cuts can be made, but emissions will continue to rise because of the growing population. Either we will have to cut the population, or we will all have to agree to live in mud-huts and subsistence-farm.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:13 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 155):
Neither is the aviation industry. Is it not a FACT that airlines and manufacturers are constantly developing and buying more efficient airplanes?

I'm sorry but you're wrong. I wish you were not.

Look at Boeing's market forecast. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/

You should see that number of km flown is increasing much faster than more efficient planes can compensate.

The cap of ETS changes that. Not necessarily when looked at aviation alone but when you look at everyone involved in ETS.

Over time it is reasonable to expect that aviation will be able to expand within the same amount of CO2 emissions. But it takes caps to make it happen.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:56 pm

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 160):
The situation is more complicated than that because it is difficult to gauge the precise environmental impact of flying. What is the value of environmental damage caused by flying from London to New York for instance? This must surely be largely arbitrary - especially when one considers all of the other contributing factors to climate change.

That's of course true and I am not at all suggesting that the ETS is the perfect solution and above critique. But if virtually every other business that releases CO2 into the atmosphere has to pay for it in some form, why should aviation businesses be exempt from it?

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 160):
Furthermore, what is the environmental impact of each new born child? Perhaps having children should be taxed too? Or perhaps there should be a baby trading scheme whereby families all across the world have to trade baby credits so that they can create offspring?

Depends on where the baby is born.



But you do raise a valid point. Most cultures/societies consider involuntary birth control unethical but eventually, it will become inevitable.

Quoting B747-4U3 (Reply 160):
If there were fewer people in the world, would the environmental impact of flying even be a problem? I think the biggest challenge for man is that there are too many of us. Less people = less pressure on land for farming, less burning of fossil fuels, less environmental damage caused by building fridge-freezers...etc because we need fewer. Perhaps the best way to fight climate-change is to reduce the population, but I doubt we have global leaders willing to attempt this. Cuts can be made, but emissions will continue to rise because of the growing population. Either we will have to cut the population, or we will all have to agree to live in mud-huts and subsistence-farm.

It's not really a dichotomy like that. All of the energy I use in my home is generated by a wind farm and doesn't even cost that much more compared to fossil energy. I use modern technology in my house, don't waste energy, drive an efficient car and/or take the train, don't eat meat on 2-3 days per week, try to buy local etc. I'm still far from being a poster child, but my annual carbon footprint is still only 22% of that of an average US American.

Increasing population only happens because religions still exist. If you look at countries that don't demonize contraceptives and abortion, that have empowered women to take control of their reproductive organs and that allow women to work so that they're not dependent on the income of their children when they're old, you will see that the population in those ''modern'' countries is actually decreasing - and has been since the late 70s.

Again, there is a lot that needs to be done and this ETS doesn't even get anywhere close to solving the problem. But just because it isn't perfect, doesn't mean we should reject it entirely.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
fiscal
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:47 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:58 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 146):
as of late 2011 nobody on his/her right mind denies that global warming is here and is human caused

That may be case in Andorra, but not in Australia. I personally know three real scientists and they all say it is croc, and they all work for government agencies and confirm that none of their colleagues believe it either.

Also when the Labor government passed their ETS "Carbon Tax" legislation recently, their public rating dropped to an unprecedented 30% - showing that most ordinary Australians dont believe it either.

Let the EU tax us if they must, but dont do it based on a falsehood.....
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:02 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 132):
By the way, you could gain some credibility by trying to prove your points posting links to scientific reports, instead of a link to a youTube video made by the so-called "NoCapsOnTradeGroup". But I realize you would have a very hard time finding such scientific reports. Because they do not exist. However, I'm sure you can find many of blogs defending your points of view. Actually you can find many blogs and youTube videos defending any point of view at all about anything at all. But that doesn't make them right.

And the above is yet another reason why climate scientists are rewarded with the same respect as politicians these days - most people's first instinct is to assume they are lying.

If you had bothered to look at the link, you'd notice it wasn't a YouTube video at all, but rather just a simple picture file which zoomed in on the section of the IPCC report where the authors decided to stop using the paleo-climatic record because it didn't jive with reality. To do so would show that the IPCC group had to truncate data sets at various points in time in order to create anything resembling a relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature, because the paleo-climatic record suggested falling temperatures after the 1960s even though temperatures were actually rising. Again, this was the whole impetus for "hide the decline". Rather than acknowledge this, the authors chose to hide it behind other graphs. My link was simply an image zooming in on the specific section of the graph. You can find images of this all over the Internet - the one I posted just happened to be the first one I found.

Here's another example: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/hide-the-decline.html
Another: http://ibankcoin.com/news/wp-content...3dc4f7caac3134f98587670bd48d3d.png
Another: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eJoZrIkBkz...mc/USZfTVLd84w/s1600/Picture+8.png
Here's the graph when the line is actually extended further and not removed from the graph (it's in black - notice the paleo-climatic records indicated rapidly falling temperatures starting in the 1960s which doesn't jive with reality at all): http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...de-the-decline-tree-ring-data1.jpg

But I suppose rather than actually debate the facts, you, like many (though by no means all - many are legitimate scientists) other climate scientists would rather try to bully your skeptics and discredit them. I suppose in the last decade this worked to a certain extent, but in light of the Climategate emails, it no longer does. There is NO continuous data set that has shown a statistically significant relationship between CO2 emissions and temperatures over a long period of time. Sure you can truncate the data or cherry pick various data sets and cobble them together to find this "relationship", but I could do the same and show a "relationship" between pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia (rising over recent decades) and temperature (rising over recent decades). But no one would be foolish enough to take this theory seriously.

Sorry.

[Edited 2011-12-23 15:12:00]
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:33 am

Quoting something (Reply 162):

Nice, completely misleading per capita chart. Does the chart give any indications about total contributions? Does it say anything about the logistics of running a country like Canada, (which there aren't any except Canada), with one of the harshest climates on the planet, the second largest land area and one of the smallest population densities? Nah...that's nuts...per capita carbon production is the only thing that matters...except, of course, to the earth itself...which doesn't give a rat's butt about Canada's measly 1.8%...in comparison to the numbers for China, India, Brazil and the USA.

And how about those wacky cats spewing tons of carbon to go all the way to Durban? Was that stricktly necessary? Couldn't those brilliant minds have come up with a less environment destroying method of meeting to discuss destroying the environment? Nope...lets get in our jets and fly off to S. Africa...instead of maybe, just a thought, having a cyber conference, which would have produced almost zero carbon emissions...or smaller groups meeting locally and sending only one representative to a central location.

Instead, these brilliant minds go to Durban...another blatant case of; "do as I say, not as I do". If they can't even pretend to live with their own philosophies, how can they realistically expect anyone else to.

The answer is; they can't. There is no need at all...even a little bit...for these massive photo op get togethers. They did nothing that couldn't have been accomplished by other means.

Some of us actually are doing something. My little contribution is being in the business of selling electric bikes as alternative, green as you can get transportation, at a reasonable price, using mostly recyclable materials...including the batteries. I also drive a diesel which, (when weather allows), runs on waste vegetable oil.

So when these all talk and no action folks complain that some evil free thinkers dare think their own thoughts, use their own reason and logic and come to a difference conclusion, maybe they should consider puting some of the blame on themselves.

With a little more humbleness and real action and a lot less hypocritical sanctimony, they might get more people on their side. Actions speak a lot louder than words...and so far, ironically, most of what we get is hot air.

And, getting back to the ETS, when even one of the people responsible for enacting this scheme says it has nothing to do with the environment and it is only a money grab, there goes down the toilet, even more credibility to those who claim to be saving the earth.

