« Amnesty Bill Defeated In Senate Vote | Main | What Now On Immigration and the Border? »

Why the North Pole?

Last night I posted an article about Russia laying claim to a portion of the North Pole. Jay responded by asking why since the North Pole really doesn't have any land to speak of. Well, it has much, much more of what Putin wants:

Populist newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda - a cheerleader for Putin - printed a map of the North Pole showing a "new addition" to Russia, a triangle five times the size of Britain with twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia.

[...]

A diplomatic source said that Russia was "seeking to secure its grip on oil and gas supplies for decades to come. Putin wants a strong Russia, and Western dependence for oil and gas supplies is a key part of his strategy. He no longer cares if his strategy upsets the West".

Putin wants to expand his power, and there's no better way to do that than through oil production. If it's true that the North Pole has twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia and Putin is successful in getting control over that part of the North Pole, he could have a vast part of the industrialized world, including the US, over a barrel.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22136.

Comments (93)

And there you have it. Anot... (Below threshold)

And there you have it. Another reason for alternative fuels....

Why should he care if it up... (Below threshold)

Why should he care if it upsets the West? Is anyone going to go to war with him over it? Are you kidding? We don't even want to go to war over people who are trying to kill us. We're going to go to war over someone who wants to sell us oil? I don't think so.

This weird obsession with what other countries think is a pathological aberration anyhow. It lets those of a certain mindset believe that all foreign policy requires is statements of disapproval and the occasional symbolic sanction and all will be well.

Bu-Bu-But Bush looked into ... (Below threshold)
youarenuts:

Bu-Bu-But Bush looked into Putins eyes and saw he was a good man. How could he do this.

This weird obsessi... (Below threshold)
This weird obsession with what other countries think is a pathological aberration anyhow. It lets those of a certain mindset believe that all foreign policy requires is statements of disapproval and the occasional symbolic sanction and all will be well.

It mirrors the same people's obsession with polls.

At its heart, it comes down to wanting to be in the "in crowd." A lot of lefties are lefties not because they've thought deeply about the issues, but because the majority of the media is, and they just want to belong.

Also any comment on the rum... (Below threshold)
youarenuts:

Also any comment on the rumour that Rob's mom is a prostitute?

Wait until Pooty Poot has t... (Below threshold)
John in CA:

Wait until Pooty Poot has to face off with the environmental whackos. He'd prefer to go to war with the US.

On second thought, let's encourage the environmental whackos to go up there and confront Pooty Poot. Maybe he will go to war with them. That will get them out of our hair and out of our way for good.

Drill everywhere, drill deep, drill often.

Good job covering Jay's <a ... (Below threshold)

Good job covering Jay's asshattery this morning, Kim.

I suspect Juvenile Jay and his rubber ducky got so excited about using the word "ho" in a post headline that he just drooled all over himself, ignoring the glaringly obvious strategic oil and natural gas reserves which are underlying the land grab, along with the less-obvious -- but perhaps even more advantageous -- aspect of controlling the arctic seas.

The big problem is that, ev... (Below threshold)
cirby:

The big problem is that, even with the theoretical removal of much of the polar ice cap, there's still a LOT of ice left - and it's moving around.

Drilling for oil in deep water is hard enough, drilling for oil in deep water when the air temperature hits -60 C gets into the "oh, hell no" range. Look at how hard it is in the North Sea, where it doesn't get anywhere NEAR that cold. Costs for exploration and drilling are going to be high enough that they need really expensive per-barrel costs to pay for it - which means they'll be competing with Canadian oil sands and American oil shale for price.

The Russian fantasy of "the continental shelf extends out, so we can claim it" is pretty weak, too.

They've been working on this little fantasy since before 2002 (you can find references to this in old UN commentary). Nobody seems to be buying it.

"Wait until Pooty Poot has ... (Below threshold)
Johnismoron:

"Wait until Pooty Poot has to face off with the environmental whackos. He'd prefer to go to war with the US."

I know can you beleive those idiots? Using all that science and shit to make their point. What a bunch of whackos.

I fully expect my next vehi... (Below threshold)

I fully expect my next vehicle to be electric (with a small generator for longer trips). Yes oil imports will increase, but eventually will start to level off.

If anything, Russia will be selling its oil to its neighbor in China, which will be a really interesting circumstance.

It makes good theater for P... (Below threshold)
Matt:

It makes good theater for Putin. He can be Empirical and not really threaten anybody else's territory. Having Oil Deposits and drilling, pumping and delivering that oil is a far, far different thing.

Yet, drilling, pumping and ... (Below threshold)

Yet, drilling, pumping and delivering that oil would be a good thing, if he can do it.

These rules about continental shelfs are consensus fiction, just like so very many things are consensus fiction. More or less everyone agrees to pretend that continental shelves have some relevance to geopolitics when in truth it's been a very long time since any geological feature provided a national border enforced by the Earth herself. Rivers, mountains, oceans. In real terms they are irrelevant to political borders in any way other than in our minds.

In fact a nation holds what it can hold.

Consider the moon or Mars or Europa or Titan or any of the many new extra-solar planets discovered. Anyone can *claim* any of them but the claim will mean nothing at all unless the territory can be held. If others agree, then dandy. If others don't agree then too bad, so sad. Territory will be held by those that *hold* it.

And Lee interjects with chi... (Below threshold)

And Lee interjects with childish insults. What a surprise. Lee Ward, single-handedly bringing down Wizbangblog.com. Time to do some rethinking, Kevin.

