Climate change frozen over?

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Phil Jones the architect of bad science for climate hysteria has had some confessions as of late. As I haven't seen anything about in PRSI I thought I would present it. I know there are so many here that still believe there is nothing to discuss.:p
Who is Phil? link
Jones holds a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of Lancaster, and an MSc and PhD from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. His PhD was titled "A spatially distributed catchment model for flood forecasting and river regulation with particular reference to the River Tyne".

He is most notable for maintaining the time series of the instrumental temperature record;[1] this work figured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers.[2] He was director of the Climatic Research Unit[3] and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. His research interests are instrumental climate change, palaeoclimatology, detection of climate change and the extension of riverflow records in the UK. He was a contributing author to the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report chapter 12 Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes. Together with Michael E. Mann, he has published on the temperature record of the past 1000 years. In late 2009, certain climate-change-related emails of his became controversial.[4]
What is Phil confessing?
By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) should require no introduction, so let’s get right to it. In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented. As the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering.
and
Imagine a man who has spent the better part of the past 25 years toiling to convince the world of CO2-forced 20th-century warming now admitting that the difference in warming rates for the periods 1860-1880, 1910-40 and 1975-2009 is statistically insignificant. Jones even acceded that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995; that in fact, global temperatures have been trending to the downside since January of 2002, although he denied the statistical significance of the -0.12C per decade decline.
Lots more SHOCKING (only to the AGW fans) facts here
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,384
UK
Maybe its worth reading the original Q&A, which doesn't "disprove" climate change at all.

Btw the world was already industrialising at a pretty rapid pace by the 1860's.

EDIT: The only point which event gets close to a "disproof" is:

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
It's chilly outside today,I told you climate change was a myth.
You make a very thin argument. If you believe AGW then your sarcasm is noted, if you do not believe in AGW than your statement is baseless.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
EDIT: The only point which event gets close to a "disproof" is:
Well for me, the point of hiding data, manipulating the unseen data, and lying gets beyond "close" and to the heart of disproof.
This guy is one piece of work, and the fact that so many other reputable scientists used his/their data sets for conclusions that are WACKED is plain and simply criminal.
The world is waking up, the question is simply>will the diehard "AGW Truthers" wake up too.
 

pooky

macrumors 6502
Jun 2, 2003
356
1
Well for me, the point of hiding data, manipulating the unseen data, and lying gets beyond "close" and to the heart of disproof.
This guy is one piece of work, and the fact that so many other reputable scientists used his/their data sets for conclusions that are WACKED is plain and simply criminal.
Although it pains me to say so, you are right in this situation. The problem is the sweeping conclusions (i.e., all global warming theory is bogus) you are drawing from this one data point. This is especially ironic, since this is what so many climate change deniers accuse climate scientists of doing.

This is probably going to be a post-and-run, since usually these just turn into pointless unproductive arguments, but let me offer my $0.02:

The body of knowledge underlying climate science is too big and on too solid a foundation to be undermined by this one person. The assertion that the entire science relies on correlation is nonsense. There is a clear mechanistic theory that is very well supported that explains how CO[2] and other gases react in the atmosphere to regulate temperature. We have several data points that support the predictions of this mechanistic theory very well - Venus, Earth, and Mars.

In short:
1. We have a mechanistic theory based on well-known, supported relationships in physics and chemistry that posits a causal relationship between atmospheric temperature and atmospheric composition
2. We have independent observations on 3 planets that support the relationship; on Earth we have a time series of observations
3.We have a large number of people independently collecting observations and analyzing data sets. Most of these have mechanistic underpinnings.
4. The majority of observations support the contention that rising CO[2] is affecting climate.
5. Some observations do not support this contention. No model is perfect.
6. Some people, including some prominent ones, do not support the general paradigm for various political, religious, social, economic, or personal reasons. Some people are just dicks. This is not news.

From a scientist's perspective, this is pretty ****ing open-and-shut. Usually our conclusions are much shakier and based on much less data. This is how science is done. For something at a planetary scale, it doesn't really get much better than this. The only better data would be a before and after picture, which we may get around 2040 or so. Problem is, by then, there may not be much we can do besides saying, "Well, we sure ****ed that one up, eh?"
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
since usually these just turn into pointless unproductive arguments, but let me offer my $0.02:
yes this would be a long drawn out unproductive argument during which the earth will not warm from the CO2 we produce doing it. I accept the fact your offer is worth $.02.
From a scientist's perspective, this is pretty ****ing open-and-shut.
Of course it is.
Now that is the conclusion of conclusions isn't it. I would state that the open and shut-ness is dependent on who the scientist is (and where they get their funding).
"Gore (2006) and other proponents of the CO2 as the cause of global warming allege that “there is virtually no serious disagreement remaining on any of these central points that make up the consensus view of the world scientific community.” The basis for this claim apparently is based, at least in part, on the IPCC report and the claim that virtually all of the world’s scientists endorse it. However, the summary 2007 report for policymakers was compiled by only 33 authors and the full report, to be released in June 2007, was assembled by 143 authors and reviewed by 27 editors, hardly representative of the entire scientific community. Lindzen (2006) points out, “there is no consensus” -- no one has polled the world’s several hundred thousand scientists. Gore (2006) claimed that of 928 articles dealing with climate change in the past 10 years, none expressed any doubt about the cause of global warming. Lindzen (2006), however, found that of those 928 publications, only 13 favored CO2 as the cause of global warming. Clearly, what needs to be done is to get away from the rhetoric and politicizing of global warming and carefully analyze the facts as they exist."
link for quote above and chart below
on the attachment> blue is rapid cooling and red is sudden warming
Please note the present temp line.
 

Attachments

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
What I see coming from this "climategate" is that some factors are coming to light which seem to have been hidden: Bad data, insufficient data, and some suppression or ignoring of contrary data.

In many areas, temperature measuring systems are located near sources of above-ambient temperatures. I've seen reports of everything from central A/C units to exposure to jet exhausts at airports.

Both the Canadians and Russians have commented about the dearth of temperature measurements in the northern parts of those countries.

I have read that NOAA has a network of ocean buoys which can measure temperatures at depth as well as near-surface. Allegedly, ocean waters are cooling to some slight degree, but this apparently hasn't been factored into the sofware.

IOW, color me agnostic about the issue of warming or cooling.

Which has not much to do with climate change, I guess. The climate has always followed some trend of change.

Just one example of change: After being made aware by a comment from a local, 50-year resident, I also noticed a change in the vegetation in the Chisos Mountains of the Big Bend National Park. The tree line is moving upward. There is an open meadow where I once saw mostly Ponderosa Pines, some 38 years ago. This indicates an ongoing reducition in precipitation. That conclusion is supported by archaeological conclusions that this area has been drying for hundreds of years.

As far as homo sap's CO2, one climatologist offered the comment that the reason that we pour beer into a frosted mug or add ice to a cola drink is to retard the loss of CO2. That is, natural global warming causes the loss of CO2 into the atmosphere; CO2 doesn't cause warming. Damfino.

Bottom line? I'm dubious that the various calls for legislative mandates will solve the problem. What is obvious is that they will extend governmental power over people, raise the cost of living, and lower the material standard of living. I don't see those as Good Things.

'Rat
 

Iscariot

macrumors 68030
Aug 16, 2007
2,624
3
Toronteazy
This winter was the first ever snow free November on record (about 160 years) up here in the frozen North.

My anecdote can beat up your anecdote.
 

samiwas

macrumors 68000
Aug 26, 2006
1,575
3,518
Atlanta, GA
I don't have any facts or research to form my exact opinion on whether global warming is true or not.

However, since the idea has at least spurred a lot of development into technologies and policies to reduce pollutants, I'm all for it. Take one drive through a city like Manila, Philippines, and see the result of complete lack of pollution control, and it's a real eye-opener. Why not strive to reduce CO2 emissions, even if they don't necessarily have a global warming impact?
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
And who do they get their funding from? The oil companies?
If they get $$ from anyone that stands to gain from the outcome-then that needs to be known. If that money comes from Oil Companies-it is as bad as coming from those whoring for government grants. The problem then comes as where is a pure source-that is a problem.
It seems that much is being uncovered lately to dispute and shed light on the bad science that has gone on. There are scientists that claim they couldn't get published and were ridiculed in the past for the mentioning that there might be doubt. There is a chasm seperating those that believe AGW with no question and will not hear otherwise, and a scientific community seeking truth regardless of the outcome>hence the letter to the UN. Those scientists just want some proof and are tired of statements like the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 and hockey stick graphs created in art class.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
I don't have any facts or research to form my exact opinion on whether global warming is true or not.

However, since the idea has at least spurred a lot of development into technologies and policies to reduce pollutants, I'm all for it. Take one drive through a city like Manila, Philippines, and see the result of complete lack of pollution control, and it's a real eye-opener. Why not strive to reduce CO2 emissions, even if they don't necessarily have a global warming impact?
In many ways I totally agree. I think that reducing pollutants is awesome, I just don't want total control over the whole thing by "scientists" like Al Gore or Dr Pachauri. These people are dangerous IMHO. I don't want the garbage police, or helicopters flying over telling me my house IR signature is too off scale. It is a fine line between the benefits and the horrors unfortunately.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
Without getting into the science behind global warming, I do have a couple of observations.

First, why are some people so opposed to the idea of global warming? Is it purely a difference of scientific opinion? Is there really a huge split amongst scientists on the issue, and if so, shouldn't the debate be between people who actually know a thing or two about it? This debate seems to have taken on a political component.

Ok, second. Politics. Democrats tend to support climate change reactions, and republicans don't. Is this just a difference of opinion about how to respond to the information being received from scientists? It doesn't seem like it. Republicans don't want to do anything that might hurt existing businesses. Stubeef, you sound like you think there is some conspiracy to somehow hurt you or the businesses in this country.

Here's where I get confused. Let's assume the science is at best murky. Let's assume that implementing global warming responses would cost a bunch of money.

What is the long term affect? Wouldn't investing in new technology create opportunities for new businesses? Wouldn't pollution be reduced? Wouldn't that reduce our dependence on middle east oil? Wouldn't that reduce the funding going to terrorists? Wouldn't that decrease our trade deficit, and increase our economy? Wouldn't our companies invest in green energy (e.g. BP investing in green energy research and development).

We know there is only a finite amount of oil in the planet's crust. Wouldn't it be wise to look into green energy now, rather than waiting until the oil has run out?

So, my question is even if the science is questionable, aren't the things proposed worth doing anyway?

If you think no, why?
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Without getting into the science behind global warming, I do have a couple of observations.

First, why are some people so opposed to the idea of global warming? Is it purely a difference of scientific opinion? Is there really a huge split amongst scientists on the issue, and if so, shouldn't the debate be between people who actually know a thing or two about it? This debate seems to have taken on a political component.

Ok, second. Politics. Democrats tend to support climate change reactions, and republicans don't. Is this just a difference of opinion about how to respond to the information being received from scientists? It doesn't seem like it. Republicans don't want to do anything that might hurt existing businesses. Stubeef, you sound like you think there is some conspiracy to somehow hurt you or the businesses in this country.

Here's where I get confused. Let's assume the science is at best murky. Let's assume that implementing global warming responses would cost a bunch of money.

What is the long term affect? Wouldn't investing in new technology create opportunities for new businesses? Wouldn't pollution be reduced? Wouldn't that reduce our dependence on middle east oil? Wouldn't that reduce the funding going to terrorists? Wouldn't that decrease our trade deficit, and increase our economy? Wouldn't our companies invest in green energy (e.g. BP investing in green energy research and development).

We know there is only a finite amount of oil in the planet's crust. Wouldn't it be wise to look into green energy now, rather than waiting until the oil has run out?

So, my question is even if the science is questionable, aren't the things proposed worth doing anyway?

If you think no, why?
I don't want climate/green police, fat taxation, and the politicalizaton of this. I am not PRO pollutants, but I am not for global wealth redistribution either. Good intentions gave us Kyoto and that was a P.O.S. if you ask me and others. Sustainable energy is worth seeking, conservation is worth lauding, using these for political power is abhorrent. And yes that seems to be the goal. Otherwise why try and falsify data.

Now I ask, why not drill in the Gulf of Mex? The chinese are. Why not build clean coal and nuke plants, others are. Define GREEN, all of a sudden it gets really interesting and political.

It is very interesting to look up and see all the abandoned GREEN energy projects. Not very green if you ask me. To be fair there are plenty of abandoned non green plants around too-they just weren't as politically correct to begin with. How many pollutants are used to manufacture the avg solar panel? How much CO2 is allowed to be used to build a Solar Farm?
 

Attachments

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
I don't want climate/green police, fat taxation, and the politicalizaton of this. I am not PRO pollutants, but I am not for global wealth redistribution either. Good intentions gave us Kyoto and that was a P.O.S. if you ask me and others. Sustainable energy is worth seeking, conservation is worth lauding, using these for political power is abhorrent. And yes that seems to be the goal. Otherwise why try and falsify data.

Now I ask, why not drill in the Gulf of Mex? The chinese are. Why not build clean coal and nuke plants, others are. Define GREEN, all of a sudden it gets really interesting and political.
Using your example of earlier, if the so called "green-police" told you your house was not efficient enough, wouldn't you end up saving money?

That being said, if society determined to start criminilizing certain behavior, then how is that different from any other determination regarding what should be or shouldnt' be legal? It's not. How would it be different as far as what you do? It wouldn't be. You either uphold the law, or you get charged.

Political power? Who's gaining here? This isn't like abortion or flag burning or english as a national language where one party runs around yelling inflammatory things in order to get it's base all worked up and get them out to the polls to vote against their own self interests. Yes, some will benefit, and yes, there are some who will vote based on this issue, but how does green equate to political power? Regulatory power for the government? Please tell me you haven't bought into the whole democrats are part of some huge socialist conspiracy argument?

Finally, there are tons of ways to generate green energy. Yes, defining green is an issue for disagreement. For example, clean coal is a misnomer. Coal is coal, there is no clean coal. The only part of coal that is clean are all the scrubbers and other technology that the so-called green police required to try to reduce polution. Can coal be clean, or at least cleaner? Probably. But if so, doesn't that just further the cause of the so-called green movement?
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
I'm surprised this is still being bandied about. However I'm not surprised it's being regurgitated by stubeef from freerepublic.
freerepublic said:
Jones even acceded that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995; that in fact, global temperatures have been trending to the downside since January of 2002, although he denied the statistical significance of the -0.12C per decade decline.
There are a few things wrong with this. Firstly climate change is long-term trends. Not over 8 years. If you look at any long-term climate graph there are constant dips and troughs. This is due to short term and predictable weather patterns such as El Nino and La Nina (although we've never been able to account for all the variation). As such we take trends of many years - i.e.25 years and average out all the data points to determine the trend.

The claim of "cooling" since 1995 is incredibly dishonest and an absolutely atrocious case of cherry-picking. 1995 was a "peak" year in temperatures. We're currently in a trough now with La Nina. This "cooling" claim is based on taking these two data points - 1995 and 2009 - and averaging them. It ignores all the data points in between. If you average them all out (I.e. 95, 96, 97 - 08, 09) you still get modest warming. And if you take the average over 25 years you get exactly the predicted warming.

It's a bit complicated but once you understand it you'll see how dishonest and misleading the claims if the deniers are.

Edit: here's the post I wrote with sources when this required debunking back in november.http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8882251&postcount=125
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Using your example of earlier, if the so called "green-police" told you your house was not efficient enough, wouldn't you end up saving money?
Not if I am fined, not if I am required to do mandatory improvements on their time line or more fines. and when is efficient enough, efficient enough? To the far extreme-it never will be efficient enough. I go to energy expos and there are people there claiming that they don't shower for weeks (they smell horrible) and people that do are bad.

That being said, if society determined to start criminilizing certain behavior, then how is that different from any other determination regarding what should be or shouldnt' be legal? It's not. How would it be different as far as what you do? It wouldn't be. You either uphold the law, or you get charged.
That paragraph scares the hell out of me and why I want the truth on AGW.

Political power? Who's gaining here? This isn't like abortion or flag burning or english as a national language where one party runs around yelling inflammatory things in order to get it's base all worked up and get them out to the polls to vote against their own self interests. Yes, some will benefit, and yes, there are some who will vote based on this issue, but how does green equate to political power? Regulatory power for the government? Please tell me you haven't bought into the whole democrats are part of some huge socialist conspiracy argument?
Global political power via treaties like Kyoto are the worst kind (not the only kind). I don't get to vote on those. I get to vote for one of 2 idiots that I hope won't get bought off for crap like this. The radical left benefits, they get to say who can manufacture, or not, who can "pollute" or not, and the bueracracy is unfightable. Just months ago hundreds of politician were willing to march of a cliff for the IPCCs view of AGW. I know that AGW has made plenty of lefties millions of $$ and nobel prizes (which no longer have much prestige IMHO). I am sick of policy built on bull pelosi, kinda like going into Iraq based on WMD isn't it.

Finally, there are tons of ways to generate green energy. Yes, defining green is an issue for disagreement. For example, clean coal is a misnomer. Coal is coal, there is no clean coal.
There is a party line if I ever heard one. I am in sales and love it when a customer repeats back the marketing lines I have fed them. Welcome to the machine.
The only part of coal that is clean are all the scrubbers and other technology that the so-called green police required to try to reduce polution. Can coal be clean, or at least cleaner? Probably. But if so, doesn't that just further the cause of the so-called green movement?
Not if "there is no clean coal" can't have it both ways. I am not willing for a panel of "experts" coming up with the answer. With absolutes like there is no clean coal then who will bother to develope better technology.

Develope the technology, if it stands on its own then do it, not because the UN Climate morons said I have to or that I can.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
I'm surprised this is still being bandied about. However I'm not surprised it's being regurgitated by stubeef from freerepublic.

There are a few things wrong with this. Firstly climate change is long-term trends. Not over 8 years. If you look at any long-term climate graph there are constant dips and troughs. This is due to short term and predictable weather patterns such as El Nino and La Nina (although we've never been able to account for all the variation). As such we take trends of many years - i.e.25 years and average out all the data points to determine the trend.

The claim of "cooling" since 1995 is incredibly dishonest and an absolutely atrocious case of cherry-picking. 1995 was a "peak" year in temperatures. We're currently in a trough now with La Nina. This "cooling" claim is based on taking these two data points - 1995 and 2009 - and averaging them. It ignores all the data points in between. If you average them all out (I.e. 95, 96, 97 - 08, 09) you still get modest warming. And if you take the average over 25 years you get exCtly the predicted warming.

It's a bit complicated but once you understand it you'll see how dishonest and misleading the claims if the deniers are.
sources and links please.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
That paragraph scares the hell out of me and why I want the truth on AGW.
If the truth was that AGW existed, you wouldn't believe it anyway.

Global political power via treaties like Kyoto are the worst kind (not the only kind). I don't get to vote on those. I get to vote for one of 2 idiots that I hope won't get bought off for crap like this. The radical left benefits, they get to say who can manufacture, or not, who can "pollute" or not, and the bueracracy is unfightable.
So, if there are regulatory agencies, only the radical left will be controlling them? Come on, you don't believe that. The people in charge will reflect the administration in power. (e.g. the Bush era interior department was run by oil co. types, not the radical tree hugger types).

There is a party line if I ever heard one. I am in sales and love it when a customer repeats back the marketing lines I have fed them. Welcome to the machine.
I'm in law, and using someone's argument to counter them is common.

Not if "there is no clean coal" can't have it both ways. I am not willing for a panel of "experts" coming up with the answer. With absolutes like there is no clean coal then who will bother to develope better technology.
Clean coal is a marketing term. You should know that. It was created by the coal industry. Burning coal is a constant. It will release exactly the same stuff today as it did 100 years ago. The technology is getting better to catch pollutants and to catch CO2 releases and to then trap them. So, coal is coal. Making the burning of it cleaner is possible.

Develope the technology, if it stands on its own then do it, not because the UN Climate morons said I have to or that I can.
Because the coal industry was so worried about developing pollution technology before there was regulation? Yeah, were car companies developing air bags and shoulder belts before regulation? Regulation often spurs development.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
If the truth was that AGW existed, .......
Case closed. love how you phrased that.

So, if there are regulatory agencies, only the radical left will be controlling them? Come on, you don't believe that. The people in charge will reflect the administration in power. (e.g. the Bush era interior department was run by oil co. types, not the radical tree hugger types).
Yes I do, conservative administrations haven't been able to kill the "Education" dept or other bloated crap departments and they won't be able to control any others especially if part of an international group. Like the UN once you create it you suffer it forever.

Clean coal is a marketing term. You should know that. It was created by the coal industry. Burning coal is a constant. It will release exactly the same stuff today as it did 100 years ago. The technology is getting better to catch pollutants and to catch CO2 releases and to then trap them. So, coal is coal. Making the burning of it cleaner is possible.
If making the burning of call cleaner is possible> what do you call that?

Because the coal industry was so worried about developing pollution technology before there was regulation? Yeah, were car companies developing air bags and shoulder belts before regulation? Regulation often spurs development.
It is a double edged knife it can spur or kill depending on the prevailing wind.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
sources and links please.
Sources are basic climate change science + here's a link to a previous post I wrote when needthephone tried to make the same claim back in November. This includes the GISS data graph + link to another (albeit more complicated) explanation by realclimate.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8882251&postcount=125

The cooling claim shows a horrible understanding of statistics as well as a cynical attempt to cherrypick data to mislead.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
Case closed. love how you phrased that.
I phrased it that way on purpose. You clearly don't think AGW was true, but in the event you're wrong, and are proven so, you still wouldn't believe in it.

Yes I do, conservative administrations haven't been able to kill the "Education" dept or other bloated crap departments and they won't be able to control any others especially if part of an international group. Like the UN once you create it you suffer it forever.
Nice to know that republicans want to kill the education department. What other bloated crap departments do you want to kill? I hope everyone's listening. The Bush administration touted its no child left behind, and their real intention was to kill education! I have no idea how to discuss serious issues with someone who is this radical. What do you want? Every governmental agency shut down? No UN? No police? No regulations? Seriously, you seem to be all up in arms about this because it's on Rush today, but what do you really want?

Speaking of which... I find it hilarous that the right is yelling about how this is a power play by the democrats, yet, the only reason they are making a fuss is to try to gain power. It's clearly NOT because they disagree with less polution, less dependence on foreign oil, more development of business in this country. They are being opportunistic and attacking people's fear of smart people.

If making the burning of call cleaner is possible> what do you call that?
I call that making the burning of coal cleaner, not clean coal. Coal is not clean, neither are dirty diapers, but you can wrap the diaper in a bag, put it in a diaper dandy, and not have to smell it. (edit) By the way, I'm from Illinois, where we have high sulfur coal, which is really dirty. We want coal fired energy as much as anyone. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it needs to be done correctly, not without regulation as my more radical friend here suggests.

It is a double edged knife it can spur or kill depending on the prevailing wind.
And you believe clean energy will kill development? If not, what's your point? Do you have one?