Lead by example...the first step to credibility.
What the...?
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:51 am

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 164):
but in light of the Climategate emails, it no longer does.

Still selective with the information you repeat. What kind of gate shall we call it?
So I ask again: How do you explain the results of the multiple investigations triggered because of that? They did after all confirm all relevant parts while condemning the methods that where used. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538

And what theory do you have for the result of tea party founding Koch brothers commissioning a global warming skeptic to confirm it is a hoax, only to make him convinced it is real?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...ress-global-warming_n_1094966.html

Finally, maybe you can help your friends and provide a report proving CO2 emissions do not cause harm. Because the scientists proclaiming they do no harm must of have solid science behind them to make such an important statement. Why it has not been provided when it is as clear as you claim is beyond my understanding?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:57 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 165):
Lead by example...the first step to credibility.

Others are worse so why should we do anything. Sounds like like the farmers who each claimed the others took more water and then the lake was empty and the crop died.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2287
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:13 am

There is a simple solution to this.

Since the EU does not recognize the Chicago Convention, the US and other aggrieved nations should inform the EU of their intention to withdrawal from aviation service agreements.

If individual EU nations that recognize their Chicago Convention responsibilities would like to negotiate bi-lateral air services agreements, great.....otherwise, let them pound sand. Let's have a good old fashioned trade war.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:25 am

Another thing I haven't seen used in any climate models; the heat produced by humans. More people, more heat. How much does the actual thermal footprint, the btu's, make a difference is global warming? We've pumped a lot of btu's into the atmosphere over the past hundred or so years...how much of that has remained?

We're repeatedly told that the only reason global temperatures may be rising, is human sourced greenhouse gasses being pumped into the atmosphere.

How about human sources of heat? How much heat energy, (the same low wavelength energy that the atmosphere loves to trap), is being retained?

In my town of a mere 40,000 people, temperature differences can be 10 or more degrees from the center of town to the outskirts. Does all of this heat escape or is some of it trapped? It can't be none...since that would shoot the whole greenhouse thing in the foot. So how much?

In 1900, the global population was around 1.5 billion people. Now...7 billion...and we produce much more heat per person on a global scale than they did in 1900...with all the attendant technology added in.

Any correlation that uses any human influence as a template will have the same curve as CO2. More people...more C02, more heat, more methane, more CO2 spewing people and their animals, more deforestation...pick a curve...any curve...and it will look the same in relation to any human activity over the past 100 or so years...more humans, more ________ .

Correlation isn't the same as proof. It all depends on how the correlations are calculated and presented.

Don't get me wrong...I'm a big fan of the debate. The more people concerned about being green, the more green I get from selling my products...while ironically, doing more for the environment than your average placared waver who drives a crappy old car instead of an efficient new one, or drives alone to work instead of car pooling...or going public transit, or heats their home more than 18c, or uses air conditioning.

There's only one way real change will happen. Instead of punishing people, give them economical options, like I do. Something they can afford and fit into their lifestyle. Something realistic. I get people to use a bike sometimes instead of driving always...how many of the loudest voices can claim to do as much?

Real solutions for a real world.

Lead by example...I'm doing something...are you?
What the...?
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 3:28 am

Quoting fiscal (Reply 163):
I personally know three real scientists and they all say it is croc, and they all work for government agencies and confirm that none of their colleagues believe it either.

Oh I see. Have they published anywhere their misgivings? Can you provide a link? I personally know hundreds, literally, who say it's real. I am one of them. And I can provide you with as many links as you want.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 164):
And the above is yet another reason why climate scientists are rewarded with the same respect as politicians these days - most people's first instinct is to assume they are lying.

Where? In your neck of the woods, maybe.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 164):
If you had bothered to look at the link, you'd notice it wasn't a YouTube video at all, but rather just a simple picture file
Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 164):
Here's another example

I already acknowledged that you can find blogs defending your point of view. But I asked for one, just one, scientific report which does. And please don't tell me that of course all climate scientists will agree because of funding blah blah blah. I'm a scientist myself, and I can tell you that there's nothing an average scientist will love more than proving a colleague is wrong. It's called vanity, and this is why the peer-review process works. Yet, nobody has been able to prove that the science behing global warming is wrong, as much as it has been tried.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 164):
Sorry.

Yes, you should be.

[Edited 2011-12-23 19:29:25]
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3346
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 3:49 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 130):

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 124):
Quoting UALWN (Reply 98):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 96):
But just ask Spain how their "green" economy experiment fared.

Uh? I happen to live in Spain. What are you talking about? What "green" economy experiment?
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment...green-jobs-cannibalize-other-jobs/

Let's just add the finishing paragraphs from that link
"Conservative bloggers have seized on the study to show that Obama’s green energy push will cost the U.S. some 6 million jobs — although others have injected a note of skepticism.

The Wall Street Journal, for example, notes on its Environmental Capital blog that the study is fuzzy on exactly which jobs were destroyed in Spain and suggests that Calzada, as the founder of a libertarian think tank, might not be completely objective."

Yes, it's called good journalism: write your story, but also present the other side of the issue. That is one criticism levied at the study, but it hardly invalidates their work. In any case, there are dozens upon dozens of stories and articles on Spain's failed investments in Green technology, this was just one example since he wasn't even familiar with the subject to which I was referring.

Quoting cmf (Reply 130):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 124):
Quoting cmf (Reply 97):
Or does it not apply in that direction?

If you want to use sound logic, no. To arrive at a conclusion soundly based in logic and reason, one is never called upon to prove a negative. If you have a claim/hypothesis/inference, you are called upon to prove that claim, to prove a positive. Another example would be the fact that it's illogical to claim the existence of God by simply stating that one can't prove that God doesn't exist.

I'm just applying the same criteria you required for reducing CO2 to those that produce it. The selective application is noted. What is the criteria for which set of rules is applied?

No, it is the climate-change crowd making the claim that the aviation industry "destroys" and that they should pay for what they "destroy"....so prove it. Because you cannot prove that the person sitting in seat 27G on BA279 to LHR is contributing to climate change and destroying regions of the world, by what right can you demand that they "pay" for it?

Quoting cmf (Reply 130):

So after Brian Simpson has spoken no other people matter?

Because he's one of the handful of people who designed ETS I'd certainly say that what he says carries a lot of weight!

Quoting UALWN (Reply 131):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 124):
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment...green-jobs-cannibalize-other-jobs/

And? The report doesn't prove at all that jobs created in the renovable energies cannibalize any other jobs.

Does it definitively prove that? No. But the report discussed in this article is just one example of many concerning statistics of Spain's Green Economy investments which have failed miserably.

Quoting CaptainCrackers (Reply 140):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 124):
ETS simply artificially rewards and encourages an airline business model that creates further emissions, i.e. EK, EY, QR...etc are all going to benefit from ETS by being able to lure more eastbound pax ex-Europe using price to take an itinerary involving a connection with two flights and thousands of miles out of the way versus a direct flight with fewer emissions.

LH's expected ETS costs were quoted above as being €130 million. The LH group combined transports around 80 million passengers. Nobody is going to choose any of those carriers over LH for an average saving of €1.62 per ticket, especially not if that means an extra stop in DXB or wherever.

With progressively stricter emissions allotments, that number will go up and airlines like EK only stand to benefit, even from a marginal increase in fares on European carriers.

Quoting cmf (Reply 142):
Quoting kellmark (Reply 137):
and is human caused

There is that focus on human caused again. Still no explanation why we should let it be just because it isn't human caused. It is not as that has ever stopped otherwise.

It's an important distinction because all this climate-change hysteria hinges on the idea that it's humans who cause it, thereby implying and giving them the argument that it's possible to reverse it which is the foundation upon which all these policies like ETS stand on. If it was propagated that global warming was simply a natural phenomenon, people would be no more concerned about it than tsunamis or tides.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 156):
Quoting mham001 (Reply 155):
That is an insulting statement.

Maybe, but it is also true.

It's also remarkably unprofessional if you are indeed a scientist like you say. There are a great deal of very credible climatologist and scientists that don't agree with you or your compatriots' narrative about global warming and that doesn't make them insane.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
But this is not the reality of things.

Only because it is a "reality" that you're imposing! ETS is not a natural market phenomenon or natural symptom of market activity.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
Curious that airlines and airports don't know this yet and invariably project 4-5% annual growth until 2022.

Yeah in the current regulatory environment. Does that account for ETS or any other future taxes or regulations that could be levied in the future? Domestic flying in the UK certainly isn't projected to increase since it's been taxed to death by APD.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
No, the difference is that you think global warming is an opinion. It's fact.

Stop projecting what you think I believe on me, I simply don't believe it's 'settled science', I'm not prepared to commit economic harikiri at it's alter, and that does not render it a minority 'kook' perspective.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
Capitalism, per definition, cannot function without government regulation to a certain degree

History has, many times over, proven you wrong.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
First of all, you don't ''deserve'' the money that you ''earn''.

Glad you at least admit it while others try to shuffle around and hide it.

Quoting something (Reply 157):

Paradoxically, captialisms biggest enemy is capitalism itself. Not the government.

"The Capitalist will sell us the rope with which we will hang him"---I guess you're not alone in your opinion
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 4:19 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 171):
In any case, there are dozens upon dozens of stories and articles on Spain's failed investments in Green technology
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 171):
But the report discussed in this article is just one example of many concerning statistics of Spain's Green Economy investments which have failed miserably.

Really? As I said, I live in Spain and a) I have never heard of any Spanish Green Economy revolution or whatever you called it, and b) I have never heard of any miserable fail of it .Spain is a world leader in energy production from wind, and all parties here, left and right, consider this a great success. Among other things, it makes Spain less dependent on Middle East oil. Spain also tried to promote home solar energy with misguided incentives, and that is now considered a mistake, both by left- and right-parties. That's all. I bet people with all sort of interests may try to spin these two facts in any way they decide, but there's really not more to it than what I wrote.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 171):
There are a great deal of very credible climatologist and scientists that don't agree with you or your compatriots' narrative about global warming and that doesn't make them insane.

Really? Please, post a link with a scientific report that concludes that global warming isn't real. The truth is that at the end of 2011 there is nowhere in the world where there is any doubt that global warning is real, is mostly man made and is potentially dangerous. This is accepted by policy makers in Europe, the US, China, Australia, Brazil or wherever. Where there is a lot of discussion is about what policies should be applied, or to be more precise, who should wear the burden of doing something about it? The rich world only? What about China and India? These things are in discussion, the reality of global warning is not. Sorry to burst your bubble.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
AsianDude
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:47 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 4:25 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 171):
There are a great deal of very credible climatologist and scientists that don't agree with you or your compatriots' narrative about global warming and that doesn't make them insane.

Really? Link please.

Quoting fiscal (Reply 163):
I personally know three real scientists and they all say it is croc, and they all work for government agencies and confirm that none of their colleagues believe it either.

Really? What are their names? What is their career position and who are their employers?

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 164):
But I suppose rather than actually debate the facts, you, like many (though by no means all - many are legitimate scientists) other climate scientists would rather try to bully your skeptics and discredit them.

You haven't provided any facts, just empty assertions, opinions, and "doubts" when others have given you links because you don't believe in science.


Now, as to the topic at hand I've found it's a waste of time to pay much attention to the world is really flat...... errrrr....... I mean, global warming is really fiction crowd, even though they are equally specious in their arguments. That said, if you have more patience than I, here is a great website debunking every one of the skeptic's nonsense they tout: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics


Additionally, if US airlines don't want to pay the pollution taxes they emit, then they can frack off and not fly to Europe. Pretty simple really. After all, the US government did the same to every other country's airlines by dictating what they must do regarding security, and handing over private information (regardless of that country's privacy laws) post 9/11. European airlines acquiesced, and did as the US govt demanded of them. Guess what US airlines? The shoe is now on the other foot. Don't like it? Too bad.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 4:31 am

Quoting something (Reply 157):
First of all, you don't ''deserve'' the money that you ''earn''.

What one deserves is completely irrelevant. What you get is what matters, there is no distinction. And what I get is mine to do with what I please.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
Exploiting nations who are too poor to raise their voice/concerns.

Sucks to be them, doesn't it?

Quoting something (Reply 157):
The way you wish to conduct your life will always be at your own discretion.

...just maybe not as much. And that would be a huge problem. People need to take restrictions on personal freedom and excessive government encroachment very seriously.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
Fuel is sold for way too cheap in most nations.

In your opinion. Luckily, your opinion does not count. The market rules, and that is the way it should be.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
The ETS is just a very feeble attempt at making you pay the price the product you're acquiring should actually cost, taken every factor of regular price formation into account (this is macroeconomics first semester by the way).

Of course the Europeans are just kind of making this up as they go along and adding an adjustment here and an adjustment there. Eventually someone will realize that regulation is not free.

In the meantime, I will have zero patience for European nations bitching about how Emirates, Etihad, et. al. are wiping the floor with their flag carriers. You create a high cost, high regulation environment, that is what you will get. Enjoy the atmosphere.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
At the same time, a CEO of a company is not supposed to make 1000 times as much as his employees.

According to who? You get what you can negotiate, and if some CEO can make some serious bank good for him.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
It's all in the best interest of ''unregulated capitalism'' so tell these stupid regulators to shut up already.

There is a line on everything, but I think ETS crosses it. But if Europeans want to make their products more expensive and possibly regulate themselves out of relevance, that's their problem. Really the worst part of ETS is that it is another step down a slippery slope.

Quoting something (Reply 157):
No, the difference is that you think global warming is an opinion.

Real or not I don't care enough to voluntarily go out of my way or pay extra for things because of it.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
AsianDude
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:47 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:04 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 174):
And what I get is mine to do with what I please.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not the one in fact who has posted on a number of occasions that you don't want US defense spending cut because it might affect you in the future as an 18'ish year old guy? You've been in favor of slashing spending in virtually every other aspect of government operations, except for military, because of your career. Have I mixed you up with someone else, or do I need to find the quote / cite for you? (Sorry in advance if in fact I have confused you with another poster, but do not think that I have.)
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3346
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:13 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 172):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 171):
In any case, there are dozens upon dozens of stories and articles on Spain's failed investments in Green technology
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 171):
But the report discussed in this article is just one example of many concerning statistics of Spain's Green Economy investments which have failed miserably.

Really?

Really

Quoting UALWN (Reply 172):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 171):
There are a great deal of very credible climatologist and scientists that don't agree with you or your compatriots' narrative about global warming and that doesn't make them insane.

Really?