Let's see now: Russia plann... (Below threshold)
GeminiChuck:

Let's see now: Russia planning on drilling for oil off our north, China planning on drilling for oil off Florida - what's wrong with this picture? Oh yeah, I forgot - we can grow corn - ok, then.

Oh yeah, I forgot ... (Below threshold)
Oh yeah, I forgot - we can grow corn - ok, then.

And increasing demand for corn to make ethanol raises the prices on corn for food... both for us and for the cattle, pigs, and chicken that we then eat.

I know can you bel... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
I know can you beleive those idiots? Using all that science and shit to make their point. What a bunch of whackos.

Posted by: Johnismoron at June 28, 2007 12:49 PM

How's that environmental whacko science working out up by Tahoe? You know, where the whacko's won't let them clear the underbrush and dead wood. Oh, yeah, there's a huge wildfire up there, fueled by all that underbrush and dead wood the whacko's won't let get cleared.

Milk prices. I'm thrilled ... (Below threshold)

Milk prices. I'm thrilled when a "sale" is two gallons for $6.

Corn isn't... well, it's the sort of large scale mono-culture that doesn't lend itself well to anything but highly mechanized care with all the fuel for machinery, large scale irrigation,lots of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, and all that.

Over at Flying Debris Blitz... (Below threshold)

Over at Flying Debris Blitzen is teed off at Putin for this brazen attempt to take the North Pole

"How's that environmental w... (Below threshold)
johnisamoron:

"How's that environmental whacko science working out up by Tahoe? You know, where the whacko's won't let them clear the underbrush and dead wood."

Now I understand why rightwingers come off as so stupid. Science is a "whacko" concept to them.

hey john, I know you are a moron, but perhaps you could show me where science was used to demonstrate that fires wouldn't start if underbrush was left uncleared? Don't think you'll have any luck though, as science concluded wood was flammable some time ago.

Posted by: Lee Ward at June... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Posted by: Lee Ward at June 28, 2007 12:15 PM

When the bloggers like Paul and Jay become trolls themselves, the quality of a site goes downhill quickly. That's what's happening around here lately.


Posted by: Lee Ward at June 28, 2007 12:41 PM

Good job covering Jay's asshattery this morning, Kim.
I suspect Juvenile Jay and his rubber ducky got so excited about using the word "ho" in a post headline that he just drooled all over himself

Riiiiiight lee. And Jay and Paul are the trolls. You can't even wait half an hour to expose your hypocrisy.

johnisamoron, you were the ... (Below threshold)

johnisamoron, you were the one equating environmentalism with science. Now you're saying that environmentalists don't follow science?

The thing about rightwingers and science is that we know that there is science and then there is that other thing so unconnected to reason, that holy calling, that crusade that must not be questioned, that squashes skeptics and loves high horses that inspiration of passion that cites "science" as a means to shut up dissent or discussion. Environmentalism.

"johnisamoron, you were the... (Below threshold)
mixti (formerly Johnisamoron):

"johnisamoron, you were the one equating environmentalism with science. Now you're saying that environmentalists don't follow science?"

Not true. "I said using all that science." They do use science. however, The argument to not clear brush and not remove wood, was not not based on the idea that they don't catch fire. So it is moronic to claim "wacko science" is responsible for the fire. Science was quite aware that wood burns.

Oh and I am fine with disse... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Oh and I am fine with dissent. Reasonable dissent in peer reviwed journals that is.

What liberals know about science is that shills who take money from exxon and put up web pages with conclusions that they won't submit to the scrutiny of fellow sceintists, should be ignored.

omg! mixti is a anthropogen... (Below threshold)
John in CA:

omg! mixti is a anthropogenic global warming al goreacle disciple...

I would contribute to this ... (Below threshold)

I would contribute to this thread, but it's disintegrated into a name-calling contest....why bother.

What about shills who take ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

What about shills who take money in the form of grants to write about what Al Gore wants them to write about? Should they be ignored as well? Cause that would pretty much exclude all your "science".

Frankly, I'm not particular... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Frankly, I'm not particularly concerned. If it comes down to confrontation, any fighting in the polar seas there are going to be dominated by subs (that whole "Under the Ice" thing). And Russia's remaining sub force isn't very impressive, whereas we have actually maintained one, and a freaking good one.

And Russia's remai... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
And Russia's remaining sub force isn't very impressive, whereas we have actually maintained one, and a freaking good one.

It's been a few years, so I don't know how it is today, but right before the turn of the century we still had the premiere ASW capability in the world.

Three years ago or so, we were having some problems tracking down a new Swede boat. Never came across anything on how that turned out.

Keep spouting my t... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
Keep spouting my truly stupid friend.

Posted by: johnisamoron at June 28, 2007 03:09 PM

How is that little problem going with NOAA's temperature monitoring stations? You've heard about that, right? The one's they are finding in improper locations; in close proximity to man made heat sources, such as right behind where a jet is parked, or the exhaust path of an AC unit?

I bet those have been some very accurate and reliable readings. And the guy has just started. Only checked about 50 of the 1200 or so stations.

exxon, is of course, not as... (Below threshold)

exxon, is of course, not as pure as the pure driven snow, which we know describes all of those who take government money instead of private money.

Yes, this is what liberals know.

Government money = pure and unfettered thought.

Private money = lying for a buck.

Oh, and politics never *ever* determines who's paper is reviewed in a peer reviewed journal.

So.What *was* the ... (Below threshold)

So.

What *was* the reasoning behind not clearing deadwood? Was it scientific?

And if it was scientific why was it not important to note the scientific fact that wood burns?

Or is this like global warming where science doesn't relate to itself and we're told that world renowned physicists such as Freeman Dyson can't comment on computer modeling since they aren't one of the handful of global climatologists who specifically study global weather systems?

So maybe the scientists who study combustion weren't the special sort that matter when it comes to forest management?

"Exxon, is of course, not a... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"Exxon, is of course, not as pure as the pure driven snow, which we know describes all of those who take government money instead of private money."

Well gosh Synova, I didn't mean to suggest that Exxon is profit driven and might be inclined to exaggerate in order to protect its profits. Lord knows they wouldn't do that.

Nope, Scientist who want the big bucks, go for the government grants where the real money is. To add legitimacy to the whole thing they also do this really creepy thing, where they let other scientist check their work.

So there it is Big Green is buying our scientist. a couple of rich Hippies in Berkeley are squandering there vast fortune to destroy capitalism. That is one creditable argument you have ever made Synova.

"Government money = pure and unfettered thought."

Since the money is far less, the justification for risking your career on a lie is not as likely

"Private money = lying for a buck."

"Private money" conclusions, that buck the scientific community, and are not peer reviewed, and appear to justify everything a company does to increase profits, are reasons to be skeptical. If conservatives actually knew what being a skeptic meant they might understand this.

But hey, Light up another one! Smoking is good for you and not addictive! ignore global warming! Give your wife some booze if she gets pregnant! You skeptics sure know that the best thing to believe is an internal investigation.

If conservatives a... (Below threshold)
John in CA:
If conservatives actually knew what being a skeptic meant they might understand this.

I'm very skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Just like I was very skeptical in the 70's of the coming ice age.

"What *was* the reasoning b... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"What *was* the reasoning behind not clearing deadwood? Was it scientific?"

I would guess the argument had to do with ecological problems. Which is of course IS using science. However, that would be real science, not the "wacko" stuff moron John is accusing people of using. You see science can tell us what is likely to happen if the deadwood is removed. They can all likely tell us what risk of fire there is if the deadwood remains, and then we can make a policy decsion based on that. "Wacko science" never comes into play. Whatever course is determined IMoron John has certainly presented no evidence that indicates there was ever anyhting wrong with the science. That is why he is a moron.

"And if it was scientific why was it not important to note the scientific fact that wood burns?"

Well I would think everyone over the age of six (even a conservative) knows that wood burns, and we wouldn't have to state that. The question is whether the likilood of it burning, out weighs the potential for ecological damage occuring. Factored in of course with the costs associated at a number of levels of the impact of either.

"Or is this like global warming where science doesn't relate to itself and we're told that world renowned physicists such as Freeman Dyson can't comment on computer modeling since they aren't one of the handful of global climatologists who specifically study global weather systems?"

Freeman Dyson can comment on whatever he likes, it is called the first amendment. However, I would think someone who considers themselves a skeptic would be well... skeptical. whenever someone is claiming expertise outside their area of expertise that is.

He may be right, but if a guy who does body work on car disagrees with the guy who fixes engines, wand the problem IS the engine. I am going with the engine expert. To some (such as moron John) this probably would seem like lunacy.

funny how the warmers alway... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

funny how the warmers always ignore that whole period isn't it John?! Or they give that bullshit excuse that is ALL just a part of climate change!!

"I'm very skeptical of anth... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"I'm very skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Just like I was very skeptical in the 70's of the coming ice age."

That is some first class reaonsing there John. Eveyone notice the gist of his argument.

Science has made mistakes before,

Therefore: Science cannot be trusted.

Brialliant! I'm with you John! I am very skeptical about gravity myself. After all scientist once though an ice age was coming. So why should I beleive that?

The fact that you fail to s... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

The fact that you fail to see the extreme similarities in the chicken little calls about an ice age and todays hysterical screaming about global warming speaks volumes mixti.

Oh sure, someone is doubtin... (Below threshold)

Oh sure, someone is doubting gravity.

Clue, if you want one, anthropogenic global warming is not gravity.

And an ice age *is* coming. Eventually. They do that you know. Just the same way that the Earth gets warmer from time to time.

And the magnetic poles of the Earth are going to reverse, maybe even in the next few centuries. This will wreck havoc with the planet's magnetic field. No one is worried about this any more than they are particularly worried about a killer meteor smashing into the Earth. Why? Because neither thing can be blamed on people and because of that there is no way to turn either inevitable event into political power.

I can just see Al Gore jetting all over the globe to warn people that the magnetic poles are going to reverse.

"Or is this like global war... (Below threshold)

"Or is this like global warming where science doesn't relate to itself and we're told that world renowned physicists such as Freeman Dyson can't comment on computer modeling since they aren't one of the handful of global climatologists who specifically study global weather systems?"

"Freeman Dyson can comment on whatever he likes, it is called the first amendment. However, I would think someone who considers themselves a skeptic would be well... skeptical. whenever someone is claiming expertise outside their area of expertise that is."

In other words. Yes.

In other words, we must be skeptical of everyone *except* those with a personal investment in their own results.

Thank you for that clarification.

I think that the insistence... (Below threshold)

I think that the insistence that no one, not even scientists, can be trusted to review the work of other scientists, not even to comment on methods, proves just who it is who doesn't trust science.

And who doesn't trust scientists.

None of them, it seems, tell the truth. Or at least, you only know they are telling the truth if they are saying what you already know to be true. If a specialist on infectious disease says that global warming is going to cause malaria outbreaks in never before seen severity, they are telling the truth. If a specialist on infectious disease says that's a pile of grant-winning BS and that past outbreaks don't support the conclusion then they are not telling the truth. Heck, they probably took some private money to fund their lying research.

"In other words, we must be... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"In other words, we must be skeptical of everyone *except* those with a personal investment in their own results."

In other words, we must be skeptical of anyone who is not an authority commenting on an issue as though they were an authority. this is called logic. Most conservatives are against logic but I am hoping you are exception.

"Thank you for that clarification"
You are welcome.

"I think that the insistenc... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"I think that the insistence that no one, not even scientists, can be trusted to review the work of other scientists, not even to comment on methods, proves just who it is who doesn't trust science."

I think you need to spend some time re-reading my posts, because I never claimed that scientist cannot comment on others work please tell me where I said that or admit you made it up. i did say one should be highly skeptical of anyone outside there area of expertise that is called logic. using someone who is not an expert as though they were is an appeal to false authority. this is a logical fallacy something quite common among conservatives.

"If a specialist on infecti... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"If a specialist on infectious disease says that global warming is going to cause malaria outbreaks in never before seen severity, they are telling the truth. If a specialist on infectious disease says that's a pile of grant-winning BS and that past outbreaks don't support the conclusion then they are not telling the truth."

Wow, I think you coming unhinged. If a climate scientist, claims that malaria will happen if there is global warming, unless he is citing the study of an expert in the field of malaria and its causes, I would be skeptical.

See I belong to the reality based community. Come join me.

If you belong to the "reali... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

If you belong to the "reality base community" why do you place so much stock in skewed computer models that portend to tell the weather in the future? Never mind we can't get the weather for tomorrow correct!

I see the AGW alarmist didn... (Below threshold)
John in CA:

I see the AGW alarmist didn't respond to the query about the NOAA temperature monitoring stations. So, I suppose he won't respond to this query: Why is it that every month there are more scientist and weather guessers coming out and denouncing AGW, or changing and modifying their positions

Why won't the goreacle take the Wharton School forecasting expert's $10,000 wager on the status of the climate in ten years? Not a peep from the goreacle. Just like he won't debate any expert on the subject who rejects the concept of AGW.

Like someone up thread said, AGW is nothing more than a political power grab and opportunity to punish the United States for our prosperity. The fact that one of the most referenced reports is from the UN's IPCC makes me automatically suspicious.

mixti can spew his arguments, insult my intelligence, sling ad hominem attacks, whatever. I've been through this argument at another blog site I frequent, I haven't had my mind changed. Nor have I or other people changed the minds of any AGW alarmists. Unless there is some new, remarkable, incontrovertible evidence that proves AGW is occurring, you're wasting pixels.

All I see is the continued erosion of the AGW theory and a more vocal denial of the theory.

mixti, you refuse to get it... (Below threshold)

mixti, you refuse to get it on purpose don't you.

Who decides who is an authority? There is almost no one on the planet who's primary research is on planetary systems. People study smaller slices of that. They study oceans or ice packs or the effects of vulcanization. Someone who works in science solving problems *is* an authority on setting up questions. When that person looks at the questions being asked by someone else and immediately sees that several obvious factors are being entirely ignored the fact is that the person pointing out those things *is* an authority.

An authority you chose to ignore because you chose to ignore him.

It's as simple as that.

Frankly. I don't know if Dyson has said that AGW isn't true. All I've seen that he's said is that the computer modeling is pathetic. Which it is, and he's got enough "authority" on that count to satisfy anyone willing to trust the scientific method.

Which conservatives are willing to do. We like science. Just like we like math. It's not emotional. Right answers are right and wrong ones are wrong. We didn't have to figure out our college prof's politics before writing a paper in science or engineering classes, we just had to get the numbers right.

Human CO2 caused global warming, which I was willing to consider, looks worse the more it's looked at. We look for science and we find politics and belief systems and true believers that don't do what would need to be done if what they believe in were really true.

We start looking at the numbers, at history, at the mistakes that even amateurs can see, as well as the treatment of those with authority who say that the science, as science, has severe flaws.

Conservatives aren't against logic, we're against "logic" masquerading as data. We're against treating any scientific question so speculative in nature as undisputed by virtue of ignoring those who dispute it.

All you've done so far is claim how rightwingers or conservatives hate science and are against logic.

What is logical about the minute percentage of human produced CO2 managing to tip the climate of the entire world?

And the computer models only work when water vapour is ignored?

Oh yeah, I'm all against logic.

"see the AGW alarmist didn'... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"see the AGW alarmist didn't respond to the query about the NOAA temperature monitoring stations. So, I suppose he won't respond to this query: Why is it that every month there are more scientist and weather guessers coming out and denouncing AGW, or changing and modifying their positions"

I can only respnd to so many morons at a time. As you tend to be the dumbest of the lot, I have ignored you for the time being. However, please don't make the claim that i ducking you as

1) I have kicked your ass in every go around we have had (notice all the points you have dropped)

2) i am having three arguments at once ( you will just have to wait your turn 'till i get back to kicking your ass)

"I can only respnd to so ma... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"I can only respnd to so many morons at a time. As you tend to be the dumbest of the lot, I have ignored you for the time being. However, please don't make the claim that i ducking you as

1) I have kicked your ass in every go around we have had (notice all the points you have dropped)

2) i am having three arguments at once ( you will just have to wait your turn 'till i get back to kicking your ass)

Posted by: mixti at June 28, 2007 05:37 PM "


In other words, "I have no answer for you so I will waste time blabbering about nothing."

"If you belong to the "real... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"If you belong to the "reality base community" why do you place so much stock in skewed computer models that portend to tell the weather in the future? Never mind we can't get the weather for tomorrow correct!"

According to the IPCC, the majority of climatologists agree that important climate processes are imperfectly accounted for by the climate models but don't think that better models would change the conclusion. I'll say that again the scientist don't think the better modesl would change the concluson!

They are accurate enough. Also I would point out that other factors are invlolved and no matter what this is the best data we have. You SHOULD ALWAYS go with the best data you have!

Finally, weather and climate models are similar but are DIFFERENT things. So your comparisioon is invalid.

"In other words, "I have no... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"In other words, "I have no answer for you so I will waste time blabbering about nothing."

No Stupid I will kick your ass answer Synova, then get back to kicking John's moronic ass. So stop crying that I take a few minutes to kick back to kicking your ass and respond to the points you dropped while you wait.

"In other words, "I have no... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"In other words, "I have no answer for you so I will waste time blabbering about nothing."

No Stupid. I will kick your ass. Answer Synova, then get back to kicking John's moronic ass. So stop crying that I take a few minutes to get back to kicking your ass, (you have to wait your turn) and respond to the points you dropped while you wait.

Because the AGW alarmists u... (Below threshold)
John in CA:

Because the AGW alarmists used the warming of the planet as their evidence so often, they became targets of ridicule (deservedly) every time there was a cold snap. They were losing ground, so they had to reshape their arguments to global climate change. That provided them the benefit of including any unusual weather event into their alarmist cries.

When I read a headline, like I did yesterday, Johannesburg Gets Four Inches of Snow; First Since 1981... and goes on to further say that before that it was 1968, I ask myself, hmmm, so, what was happening in 1968 and 1981 that caused this unusual weather event?

Probably nothing. The only difference between 1968, 1981 and 2007 is that in 2007 there's a politically motivated AGW alarmist rage.

mixti, RealClimate doesn't ... (Below threshold)
kim:

mixti, RealClimate doesn't take money from Exxon, but they sure won't share their results with other scientists.
====================================

Read Vaclev Havel recently ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Read Vaclev Havel recently about the threat to freedom from the warmers and their attitudes to skeptics. Then google up about CERN, mixti; you are so last year. It is a gooooood time to be skeptical.
=============================

An argument as fevered as y... (Below threshold)
kim:

An argument as fevered as yours is usually pathological; if you can't present the case for Anthropogenic Global Warming cooly, then you are an environmental hazard, and ought to spout elsewhere.
=======================

mixti is funny. He believes... (Below threshold)
John in CA:

mixti is funny. He believes he can wander in here, proclaim a few things, sling some insults and think he's won a debate and we should just nod our heads and agree. He's just like every other socialist.

What AGW alarmists can't stand is that they've said "The Debate is Over" but no one is listening to them.

Where do you want to start,... (Below threshold)
kim:

Where do you want to start, mixti? I mean you've done little but emote and trash skeptics. Ice? Tree rings? I see you've chattered on about the IPCC. Do you know they have been completely sandbagged by McIntyre's destruction of the Piltdown Mann's crooked hockey stick, don't you? That's why they've toned down the hysteria this time from the last.

mantis was way more honest and effective than you on global warming and he's abandoned the argument, too.

We are probabaly starting to cool, folks.
=================================

"Who decides who is an auth... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"Who decides who is an authority? There is almost no one on the planet who's primary research is on planetary systems. People study smaller slices of that. They study oceans or ice packs or the effects of vulcanization."

Actually this is the best point made by your team today, and it is a fair one. However, frankly I think it is dead wrong. To say no one is an expert on the whole thing does not mean there are people who are dealing with more of the pie, and are a more reasonable source on whether global warming is happening.

For example, what really sounds more reasonable to you, to listen to a climate scientist on the issue of... the climate, or to listen to a psychologist? They are both scientist.

"An authority you chose to ignore because you chose to ignore him.

It's as simple as that"

No it is not. Freud was a freking sceitnist why should I have listend to him if he wrote on global warming? or Relativity or anyhting outside his field. i don't beleive exactly one physist because he is outside of his expertise and it is a falllcy to use him as a source.

"We start looking at the numbers, at history, at the mistakes that even amateurs can see, as well as the treatment of those with authority who say that the science, as science, has severe flaws."

Science may have its flaws but it is the best we have and it is self correcting. Science (True Science that is) is interested in truth above all else. If the evidence is that a phenomea is untrue (Say for example the earth is flat) Science will correct when the data indicates it is time to change. Right now the majority of people studying this are saying the data looks like the planet is heating up and that, that is bad. If a person is wiling to put up evidence to the contrary for peer review and the conclsuions are logcial and verifable science WILL take it into consideration.

I am highly skeptical outside of their field on this issue or are working for an company that has billions of dollars at stake and whose self interested would be served by certain conclusions.

"Conservatives aren't against logic, we're against "logic" masquerading as data. We're against treating any scientific question so speculative in nature as undisputed by virtue of ignoring those who dispute it."

I'm sorry but this wrong. At least from the laymans perspective. For example, if Joe the flower man down the street, who does not work with cars for a living, tells you you have blown a piston and you take it to an actual mechanic who says your car is fine who are you going to trust. Seriously? Joe could still be right, but the fact is i can't take joe the flower man's opion over a trained mechanic on the issue of my car. That is insane.


Well shit now I'm on to my ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

Well shit now I'm on to my fourth argument. before this goes any further my schedule is full for the day so any other conservatives who want in on this debate will have to wait untill tommorow.

"mixti, RealClimate doesn't take money from Exxon, but they sure won't share their results with other scientists"

Then real climate is someone you should be skeptical of.

"An argument as fevered as ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"An argument as fevered as yours is usually pathological; if you can't present the case for Anthropogenic Global Warming cooly, then you are an environmental hazard, and ought to spout elsewhere."


If you have a problem with any claim I have made, feel free to respond to it. Basically saying you don't like my tone carries no weight. I don't like the tone of many people on this site eithe but they stay.

"Where do you want to start... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"Where do you want to start, mixti? I mean you've done little but emote and trash skeptics."

No I have trashed contrarians. I like skeptics.

"Ice? Tree rings? I see you've chattered on about the IPCC. Do you know they have been completely sandbagged by McIntyre's destruction of the Piltdown Mann's crooked hockey stick, don't you? That's why they've toned down the hysteria this time from the last"

My understanding is that the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been discredited in a peer reviwed paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate" by Rutherford and colleagues (2004)

But assuming you are right so what? it basically proves my point that science is self correcting and that is why we go with the best data we have. If the IPCC "toned' things down because of a paper that demonstrated certain conclusions were incorrect that just enforces the idea that the scientist in the IPCC are interested in truth.


Anyway four arguments at once has been fun, but I am going to take a break for now. Don't worry though I will be back.

Science may have i... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Science may have its flaws but it is the best we have and it is self correcting. Science (True Science that is) is interested in truth above all else.

True, but only in principle. In the real world individual scientists act in their own best interest and that's often going with the flow. That's why the "consensus" argument caries weight in the scientific community even though it's meaningless in terms of pure science.

Right now the majority of people studying this are saying the data looks like the planet is heating up and that, that is bad.

Mostly true. There are some who question whether or not a warmer climate will be bad or good (the head of NASA is one of them). The part you're not addressing is WHAT's CAUSING the warming.

If a person is wiling to put up evidence to the contrary for peer review and the conclsuions are logcial and verifable science WILL take it into consideration.

Experiments into the theory that the Sun is causing global warming through a connection between it's magnetic field, cosmic rays, and cloud formation has been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Furthermore, millions of Euros are being spent on a set of experiments under the acronym "CLOUD" at CERN starting this summer to help establish or refute the theory. If the early results stand up then it means humans are not causing global warming and the cycle of warming and cooling is soon to head into the cooling phase again. Al Gore will once again be the laughing stock of the world rather than the sage he sees himself as. Unfortunately global cooling is a much bigger threat than warming and about the only thing humans can do to mitigate the worst of the cooling will be to release massive amounts of green house gases. We can all help a bit by trading in what we drive on Hummers.

One last before I go.... (Below threshold)
mixti:

One last before I go.

"Read Vaclev Havel recently about the threat to freedom from the warmers and their attitudes to skeptics."

I will check it out. i would like your response on the whitehouse midic=fcation of EPA reports, and how exactly you think that kind of intereference leads to scientifc freedom.


Back in a while.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUCEMENT<... (Below threshold)

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUCEMENT

Last night, Lee Ward made this condescending remark about the ability of conservatives to spell.

"Be sure to help them with the spelling, Hugh. Some of the street names are three syllables! That could be quite a barrier for conservatives to overcome."

Posted by Lee Ward | June 27, 2007 6:31 PM

I promised Lee that I would peruse his own posts to determine if he knew how to spell. comments like this suggest lee didn't take well to the test:

"Thanks, glad to have you around, HughS. You're a great American, despite what most people say about conservatives like yourself... punks who are so willing to stoop to intimidation like you have here.... Oohh, you're going to spell check my posts? Wow -- you rock on you big, bad conservative kook.

I personally think that the attention you are giving us will result in you making a much better informed decision when it comes time to vote in November 2008. You'll thank us for it.

No, I take that back. Slobs like you have no manners.

Posted by Lee Ward | June 27, 2007 9:23 PM "

No wonder why now. All I had to do was read (and this was not easy folks) Lee's comments on one thread, not all of them. The one I read was the thread in which Paul was poking him on the Fairness doctrine.

Lee, you misspelled 15 words. Most of your misspellings were of two syllable words, not the three syllable "barriers" you said conservatives would encounter. I also gave you credit for colloquialisms and figures of speech.

Lee, you make it so easy for your opponents to nominate you for the "Hoist on your own Petard Award". Perhaps you should move out of that glass house. Also Lee, don't bother correcting any of the spelling of your foils here on Wizbang. We know better than to serve up an insult like that.

The 'climatologists' of who... (Below threshold)
kim:

The 'climatologists' of whom you speak generally belong to a fairly small coterie of tree-ring proxy and ice metric specialists centred around the RealClimate site. Physicists, geologists and many other kinds of scientists tend to be more skeptical than the bunch who have trumpeted the hysteria.
==================================

Rutherford, et al have not ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Rutherford, et al have not debunked McKitrick and McIntyre. Rutherford is at the RealClimate site, which harbors scientist unwilling to be forthcoming with their data, because they possibly hoaxed some of the tree ring series and certainly mangled the statistics. I note you are not much into arguing the science, but rather the shape of the debate. Stick to the science; the debate, especially one with the stakes this one has, will take you all over the belief map. Pay attention to Mac Lorry and the CERN studies.
========================

mantis, should we send mixt... (Below threshold)
kim:

mantis, should we send mixti Alexander Cockburn's way?
===================================

As for the main theme of th... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

As for the main theme of this thread the world needs more oil to tide us over to the point where solar, wind, and fusion reactors come on line in large numbers. The U.S. government and many European governments are being held hostage by environmental extremists and are simply unable to develop likely oil and gas deposits. The U.S. would be smart to partner with Russia to develop the arctic oil and gas reserves. Our part would be to supply know-how, equipment and political support in exchange for treaty provisions that guarantees access to oil at free market rates. Basically Russia would have to agree to remain independent from OPEC or other supply setting cartels. Paying Russia for oil can't be any worse than paying a bunch of Muslim kingdoms.

You have to read Havel and ... (Below threshold)
kim:

You have to read Havel and Cockburn and emerge from that fog of unconscious irony about censorship, you useful idiot, before you can ask me about government gobbledygook. Brush up on your cosmic rays a bit, too.
===========================

It's Putin's northWARd FOR ... (Below threshold)
kim:

It's Putin's northWARd FOR OIL.
==============

A good idea, Mac. A better... (Below threshold)
kim:

A good idea, Mac. A better one would be for us to insist that the oil in that magic circle go to better the world, not just a region. Particularly, since this is mostly uninhabited by humans, it might be easier to do than in, say, the Persian Gulf.

Besides, you know those luxuriously created hydrogen bonds should be preserved for posterity. We need them for structure. But the Carbon Liberation Wars are inevitable. Salute the brave soccer moms threading the frontlines intrepidly in their Suburban Assault Vehicles.
======================================

You know we're just removin... (Below threshold)
kim:

You know we're just removing the guilt so they don't have to buy those dispensations or whatever.
======================

mixti:Anyway f... (Below threshold)
marc:

mixti:

Anyway four arguments at once has been fun, but I am going to take a break for now. Don't worry though I will be back.

Enjoy your break?

Good maybe you can explain this from an IPCC scientist:

In a remarkable contribution to Nature magazine's Climate Feedback blog, Trenberth concedes GCMs cannot predict future climate and claims the IPCC is not in the business of climate prediction. This might be news to some people.
****
Among other things, Trenberth asserts ". . . there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been". Instead, there are only "what if" projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.
WHAT?! No IPCC predictions?!

Funny, that's all we've seen isn't it? At least as seen thru the lens of the MSM.

These various criticisms of climate modelling can be summed up in the following statement - there is no predictive value in the current generation of computer GCMs and therefore the alarmist IPCC statements about human-caused global warming are unjustified. Yet Australia has an Opposition and a Government that profess to set their climate policies on the basis of IPCC advice. Both also seem determined to impose an inefficient, ineffective and costly carbon trading or taxation system on the economy, for the aspirational absurdity of "stopping climate change".
WHAT?!

"No predictive value" in the very computer models the IPCC is touting as predicting our future demise via Biblical-like floods!

Well DAMN! Guess I better head to EBay... I've got some slightly used carbon credits to sell.
And a 9 mpg duelly pick-up to fill up with Hi-test.

"Rutherford, et al have not... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"Rutherford, et al have not debunked McKitrick and McIntyre. Rutherford is at the RealClimate site, which harbors scientist unwilling to be forthcoming with their data, because they possibly hoaxed some of the tree ring series and certainly mangled the statistics. I note you are not much into arguing the science, but rather the shape of the debate."

A study published in a peer reviewed journal is not being forthcoming? That makes sense.

Anyway real quick, before we continue, are you scientist or are you an amateur dabbling? because you are making several points on the science that frankly you are probably unqualified to make. My essential contention has been that it is both logical wise to listen to experts on matters they are experts on.

My secondary contention throughout this debate, has been that listening to scientist on the payroll of an organization that has billions of dollars tied up in the outcome of a debate is rather moronic.

So yes, as the science itself was not the subject of the debate, and I am not a scientist I was not commenting upon it.

However, If you want to get into the science of global warming itself (you know where we both pretend we are scientist) What the hell I'm game I'll read up and two non-experts can go at it which of course will mean absolutely nothing.

"You have to read Havel and... (Below threshold)
mixti:

"You have to read Havel and Cockburn and emerge from that fog of unconscious irony about censorship, you useful idiot, before you can ask me about government gobbledygook. Brush up on your cosmic rays a bit, too."


That is quite the chicken shit answer Kim and demonstrates that you are nothing more than an intellectually dishonest bag of wind.

If you truly cared about censorship you would be bothered by it any form.

Oh, and I'd rather be a useful idiot than a useless one such as yourself.

Two points, or maybe one. ... (Below threshold)

Two points, or maybe one.

A psychologist is not a scientist.

Nor is a sociologist, anthropologist or anyone else in the "soft" science fields someone who is the same as a physicist or mathematician or chemist or even a biologist.

Just to be clear. Saying that one "hard" science scientist commenting on the methods of another scientist dealing with the facts of the natural world is the same as a psychologist commenting on the methods of a scientist dealing with the facts of the natural world is so obviously false I have to wonder.

Human behavior is a science and I'm not meaning to insult those people but it's not even remotely in the same realm as the sorts of scientists who use *math*.

They truly are different beasts.

Global warming is not behavior, it is math. Another scientist who also primarily uses math is close enough (as are amateurs with that interest) to discuss methods as those predicting global warming and presenting a supposed undisputed *cause* of global warming.

Asking a florist to fix your car would be like asking a psychologist to model convection currents.

Asking one math based scientist to model convection currents, even if that's not what they usually did, would not be silly at all.

The last person I talked to... (Below threshold)

The last person I talked to who wasn't at all interested in understanding the science because she wasn't a scientist was someone who insisted that creation science was real science.

The parallel is astounding.

What Mac Lorry said at 07:2... (Below threshold)

What Mac Lorry said at 07:21

We need a serious push toward fusion power and other alternate power sources, terrestrial and space based.

We have the technology and the ability to develop more sources of practically carbon-free, pollution-free power. Why aren't we pursuing those things aggressively?

Better the Russians than us... (Below threshold)
cryinginthewilderness:

Better the Russians than us. At least they'll drill and pump it, unlike the USA.

mixti, where's the beef?<br... (Below threshold)
kim:

mixti, where's the beef?
===============

mixti, read what Edward Weg... (Below threshold)
kim:

mixti, read what Edward Wegman wrote about the closed circle of climatologists and how their 'peer-reviewed' echo chamber contributed to the disaster of the mistaken hockey stick. He led a House inquiry into Michael Piltdown Mann's phony statistics.

Climateaudit.org for the skinny on the science, mixti.
====================================

OK, mixti, your 8:23 post l... (Below threshold)
kim:

OK, mixti, your 8:23 post last night is revelatory. You said that since the science itself was not the subject of the debate, that you weren't commenting on it.

Son, the science IS the subject of the debate. It is apparent you want to keep the debate on some other level, maybe a religious one, but you do avoid the science.


Yes, read up. I asked earlier what you wanted to talk about, you know, ice, tree rings, whatever. The offer stands.
==================================

I chose to ignore your insi... (Below threshold)
kim:

I chose to ignore your insinuations about 'scientists on the payroll of energy corporations' as just moonbattery, but you raise it to the level of a 'secondary contention'. Is this imagination on your part? What such person have I been listening to?

You are naive to think the skepticism about the effect of man on the climate is only generated by energy companies' money. You haven't read Alexander Cockburn yet, have you? He's in the Nation.
=======================================

So far you've got little bu... (Below threshold)
kim:

So far you've got little but an argument to authority and I don't believe your echo-chambered coterie of tree-ring biologists and ice metricians. It is Rutherford and others in the band of tree-ringers who are hiding their chicanery and their unscientific manipulation of tree-ring series. Plenty of legitimate scientists are skeptical, particularly of hogwashed hyperbole like Gore's.
=======================

\\\"Global warming is not b... (Below threshold)
mixti:

\\\"Global warming is not behavior, it is math. Another scientist who also primarily uses math is close enough (as are amateurs with that interest) to discuss methods as those predicting global warming and presenting a supposed undisputed *cause* of global warming.\\\"


So using your own rational you would find a climate scientist debunking relativity as or quantum mechanics as valid?

\"The last person I talked ... (Below threshold)
mixti:

\"The last person I talked to who wasn\'t at all interested in understanding the science because she wasn\'t a scientist was someone who insisted that creation science was real science.

The parallel is astounding\"

Yeah exactly the same except:

1) Creation scientist do not publish their papers in peer reviwed journals (see the 12 posts or so where I bitch about this)

2) Creation scitist are bucking expert opinion many cases using people who are not experts in the field.


So yeah other than being completly different it is exactly the same.

\"mixti, where\'s the beef?... (Below threshold)
mixti:

\"mixti, where\'s the beef?\"

Mostly between your ears.

\"So far you\'ve got... (Below threshold)
mixti:


\"So far you\'ve got little but an argument to authority and I don\'t believe your echo-chambered coterie of tree-ring biologists and ice metricians.\"

Ok we need to address this first. If you are going to accuse someone of a logical fallacy you need uderstand what you are talking about. Here is some criteria to help you determine whether an argument from authority has been made.

1) Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is \"yes\", then do so. If \"no\", go to the next question:

As someone who is not an expert on climate science I cannot determine this one on my own. Not without investing in years of study. Nor can you.

2) Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else\'s. If so, proceed to the next question:

Why yes expert opinon is avilible!

3) Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on:

Why yes an international panel comprised of several thousand scientist would be experts on the matter.

4) Is the authority\'s opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority\'s opinion.


Wow lucky for me the expert consensus favors my side of the debate. So there you go Kijm you need to quit making arguments to authority. These logical fallcies of yours will get you nowhere.

I donno, mixti. What seems... (Below threshold)

I donno, mixti. What seems to be is that you haven't a clue about human caused global warming, don't understand it well enough to discuss the issue at all. In fact, you refuse to discuss it beyond stating your faith in your experts, since you can't understand it yourself this is all you can do.

I'm not impressed. I expect people to know and understand for themselves and to be able to promote their view and explain it, even when they get their information from experts.

This isn't something it takes a genius to understand. You *can* learn new things. So learn it! Learn it well enough to discuss it intelligently. Get a book. Do some reading. Talk to people until you are able to explain the science and why it works. Most of the math arguments are stated in plain language. You *can* understand it.

Well, I had a nice post dis... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, I had a nice post disappear last night, but Synova has most of the message. We have a precious specimen of 'useful idiot' in mixti.
========================

You don't care to understan... (Below threshold)
kim:

You don't care to understand the science, mixti, you don't even care to understand the debate very well. You are a one-note wonder, and that is that the 'experts' have decided it for you.

I'm not even going to try to get you to understand why some people wonder; it's just not in you. Be comfy, there.
==================================

You don't suppose mixti's d... (Below threshold)
kim:

You don't suppose mixti's deep in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, do you?
======================================

If you want a complete list... (Below threshold)
dan:

If you want a complete list of the companies and countries involved in this new oil production boom in Russia, then i would refer you to this report i found...

http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/ppc/RussianOilReport2.html

Cheers!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy