Climate Change Checklist

Climate change, or more specifically catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), seems to continue to pop its head up from time to time. Labels of "alarmists" and "deniers" are thrown around. Now I am a hardcore advocate of liberty and freedom. I will start any conversation that advocates the necessity of massive govt intervention with skepticism. This is not an anti-science position, this is a pro-freedom position. Now, I may be able to be convinced, but to do so there are a series of things that must be demonstrated as fact to my satisfaction in order for me to even consider supporting the types of "solutions" currently being proposed.

Process Improvements

First, some changes need to be made regarding some process/method issues:

1. Full audit of surface temperature stations and remediation
1. Inspections of over 80% of surface stations in the US show that over 70% have a likelihood of over 2ºC of error. That's in the US - how does the rest of the world look?
2. The adjustment process that supposedly "cleans" this data is not sufficient.
3. We spend billions of dollars a year on climate research. We can spend a couple million to refactor the vast majority of these stations.
2. Both raw and adjusted temperature data (with adjustment process) must be available, transparent, and open.
1. It invites skepticism when the advocates of global warming take raw numbers, adjust them in various ways, release only the end adjustments and leave it at that. 
3. Scientific studies, papers, models, etc that are published must be reproducible and methods must be made available to the public. 
1. If we are to have faith in the scientific process on a topic that many advocate for significant changes to our economic system, data, methods, algorithms, etc cannot continue to remain secret and proprietary.

I'm not saying these affect every study or all data but they are prevalent enough to invite skepticism.

Facts Needed

Now, some actual facts that I need demonstrated to me clearly:

1. The Earth is continually getting warmer
1. There is currently some question of this due to a plateau over the last 15-17 years.
2. This warming is NOT simply the continuation of warming that has been happening for the last 400+ years.
3. The primary driver of the new warming is CO2
1. Since all the proposed solutions are focused on CO2, then that HAS to be the predominant driver.
4. The primary driver of the new warming is HUMAN ADDED CO2
1. Since all the proposed solutions are focused on reducing HUMAN added CO2, then it must be shown that HUMAN caused CO2 is the predominant factor and driver of heat gain.
2. Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that man has NO impact on the climate. Clearly we do. The critical question is whether the anthropogenic CO2 is the PRIMARY driver of climate change.
5. The result of continued warming will be significantly net negative
1. Since most proposed solutions advocate significant economic costs, we must be positive that the result from warming will be not just somewhat inconvenient, but significantly bad. 
2. While a lot of research has gone into the negative consequences of continued warming, I've not seen much of any research into what positives may take place. I am extremely hesitant to believe that there would not be new farming land or expanded migratory patterns in a slightly warmer climate - yet the amount of research into such positives and how they balance out against negatives seems limited.
3. In addition, a lot of the "negatives" seem ... a little strained. For every story of rising sea levels, there are others that simply allude to the greater proclivity of athlete's foot, jock itch and poison ivy. 
6. The planet and people cannot adapt to the changes 
1. I'm hesitant to support massive global economic intervention if it turns out that the changes will take place gradually over hundreds of years. Consider where we were 100 years ago with limited air conditioning, refrigeration, health care, construction practices, access to travel and communication, etc. Now if we are not going to see more than a 1-2ºC increase or most of the significant warming consequences for 100-200 years, then I'm not convinced that we cannot adapt to these changes as they come. 
7. A free market approach is not viable (i.e. Only potentially viable option is massive govt intervention)
1. Before we start pushing for coercive govt intervention, I need to be convinced that the free market cannot satisfactorily adjust and mitigate the causes and problems from this process. As the potential consequences become apparent, the money to be made from mitigating them becomes significant.
2. And I don't accept the explanation that says "We need govt because ... externalities [or tragedy of the commons]." and simply stop. The concept and definition of externalities is insufficient to dismiss the viability of a non-coercive approach to mitigation.
3. What if someone finds a way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere? What if someone genetically develops a tree that extracts/stores 20 times the standard amount of CO2? 
8. Massive govt intervention will stop warming
1. It also needs to be demonstrated that the proposed solutions would actually work. Most of the studies I've seen on the various proposals show virtually no difference in temperature increase over the next 100 years. That's not acceptable.

This last point is key. If the scientific community fixes the process issues I described above and the first 7 facts on this list are demonstrated to me, then I would be convinced that consequences will be dire unless govt intervenes. But if govt is going to intervene, then it better do whatever is necessary to actually effect change. I do not want a significant new tax or a complicated emission trading scheme that places a significant burden on the economy, yet only reduces the rate of warming by 3%. I don't want to advocate for the implementation of a system that will undoubtedly encourage corruption and manipulation if the end result in 100 years is warming only 0.1ºC less severe than had we done nothing. If we believe the consequences are going to be dire if we fail to act, then we need to act in a way that will effect significant change. If the only option is that we all go back to an agrarian society or most of the population will die, then I don't want that reality sugar coated. I don't want to be advocating for some approach that may significantly curb economic growth and prosperity for 100 years but won't actually mitigate the consequences of the warming.

Why skepticism?

Some people ask why we can be skeptical in the face of overwhelming evidence. Well firstly, as I said, I am a hardcore advocate for liberty, so I am going to be hesitant of any call for govt coercion to be expanded. So whereas those that believe that we need to limit growth or think consumerism is bad or that corporations just plain make too much money, who may already advocate for govt intervention for other causes, may need little convincing to get on board with an approach that even may only possibly avoid some calamitous outcome. I and those like me will likely need much, much more convincing because you are asking us to support a policy that directly contradicts our principles.

I'm not going to go into the science debate between the standard CAGW theory and the contrarian views. It would create a huge back and forth dialogue that already exists out there. I will only point out two things: Firstly, there are scientists who perform research that either disproves, questions, or challenges the standard CAGW theory. Some of their research is significant, some of it less so. But the dismissal and "paid by the oil companies" type demonization discredits the opposition to these contrarians. And secondly, the predictive models on CAGW are consistently revealing themselves to be inaccurate - sometimes minorly, sometimes wildly. But the point that skeptics make is not that we know everything about the climate and have proven global warming wrong, but that humanity doesn't know as much about the climate as it thinks it does and the inaccurate models demonstrate that. So before we start putting draconian economic restrictions in place, perhaps we should take off the alarmist hat and gather more data.

In addition, part of the reason that many people are skeptical of CAGW is that it seems very politically driven. Scientists and advocates have been calling on govt to massively intervene in the economy for 60 years for various reasons. Hole in the ozone, rainforests, global cooling, energy crisis, etc. Plus, there is a significant overlap between those that advocate economic intervention for the purpose of social justice or anti-capitalism/anti-consumerism and those that advocate economic intervention in the name of dealing with global warming. It often looks more like a power grab for those in power and a desire to restrain capitalism by others than it does an honest attempt to mitigate a potential problem. 

Also, massive amounts of money are being offered, and as such an entire market has been created, to study the negative consequences of global warming. So we are neither surprised nor convinced that virtually every study finds some bad thing that can be connected, however tangentially, to potentially higher temperatures. Plus, when scientists that question or challenge even some of the most extreme of the global warming claims are shunned, fired or forced to resign from their positions, it creates the impression not of an open arena of debate, but of a closed, self-reinforcing echo chamber. 

Lastly, the advocacy to deal with CAGW often invites skepticism itself. It seems contradictory at times: We have extremely hot/dry summer - it's global warming. We have extremely cold/snowy winters - that's just episodic/localized weather.  A study shows that global warming causes avalanches to increase in one place, but another study shows them to decrease in another. Renaming "global warming" to "climate change" seems strained so that it includes even events that don't have anything to do with warmer temperatures. Plus, some of it is ... well, "alarmist". Countdowns, timers, and counters like the one on the right all come across as over-the-top. I remember reading about how the Green Bay Packers football team, who has a notoriously cold/snowy field through the winter, were going to lose their home-field advantage if global warming continued, and so we must push Congress to act. When advocates stretch to find some connection (or even just some potential connection) to global warming, it starts to seem desperate and lacking credulity. 

Summary and Final Question

So when you put it altogether, you have many advocates of liberty whose default position is skepticism toward calls to support policies that directly contradicts their views. Then, when making the case, there are some scientific processes that have some issues and facts that aren't sufficiently demonstrated. There are also contrarian scientists that challenge or flat-out reject the standard CAGW and issues with models that have struggled with accuracy. Plus you have what seems like a lot of politically driven advocacy and money that may influence scientific work. In addition, you have what appears to be a closed-shop mentality that discourages dissent. And finally, you have a lot of advocacy that seems contradictory or overblown and based on extremely tenuous connections to changes in the weather. No single element may be sufficient to create the skepticism that many feel, but altogether these types of issues cause a lot of the science and advocacy to actually create more skepticism than they allay.

Finally, taking the opposing position, let me also ask you: What is the falsifiability of CAGW? If we see 20 years with continually escalating CO2 levels but no appreciable warming increases, would that, if not prove CAGW wrong, demonstrate that there's something wrong in the models, feedback weights, variables, calculations and in general our understanding of how climate works?

That's really where I feel most skeptics are: Something's not right here and I can't get behind draconian economic measures until it is.

Ron Paul Next Steps

With Santorum having dropped out, many are concluding that Romney has virtually won the nomination. Ron Paul, however, is not dropping out and will continue to try to push his delegate strategy. However, in my opinion, with the vacuum of good news about the primary, I'd like to see Paul do something bold to get the attention of people and let them know that not only is this thing not over, but he is a viable (and better) alternative to Romney.

Why I don't think Gingrich is a true, limited govt conservative

Newt Gingrich is toward the top of the pack again. I believe this is because Romney is really looking too moderate for many conservatives to swallow, so they are looking for someone that is a true conservative. They are willing to overlook his past indiscretions because they feel that Newt is not only a real conservative, but that his debating skills make him a perfect match against Obama (the real goal of many Republicans: Anyone, anything but Obama).

The problem is that his record and many of his statements in the past don't reflect a true, limited govt conservative. Though I don't blame conservatives for being misled, Gingrich knows exactly what conservatism is and how to sell it. So with this upswing in support for Newt, I wanted to put together my thoughts on him at the moment and why I think conservatives need to be real careful about what they think they will get in Newt.

Foreign Policy vs National Security - Being Clear on Both

National security is a high priority on most people's list. Not all agree on how best to provide it, but most agree it's important - especially Republicans.

When Republicans are faced with a candidate (example, Romney) that they think has decent economic policies, tolerable fiscal policies, adequate social policies, and good security policies vs a guy (RP) that has good economic policies, great fiscal policies, tolerable social policies but HORRIBLE SCARY BAD security policies, it makes the first guy seem preferable.

This is why I keep saying, Ron Paul's campaign and supporters HAVE GOT to figure out how to get both his foreign policy and more importantly his national security policies accurately described to Republicans.

To me, foreign policy and national security are two different policies. There is a lot of overlap, but they are distinct. Most people understand his foreign policy, even if they disagree and believe that it would put us more at risk. I believe that Ron Paul's campaign and supporters need to do a better job of making the case for non-interventionism.

However, even more urgently, most Republicans do NOT understand Ron Paul's national security policies - that is, what would Ron Paul do in the event of a credible threat against the US? What would he do if intelligence learns of an eminent attack against the US? He has not made these points clear to Republicans and he needs to do a better job of it if he wishes to win the nomination.

Pro-[Choice/Life] isn't Anti-Freedom

I frequently see people on both sides of the abortion debate that point to the other side and accuse the other position of being "anti-freedom" or "incompatible with freedom". Problem is, as I see it, neither side can make that claim.

It seems to me that at some point, the right of the child to live overrides the right of the mother to choose to kill it. Most reasonable people will concede that this point is some time before it's actually born. Thus we are really just debating what that point should be.

For people like Ron Paul, his view is that the freedom to live is more important than the freedom to choose what to do with your own body. That's his view, but he recognizes that not all share it. In addition to that, he has said that Constitutionally, he would not allow a federal level mandate one way or another.

Personally, I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer politically that will satisfy everyone.

This is because, more generically, the problem is that abortion creates a paradox for individualism because you have two people occupying the same space at the same time and the exercise of rights by one is an infringement on the rights of the other.

In either case, you are infringing on someone's rights. Either you protect the right of the baby to live and infringe on the right of the mother to choose what to do with her own body, or you choose to protect the right of the mother to choose what to do with her own body and infringe on the right of the child to live.
So, agree or disagree with him about the point at which he feels we should recognize and protect a life, but it's not anti-liberty or anti-freedom.

In fact, Paul's actual policy prescription is a good compromise. Instead of a federal, top-down mandate that states that abortions are either all legal or all illegal, he allows the people of each state to decide. This will create a diverse environment that allows different views to be respected.

For example, while some states ban abortions, and some states permit even late-term abortions, perhaps a few other states would pass a law that legalizes abortion up to the 8th month, but that all abortions after the first 10 weeks must be done painlessly such as with lethal injection or an anesthetic that puts the baby to sleep first. This should satisfy most all pro-choice individuals since their ability to get an abortion isn't infringed. This could satisfy many pro-life individuals since the baby itself would not suffer or feel any pain. Reasonable compromise? I don't know.

Through this method of allowing multiple, different approaches that Paul is advocating, I think a more acceptable common ground can be reached.

Challenging the assertion that only Romney can beat Obama and that Ron Paul is "unelectable"

See Update at bottom.

This one frustrates the hell out of me. I hate the label of "unelectable" or the consensus that "only Romney can beat Obama". Just ruffles my feathers.

However, recently, PPP released a poll that pitted Romney against Obama that intrigued me. What was interesting about it was that in this one, unlike other's I've seen, they included 3rd party candidates (which is a more realistic representation of what the general election will look like). The results were fascinating.

Initially, in a plain head-to-head, Romney (47%) actually beats Obama (45%) whereas Paul  (41%) loses to Obama (46%).

However, once you introduce the 3rd party candidates, everything blows up. Romney loses significant portions of voters to 3rd party candidates - and much more than Obama and Romney loses in virtually every scenario. Paul and Trump actually take nearly 20% of the vote and the lionshare of that comes out of  Romney's numbers. More analysis here with more numbers, but I encourage you to take a look at the poll itself.

Now, those of us that are supporting Ron Paul recognize why this is. Many of us would rather remain consistent to our principles and vote for the person that best represents us over Romney, even if that means that the dreaded Democrat [scary voice] were to win. However, if Ron Paul won the nomination, not only would most of the right/Republicans support him (especially if their primary desire is just to beat Obama), but so would his ardent base of libertarians, as well as many Independents and a large number of democrats. Plus, it is possible (or even very likely, depending on the source) that if Ron Paul were to get the nomination, that the likely Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson would bow out and endorse Paul.

In my opinion, because of the realities of 3rd party candidates, Ron Paul has a better chance of beating Barack Obama than Mitt Romney.

So, what I would like to do is to commission another, similar poll to be done. This time, let's see the effect of 3rd party candidates when Ron Paul is the Republican candidate. If this poll were to come back and show that Ron Paul loses fewer voters to 3rd party candidates than Romney, it could go a long way to demonstrate Ron Paul's electability. And not just that, but showing that it would be better than Romney's.

Imagine what that could do to the race and how it might shift some voters over - especially when, according to exit polls, nearly half of Romney's supporters are voting for him because of his electability and ability to "beat Obama".

So either encourage the Ron Paul campaign to commission such a poll, or recommend it to the PPP (or other pollsters) themselves.


Update 1/25: On Jan 17th, Public Policy Polling released another poll that shows that even when including Gary Johnson as Libertarian candidate, Romney loses significantly to Obama (7pts).

How Ron Paul should respond to accusations about his record

In the debates over the weekend, Rick Santorum accused Ron Paul of being "on the margins". Santorum implies that Paul would be an ineffectual President stating (paraphrased) "Out of over 600 bills, you've only had 4 come up for a vote and only 1 that has passed."

I guess in Santorum's worldview, since the same Congress that has continually concentrated control in Washington over the decades doesn't want to hear measures that would relinquish that power, Paul isn't doing things right. Here's how I'd love to hear Ron Paul respond:

Wait a minute, are you saying that because we have a Congress that has passed such bills as the National Defense Authorization Act, the bailouts and stimulus, and Obamacare, a Congress that will stuff multiple unrelated measures into a single bill that gets both sides something they want and a plausible excuse to give their base as to why they voted for it, a Congress that will use trickery, loopholes, and bribes to pass unpopular bills (and then congratulates themselves on legislative creativity), a Congress that frequently does not read the bills they are voting on, a Congress that throws taxpayers money around at endeavors like a bridge to nowhere (that my opponent here voted for), ethanol subsidies, and Solyndra, a Congress that continues to raise the debt ceiling while it has not had a balanced budget in virtually my entire tenure and hasn't passed a budget at all in the last 3 years, a Congress that cozies up to special interests and lobbyists and who often outsources the writing of complex bills to corporate insiders, a Congress with an 8% approval rating, because *that* Congress refuses to even debate my bills, are you saying that reflects negatively on me?

[optional]

I'm more concerned with finding common areas of agreement and forming coalitions for freedom. I've been accused by my opponents of working with Democrats and leftists like Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich - and this is true. But because I can agree with Frank on the need to get the federal govt out of trying to restrict medical marijuana doesn't mean I agree with him on his banking regulations. Because I can find common ground with Sanders regarding the Federal Reserve, doesn't mean I agree with him on his economic views. Because I can work with Kucinich to try to change our interventionist foreign policy doesn't mean I agree with his views on govt funded health care. Working with people with whom you disagree 95% of the time to get things in that 5% accomplished doesn't make you a sellout, it's how you build coalitions to fight a battle for liberty without losing your principles.

[/optional]

No, this accusation reveals the mentality of Washington insiders: that "getting things done" is more important than what is actually done. That has to stop. 

Another Look at this Ron Paul Racism thing

Ron Paul's rise in the polls brings with it increased scrutiny. One of the few "sideshow" issues (there aren't many) that the media is trying to raise is regarding supposedly racist newsletters that he supposedly wrote.


Let's look at those claims a little more in detail. If you are think this country is on the wrong track and that freedom is under assault, please ensure that you are making an informed decision instead of relying on "edited reality". Please read on as well as the links referenced to get a better understanding of this controversy.

Again, be clear Dr. Paul

I just got to watch last night's debate. I heard Baier's question.

Grrr.... I HATE how unclear Dr. Paul is on this.

Just say:

Firstly, non-interventionism isn't a leftist policy. Non-interventionism - that is, freely trading with countries and avoiding entangling alliances - is a policy consistent with our founders. Let's not fall into the trap of making this a left vs right issue.

Secondly, if you are asking if I would be worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we maintain our current foreign policy of intervention, preemptive attack, nation building, and occupation, then yes, I would be very worried.

If you are asking if I would be worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon if we followed my foreign policy, then no, I would not be worried. If we aren't threatening them, if we aren't setting a no fly zone, if we aren't flying drones over their airspace, if we don't have 50 military bases virtually surrounding their country, if we aren't interfering with their communications, if we aren't threatening them with attack ourselves, then no, I don't think a nuclear Iran would be a direct threat to the United States.

Because history doesn't happen in a vacuum. You have to see that there is a greater context for what we're dealing with than just since 9/11. And there's more to my foreign policy than just "if Iran gets a nuke, do we attack or not?". 

The Core Problem with Collectivism

"Concentration of money and authority in any single entity NECESSARILY attracts those who would abuse that power for their own selfish interest."

- Ryan Roland

I say this to those who believe that centralized planning can work; that government control is not only necessary in some instances, but better and preferred in many; that the free market and decentralization just doesn't work. Beyond the fact that such management is necessarily a direct and intolerable restriction on freedom, here's my core problem with the theory.

Let us assume that Barack Obama (or someone) were to create a more centrally planned America. And even more surprisingly, let us assume that it works. That somehow, everything is balanced, everything runs, everything is regulated, everything is allocated, those that can, produce, and those that need, receive. And in this instance, despite all the real world evidence and all the logic and common sense, the collectivists' dreams are realized. Let us say that it came about through genuine compassion and thoughtful prudence and planning. These planners were genuine in their desire to better mankind and designed a system that provides for all. For a decade after their ideas were initially put into action, they gave their system careful tending, feeding and nurturing and it all went smoothly.

Now what?

Well it is my belief that things would eventually turn sour (and relatively quickly). The reason for this is that even if the creators of such a Utopian dream had the very best and genuine of intentions, eventually those who created and nurtured the system would be replaced.  They might die or retire or simply be replaced by someone else. This is where things get hairy.

The economy is a complicated system. Therefore, the system put in place to organize, plan and coordinate it would not only be large, but would necessarily be even more complicated and intricate. By creating such an almighty redistributive machine, they have created massive channels of money and it requires oversight and regulatory agencies with phenomenal powers of authority. This type of power is like honey to flies for those that seek power. And unfortunately, many of those that seek power, wish to use that power to "help" themselves and those around them. And I don't even need to go into detail to describe (since we see it happen all the time) the means by which a corrupt person placed in a position of power, can cause problems.  And as we see with most politicians, even if things start to go wrong because of their interference, they would only blame someone else.

Even innocent incompetence can wreak havoc. Central planning leads to "central" points of failure. A mis-allocation of money, an error in quota requirements, a mistake in regulatory restrictions can cause a chain reaction that negatively affects the huge swaths of the economy.

In the end, no matter how well you plan an economy, it will fail with central management because of the attraction that power would have on those who would abuse it. To me, argue all you want about central economic planning, about incentives, subsidies and credits or penalties, fees and taxes. It just doesn't make sense to restrict freedom to that degree and to create that type of temptation in order to create an economy that requires perfect planning to avoid potentially massive negative outcomes.


PS: For those that think that some combination of capitalism and socialism is the way to go, same argument applies. There will always be the debate of what should be free and what should be planned.  And in that situation, you're creating the temptation for people to come in and advocate for more and more to be controlled. Something fails in the free market: requires government oversight. Something fails in the controlled economy: requires MORE government oversight. I believe that is how we have found ourselves with the chimera of an economy we currently have.

Article Response #4

Article:
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=72488

Response:
1) Sanders is a proclaimed socialist. To merely state he's an 'independent' because he isn't a Democrat or Republican is misleading. In fact, the fact that both Bunning and Sanders both wish to hold Bernanke's reappointment should be telling.
2) Why is it just assumed fact that his actions (and those of Geithner and Obama) made things better? Economics is about balance, like supply and demand. When one changes, it exerts a force on the other (and possibly over many other things). Over the course of decades, more of the US, both government and personal finances were based on debt (largely due to the artificially low interest rates of the FED). When enough of that debt manifest itself in bad investments (i.e. subprime mortgages), a chain reaction of revoking credit began. This whole "bubble" was not only allowed, but encouraged by manipulation in the market by the FED. Now that that bubble burst, as the market began to divest itself of these poor investments and bad debt, as we started the difficult climb from badly extended credit to more sound investments, what did Bernanke do? He lowered interest rates, began printing of MASSIVE amounts of money, and intentionally TRIED to make credit, borrowing, and debt to get going again. This is what led to the crisis to begin with!!! Note that since he got approval to print trillions, has lowered interest rates to effectively 0% and Obama has injected billions into the economy, it's not surprising we've seen the short-term improvement we have. However, throwing money at the situation doesn't necessarily fix it. Remember that GDP has, as part of its measure, Government spending. So say the government were to massively raise taxes and spend trillions on welfare and unemployment handouts, GDP may actually increase. Would that realistically represent actual growth in our economy? Of course not. So just because we seemed to have a sliver of growth doesn't mean that we're on our way to recovery. And as for the evaluation of Bernanke, we cannot start with an assumed premise (things would have been worse had he not done what he did) and then go from there. Remember, Obama said that if we did NOT pass the stimulus, unemployment might get up to 8%, but that if we did pass it, it wouldn't rise past 7%. I'm not so confident in their prognostication abilities.

Article Response #3

Article:

http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=72300

Response:

This is a pretty one-sided article to have been written as a communal editorial by the staff. Also, "watching the earth suffer"? Suffer how? How exactly has the earth "suffered" from an average temperature increase of a fraction of a degree? There are predictions that negative things may happen in the future if things continue, but those dire things aren't happening yet (and simply claiming any change is "suffering" doesn't work). More importantly, however, and the reason I chose to comment was to point out that there was no mention of the recent release of emails, code, data and other files from a key climate data organization. Even if you believe the "nothing to see here" attempts to dismiss this revelation, it should at least make us question the true openness of the process. With an issue this potentially significant, whose prescribed solution has such a monumental impact, it only makes sense that all science involved be open, the data available, and the methods described. If scientific experiments and models cannot be recreated by others, then it shouldn't be considered valid and definitely should not be considered as a resource to guide policy. The evidence coming out of the unearthed files indicates the exact opposite of this. It shows intentional efforts to stifle release of data, methods and processes. It contains intentional attempts to eliminate information contributing to the IPCC which is the gold standard reference for all who see global warming as requiring immediate action.

The primary reason this data was as significant as global warming skeptics claim is that for years these skeptics have complained that the scientific process was being abused. They have claimed that scientific journals were influenced in a particular direction, that grants were consistently given to those pushing the agenda, that data was being misused and misrepresented and poorly constructed predictive models based on poor data were being treated as scientific fact. These complaints were usually dismissed as either simply conspiracy theories, or that the complainers were paid by oil companies. With the exposure of these files, at the very least, it reveals that their complaints have some merits. We need to reopen the discussion, verify the data, reevaluate the models and conclusions. It is becoming apparent that the scientific peer-review process is fraught with problems that can lead to significant (and conclusion altering) errors entering into "peer-reviewed studies" that then go on to be referenced across the scientific, media, and political worlds.

From a university paper, and in the wake of this revelation, the editorials should consist of demands that the scientific process relating to global warming be completely opened, transparent, and requiring critical assessment and reproduction by others. We need to make sure that the case for global warming is completely iron proof before we implement measures which would have astronomical effects. If we as a people choose to pursue actions to stop greenhouse emissions, it will be so much more significant than I believe most realize. It will affect individual people so much more than simply shopping with a cloth bag, inflating our tires, and buying energy efficient products. It will be a huge increase on the cost of ALL things. We need to be absolutely positive that it is absolutely essential.

Letter to Congressmen

Revelations of anti-scientific behavior at the CRU (Climatic Research Unit) undermines the justification for cap and trade. The case for human-caused global warming depends on claims made by the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which in turn depend on so-called research by the CRU. 

But please take note . . . 

Emails from the CRU reveal that key advocates of the global warming hypothesis may have knowingly corrupted the scientific process. 

For example… 

CRU researchers may have manipulated temperature histories in order to get the results they wanted. They have systematically refused to expose either their data or their manipulations to testing by the wider scientific community. This kind of testing is a crucial component of the scientific process.
 

Real scientists wouldn't behave this way.

CRU researchers explicitly advised other scientists involved in climate research to delete emails regarding to the UN's IPCC report in an intentional effort to avoid Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests. This is a blatant attempt to cover their tracks and avoid exposing bias, misrepresentation or outright fraud.

Real scientists wouldn't behave this way.

CRU researchers have also demonstrated a keen desire to silence critics by influencing scientific peer review process, as well to thwart and resist FOI requests for the data involved and the methods used in their studies which advocate for global warming legislation like cap and trade. The scientific process requires peer critiques.

Real scientists wouldn't behave this way.

The hypothesis that rising atmospheric CO2 should lead to global warming seems plausible. However, it's not an open and shut case, and the scientific process is famous for refuting seemingly plausible ideas. Now the practices of the CRU have set back the global warming hypothesis many years – perhaps to its starting point. The C02 hypothesis needs further, OPEN testing. It can't be taken for granted because it sounds reasonable, nor because it came from people with titles and degrees.

Your responsibility in this matter seems clear . . . 

You must reject the cap and trade bill, and craft no further policy until we all have better evidence from which to work.

In fact, I believe it would be reasonable that all government funded (i.e. grant) studies release not only the full results of their studies to the public, but also the entire set of data, methods and source code used to attain their conclusions. This would allow those that are skeptical to recreate the experiments, and to confirm or disprove the findings. It would also allow more sets of eyes to "peer review" the study. With the possibility of studies pushing policy, we need to ensure that there is some means to limit the impact of politicians who have an agenda from pushing money to organizations that share their views, whose studies reinforce the agenda of the politicians. 

I will be watching to see if you act responsibly on this matter, and I will be discussing your re-election with fellow voters in light of how you handle this issue.

You all know I'm ... how shall I put it, "politically minded" at times.  Well, I'm also against signing up for web newsletters. Most seem to either ...

• constantly throw ads at me, 
• send enormous articles at me 4-5 times a day, 
• simply say nothing but teases of information, 
• require me to click on a link to get any real information, or
• all of the above.  

However, I'm a member of a web organization called DownsizeDC.org whose newsletter does none of these things. I hope you'll be interested in what they are proposing as I am. 

I'm asking you to look into this because I'd like your help in compelling Congress to pass two specific pieces of legislation created by DownsizeDC.org:

The Read the Bills Act [http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/27]
The One Subject at a Time Act [http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83]

These bills would do exactly what their names suggest . . .

The Read the Bills Act would require that every bill be posted online for 7 days, and more importantly, would require that every member of Congress read every word of every law (enforced by requiring them to sign affidavit) they want to impose on you, BEFORE they vote to enact it.

Congress is routinely ignorant of the laws they pass, but ignorance of the law is no excuse for us, and it shouldn't be allowed for Congress either.

Even when they do know the content of the bills before them, they pass unpopular laws by stuffing them as portion of a larger, more popular one. Would it surprise you to know that the Minimum Wage Increase in 2007 was put in as subsection of an Iraq war spending bill?  Or how about that the REAL ID Act, which requires a national ID card, was passed as a small amendment to the "Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief?"

The One Subject at a Time Act would prohibit Congress from passing unpopular laws by combining them with popular but unrelated proposals. Every law would have to be voted on as a stand alone measure, and pass or fail on its own merits.

They require no membership fee and though I have donated no money to them yet, I am considering doing so. Their newsletter is also a great source of short (most are shorter than this email), but compelling and informative nuggets. You can sign up for it for free, without a membership by going here: http://www.downsizedc.org/page/newsletter and entering your email address.

Should you chose, you can sign up for a free membership with DownsizeDC.org which will . . .

• Allow you to promote these bills by sending letters to Congress -- all it takes is a few mouse-clicks and keyboard strokes
• This can be done in one step and is much easier with Downsize DC than by visiting each Congressional website and posting separately
• Keep you posted on what Congress is doing through an excellent email newsletter, the Downsizer-Dispatch
• Enable you to pressure Congress on other issues
• Make your pressure on Congress more effective by combining it with the efforts of thousands of others

You may not agree with all the stands Downsize DC takes, but unlike a political party or candidate, you can choose which Downsize DC campaigns you want to support.

I hope you'll join me in promoting the Read the Bills Act and the One Subject at a Time Act.

If you do decide to join me in this effort please drop me a line and let me know. 

Thanks for considering this,

RR