Really.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...7b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d9&CFID=109530153&CFTOKEN=55319639

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-t...ant-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tific_assessment_of_global_warming

Letters of protest written by members of the American Chemical Society protesting ACS's official position regarding global warming: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.html

Open letter to the United States Congress: http://www.co2science.org/education/...thAboutClimateChangeOpenLetter.php

Open letter to the council of the American Physical Society by 160 physicists who disagree with the APS official statement on climate change: http://climatephysics.org/open-lette...-of-the-american-physical-society/

Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations from 100 prominent scientists: http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2007/071217sci_ltr_to_un.html

60 German scientists publicly declare their dissent of man made global warming fears: http://www.speroforum.com/a/20054/Ge...ists-reject-manmade-global-warming

60 scientists write to the Canadian Prime Minister: http://gwd.wikispaces.com/60+Scientists

Another letter to the Canadian Prime Minister: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/openletter.htm

206 scientists sign the Manhattan Declaration: http://climatescienceinternational.o..._content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54

The revised Leipzig Declaration: http://ww.nrwa.org/benefits/whitepap...pzig%20Declaration%20-%20Final.pdf

Letter to the EPA: http://sppiblog.org/news/many-leadin...ntists-tell-the-epa-to-think-again
166 scientists challenge climate science: http://sppiblog.org/news/many-leading-sc…

115 scientist challenge President Obama on his climate views: http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternate_version.html

Skeptical scientists in New Zealand: http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...t&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45
 
AsianDude
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:47 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:22 am

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 176):
Really

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tific_assessment_of_global_warming

LMAO! And yet you quote a source that states, and I quote; "97–98% of the most published climate researchers state humans are causing global warming. Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring."

Apparently, you're not reading the links you're posting my friend, but rather just Googling a phrase that supports your preconceived ideas and just cut-n-pasting them. Please read the cites for once.

It's hard for me, as well as others to be interested in reading your cites / links when we see such duplicity as the above. If you cannot get a stronger position, I urge you to rethink your preconceived notions. I've had the same conversation with various cultists who get angry when their specious reasoning and circular reasoning are called into question, ala JWs, 7th Dayers, and Mormons.

[Edited 2011-12-23 21:25:27]
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:25 am

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 175):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not the one in fact who has posted on a number of occasions that you don't want US defense spending cut because it might affect you in the future as an 18'ish year old guy?

Yep. Why on earth would I favor government policies that could be hurtful to me?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:29 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 170):
I already acknowledged that you can find blogs defending your point of view. But I asked for one, just one, scientific report which does. And please don't tell me that of course all climate scientists will agree because of funding blah blah blah. I'm a scientist myself, and I can tell you that there's nothing an average scientist will love more than proving a colleague is wrong. It's called vanity, and this is why the peer-review process works. Yet, nobody has been able to prove that the science behing global warming is wrong, as much as it has been tried.

Ha, you mean the peer review process that the IPCC team tried to control and shape to their ends by dispatching with unfriendly editors and controlling who the peer editors were? Again, this is now all public record following the 2nd round of Climategate emails.

http://newzealandclimatechange.wordp...e-2-and-corruption-of-peer-review/
Example (follow the link as there are countless examples but this is just one that was sent out among members of the IPCC team):

"Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied to refereeing and editing {nothing we disagree with goes into the journal}. Whether that is done publicly or privately may not matter so much, as long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the journals, but that might leave them even freer to promulgate misinformation. To my mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors."

(c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of being embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for Science or Nature. Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue editors”, in line with current international practice? Or is that defamatory?"

Let me ask you: do you condone the above actions? Does this sound to you like people who are interested in skeptical parties or opposing viewpoints from other scientists? Would any objective person think it was? And like I said, if you follow the link, it reveals endless conversation to this effect. The IPCC group tried to control the peer review process by having editors fired and by ensuring the "right" people were involved in the peer review. This is why it is many people's instinct to now assume the leading IPCC scientists are lying whenever they say anything until something is proven independently. Their lack of ethics is extremely troubling and when their solution to a potentially non-existent problem involves spending public monies in the trillions of dollars, they are lucky not to find themselves in orange jumpsuits.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 170):

Yes, you should be.

I'm not in the slightest. It is you who has defended the characters who took the actions above - i think they are deplorable.

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 173):
You haven't provided any facts, just empty assertions, opinions, and "doubts" when others have given you links because you don't believe in science.


Now, as to the topic at hand I've found it's a waste of time to pay much attention to the world is really flat...... errrrr....... I mean, global warming is really fiction crowd, even though they are equally specious in their arguments. That said, if you have more patience than I, here is a great website debunking every one of the skeptic's nonsense they tout: http://www.grist.org/article/series/...ptics

Global warming isn't fiction. I've already said as such. Global temperatures have increased in general in recent years. This is DEMONSTRATABLY true, based on collecting data from the weather stations located throughout the globe.

However, what IS in dispute is the relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures. Lots of things have increased as temperatures have - i have provided the ridiculous example of a close relationship between pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia and global temperatures in recent decades. Just because two things move in the same direction doesn't mean they have anything to do with one another. Likewise, why have temperatures flat-lined in the recent decade even as CO2 emissions from China, India, Brazil and other developing countries have exploded multiple fold. Why have all the warnings of increased hurricane activity as a result of climate change not come to pass in recent years?

Of course, rather than answering these questions, I see that you too have taken "the skeptics don't believe in gravity" approach because you have no argument to stand on. I believe in gravity because it is PROVABLE science that can be replicated over and over using scientific methods. The same cannot be said for the relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures. The onus is NOT on the skeptics to prove a relationship doesn't exist - the onus is on the individuals making the argument that they are related. Those individuals have completely FAILED to show this relationship outside of truncating and replacing data sets entirely in order to make the data comport to the theory, because there is NO SINGLE DATA SET that shows the theory to be true thus far. Hence "hide the decline" and other such nonsense. Every time I debate with the alarmists, the gist of their argument always seem to fall into one of four categories:

A) insist the skeptics are just stupid and uninformed (yet it appears only we are aware of the complete breakdown of the peer review process for example, or the failure of the paleo-climatic records to reflect actual temperatures post 1960)
B) insist the skeptics don't believe in science in general (and yet as a social scientist with a PhD in Economics, I conduct experiments all the time and am wise enough to recognize the difference between actual, replicable scientific experiments and the utter cr*p that the IPCC team has tried to pass off as "science" thus far)
C) insist the skeptics are on the take from Big Oil or whomever (an ironic statement given that the IPCC team has a vested interest in "proving" their theory is correct, given that they have spent decades of their lives trying to prove it - imagine spending decades of your life on something that ultimately ended up being a complete waste of time - I suppose one could sympathize with them for pushing some ethical boundaries in order to prove something they've devoted countless hours too)
D) conflate the skeptics arguments about their skepticism regarding the relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures with an argument that the skeptics don't think the Earth is warming at all (in previous years I attributed this viewpoint by the alarmists to a simple misunderstanding of the skeptics viewpoints, but at this point, it has been repeated for so long that is obviously deliberate. Newsflash: the skeptics believe that the Earth has warmed. The skepticism arises from the yet completely unproven relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures). Stop conflating the two arguments. Stop lying and insisting that the skeptics are denying that the Earth is warming. They aren't.

Climategate really changed the terms of the debate and it's clear that the alarmists are still unaware of how much the ground has shifted under their feet. Canada just pulled out of Kyoto and the recent Durban conference was a laughingstock. I'm content to cease debating my points here because I can see that the alarmists have simply resorted to calling names, as is their usual strategy. But now that the Climategate emails have leaked, that strategy doesn't work anymore. Like I said, I'd be willing to bet that in about 10-15 years we won't be discussing the relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures to any meaningful extent (if there is a relationship, it appears to be trivial and something that will naturally be solved through energy efficiencies and technology rather than government bureaucrats).
 
flyguy89
Posts: 3346
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:32 am

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 177):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 176):
Really

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tific_assessment_of_global_warming

LMAO! And yet you quote a source that states, and I quote; "97–98% of the most published climate researchers state humans are causing global warming. Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring."

Wow, congratulations. Did you read any of the other 16 links I posted? You asked for links to scientists skeptical of global warming, I found several...and quite easily I might add.
 
AsianDude
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:47 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:35 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 178):
Yep. Why on earth would I favor government policies that could be hurtful to me?

And therein lies my point. You are only concerned with yourself, and your immediate future, and have an admitted bias to dismiss any science or proof that would show you to be hurting the Earth, as well as other humans. When even the mildest suggestion is proffered that wants to cut the military budget, you are staunchly opposed, while at the very same time, demanding cuts to welfare programs because after all "they don't benefit you at all". Why is it while you readily dismiss other's welfare needs, you expect and demand your own welfare? Let's be honest, you're just being selfish. What you keep missing regarding climate change is that many of us are ACTUAL conservatives in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt, and wanting to be good stewards of the Earth / US. We are trying to be conservative with the resources we use just to get by every day. We want to conserve our resources so that our children, and our children's children, and even their children, have a United States rich in natural resources vs. one raped of its natural goods.

My point is, that when you only think of yourself and being short-sighted, you likely could be in slavery right now if your ancestors refused to stand up against slavery and indentured servitude in the US a few generations ago. What YOU do today does matter my friend. Throwing any caution to the wind is all too easy, and what many did while watching the Civil War break out, the "Final Solution" was imposed, and the weapons of mass destruction preachers on message boards sent many US soldiers to their death under false pretenses. Tomato / tomatoe, my friend.
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:46 am

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 181):
And therein lies my point. You are only concerned with yourself, and your immediate future, and have an admitted bias to dismiss any science or proof that would show you to be hurting the Earth, as well as other humans. When even the mildest suggestion is proffered that wants to cut the military budget, you are staunchly opposed, while at the very same time, demanding cuts to welfare programs because after all "they don't benefit you at all". Why is it while you readily dismiss other's welfare needs, you expect and demand your own welfare? Let's be honest, you're just being selfish. What you keep missing regarding climate change is that many of us are ACTUAL conservatives in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt, and wanting to be good stewards of the Earth / US. We are trying to be conservative with the resources we use just to get by every day. We want to conserve our resources so that our children, and our children's children, and even their children, have a United States rich in natural resources vs. one raped of its natural goods.


I consider myself a conservationist. I recycle, take public transit whenever possible, drive one of the most fuel efficient cars available today, am a strong supporter of the US National Park system, etc. However, I also don't believe in pseudo-bull***t science. I a conservationist, but not an environmentalist. Conservationists believes in conserving our natural resources to the best extent possible and leaving as little impact as possible on our environment so that our children and grandchildren can enjoy the environment in their time. However, conservationists also believe in human civilization and progress and the necessity that energy plays in that civilization and our ability to better our futures.

On the contrary, environmentalists consider themselves largely secular, but are often highly religious. They just worship a different God - Gaia - and their environmentalism is a substitute for (what they perceive to be) their lack of faith (which is in fact just a different faith).

[Edited 2011-12-23 21:47:36]
 
AsianDude
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:47 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:54 am

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 182):
On the contrary, environmentalists consider themselves largely secular, but are often highly religious. They just worship a different God - Gaia - and their environmentalism is a substitute for (what they perceive to be) their lack of faith (which is in fact just a different faith).

So how large is the "Gaia" religion contingent? I Googled some facts / numbers and found nothing towards what you are stating.

What's the difference between these so-called "Gaiaists" and "Christians" who believe God / YHWH / Iaehovah is their true "God", and their treatment of the environment? I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Sorry.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:56 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 167):

No...what it means is put up or shut up. If you don't do anything, don't expect anyone to listen to you on the subject. It makes your case even less credible if you specifically do what you deride in others.

As it turns out, I actually am doing something constructive about it, puting up my own money and without a single bit of government help and unlike Kyoto and Durban, actually making a difference.

In case you think I'm part of some evil empire, my empire consists of exactly 2 people.

Another example of private industry leading while governments tax and talk.
What the...?
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:01 am

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 181):
You are only concerned with yourself, and your immediate future,

Who isn't? Of course, if more people were concerned with themselves and their wellbeing, a lot of problems would take care of themselves.

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 181):
and have an admitted bias to dismiss any science or proof that would show you to be hurting the Earth,

I don't dismiss it nearly as much as I just don't care. But if someone wants to pay me to build or fix electric cars, I'm not going to turn it down.

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 181):
Why is it while you readily dismiss other's welfare needs, you expect and demand your own welfare?

Why would I not? People should be protective of their interests.

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 181):
and wanting to be good stewards of the Earth / US.

I'd love a nice, freshwater stream running through a quaint little forest near my home. But not nearly as much as I'd love to have a sports car and a private jet someday.

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 181):
We want to conserve our resources so that our children, and our children's children, and even their children, have a United States rich in natural resources vs. one raped of its natural goods.

What good does oil in the ground do anybody? Hoarding natural resources seems just stupid. Get out there and use them.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
AsianDude
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:47 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:41 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 185):
What good does oil in the ground do anybody? Hoarding natural resources seems just stupid. Get out there and use them.

I applaud you actually. At least you're honest enough to just flat out admit, you don't give a frack about anyone else at any point, just so long as you get some immediate benefit. Let's be real, many humans feel the same way, if not most, but try to hide behind PC phases and sentiments to make themselves either feel better about themselves or appear better than they are to others. You on the other hand, openly admit you don't give a frack. Good for you! At least we know where you stand and any scientific refutations you may proffer are nothing more than justifications for your self-indulgence. I just wished more people were so openly honest with others so as to expose their true intentions, and thus bring their cognitive dissonance to the fore. Thank you for admitting your self-indulgence.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:26 am

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 186):
Let's be real, many humans feel the same way, if not most, but try to hide behind PC phases and sentiments to make themselves either feel better about themselves or appear better than they are to others.

Exactly. And people are going to go online, see Emirates being $20 cheaper and book that.

Quoting AsianDude (Reply 186):
At least we know where you stand and any scientific refutations you may proffer are nothing more than justifications for your self-indulgence.

It's nice when my interests align with what others might consider "the common good" or whatever the popular term for it is these days. But when it doesn't I don't lose any sleep over it. What I lose sleep over is worrying about how I can become successful and how old I'll be when I buy my first Porsche.

And to my eyes, the Grand Canyon looks an awful lot like the world's biggest open pit mine.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:54 am

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 179):
Ha, you mean the peer review process that the IPCC team tried to control and shape to their ends by dispatching with unfriendly editors and controlling who the peer editors were?

I don't know what you're talking about. I mean the peer-review process that tales place when any scientist send a paper for publication in a journal. It is scrutinized by 2-3 other scientists who try the hardest to find issues with the scenc ein the paper. Only it they don't manage to find any the paper is published.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 179):
do you condone the above actions?

Which actions? You are again quoting some blogs here and there. I can easily provide you with a list of 10 web pages that "prove" that 9/11 never happened, another 10 that "prove" that it did happen and it was all orquestrated by the US government, another 10 that "prove" that the Apollo 11 landing was a hoax, another 10 that "prove" that aliens control the US government. So what? Bring me a report from an scholarly panel that proves there was any misconduct.

But, beyond this, do you think Germany, France, Japan, Australia, UK, USA, Canada, China, etc, just trust blindly what "30 scientists" tell them? No way. In the last few years every large country has put together a team of local scientists to report on the matter. Guess what? They all agree with the IPCC findings.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 179):
there is NO SINGLE DATA SET that shows the theory to be true thus far

This is patently false, and by now you know it, because I have posted 3 or 4 links with data sets that do.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 179):
as a social scientist with a PhD in Economics, I conduct experiments all the time and am wise enough to recognize the difference between actual, replicable scientific experiments and the utter cr*p that the IPCC team has tried to pass off as "science" thus far

Why do you resort to insults (crap?)? Why don't you post a single scientific report that disagrees with the IPCC findings?

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 179):
Climategate really changed the terms of the debate

Climategate only exists in the minds of the same people who brought you the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The same people who do not believe in evolution (as if evolution was a matter of believe). I have posted links to reports made exclusively to check, and prove or disprove, the claims of the IPCC. They all prove them.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 179):
Canada just pulled out of Kyoto

Why? Because they do not believe in climate change or because they don't like that China gets away with producing more and more CO2?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 176):
Really.

Instead of posting news articles, typically from 2007 or 2008, why don't you post a scientific report that concludes that global warning is a hoax? I can easily find you 100 people with PhDs who believe that the world was created 6000 years ago. But I can't find you any scientific report that supports their view. And, by the way, I just clicked on one of your links at random, and the first "scientist" I found is "E. Calvin Beisner, PhD, founder and national spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, serves on the pastoral staff of Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church, Broward County, Florida, U.S.A." Give me a break.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:49 pm

Coming back to the original topic, it appears that opposition to the extraterritorial nature of ETS is spreading amongst Asian governments, with China saying it could precipitate a trade war (including overflight fees), India reportedly instructing its airlines not to pay. The U.S. Congress has already passed legislation directing U.S. carriers not to pay.

Expect to see much more reaction after Christmas - not to the notion of ETS, which everyone acknowledges the EU is entitled to impose within its own jurisdiction, but to the fact that the EU is purporting to regulate/tax economic activity through out the world if even a tiny portion of that activity occurs in EU airspace.

Take a NZ flight from LHR-AKL. Less than 3% of the flight is in EU airspace, but the EU is purporting to regulate/tax the entire flight, including parts that occur within the airspace of Canada, the U.S., various Pacific island countries, New Zealand, and in international airspace. The EU and European countries object loudly (and quite rightly, in my opinion) to U.S. laws that purport to apply outside the U.S., but are quite hypocritically doing the same thing.

Ironically, the countries and the pax most affected will be those from emerging/developing countries who cannot afford the most recent efficient aircraft. The biggest winners will be those airlines with hubs outside the EU whose flights to and from their hubs will be taxed far less than EU and other carriers who fly directly into Europe - EK must be laughing all the way to the bank.

My international tax law colleagues believe that this will play out at the level of trade and tax treaties between the EU, European countries and the rest of the world.

The EU scheme provides that the proceeds from the sale of permits will not be retained by the EU, but paid to the government of the country in which the airline is based. So money paid by AA, UA, DL for permits will be remitted to the U.S. government, money paid by AC will be remitted to Canada, etc. Effectively, the EU is purporting to regulate/tax other counties' airlines for the benefit of their respective governments.

[Edited 2011-12-24 04:52:24]
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
IntruderPC
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:08 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:17 pm

What I seem to see in this decision by the EU and the countries/airlines oppossed to this is some very basic hypocrisy. The EU says they are only trying to protect and clean up their environment, while the countries/airlines oppossed say the sanctions are unlawful and discriminatory. All of the governments and airlines involved also say in some form that they are committed to a greener planet (except those totally immersed in fossil fuels - OPEC, etc.) by the reduction of emmissions from said fossil fuels. They spend billions of Euros/Dollars, whatever their currency is to file lawsuits and enact restrictive/manipulative regulations, when this money should be/could be put to better use building better/greener engines and aircraft. Also use the money to clean up their own skies instead of penalizing other countries/airlines/associations to pay for the polluted skies. This seems to be more of the bureaucracy perpetuating the bureaucracy. it would appear to me that finger pointing and retaliation have gone to the ridiculous extreme in governments and agencies who profess to only have the peoples best interests at heart!!!! HAH!
A-6's and Navy Air forever!!!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10640
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:18 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 189):
Effectively, the EU is purporting to regulate/tax other counties' airlines for the benefit of their respective governments.

To make a snippy comment, they were the largest and most succesfull colonial powers this world has ever seen, so par for the course I guess.
My real question would be what percentage of the take would they be sharing, the EU is not just going to give away what they collect especially since they have no guarantee that the funds will be spent on creating their clean environment, heck, the funds could be used to build more plants that pollute, is that not the failing of Kyoto, so maybe the EU has found a way to force other nations to comply, time will tell.
The APD is taking hold in the Caribbean and rather than countries in the Southern Caribbean looking to other markets without APD, they went on their knees to the UK and got snubbed, now some are trying to see if they can convince their customers to travel to the region via the US which falls in a lower band. The strange thing about this, the Caribbean does not have any local carriers plying to the UK, yet their rate is higher than the US, so how is the Caribbean going to influence foreign airlines who facilitate traffic to the region?
Pay to the carrier as an incentive to offer service, pay to the EU for ETS trading, pay to teh pax to offset their APD cost, I guess the cost of a Caribbean vacation is going to go up.
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:26 pm

Quoting UALWN (Reply 188):
Which actions? You are again quoting some blogs here and there. I can easily provide you with a list of 10 web pages that "prove" that 9/11 never happened, another 10 that "prove" that it did happen and it was all orquestrated by the US government, another 10 that "prove" that the Apollo 11 landing was a hoax, another 10 that "prove" that aliens control the US government. So what? Bring me a report from an scholarly panel that proves there was any misconduct.

I can see I'm wasting my time here and will cease commenting after this, because the winds of the debate are at my back anyway.

I wasn't just posting comments from some random blog - the comments appeared on a blog, but are DIRECT EMAIL QUOTES from the IPCC group themselves and revealed through the Climategate emails. They demonstrate clear collusion between the leading IPCC scientists doing exactly what I've been saying for several comments now - attempting to stack the peer review process with people already sympathetic to their cause and attempting to get editors fired for having the audacity to print anything in the scientific literature which might be damaging to the "consensus". That is not science - it is intellectual thuggery, and like I said, the actors involved should consider themselves lucky they don't find themselves in orange jumpsuits. Here is the IPCC group trying to get another critical scientist fired because he wasn't following the party line.

Quoting directly from the Climategate emails ():
"We write to you as the editorial board of the leading international journal Climate Research for climate scientists

We are very concerned at the poor standards and personal biases shown by a member of your staff. …..

When we originally appointed … to the editorial board we were under the impression that they would carry out their duties in an objective manner as is expected of scientists world wide. We were also given to understand that this person has been honoured with science communicator of the year award, several times by your … organisation.

Instead we have discovered that this person has been using his position to promote ‘fringe’ views of various groups with which they are associated around the world. It perhaps would have been less disturbing if the ‘science’ that was being passed through the system was sound. However, a recent incident has alerted us to the fact that poorly constructed and uncritical work has been allowed to enter the pages of the journal. A recent example has caused outrage amongst leading climate scientists around the world and has resulted in the journal dismissing from the editorial board.

We bring this to your attention since we consider it brings the name of your university and New Zealand into some disrepute. We leave it to your discretion what use you make of this information.

The journal itself cannot be considered completely blameless in this situation and we clearly need to tighten some of our editorial processes; however, up until now we have relied on the honour and professionalism of our editors. Sadly this incident has damaged our faith in some of our fellow scientists. Regrettably it will reflect on your institution as this person is a relatively senior staff member."




Here's how the IPCC group responded to Freedom of Information requests for their data sources:

Quoting directly from the Climategate emails ():
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

What kind of "scientist" attempts to delete emails and refuses to publicize the data used for their experiments in responses to repeated requests to show their data source?

Here are more quotes from the emails:

Quoting directly from the Climategate emails ():
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.


Is this science or a political strategy session?

Quoting directly from the Climategate emails ():
“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.


Is this supposed to be science, or just "the cause"? Judith Curry was a big IPCC proponent initially, but in light of the Climategate emails, now considers herself on the fence, leaning towards skeptic and writes her own climate related blog ("Climate, Etc,":
http://judithcurry.com/

Quoting directly from the Climategate emails ():
“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.


Is it ethical to try to have an opposing scientist "investigated and exposed"? Apparently the IPCC group thought so. Again, these are not editorial comments from a random blog criticizing the IPCC group. These are DIRECT email exchanges, quoted word for word, between members of the IPCC group to one another, that were revealed in the 2nd batch of Climategate emails earlier this year.

There are still lots more of these types of emails. It is clearly a group that expected all members to toe the party line, and tried to destroy the reputations of anyone who didn't. Is it any wonder why there was "consensus" among the group? The most fascinating part of Climategate was not the pseudo-science behind their theory, but the pervasive group think and tribalism that was going on behind the scenes. The only real science going on was accidental - and more in the realm of psychology. It's fascinating what this group of 30 or so IPCC leading "scientists" were willing to do to their colleagues and enemies in order to ensure the "consensus" was maintained. It's a real fascinating expose on groupthink mentality.

And now it's been exposed to the world, along with the whole charade with it. Like I said, the consensus was always fictional, and actual science is being conducted now - much of it interesting. Some suggests a relationship between CO2 emissions and climate, some of it doesn't. But the CERN study showing the relationship between cloud formation, aerosols and climate is something that would have NEVER gone forward in an atmosphere like the one I quoted above. Free of this Orwellian groupthink, real genuine scientists can actually start exploring the relationship between human activity and climate.

But since you are unable to decipher the difference between "a blog" and actual email quotes coming directly from the IPCC group that happen to be cited by a blog, then I'm clearly wasting my time here. I'll let any objective person with no dog in this fight, see that it is you who continues to defend the cast of characters quoted above. Perhaps some have been colleagues of yours, in which case, it's obvious why you would defend their indefensible actions. Anyways, I've made my point. If you think the leading IPCC scientists have done nothing wrong and that Climategate is just some conspiracy theory invented by the same kind of people who believe in 9/11 Truther conspiracies, then it's clear that debating with you is a waste of time. Like I said, the ground has shifted under your feet and you just haven't realized it yet. Canada just pulled out of Kyoto, the Durban conference was a complete laughingstock, and the IPCC group has never been held in lower regard. The Climategate email leaker has hinted that there are thousands of additional damaging emails that will be released at a time and place of his choosing.

I personally can't wait. Pass the popcorn.

[Edited 2011-12-24 09:27:53]

[Edited 2011-12-24 09:32:14]
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:01 pm

Very strange way of debating.
Quote e-mails when the other side provide scientific proofs...
Give dramatic names ( climategate, f.i. ) to something which was in fact a maneuver by the pro-CO2 group to discredit the scientist publishing on global warming.
Yes, that's a tactic used in some countries ( defame and lie, something, generally the smelliest bit, will stick )... and that's right in the domain of "fair and true journalism".
From this part of the world, that's nothing less than brainwashing, in the same basket as the WMD, Al Qaida in Iraq ... etc...
Funny how the same people can be found behind these spins,
and how sad the majority buys them.
What can we say when creationism is for them a science ?
By the way, what is science because I haven't found it in the posts of those who oppose ETS ?

[Edited 2011-12-24 10:03:05]
Contrail designer
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:20 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 193):
Very strange way of debating.
Quote e-mails when the other side provide scientific proofs...
Give dramatic names ( climategate, f.i. ) to something which was in fact a maneuver by the pro-CO2 group to discredit the scientist publishing on global warming.
Yes, that's a tactic used in some countries ( defame and lie, something, generally the smelliest bit, will stick )... and that's right in the domain of "fair and true journalism".
From this part of the world, that's nothing less than brainwashing, in the same basket as the WMD, Al Qaida in Iraq ... etc...
Funny how the same people can be found behind these spins,
and how sad the majority buys them.
What can we say when creationism is for them a science ?
By the way, what is science because I haven't found it in the posts of those who oppose ETS ?

So let me get this straight. In response to obvious evidence that the consensus was manufactured by the IPCC group through threats, reprisals and intimidation, rather than a genuine consensus brought together through collaborative scientific process and methods,you've decided to claim I've "defamed" them by...quoting their words accurately, that I've "lied" about them....by quoting their words accurately, and that I believe in creationism (even though I'm an atheist).

But to top it all off, you have the audacity to compare the skeptics to the people pushing for war in Iraq through fear and doom and gloom. Are you completely oblivious to the fact that it has been the climate alarmists at the IPCC group who have assured us "WE"RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!" unless we do exactly as they say? And yet you have the nerve to accuse not the alarmists who speak of worldwide carnage and destruction unless we listen to them and do as they say, but rather to accuse the skeptics who are pointing out that this is complete and utter nonsense, to the Iraq war instigators?

Talk about being completely oblivious to irony.      

Is it any wonder why the alarmists are losing the debate nowadays?

Now to the issue at hand, the ETS scheme has never been about solving the global warming issue. It has been a means of raising revenue for the respective European governments from foreign taxpayers, given that Europe is largely broke at this point. It will likely spark a trade war of some sort, which couldn't possibly come at a worse time.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:25 pm

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 192):
I can see I'm wasting my time here and will cease commenting after this, because the winds of the debate are at my back anyway.

Are they? Again, for the last time, point me to one scientific report that agrees with your views.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 192):
Is it ethical to try to have an opposing scientist "investigated and exposed"?

Isn't exactly this when you seem to be trying to do here??

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 192):
But since you are unable to decipher the difference between "a blog" and actual email quotes coming directly from the IPCC group that happen to be cited by a blog, then I'm clearly wasting my time here.

Please, post a link with the actual quotes from emails, after being reviewed by independent panels and certified as true. Otherwise, yes, it is just "blogs". Several committees have investigated what you call climagate, in the US, UK and Germany. None have found evidence of wrong-doing. If you believe otherwise, please post a link with the findings of such a committee that has found, as you wrete, that the IPCC are "frauds". Please, I'm waiting.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 192):
Perhaps some have been colleagues of yours, in which case, it's obvious why you would defend their indefensible actions.

I am a physicist, but I don't work on climate issues. Hence, I know exactly nobody on the IPCC. However, I do know half the scientists of the so-called Berkeley Earth Team, who were commissioned by lead climate skeptics (yes!) to have a fresh look into the problem. Alas, they confirmed the majority view (see http://berkeleyearth.org/findings/). Or see this article in The Economist, hardly a bastion of eco-socialism: http://www.economist.com/node/21533360 . Those researchers I know well are not climate scientists and not members of the IPCC, they are all American (as I am, by the way, although born in Andorra and living in Spain), and one of them, Saul Perlmutter, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2011. These people have done nothing "indefensible," except corroborating the results of those people you insult as "frauds."

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 192):
If you think the leading IPCC scientists have done nothing wrong and that Climategate is just some conspiracy theory invented by the same kind of people who believe in 9/11 Truther conspiracies, then it's clear that debating with you is a waste of time.

Again, post a link with the actual quotes from emails, after being reviewed by independent panels and certified as true. Otherwise, indeed, this is a waste of time.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 192):
Canada just pulled out of Kyoto, the Durban conference was a complete laughingstock,

I'll ask again, since you are pulling this out again: why did that happen? Because these people do not believe on climate change? Or because they do not agree on who should wear the burden of fixing the problem? I know the answer. I bet you do too, but you choose to ignore it.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 192):
The Climategate email leaker has hinted that there are thousands of additional damaging emails that will be released at a time and place of his choosing.

And I shouldn't be comparing these people to conspiracy theorists!
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 6:26 pm

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 194):
In response to obvious evidence that the consensus was manufactured by the IPCC group through threats, reprisals and intimidation

Post the evidence or, really, shut up.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
FreequentFlier
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:01 pm

Quoting WNUAL,reply=]Please, post a link with the actual quotes from emails, after being reviewed by independent panels and certified as true. Otherwise, yes, it is just "blogs". Several committees have investigated what you call climagate, in the US, UK and Germany. None have found evidence of wrong-doing. If you believe otherwise, please post a link with the findings of such a committee that has found, as you wrete, that the IPCC are "frauds". Please, I'm waiting.[/quote]




You seem to be blissfully unaware that the 2nd batch of leaked Climategate emails came out this year well after the committee's whitewash. A committee that was essentially a collection of like minded scientists with an outcome that never in doubt, like a friendly board of directors appointed by a CEO to investigate the CEO.

But since you asked for a link to the emails, here they are:
http://foia2011.org/

And if you think they are fake, don't take my word for it. Take the word of Michael Mann, one of the actual IPCC scientists who has confirmed them as real.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...resh-hacked-climate-science-emails
"When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”

Of course, Mann denied that there was anything damning in them, and suggested everything was taken out of context but there are literally THOUSANDS of emails in the 2nd batch of released emails. Is EVERY single email taken out of context? Of course not. The leaker of the emails labeled themself "FOIA 2011" (short for Freedom of Information Act), an intentionally ironic moniker given that the IPCC group deliberately avoided responding to Freedom of Information requests and frequently deleted emails in response to them when asked for data or methodologies. I suspect the leaker is probably someone from within the IPCC group itself or someone who worked very closely with them, as only certain people would have even been privy to the emails. But the leaker clearly knows what they are doing, and have a done a great service to the world. They began their most recent leak thusly:

Quoting FOIA 2011,reply=:
"Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day."

"Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes."

"One dollar can save a life" -- the opposite must also be true.

"Poverty is a death sentence."

"Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels."

Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

[quote=UALWN (Reply 195):
I am a physicist, but I don't work on climate issues. Hence, I know exactly nobody on the IPCC. However, I do know half the scientists of the so-called Berkeley Earth Team, who were commissioned by lead climate skeptics (yes!) to have a fresh look into the problem. Alas, they confirmed the majority view (see http://berkeleyearth.org/findings/). Or see this article in The Economist, hardly a bastion of eco-socialism: http://www.economist.com/node/21533360 . Those researchers I know well are not climate scientists and not members of the IPCC, they are all American (as I am, by the way, although born in Andorra and living in Spain), and one of them, Saul Perlmutter, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2011. These people have done nothing "indefensible," except corroborating the results of those people you insult as "frauds."

Earlier I suggested that one of the tactics alarmists use is to deliberately conflate the arguments of skeptics by suggesting that skeptics don't believe the Earth has warmed in recent decades. I see that, upon being called out publically for doing this, you immediately proceeded to do it again! The Berkeley Earth Team confirmed what we already knew - that the Earth was warming in recent decades, something that skeptics don't dispute. Again, for the thousandth time, the skepticism arises from the relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures, for which there has never been a proven relationship, unless the IPCC team used truncated data sets coming from multiple sources. So congratulations to the Berkely Earth Team for proving something which was not in dispute.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 196):
Post the evidence or, really, shut up.

It appears that you share a love of debate that many of the IPCC's leading climate scientists have - that is, no debate at all, ie "Shut up". Which doesn't surprise me at all. It's clear that for many of the alarmists, the release of thousands and thousands of emails demonstrating deceptiveness, intellectual thuggery, politicization of science, intimidation of opposing scientists, etc didn't even warrant a cursory glance. One would think there would at least be a semblance of intellectual curiosity on their part, to maybe at least glance at some of the leaked emails to see what was going on by the IPCC group and/or at least understand why the intelligent skeptics make the arguments they do.

But alas, instead the alarmists are still stuck in a mid-90s mindset where Al Gore could claim we are "global warming deniers" and the media was too stupid to even understand the debate to even cover it. Well, we've come a long way baby. The ground beneath the alarmist's feet has shifted dramatically. The tragedy for them, is that they are apparently oblivious to this, having not even having bothered to read any of the thousands of emails released by the Climategate emails.

Their argument has essentially been reduced to nothing more than, "Nothing to see here, move along." Or in their case, as they are apparently oblivious to what is even revealed by the emails, it's just "Shut up".
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:26 pm

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 197):
The Berkeley Earth Team confirmed what we already knew - that the Earth was warming in recent decades, something that skeptics don't dispute. Again, for the thousandth time, the skepticism arises from the relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures, for which there has never been a proven relationship, unless the IPCC team used truncated data sets coming from multiple sources.

Have you read the emails of the so-called climagate? They deal solely with the temperature record. That's it. You quoted it yourself:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 197):
Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

And several teams of other scientists have confirmed the raise in temperature, within 1%. So what is your problem? The temperature record? The Berkeley team has confirmed that. The relationship between temperature and CO2? Then you will have to find something other than the climagate emails, which don't deal with that.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 197):
It's clear that for many of the alarmists, the release of thousands and thousands of emails demonstrating deceptiveness, intellectual thuggery, politicization of science, intimidation of opposing scientists, etc didn't even warrant a cursory glance.

Those emails demonstrate nothing like that. I'll say it again: committees in US, UK, and Germany have analyzed those emails and found nothing reprehensible. Oh wait:

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 197):
A committee that was essentially a collection of like minded scientists with an outcome that never in doubt

So the committees are also part of the "30 scientist" confabulation? So if we don't trust the scientists in East Anglia, we don't trust the scientists at NASA, we don't trust the scientists from the NOAA, and we don't trust the committees to investigate those emails, whom should we trust? Should we just take your word? Or the word of your blogger friends? And you wonder why I compare this with the 9/11 conspiracy theories!

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 197):
Al Gore

Finally!! We finally arrive to the real reason for the debate. The fate of the global warming debate debate changed forever when Al Gore decide to speak in favor of global warming. From then on, every republican became an ardent skeptic. And you talk about politics getting into the debate!

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 197):
Their argument has essentially been reduced to nothing more than, "Nothing to see here, move along." Or in their case, as they are apparently oblivious to what is even revealed by the emails, it's just "Shut up".

Have you read the emails? I guess you haven't. I'll ask again: prove that the IPCC are "frauds." Either that or, yes, shut up.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
kellmark
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 12:05 pm

RE: EU Throws Out US' Case Against The EU ETS

Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:12 pm

UALWN

"Shut up"?

"IPCC"? Into the dust bin with not one but two "climategates".

Al Gore? You actually mention that name? Whose so-called "hockey stock" was discredited long ago. Whose film was forced on millions of school children to try to scare them? Who is not a scientist. Who has tried to make millions off of his "green" investments even while he was trying to scare the rest of us?

NASA? The same group led by James Hansen, whose own former boss did not agree with him? Who is in big trouble for taking $1.2 million in improper payments from the global warming alarmist crowd even while he was a government employee?

FrequentFlier is right. The evidence has been hidden, altered and destroyed, and people who have disagreed with it have been attacked and intimidated. Your theory of "global warming" and "climate change" has been dealt a mortal blow. And your answer is to "shut up".

Ultimately, I really don't care what you believe. That is your business. But the problem is that you and your friends want to impose your belief on the rest of us in a way that will cause much more more complexity, higher costs and for no real benefit. And that is not going to "fly" as they say.

It is one fraud of the ETS, which is simply a tax imposed not just within the EU but also outside their own airspace, whose monies are going to be used for nothing related to the tax itself, on top of the fraud of "global warming" itself. And this at a time when all of us, the EU and the US and the rest of the world, have far more serious issues to deal with. To me it is another demonstration of the folly of big government influenced by special interest groups to punish the public for their benefit.

It is not the kind of initiative that will help a troubled industry or the public at large. And no good will come of it. There will be retaliation against the EU for this. And there should be.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos